# Should religous groups be allowed to control the health services they provide?



## shesulsa (Mar 4, 2012)

Some say just because health services are provided by a religious organization in some cases (e.g. a Catholic hospital, a Presbyterian medical center) they should be able to impart their religious beliefs upon those in their care.

Other say this is forcing religion onto others who have no other health services but from hospitals and health centers owned by religious organizations.

Should our rights to quality health care and choice of service be protected from religious compromise?


----------



## Big Don (Mar 4, 2012)

shesulsa said:


> Should our rights to quality health care and choice of service be protected from religious compromise?


If you don't like the rules, imposed by the provider, use a different provider.


----------



## shinbushi (Mar 4, 2012)

Agree with Big Don.  These a Religious hospitals, don't like it go to a secular one.  As a business owner No one tells me how I provide my service.


----------



## Big Don (Mar 4, 2012)

shinbushi said:


> Agree with Big Don.  These a Religious hospitals, don't like it go to a secular one.  As a business owner No one *SHOULD tell* me how I provide my service.



Had to fix that for you. The government, local, state and federal, tells you all kinds of stuff...


----------



## shinbushi (Mar 4, 2012)

ah not for my business.  i pay 800/year to state and 5 to local govt. (protection racket).  Where they interfere is that I cannot have any advertising in my windows. stupid bureaucratic trolls.


----------



## granfire (Mar 4, 2012)

shinbushi said:


> Agree with Big Don.  These a Religious hospitals, don't like it go to a secular one.  As a business owner No one tells me how I provide my service.



well, then they better not accept a penny of federal money, in any shape or form.

I think most 'religious' hospitals have a lot less coming from whichever institution that lends it's name to them than this very name implies. 
A while back there was an outrage over religious daycares or preschool programs in Germany...well, the deal was, the religious group only provided something like 11% of the funding. 

As provider for the services, that is one thing though, as provider for the insurance though, that's another.
It has been mentioned before, you let one group exclude BC form the coverage, another might like to skip on surgery or mental health medications. 
And so far the healthcare coverage is a crap shoot.


----------



## CanuckMA (Mar 4, 2012)

shinbushi said:


> Agree with Big Don.  These a Religious hospitals, don't like it go to a secular one.  As a business owner No one tells me how I provide my service.



A hospital is different than another business.

It could be the only one your insurance let's you go to.

It could be the closest one in an emergency. Picture this, you've been in a car accident, bleeding profusely, time is against you. EMT races you to the nearest hospital. It's run by the JW. They look at you and just say "Sorry, we don't believe in tranfusions". Just peachy.


----------



## Big Don (Mar 4, 2012)

CanuckMA said:


> A hospital is different than another business.
> 
> It could be the only one your insurance let's you go to.
> 
> It could be the closest one in an emergency. Picture this, you've been in a car accident, bleeding profusely, time is against you. EMT races you to the nearest hospital. It's run by the JW. They look at you and just say "Sorry, we don't believe in tranfusions". Just peachy.


As I googled and couldn't find one hospital run by Jehovah's Witness, that is a false analogy at best.
When is birth control an emergency? When abortion is used as birth control, that is the ONLY time.


----------



## elder999 (Mar 4, 2012)

Big Don said:
			
		

> When is birth control an emergency? When abortion is used as birth control, that is the ONLY time.



Well, I dunno. Here's a story about a nun/hospital administrator who was excommunicated for allowing an _*emergency*_ abortion of an 11 week fetus to save the mother's life.





> Sister Margaret McBride was forced to make a decision between her faith  and a woman's life last year, when a 27-year-old mother of four rushed  into St. Joseph's Hospital in Phoenix only 11 weeks pregnant.
> "I think [McBride] prayed and prayed and I'm sure that this weighed on  her like a ton of bricks. This was not an easy decision for her," says  her long-time friend Mary Jo Macdonald.
> As a key member of the hospital's ethics board, McBride gathered with  doctors in November of 2009 to discuss the young woman's fate.
> The mother was suffering from pulmonary hypertension, an illness the doctors believed would likely kill her and, as a result, her unborn child, if she did not abort the pregnancy.
> In the end, McBride chose to save the young woman's life by agreeing to authorize an emergency abortion, a decision that has now forced her out of a job and the Catholic Church.


----------



## Jenna (Mar 4, 2012)

Do we not _always _cede authority over medical matters to medical professionals?  What our physicians do for us may not always be in our best interests in the long term.  However, they carry out whatever interventions or prescribe whatever medications they think best for us.  

Is it not just the same thing here?  

For those that object to these kinds of procedural restrictions, I am interested to understand what is the crux of the objection?  Thank you.


----------



## granfire (Mar 4, 2012)

Ouch.
I guess the woman should have just shut up and died. after all, she done spread her legs, no....


----------



## granfire (Mar 4, 2012)

Jenna said:


> Do we not _always _cede authority over medical matters to medical professionals?  What our physicians do for us may not always be in our best interests in the long term.  However, they carry out whatever interventions or prescribe whatever medications they think best for us.
> 
> Is it not just the same thing here?
> 
> For those that object to these kinds of procedural restrictions, I am interested to understand what is the crux of the objection?  Thank you.



The medical profession is supposed to know what they are talking about. 

Administrators and religious capacities ought not have a say so in treatments. 

A bishop telling me I can't have BC is not the same as my doctor telling me to avoid it.
The preacher insisting that mental illness is all in my head is not helping matters when the chemical imbalance can be adjusted via medication, for my benefit and for the people around me.


----------



## Tez3 (Mar 4, 2012)

Big Don said:


> As I googled and couldn't find one hospital run by Jehovah's Witness, that is a false analogy at best.
> When is birth control an emergency? When abortion is used as birth control, that is the ONLY time.



When an abortion done by a back street abortionist or desperate woman has gone wrong.
http://www.selkirkweekendadvertiser...dangers_posed_by_backstreet_abortions_1_87480


----------



## crushing (Mar 4, 2012)

I chose "_Definitely no._"  Because as a progressive I wouldn't go to a religious based healthcare provider demanding that they provide services that go against their religious beliefs or that big government should force them to do such a thing.

I would be very leary of getting a forced service where their heart really isn't in the procedure/medical product.  Wouldn't you rather patronize a provider that wants to provide that product or service?


----------



## granfire (Mar 4, 2012)

I think we are drifting and dripping over semantics though...

naturally i would not want a doctor perform a service he/she is not comfortable with. 
However I was thinking it was about the funding.
Now, there is the crux of the matter. 
It's laughable when you look at condoms being paid for via healthcare coverage, but it becomes hairy when we run into the more extreme religious believes. 
Should your boss be able to exclude a blood transfusion from the policy, or the anti depressant, because as JW or Scientologist he/she does not believe in such things? 

(on condoms, well, some women can't tolerate BC pills or similar fashioned hormonal contraceptives...I suppose they must remain abstinent if they do not wish to become pregnant? What about their husbands?)


----------



## decepticon (Mar 4, 2012)

Absolutely, religious groups should have total control over what medical services they choose to offer. Just as potential patients should have full control over where they choose to go for treatment.

I fail to see why having partial services offered that are in keeping with a group's beliefs is in any way worse than having no service offered in that location at all. I live in a rural area. If a group opened a facility that treated only chronic, long-term health issues, but offered no acute trauma care, I would be glad to have them in the community. I would go elsewhere for treatment of acute injuries. Which is where I am having to go for everything now. Why would I criticize that group for acting in a manner consistent with their beliefs? Talk about intolerant! People need to wake up and realize that the world does not revolve around them and their desires.


----------



## billc (Mar 4, 2012)

Absolutely.  This is supposed to be a free country after all.  The government has no right to tell a business what healthcare they have to provide, if any at all.  People need to re-read their constitution.

Besides, this is all in the plan for obamacare.  They want to force as many people as possible off of private health plans and into the government plan.  If they can get religious institutions to just drop all health care, one more win for obama care.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 4, 2012)

Let's look at this for a moment in a non-emotional way.  

First, we have to separate emergency medical care from medical care for non-life threatening conditions. Medical and legal requirements are different for the two, for doctors, for hospitals, and even for patients.  Hospitals can refuse care for non-insured patients for non-emergency conditions; they can't for life-threatening conditions; and that's aside from any other considerations, such as religious beliefs.

Second, as convenient as it may be to argue that doctors are the best arbiters of medical care, and that hospitals that dare to set limits based on religious beliefs should not take federal dollars _or else_, we fail to consider where this leads.  Patients have input into their medical care as well; are we to tell them they cannot refuse treatment or ask for a different treatment based on their own religious beliefs?  Shall we say that if hospitals take federal dollars, they are also required to take federal orders regarding patient treatment?  Saying that the doctor rules the hospital, and the feds rule the hospital, leads to some interesting places I'm not sure I feel comfortable with.

Let us also consider that, as mentioned, many religious hospitals *do* provide services that are not normally considered in conformance with the medical beliefs of that particular religion, especially in the area of emergency or life-saving medicine.  Especially as regards Catholic hospitals, many of them have specifically severed formal ties with the Church over their refusal to abide by religious dictates.

http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=13064

But what are we talking about the hospital 'denying' anyway?



> &#8220;Our mission, our vision, our values are not changing nor will they change,&#8221; claimed Sister Judy Carle, a member of the board of Dignity Health. Future affiliates will be required to subscribe to a &#8220;Statement of Common Values&#8221; that prohibits *abortion, sterilization, and in-vitro fertilization*.



Well, in cases where an abortion is required for the immediate health of the mother, the hospitals *do* provide them; which is what got them separated from the Church in the first place.  As regards sterilization and in-vitro fertilization, I do not personally see these as emergency medical issues that must be supplied on-demand in any religious hospital one cares to visit.

Frankly, I think this whole thing is a red herring.  There simply isn't a major issue here; this is a thinly-disguised attempt to consolidate power in the hands of the federal government.  It's manufactured.  And that's unfortunate.


----------



## ETinCYQX (Mar 4, 2012)

I am of the belief that a hospital has the responsibility to do whatever is in their power to protect and help people. I absolutely do not think that a religious organization should be permitted to force beliefs onto anyone else if that will compromise their health any more so than a police officer should allow his beliefs to affect his application of the law and his protection of the public.

Doesn't always work like that, but the church-owned hospitals I have experience with operate in this way.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 4, 2012)

ETinCYQX said:


> I am of the belief that a hospital has the responsibility to do whatever is in their power to protect and help people. I absolutely do not think that a religious organization should be permitted to force beliefs onto anyone else if that will compromise their health any more so than a police officer should allow his beliefs to affect his application of the law and his protection of the public.
> 
> Doesn't always work like that, but the church-owned hospitals I have experience with operate in this way.



I think we need to make a distinction between 'refusing to provide a service' and 'forcing their beliefs' on someone.

If I say _"No, I am opposed to abortions on religious grounds, so I will not provide you with one,"_ I am not forcing you to be religious. I am not forcing you to partake of my religion or worship my God.  I am making decision about what *I* will do or not do, based on *my* beliefs. I am not forcing *anything* on you.

And let's face it, everybody operates in accordance with their own beliefs, regardless of what motivates them.  Acting based on our own beliefs is not 'forcing our beliefs' on others.  It's merely acting in accordance with our own beliefs.

And since you seem determined to claim that religious hospitals refuse to provide services that 'protect' and 'help' people, what are those services?  Please be specific.


----------



## ETinCYQX (Mar 4, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I think we need to make a distinction between 'refusing to provide a service' and 'forcing their beliefs' on someone.
> 
> If I say _"No, I am opposed to abortions on religious grounds, so I will not provide you with one,"_ I am not forcing you to be religious. I am not forcing you to partake of my religion or worship my God.  I am making decision about what *I* will do or not do, based on *my* beliefs. I am not forcing *anything* on you.
> 
> ...



Er, no, I didn't claim that. Quite the opposite. I said (or meant, anyway), actually, that all the religious hospitals I have experience with did anything another hospital would do regardless of their specific religious orientation.

Would you give a pass to a cop who ticketed people of different races more heavily? That's acting in accordance with his beliefs. Would I be right, if I was a school teacher, to refuse to teach Muslim kids because I believe they're dangerous? (Of course I don't believe that) Acting in accordance with my own beliefs. It's not right, sorry, especially for a hospital. 

And yes, actually, as a medical professional, hospital director, whatever, if you refuse a treatment and your refusal directly impacts a patient's quality of life, that is forcing your beliefs on them. Just like a teacher refusing to teach evolution. 

If you still don't like my phrasing, how about this:_ I absolutely do not think that a religious organization should be  permitted to allow their specific beliefs to affect medical treatments if that will compromise  their patient's health. _On the same subject, as stupid as I personally think the idea is, I vehemently believe a Jehovah's Witness patient should be allowed to refuse a blood transfusion for themselves. I just do not believe a Jehovah's Witness surgeon, doctor or hospital should have the right to make the same decision for a patient (Again, hypothetical example.)


----------



## Tez3 (Mar 5, 2012)

billcihak said:


> Absolutely. This is supposed to be a free country after all. *The government has no right to tell a business what healthcare they have to provide, if any at all.* People need to re-read their constitution.
> 
> Besides, this is all in the plan for obamacare. They want to force as many people as possible off of private health plans and into the government plan. If they can get religious institutions to just drop all health care, one more win for obama care.




That only works however if the healthcare provide is self funding, as someone pointed out before they can't take money from the government then screech when they are told what use that money is to be for. If the religious organisations are self funding then they can be independant, if they take government/tax payers money well, they have to do as they are asked, common sense. Your employer pays you to do the works he wants, not your own idea of it, go self employed it's up to you.


----------



## Sukerkin (Mar 5, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I think we need to make a distinction between 'refusing to provide a service' and 'forcing their beliefs' on someone.
> 
> If I say _"No, I am opposed to abortions on religious grounds, so I will not provide you with one,"_ I am not forcing you to be religious. I am not forcing you to partake of my religion or worship my God. I am making decision about what *I* will do or not do, based on *my* beliefs. I am not forcing *anything* on you.



I see what you are trying to say there but I don't think that that logic entirely carries through.  If it's an individual doctor and there are others available then I absolutely agree that the doctor should not be forced to violate his own conscience.  

If there is only the one doctor/facility available tho' then the dogmatically instructed views of the medical personnel is being enforced upon the patient - i.e. it becomes a de facto a denial of medical service based on religion if there is no alternative.


----------



## Jenna (Mar 5, 2012)

The same question from the OP poll might be rephrased in another way...

_*Should religious groups be forced to abide by your personal medical wishes even if it means acting contrary to their religious freedoms / rights?*_

I do not know, does that make a difference to how you all view it that are against the moral principle of refusal to provide?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 5, 2012)

ETinCYQX said:


> Would you give a pass to a cop who ticketed people of different races more heavily? That's acting in accordance with his beliefs. Would I be right, if I was a school teacher, to refuse to teach Muslim kids because I believe they're dangerous? (Of course I don't believe that) Acting in accordance with my own beliefs. It's not right, sorry, especially for a hospital.



Not at all, nor would I 'give a pass' to a doctor who refused to treat certain races or members of certain religions.  I don't even understand the analogy.



> And yes, actually, as a medical professional, hospital director, whatever, if you refuse a treatment and your refusal directly impacts a patient's quality of life, that is forcing your beliefs on them. Just like a teacher refusing to teach evolution.



I think your definition of 'forcing your beliefs' on someone and mine are different.  If I refuse to do business with you on a Saturday because that is my Sabbath, are you now Jewish?  Did I 'force you' to take on my religion?  That's 'forcing my beliefs' on someone, if I cause you to accept my beliefs.  Instead, I am acting in accordance with my beliefs; you can be whatever you want to be.

If you wander into a butcher shop and all they have is halal meat, is the butcher turning you into a Muslim?  But he's forcing his beliefs on you by refusing to sell other kinds of meat, isn't he?  No, he is acting in accordance with his own beliefs; what you are is entirely your own business.



> If you still don't like my phrasing, how about this:_ I absolutely do not think that a religious organization should be  permitted to allow their specific beliefs to affect medical treatments if that will compromise  their patient's health. _On the same subject, as stupid as I personally think the idea is, I vehemently believe a Jehovah's Witness patient should be allowed to refuse a blood transfusion for themselves. I just do not believe a Jehovah's Witness surgeon, doctor or hospital should have the right to make the same decision for a patient (Again, hypothetical example.)



Again, I ask you what specific procedures you are referring to.  As I've stated, most Catholic-affiliated hospitals that I'm aware of refuse to provide things like *contraception, abortions when the mother's health is not in danger, sterilizations, and in-vitro fertilization*.  Now please, which of these is an emergency situation requiring immediate action to save the life of the patient.  If you know of any actual issues where hospitals have refused treatment in life-threatening situations, I ask you again to trot them out.  I understand your hypothetical situation, but since to the best of my knowledge, that has never happened, I have to reject it.  Tell me of some real danger, not one you admittedly made up.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 5, 2012)

Sukerkin said:


> I see what you are trying to say there but I don't think that that logic entirely carries through.  If it's an individual doctor and there are others available then I absolutely agree that the doctor should not be forced to violate his own conscience.
> 
> If there is only the one doctor/facility available tho' then the dogmatically instructed views of the medical personnel is being enforced upon the patient - i.e. it becomes a de facto a denial of medical service based on religion if there is no alternative.



Again, we're talking about (in the case of Catholic-affiliated hospitals, which is what I'm aware of), refusal to provide contraception, abortions where the mother's life is not in danger, sterilizations, and in vitro fertilization.  Again, please inform me which of these is a life-threatening situation which the patient will die of if not given immediately.

I see lots of hypothetical situations being posted.  What if the hospital is religious but the only one within hundreds of miles, what if the hospital is run by religious types that refuse even blood transfusions, and etc.  While hypothetical situations are useful for the sake of illustration, we're talking about restricting the right of religious-affiliated hospitals to act in accordance with their own principles for violating things they do not violate.

In the case of Catholic-affiliated hospitals, the hospitals themselves, many run or administered by Catholic Nuns as well as Catholic lay staff, have broken with the Catholic church over providing abortions when the life of the mother is at risk.  This was well before any of this White House directive stuff came up relating to what religious-affiliated hospitals may and may not due.  I understand the objection of the Church, and I support the decisions of the hospitals, even though it has led to a breaking of the direct affiliation between the Church and the hospitals in question (the largest Catholic health care providers in the world, by the way).  It was the only reasonable accommodation they could come to; if the Church relinquishes day-to-day control of the hospitals, they can be at ease concerning certain procedures which occur but they do not approve of.  I suspect that many in the Church found this the only way they could ensure that the right thing was done, but Church law was not ignored.

However, those institutions are still Catholic.  They do not provide (as the link I provided previously indicates) certain services which the Church sees as wrong and which are NOT life-threatening.

Some hospitals do not provide kidney transplants, yet they are the only hospitals for many miles around.  Should they be forced to do so anyway?  That's the same issue.  If a patient wants in-vitro fertilization and the hospital nearest them does not provide it, then they have to go elsewhere.  Same for sterilization, abortion where the life of the mother is not at risk, and contraception.  I'm sorry, I just do not see why that should be forced by law.

I would also ask another question.  The Church has stated flat-out that they will not comply with legal requirements that they provide things they do not wish to provide.  What that means is that if push comes to shove, the hospitals will close.  What then?  Do we force the hospitals to open by force of law, regardless of what the owners want to do?  Do we wait for for-profit hospitals to open in their place?  Do we take them over and run them as state institutions?

What if the hospitals in question decided to only accept patients that were of that religion?  So I could get admitted to St Joseph but you could not.  Therefore, I would have no objection to my treatment there; and you, since you are not Catholic, would have no objections, being not admitted.  Say the hospital accepted all for emergency care in order to save life and stabilize patients, but then immediately shipped off all non-Catholics and refused to provide any non-emergency care for non-Catholics.  Would that be OK then?

It seems to me that the basic argument is that if an institution is anything but a hospital, they can do as they please.  But if it is a hospital, it must provide any care demanded, even non-emergency care, and the hospital must comply regardless of whether or not they choose to provide that service.  That just seems odd to me.  Actually, it seem more anti-religion and pro-state than anything else; which is actually what I believe it to be.  Nothing more than a veiled attack on religion.


----------



## Sukerkin (Mar 5, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Again, we're talking about (in the case of Catholic-affiliated hospitals, which is what I'm aware of), refusal to provide contraception, abortions where the mother's life is not in danger, sterilizations, and in vitro fertilization. Again, please inform me which of these is a life-threatening situation which the patient will die of if not given immediately.




Just to clarify a little, I was speaking of the principle inherent in the logic.  Whether the treatment involved is life-saving or not is a distraction from the core concept; if there is an alternative then, clearly, it is less of an issue.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 5, 2012)

Sukerkin said:


> Just to clarify a little, I was speaking of the principle inherent in the logic.  Whether the treatment involved is life-saving or not is a distraction from the core concept; if there is an alternative then, clearly, it is less of an issue.



The problem is that people want law to be set based on the 'principle', which affects many to provide for a solution to a hypothetical which no one has even shown exists, as far as I know.

It reminds me of a dispute I had with my hateful neighbor last summer.  He complained that my dogs were destroying his fence.  I asked what they did to his fence.  Well, nothing, but they might.  He told my landlord that I am destroying his property.  I asked my landlord in what way I had destroyed his property.  The answer?  I hadn't, but I might.

Prior restraint sucks, let me tell you.  I really dislike being punished for what hypothetically might happen.

Someone tell me what damage is being done, and we can talk about what the solution for that ought to be; I'm a reasonable person.  But if all we have are hypothetical situations and demands that these potential issues be solved by rule of law, I'm not on board with that.


----------



## shesulsa (Mar 5, 2012)

When women die because an abortion could save their lives and the abortion is refused because of religion, this is a violation of rights. Is this not sufficient harm to you Bill? (please note I'm in a hurry and realize this could be read as snarky - this is not the intent).


----------



## Big Don (Mar 5, 2012)

Chik Fil a is closed on Sundays, thus forcing their religion on everyone


----------



## Big Don (Mar 5, 2012)

shesulsa said:


> When women die because an abortion could save their lives and the abortion is refused because of religion, this is a violation of rights. Is this not sufficient harm to you Bill? (please note I'm in a hurry and realize this could be read as snarky - this is not the intent).



That is such a crock of ****. Name 5 women, in the past 10 years that have died because no one would provide them with an abortion


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 5, 2012)

shesulsa said:


> When women die because an abortion could save their lives and the abortion is refused because of religion, this is a violation of rights. Is this not sufficient harm to you Bill? (please note I'm in a hurry and realize this could be read as snarky - this is not the intent).



I do not think you have read what I have said.  No snark taken or given; I have said that it appears to me that Catholic-affiliated hospitals are providing such treatment in such cases; even losing their affiliation with the Church over it.  What they continue to refuse to provide are abortions when the life of the mother is NOT at stake.  And no, I do not have a problem with the latter.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Mar 5, 2012)

granfire said:


> well, then they better not accept a penny of federal money, in any shape or form.
> 
> ...



That is true.  Suppose they do not.  Will you then grant them the right to refuse some medical procedures based on their religious beliefs?



Bill Mattocks said:


> ...
> 
> Shall we say that if hospitals take federal dollars, they are also required to take federal orders regarding patient treatment?
> *
> ...





shesulsa said:


> When women die because an abortion could save their lives and the abortion is refused because of religion, this is a violation of rights. Is this not sufficient harm to you Bill? (please note I'm in a hurry and realize this could be read as snarky - this is not the intent).



What right would that be?  Rights are granted.


----------



## WC_lun (Mar 5, 2012)

This is just my personal look on these type of issues.  Keep medical decisions between a person and thier medical providers.  If a person has religious views that dictate certain actions or non-actions, then that is between the doctor and patient to work out an outcome with that in mind.  Start bringing in entities that have agendas other than the patients health as priority, then the patient's health WILL suffer.


----------



## Cryozombie (Mar 8, 2012)

Well, if you want an elective  procedure that isn't covered by the Church Hospital, can you not go elsewhere?  Facilities here choose what services they offer all  the time:  For example, We have (non  church BTW) hospitals here with no Birthing centers, you _*cannot*_ go there  and give birth even if you are gonna have the kid in the back of the taxicab... in many cases you need to go SEVERAL towns away to find a facility that still have open birthing centers.  Is that  really any different?  Or should we force ALL healthcare providers to provide staff and medical professionals for ALL services that are going to potentially come up at their facility even if the possibility is so remote as to be unprofitable or create significant increase in cost of service to have a medical professional, the equipment, and facility on hand for that particular service...?

I also think there should be a distinction between providing a medical service to save a pregnant woman's life that results in the abortion of the baby, and going in and having an abortion because you don't want the kid.


----------



## Cryozombie (Mar 8, 2012)

Also, the wording of the poll is misleading and biased. A much more fairly worded assessment would be more along the lines of "Should a Church decide what medical services they want to provide you with", because I don't think there are many Churches telling _non-members_ "Under no circumstances may you have this done  even if you go elsewhere!"  Which is basically what your wording suggests.


----------



## shesulsa (Mar 8, 2012)

Elsewhere as in where, Cryo? Another location they own? Seems your question is biased as well.

I guess I assumed the fine people of MartialTalk are intelligent enough to interpret the question and answer it according to their personal loyalty. Was I wrong?


----------



## shesulsa (Mar 8, 2012)

Big Don said:


> That is such a crock of ****. Name 5 women, in the past 10 years that have died because no one would provide them with an abortion



Even in this age of information, most of these cases are not indexed on the internet. If it's something you really want to learn, Google is your friend. There are many women who will never reveal that they have indeed had abortions and some of them are women of faith.  

I'd apologize for being privy to these conversations as a woman that you might not be privy to as a man, but ... well, I rather like being a woman outside of the obvious continuous attempts at controlling my choices and health based on religious beliefs.

Today, because abortion is still largely legal, woman who become pregnant and are diagnosed with cancer or who face some other life-threatening condition and who must choose between treatment and the continued pregnancy are able to abort and delay reproduction until their health is recovered, providing an optimum environment for a child. 

As to the availability of services, it truly blows my mind that it seems so impossible to some that there really are townships so small and so remote that the poorer populations who are served only by healthcare institutions owned by religious entities really can't afford to go anywhere else.

Remember - just because it hasn't happened to you doesn't mean it doesn't happen to others.  These are not hypothetical situations.


----------



## Big Don (Mar 8, 2012)

While there may well be medically necessary abortions that are denied, medically necessary abortions are the rarity rather than the norm in abortions. Not only that, but, a doctor that refused to perform a genuinely medically necessary abortion would be just as guilty of malpractice as one who refused to amputate a gangrenous limb, thus the hew and cry about medically necessary abortions is a crock of ****.


----------



## shesulsa (Mar 8, 2012)

Big Don said:


> While there may well be medically necessary abortions that are denied, medically necessary abortions are the rarity rather than the norm in abortions. Not only that, but, a doctor that refused to perform a genuinely medically necessary abortion would be just as guilty of malpractice as one who refused to amputate a gangrenous limb, thus the hew and cry about medically necessary abortions is a crock of ****.



Do you even care that this happens in other countries as a matter of law? do you really think that this is not a possibility here?


----------



## shesulsa (Mar 9, 2012)

Clearly, you don't care about the separation of church and state nor church and health freedom, so just vote and be done. I'm not going to argue abortion with you any more.


----------



## Big Don (Mar 9, 2012)

shesulsa said:


> Clearly, you don't care about the separation of church and state nor church and health freedom, so just vote and be done. I'm not going to argue abortion with you any more.


Why should the government be able to tell any religion to violate their morals? Wouldn't that be a violation of church and state? Why should anyone's "health freedom" trump the religious freedom (Guaranteed in the First Amendment) of their doctor?
I care about the separation of church and state that Jefferson wrote about in private correspondence as much as I care about the last email you sent your mom.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Mar 9, 2012)

The question is "Should religious groups be allowed to control the health services they provide?"

I say no.

Because there are options missing from the list.

Should a religious hospital be forced to offer abortions if abortion is against their beliefs?
Should a religious hospital be forced to treat homosexuals if they view them as an abhorrent abomination to be destroyed on site?
Should a religious group include family planning treatments in their insurance offerings if such are against their beliefs?
Should a religious group include transfusion coverage in their plans if they don't believe in those?
Should a non-religious group be forced to cover shamanic ritual, snake dances, sun dance, fugu toxin and witches brew?

and so forth.

Maybe I need a blood transfusion to save my life, but the ER doctor's a member of a faith that doesn't believe in that.
Should he be allowed to let me die to make his god happy?

I'm in the ER. I'm in bad shape. My heart stops, my brain begins to turn to mush.
Should I be brought back, against my wishes, so that I spend 10 years in a coma, a financial and emotional burden on my wife?
Should I be left to die when I insist that if there's still breath to fight?

What lines do you draw? Where do -you- define 'health services'?

I regularly goto a Catholic hospital. My family are regulars there.  I've had to make life or death decisions there. I've had someone make that decision for me there a few months back. I'm well aware of where their positions are, where they contradict my own, etc. But it's the best damn hospital in the area IMO and -I- made the choices to accept their terms.
But doesn't this contradict my 'No' vote?
Nope.  Because despite those terms, they are still legally, morally and ethically required to follow the law which establishes me as the ultimate decider of my fate. They must meet complex legal requirements....ie they can't decided that germs don't exist and switch to prayer instead of established medical practices.

This is a complicated topic, one with many layers.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Mar 9, 2012)

As to abortion...I've refrained from much commenting on that in the past. I'll hit that briefly.
I am against abortion. I consider life, special. While I don't consider the unborn self sufficient, it is still life. 
I would not be displeased if there was never another abortion ever.
However.
I'm not female. I can't have one.  So my 'desire' is irrelevant, except in 1 case.
If it directly impacts me. Otherwise, it's not my business.
If  you haven't been involved in that decision, if you haven't had to do  the soul searching, the heart wrenching thinking.... I'm not sure I care  about your opinion on the topic, pro or con.
I said I'm against abortion.
I'm against over turning Roe v Wade.
I'm against throwing guilt-inducing BS in peoples ways. Educate them, give them the options, and let them decide without adding your emotional issues to theirs.
I'm against going back to the days where butchers in dirty rooms mutilated and murdered women.
I'm against allowing over paid religious zealots to turn the clocks back.
I'm  against abortion, against murder, against it's use as a frivolous after  thought....and I will support a woman's right to have the opportunity  to decide for herself that decision.
As to funding it? If the  government is going to be involved in defining, mandating, managing or  whatever in health care, then -all- medical procedures should be somehow  addressed, so that they may be done safely, humanely and properly to  minimize cost, pain, and complication.

The 10th of a cent of my tax dollars, or nickel of my premium that might go towards the cost are insignificant compared to the cost the complications would create.
Unless you would deny a woman bleeding to death treatment or coverage because of the cause of her injury.
In which case, my comment would earn me a few IC points to say the least.

To be blunt, this (abortion) isn't a topic I will involve myself in much beyond what I said above.


----------



## shesulsa (Mar 9, 2012)

Big Don said:


> Why should the government be able to tell any religion to violate their morals? Wouldn't that be a violation of church and state? Why should anyone's "health freedom" trump the religious freedom (Guaranteed in the First Amendment) of their doctor?
> I care about the separation of church and state that Jefferson wrote about in private correspondence as much as I care about the last email you sent your mom.



My mother died an email virgin having been offered a safe abortion by her doctor (before it was legal) in 1965. He was a man who knew there was something wrong with her and that she probably shouldn't have had another child to beat on. Alas, I'm here nonetheless. Perhaps YOU should send her an email thanking her. :lol2:

OH YEAH! And it would have been done in a Catholic hospital. Daniel Freeman Memorial in Inglewood, CA. I wonder if he would have gotten away with it.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 9, 2012)

Bob Hubbard said:


> This is a complicated topic, one with many layers.



Also, many lawyers.

And while we're at it, one with many people who have an *anti-religious agenda* that ties in nicely with this issue.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 9, 2012)

Just to add to the mix...

The term... 'Women's Reproductive Health.'  Let's talk about that.

To me, 'reproductive health' refers to the organs and the issues surrounding reproduction.  For example, male infertility or female uterine cysts.  These are reproductive 'health' issues.

Condoms are not reproductive 'health' issues.  Birth control pills are not reproductive 'health' issues (unless they are for the above types of ailments, not to block pregnancy).

Condoms are 'health' issues in that they can help block the spread of diseases.  Abortions are 'health' issues when they involve the life or health of the mother.

But except as noted above, condoms and birth control pills and even abortions are choices.  They are voluntary.  They are not necessities of life.

So we have college students attending college on loans and grants, who demand 'reproductive health' coverage, but what they appear to actually be demanding is coverage for their lifestyle choices.

By redefining birth control_ qua _birth control as 'reproductive health', it seems much more horrible that some awful religious institution should forbid it.

After all, it's not like having sex is optional.  People have to have sex.  They're going to have sex.  And since there is no way to stop them from having sex, the taxpayer, the insurers, and the religious groups who oppose things like pre-marital sex, contraception, and abortion, should have to provide it and pay for it too.

I dunno.  Sounds like a spoiled kid stamping their feet and demanding candy.

Yeah, people cannot stop themselves from having sex.  And they can pay for it, too.  Or, you know, not have it.  Oh dear, personal responsibility.  I'm such a meanie.


----------



## Cryozombie (Mar 9, 2012)

shesulsa said:


> Elsewhere as in where, Cryo? Another location they own? Seems your question is biased as well.
> 
> I guess I assumed the fine people of MartialTalk are intelligent enough to interpret the question and answer it according to their personal loyalty. Was I wrong?



It's funny how you have asked this question twice, once here, and once to me on FB, and I countered with the exact same argument which is in a nutshell Hospitals Choose which services they will provide all the time, not just on the basis of religion, but on the basis of profitability as well, why is that ok? And you've chosen to ignore that point.

That aside, please clarify your statement for me "Elsewhere as in where, Cryo? Another location they own?" It seems to me you are implying every doctor, clinic and hospital is run by the Church and women have no place to go.  That hasn't been my experience, AND I would remind you about all of the arguments that have gone on about Planned Parenthood.  If the hospital won't do it, what about going to PP... after all IIRC we were told it is VITAL we fund PP because women need them to provide free/low cost BC and Abortions.  

So THAT is my first "Elsewhere" Geo, based specifically on arguments the left themselves have already forwarded.  I'm trying to decide which it is, do we NEED planned parenthood to provide these services, or do we NEED to deny Religions their Constitutionally protected rights?


----------



## elder999 (Mar 9, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:
			
		

> To me, 'reproductive health' refers to the organs and the issues surrounding reproduction.  For example, male infertility or female uterine cysts.  These are reproductive 'health' issues.



Oddly,this neglects the health of the product of reproduction. Fer instance:




			
				Bill Mattocks said:
			
		

> Condoms are not reproductive 'health' issues.  Birth control pills are not reproductive 'health' issues (unless they are for the above types of ailments, not to block pregnancy).
> Condoms are 'health' issues in that they can help block the spread of diseases.


i

And, in fact, can protect the "reproductive health" as in, the ability to _ hav_e healthy reproduction products-that is to say, _babies_-you know, that can be born with STDs like syphillis or  HIV from their mother's placenta



			
				Bill Mattocks said:
			
		

> Abortions are 'health' issues when they involve the life or health of the mother.



Of course, the mother won't be reproducing, ever again, if she's *dead*. :lol




			
				Bill Mattocks said:
			
		

> But except as noted above, condoms and birth control pills and even abortions are choices.  They are voluntary.  They are not necessities of life.



I was suddenly single in 1993-I'd been married since I was 22, in 1982-before that,  as I've posted elsewhere, I was a _slut_, (pretty much after that, too, after the appropriate amount of time, and figuring things out again...:lol:..)-but, in 1994, the word "condom" became a necessary part of my vocabulary, and a "necessity of life." I mean, my son and daughter had given me "permission" to date (and imagine, two very serious looking kids, 11 and 8, telling their dad to get a girlfriend already) and I owed it to them, if and when "the moment" came, to protect myself-not to mention that it had simply become part of sexual etiquette at the time.

I mean, I certainly wouldn't have gone "unwrapped" with someone who was okay with it or wanted it that way the first time-see "game theory," again.....:lol:



			
				Bill Mattocks said:
			
		

> So we have college students attending college on loans and grants, who demand 'reproductive health' coverage, but what they appear to actually be demanding is coverage for their lifestyle choices.



But their actually "demanding" "reproductive health" coverage.



			
				Bill Mattocks said:
			
		

> By redefining birth control_ qua _birth control as 'reproductive health', it seems much more horrible that some awful religious institution should forbid it.[
> al
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## oftheherd1 (Mar 9, 2012)

elder999 said:


> Oddly,this neglects the health of the product of reproduction. Fer instance:
> 
> *That is another discussion, and a worthy one. But since engaging is sex (other than rape or maybe incest) is optional, why must I pay for someone to do so.
> *
> ...



As always, just my thoughts. I trust that if I have mis-stated Bill's intentions, he will correct me.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 9, 2012)

elder999 said:


> Nope. Just a demand for equally. Things were different before, when insurance wasn't "government mandated." Now it is, and religious institutions will have to comply with government guidelines as to what is required coverage for their employees.



I agree with you that government mandates and intervention in the national health insurance realm changes a lot of things.  On the one hand, we have people now demanding that they be provided what they have come to expect from private non-religious employers (birth control coverage, I am just having trouble calling it 'reproductive health' coverage).  On the other hand, we have employers who legally demand that employees not do certain things (like here in Michigan, it's perfectly legal for private employers to require that employees not smoke on or off the job).  I suppose that *could* be interpreted to mean that employers are required to cover birth control, but can require employees not to engage in risky or unprotected sex, or be fired.

I mean, if employers HAVE to cover lung cancer, but are allowed to fire employees who smoke, and they HAVE to cover birth control, then they should logically be allowed to fire people who have risky or unprotected sex.  Smoking is a choice; so is having sex.  If employers MUST bear the cost, then they have some say in controlling costs.  Michigan (and other states) say that employers can fire smokers...


----------



## oftheherd1 (Mar 9, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I agree with you that government mandates and intervention in the national health insurance realm changes a lot of things. On the one hand, we have people now demanding that they be provided what they have come to expect from private non-religious employers (birth control coverage, I am just having trouble calling it 'reproductive health' coverage). On the other hand, we have employers who legally demand that employees not do certain things (like here in Michigan, it's perfectly legal for private employers to require that employees not smoke on or off the job). I suppose that *could* be interpreted to mean that employers are required to cover birth control, but can require employees not to engage in risky or unprotected sex, or be fired.
> 
> I mean, if employers HAVE to cover lung cancer, but are allowed to fire employees who smoke, and they HAVE to cover birth control, then they should logically be allowed to fire people who have risky or unprotected sex. Smoking is a choice; so is having sex. If employers MUST bear the cost, then they have some say in controlling costs. Michigan (and other states) say that employers can fire smokers...



Interesting, except I don't think federal government intervention in health care is applies nor is constitutional if it places a prohibition on the free exercise of a person's (and corporations like insurance companies or large churches are being held to be people) exercise of religion.  Now unless the Michigan constitution contains a similar right, they still have the option to do so.  The first amendment only applies to The Congress, that is, the federal congress.  The States were not so constrained.

But interesting to think of States allowing workers to be fired if they are found to be engaged in acts that lead to pregnancy (married or not?) or STD, because they didn't use contraceptive devices.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 9, 2012)

oftheherd1 said:


> Interesting, except I don't think federal government intervention in health care is applies nor is constitutional if it places a prohibition on the free exercise of a person's (and corporations like insurance companies or large churches are being held to be people) exercise of religion.  Now unless the Michigan constitution contains a similar right, they still have the option to do so.  The first amendment only applies to The Congress, that is, the federal congress.  The States were not so constrained.



Well, not originally, but the 14th Amendment applied some of the provisions of the Bill of Rights to the states.  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_bill_of_rights



> But interesting to think of States allowing workers to be fired if they are found to be engaged in acts that lead to pregnancy (married or not?) or STD, because they didn't use contraceptive devices.



Well, banning smoking on or off the job was found to be legal in Michigan:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6870458/ns/health-addictions/t/fired-smoking/#.T1pgch3Eh8I



> LANSING, Mich. &#8212; Four employees of a health care company have been fired for refusing to take a test to determine whether they smoke cigarettes.
> 
> Weyco Inc., a health benefits administrator based in Okemos, Mich., adopted a policy Jan. 1 that allows employees to be fired if they smoke, even if the smoking happens after business hours or at home.
> 
> Company founder Howard Weyers has said the anti-smoking rule was designed to shield the firm from high health care costs. *&#8220;I don&#8217;t want to pay for the results of smoking,&#8221; *he said.



So what's to stop a company forced to pay for birth control insurance coverage from requiring employees not engage in risky or unprotected or premarital sex?  No one is forced to smoke; and no one is forced to have sex (except victims of crimes as previously noted).


----------



## oftheherd1 (Mar 10, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Well, not originally, but the 14th Amendment applied some of the provisions of the Bill of Rights to the states.
> 
> *True, but there is still that pesky "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" clause.*
> ...
> ...



1


----------



## Cryozombie (Mar 12, 2012)

So, let me ask... The Hospital I work at will not give you an abortion if you come in and ask for it.  They will send you back to your PCP or direct you to a clinic.  This is not out of any religious conviction; we simply don't keep staff on hand or have the facilities to provide this service.  Why aren't you protesting against hospitals who won't do it for economic reasons? The only realistic reason I can see is because it has nothing to do with "Reproductive Rights" but everything to do with attacking established Religion... or is there another reason hospitals who don't have the facilities to do it get a pass that I am not seeing?


----------



## granfire (Mar 12, 2012)

Cryozombie said:


> So, let me ask... The Hospital I work at will not give you an abortion if you come in and ask for it.  They will send you back to your PCP or direct you to a clinic.  This is not out of any religious conviction; we simply don't keep staff on hand or have the facilities to provide this service.  Why aren't you protesting against hospitals who won't do it for economic reasons? The only realistic reason I can see is because it has nothing to do with "Reproductive Rights" but everything to do with attacking established Religion... or is there another reason hospitals who don't have the facilities to do it get a pass that I am not seeing?



Well, trying to squeeze blood out of a turnip.
It does not do any good to complain about lack of funds. Which is basically what you are aiming at. If it was that easy, I'd be protesting my own poverty a lot more.

If there is no $$, what can you protest?
On the other hand the $$ is there, the staff is there, but you are told you can't have it, because the person holding the purse strings does not like you to have it....

Do replace abortion and birth control with a number of different medical innovations:
Insulin injections
Blood Transfusions
Inoculations
Appendectomies...

don't be hung up on the one thing, just because you happen to agree with this one item!


----------



## Big Don (Mar 12, 2012)

None of the stores in my town sell hollandaise sauce. Shouldn't the government force at least one to sell it?


----------



## granfire (Mar 12, 2012)

Big Don said:


> None of the stores in my town sell hollandaise sauce. Shouldn't the government force at least one to sell it?



Do they do it on religious grounds?

Besides...don't be a shmuck...make it yourself!


----------



## Big Don (Mar 12, 2012)

Why do the patient's rights trump the doctors? I asked before but, no one bothered to answer.


----------



## Cryozombie (Mar 13, 2012)

granfire said:


> Do replace abortion and birth control with a number of different medical innovations:
> Insulin injections
> Blood Transfusions
> Inoculations
> ...



But this is exactly what I asked before:  Hospitals choose all the time what services they are willing to provide, I made the example of the local hospitals here which have closed their birthing centers.  We generally don't treat major head trauma, we pack them off to other hospitals.  We have no plastic surgery center, we would send you elsewhere if you came in for that.  We don't really do much Transplant work either, those tend to get sent to the University hospitals... so why this one issue?  Because it was raised as a moral objection rather than a financial one?  Is one more reasonable than the other, and if so, why?  Especially since one is supposedly protected by the Constitution, and the other is not...


----------



## shesulsa (Mar 13, 2012)

Perhaps because it's one of the most prolific and most-often-sought procedures? certainly more than plastic surgery or organ transplant.

I bet if those millions of unborn were actually born we'd all be bitching about the millions of welfare babies breaking the system, eh? Oh ... wait ....


----------



## Cryozombie (Mar 13, 2012)

shesulsa said:


> Perhaps because it's one of the most prolific and most-often-sought procedures? certainly more than plastic surgery or organ transplant.
> 
> I bet if those millions of unborn were actually born we'd all be bitching about the millions of welfare babies breaking the system, eh? Oh ... wait ....



That doesn't address the question:  Why is it ok for my Hospital to refuse to do them because its not economically viable, but a horrific violation of the womans uterus that "Saint Valentines of the Apostle" won't do it for Moral reasons?


----------



## Cryozombie (Mar 13, 2012)

And I'm still trying to understand... if we HAVE to fund these procedures/drugs thru Planned Parenthood, as was argued a few months ago isn't that a viable alternative to choosing a Religious Hospital and trying to force them to perform the procedure despite "Seperation of Church and State"?


----------



## Cryozombie (Mar 13, 2012)

shesulsa said:


> Perhaps because it's one of the most prolific and most-often-sought procedures? certainly more than plastic surgery or organ transplant.



Also, I'm not sure what that has to do with the argument I laid out... I don't see how it matters how "in demand" a service is; As I stated above, we also do not do Abortions, in addition to Plastic Surgery or Organ transplant... so really all three apply, even tho you only chose to respond to the 2.


----------



## Cryozombie (Mar 13, 2012)

And one last thought here for the night:  Regardless of the intention, SHOULD we allow the government to dip its fingers into Religion and dictate its practice?  The founding fathers didn't think so... would you (you the population, not you specifically Geo) tolerate it if they mandated that everyone, regardless of belief go to Mass on Sundays and take communion?  Of course not.

I see these issues as virtually the same.  While I can see a Certain amount of regulation on religious freedoms (Obviously we can't have Thuggee cults running around killing people) a line has to be drawn someplace regarding Free Exercise of Religion, and I have yet to see a good argument put forward as to why a Religion should be made to provide birth control or Abortions when it is clear that their ARE alternative means for obtaining these goods and services; other places a woman can go to get them.  

I am certainly not AGAINST either of these practices; but I think there is more "Politics" to these arguments than actual consideration of the facts.   For example, While I understand that costs for Birth Control can vary widely depending on what types a person is using, at the same time I know that the difference between a Generic Prescription for common birth control pills with and without insurance is a whole $6.00 US.  If you can't get them free. (Which my Ex-wife used to do, so I know it IS possible) I know that if you can't get _free_ condoms a box of 40 can be had for under 10 bucks.  So I am really uncertain how allowing Religious institutions to freely practice their faith is restricting a woman's reproductive rights, and just looking for an educated insightful answer to that question.


----------



## granfire (Mar 13, 2012)

Big Don said:


> Why do the patient's rights trump the doctors? I asked before but, no one bothered to answer.



The doctor has the right not to perform a service - assuming by him doing so the patient is not in danger.
After all they do make you swear the oath....
Well anyhow, as long as alternative practitioners are available.

However, once you remove it from the individual and go towards the institution....
See the deal here?

And to remove the misogynist aspect:
Scientology does not believe in mental illness...
Should your scientology believing healthcare provider be allowed to scratch anti depressants or other medications for mental illness off the list of provided services?


----------



## Cryozombie (Mar 13, 2012)

Theoretically, yes, and then if you needed those meds, you would go to someone who would provide them to you... not force that provider to give them to you, right?


----------



## Cryozombie (Mar 13, 2012)

granfire said:


> And to remove the misogynist aspect:
> Scientology does not believe in mental illness...
> Should your scientology believing healthcare provider be allowed to scratch anti depressants or other medications for mental illness off the list of provided services?



I was thinking about this on the ride home today, and another thing occurred to me... would you WANT treatment from the doctor who was only doing it because he was mandated to?  Think about that for a second.   What would stop him from say, prescribing you the most expensive Birth Control pill available, with no generic, simply because he was forced to?  Or the one with the least effective rating? 

I think about other services, if you had a tattooist who's absolutely, positively under no Circumstances would tattoo a S.O.'s name on you, and you force him to, would you want the service he is providing?  What about a Chef who refuses to cook a steak anything but Rare, because "what am I a line cook? No, I am a food artiste!" would you force him to make you a well done steak, and expect a quality, uncharred, edible, spit free piece of meat?  Or in those cases would you go elsewhere.  I know I would.


----------



## granfire (Mar 13, 2012)

Cryozombie said:


> I was thinking about this on the ride home today, and another thing occurred to me... would you WANT treatment from the doctor who was only doing it because he was mandated to?  Think about that for a second.   What would stop him from say, prescribing you the most expensive Birth Control pill available, with no generic, simply because he was forced to?  Or the one with the least effective rating?
> 
> I think about other services, if you had a tattooist who's absolutely, positively under no Circumstances would tattoo a S.O.'s name on you, and you force him to, would you want the service he is providing?  What about a Chef who refuses to cook a steak anything but Rare, because "what am I a line cook? No, I am a food artiste!" would you force him to make you a well done steak, and expect a quality, uncharred, edible, spit free piece of meat?  Or in those cases would you go elsewhere.  I know I would.



the question is not whether the individual must or not perform the service.

The question is on whether religious groups may omit certain services from their plans, no?

And as it stands right now, those religiously funded omissions are misogynist....


----------



## crushing (Mar 13, 2012)

granfire said:


> And as it stands right now, those religiously funded omissions are misogynist....




It seems that the word misogynist has taken on a new meaning lately.


----------



## shesulsa (Mar 13, 2012)

What we're really talking about here is that the religious organization controls a medical services provider. Medical service availability should not be dictated by religious principles - it is science and should be treated as such.

I see a difference between the state telling a religious organization that they cannot do X just because lots of people don't like it and telling a religious organization that they cannot refuse certain medical or health procedures based on their religious beliefs alone.  

Here is the flip side of that argument:  the church of religious science here in the PNW where children have died because their parents refused to get their children adequate medical treatment comes under fire, though no legal action can be taken upon them, only the parents of the children who end up going to jail. Should the government be allowed to interfere with those parents practicing their religion (praying for healing and rejecting health sciences to treat their children)?  

If so, what is the difference there?


----------



## Big Don (Mar 13, 2012)

granfire said:


> The doctor has the right not to perform a service - assuming by him doing so the patient is not in danger.
> After all they do make you swear the oath....
> Well anyhow, as long as alternative practitioners are available.
> 
> ...


This Hippocratic Oath:
I swear by Apollo, the healer, Asclepius, Hygieia, and Panacea,  and I take to witness all the gods, all the goddesses, to keep  according to my ability and my judgment, the following Oath and  agreement: To consider dear to me, as my parents, him who taught me this art;  to live in common with him and, if necessary, to share my goods with  him; To look upon his children as my own brothers, to teach them this  art; and that by my teaching, I will impart a knowledge of this art to  my own sons, and to my teacher's sons, and to disciples bound by an  indenture and oath according to the medical laws, and no others.
 I will prescribe regimens for the good of my patients according to my ability and my judgment and never do harm to anyone.
*I will not give a lethal drug to anyone if I am asked, nor will I advise such a plan; and similarly I will not give a woman a pessary to cause an abortion.*

 But I will preserve the purity of my life and my arts.
 I will not cut for stone,  even for patients in whom the disease is manifest; I will leave this  operation to be performed by practitioners, specialists in this art.
 In every house where I come I will enter only for the good of my  patients, keeping myself far from all intentional ill-doing and all  seduction and especially from the pleasures of love with women or with  men, be they free or slaves.

 All that may come to my knowledge in the exercise of my profession or  in daily commerce with men, which ought not to be spread abroad, I will  keep secret and will never reveal.
 If I keep this oath faithfully, may I enjoy my life and practice my art, respected by all humanity and in all times; but if I swerve from it or violate it, may the reverse be my life
Yeah, I don't think you want doctors following the Hippocratic Oath as much as you think...


----------



## elder999 (Mar 13, 2012)

Big Don said:
			
		

> Yeah, I don't think you want doctors following the Hippocratic Oath as much as you think...



That Hippocratic Oath hasn't been used in a long time. The bolded line wasn't included in the classic English translation, which itself hasn't been used since 1870. The version most used in the U.S-when it's sworn at all-was written in 1964.

So, no-not *that* Hippocratic Oath...:lol:


----------



## granfire (Mar 13, 2012)

crushing said:


> It seems that the word misogynist has taken on a new meaning lately.



Hon, when we are talking about something that pretty much only effects women and is as such under scrutiny, damn straight it's sexist.


----------



## crushing (Mar 13, 2012)

granfire said:


> Hon, when we are talking about something that pretty much only effects women and is as such under scrutiny, damn straight it's sexist.



Yes, I agree sexist is the appropriate term.


----------



## Cryozombie (Mar 14, 2012)

shesulsa said:


> Here is the flip side of that argument:  the church of religious science here in the PNW where children have died because their parents refused to get their children adequate medical treatment comes under fire, though no legal action can be taken upon them, only the parents of the children who end up going to jail. Should the government be allowed to interfere with those parents practicing their religion (praying for healing and rejecting health sciences to treat their children)?



Honestly... I don't know.  I weigh my duty and responsibility to someone elses children and families against their basic rights as parents... From a Moral Standpoint I want to say yes, but from a Constitutionally Legal standpoint I want to say no... so the best answer I can give you is I don't know.  

I will say, however, In my mind the issue here  is that this differs from the cases being discussed, in that if one "Religious Hospital" says "No Way!" to Birth Control or Abortions, you can always go to an organization like Planned Parenthood or a Non-secular hospital... whereas the child in your example is not being refused treatment, his family is refusing to take him for treatment.  Yes, it's still a freedom of religion issue, but IMO a much more muddy one from the moral standpoint, in that the child has no choice, the woman (or man, even in the case of health coverage for Birth Control) does have a choice to go elsewhere.


----------



## granfire (Mar 14, 2012)

Cryozombie said:


> Honestly... I don't know.  I weigh my duty and responsibility to someone elses children and families against their basic rights as parents... From a Moral Standpoint I want to say yes, but from a Constitutionally Legal standpoint I want to say no... so the best answer I can give you is I don't know.
> 
> I will say, however, In my mind the issue here  is that this differs from the cases being discussed, in that if one "Religious Hospital" says "No Way!" to Birth Control or Abortions, you can always go to an organization like Planned Parenthood or a Non-secular hospital... whereas the child in your example is not being refused treatment, his family is refusing to take him for treatment.  Yes, it's still a freedom of religion issue, but IMO a much more muddy one from the moral standpoint, in that the child has no choice, the woman (or man, even in the case of health coverage for Birth Control) does have a choice to go elsewhere.



The choice may be hypothetical though.
While we do have a broad coverage in the nation, not all places are equal, and the limiting factor for an area to have adequate healthcare is also limiting mobility to seek out alternatives: Money.

Just the other day I drove past a 'hospital' that was not much bigger than a large ranch style house. 
I thought I lived in a rural area...but by golly compared to that place this here is Metropolis!


----------



## shesulsa (Mar 14, 2012)

And I can keep on repeating that there is no planned parenthood, no free clinic, only the catholic services provided in some towns. We still do have towns here that are big enough to make the map but aren't big enough for a stop light. They are remote and lacking in care and services. They are ... poor.  And they may keep getting poorer if the populations continue to rise because no one can afford to drive nor take bus nor train out. If they hitchhike, we usually find them in ravines in the Gifford Pinchot forest.


----------



## Cryozombie (Mar 14, 2012)

I must have missed that,  This is the first time I've seen you say that... previously you just kept repeating "what options".  That aside, I see where you are coming from now...

But...

Does that Justify giving up our rights?  You say yes, but of course I see you on other threads saying "Another right we just gave up" so I dunno what to think about that either...   

Let me do some research, and I'll get back to you.


----------



## Cryozombie (Mar 14, 2012)

And a quick question before I run off for the night... One of the "Catholic Directives" they use to govern Healthcare is that they will not perform Assisted Suicides.  Should that be required as well?  Should they have to help you die if you choose to do so?


----------



## shesulsa (Mar 14, 2012)

Cryozombie said:


> I must have missed that,  This is the first time I've seen you say that... previously you just kept repeating "what options".  That aside, I see where you are coming from now...



I *did* say the only option in some small towns is the Catholic services provided. Am I confusing MT with FB?? Perhaps - nonetheless, since you read it there and you're reading it here, it HAS been repeated.



> Does that Justify giving up our rights?  You say yes, but of course I see you on other threads saying "Another right we just gave up" so I dunno what to think about that either...



What rights are WE giving up when WE can only get the services Catholics want to provide regardless of our NEED? The right to practice our religion?  Why can't we legislate, according to the constitution, that Catholic patients in a Catholic hospital who don't want abortions because of their religion don't get any and Catholic patients who DO want abortions (or birth control or whatever) regardless of their religion CAN get them in a Catholic hospital? Since prayer and surgery are *seperate* *services* ... unless they're providing psychic surgery or spiritual healing and I'm pretty sure we might have some strong feelings on that.



> Let me do some research, and I'll get back to you.



Mkay ....


----------



## shesulsa (Mar 14, 2012)

Cryozombie said:


> And a quick question before I run off for the night... One of the "Catholic Directives" they use to govern Healthcare is that they will not perform Assisted Suicides.  Should that be required as well?  Should they have to help you die if you choose to do so?



I hate to say yes, but ... yes.  The services they are providing are scientific, NOT RELIGIOUS.  You know, perhaps it would be best if religious organizations did not own nor run medical nor science-based facilities since they get to call the shots, apparently, as to what science they subscribe to.


----------



## Cryozombie (Mar 14, 2012)

Just to throw some Initial Numbers out there... The American Hospital Association reports approx 5,754 hospitals in the U.S. 611 of them are Catholic (about 12%).  Approx half of those will provide Plan B contraceptives, although some limit the reasons that they will offer it to cases of Rape or Incest.  Interestingly in 28 states they provide contraceptives across the board; but this is by existing State Mandate, so there IS precedent set that this type of regulation of religion has been allowed.  I'm having trouble coming up with figures on Abortion, because most of what I keep turning up when I look are about a billion Blogs going ZOMG THOSE EVIL (insert Republican or Democrat here) but I will keep looking.

I have to say, 12% sounds pretty high, until you start examining how many are providing these services, if we assume a 50/50 split based on the numbers I've turned up, (and thats making some assumptions on how the #s of these hospitals are divided amongst the 28 states that require it, the number could be much closer to 12 or much lower than 6 depending on the distribution) now we are at around 6%... it doesn't sound as Epidemic as people are trying to make sound... like every woman in small town America is ****ed... (no pun intended) 

I'm going to continue digging on the Abortion #s, and find out more about the Mandate that they provide BC in those 28 states.


----------



## Cryozombie (Mar 14, 2012)

shesulsa said:


> I hate to say yes, but ... yes.  The services they are providing are scientific, NOT RELIGIOUS.  You know, perhaps it would be best if religious organizations did not own nor run medical nor science-based facilities since they get to call the shots, apparently, as to what science they subscribe to.



So, to be clear you are cool with Suicide, and think if someone wants to off themselves, the hospital should do it?  Bear in mind We aren't making a distinction between Sally who just got dumped by Football Hero Biff, and Aunt Hazel with the Stage 4 lung cancer here... Like the Abortion or Birth Control issues, we are talking about anyone who wants it...


----------



## granfire (Mar 14, 2012)

Cryozombie said:


> So, to be clear you are cool with Suicide, and think if someone wants to off themselves, the hospital should do it?  Bear in mind We aren't making a distinction between Sally who just got dumped by Football Hero Biff, and Aunt Hazel with the Stage 4 lung cancer here... Like the Abortion or Birth Control issues, we are talking about anyone who wants it...



well, like abortion, one would have to undergo counceling....


----------



## Cryozombie (Mar 14, 2012)

granfire said:


> well, like abortion, one would have to undergo counceling....



But see, I have a bunch of Left-leaning friends on Facebook who seem to think Counseling is interfering with reproductive rights and they shouldn't have to be subjected to that... so why should this be any different?


----------



## Big Don (Mar 14, 2012)

Why is it OK to violate the doctor's clearly spelled out First Amendment right?


----------



## granfire (Mar 14, 2012)

Cryozombie said:


> But see, I have a bunch of Left-leaning friends on Facebook who seem to think Counseling is interfering with reproductive rights and they shouldn't have to be subjected to that... so why should this be any different?



Counseling is interferring with what exactly? Ignorance?

Granted there is good counseling and bad one....but golly....

But then again...people....

ok, according to the definition put forth by billi... I am about as left as it gets, but even I can't make the case that counseling is interferring with anything...except ignorance, of course.

you did not really bring that as valid argument...did you....

It would certainly bring out a lot of dark thoughts in suicidal people who would otherwise just pull the trigger. 

And really, I am sure a lot of people would recant if they gave some thoughts on how to die...
After all, jumping seems so easy....until you hit the pavement, are not dead and have to linger for 2 weeks...yep, happened to the daughter of a family friend. 

(and just because some people think up the most asinine crap...really? really REALLY really?!)


----------



## granfire (Mar 14, 2012)

Big Don said:


> Why is it OK to violate the doctor's clearly spelled out First Amendment right?



What? the doctor can say whatever he wants.

Unless he is the head of the hospital and makes the policy to not allow services based on his believes...


Oh, come on guys, it's one thing to have circular argument, but don't sew the tail to the dog's mouth to make him chase it!


----------



## Big Don (Mar 14, 2012)

granfire said:


> What? the doctor can say whatever he wants.
> 
> Unless he is the head of the hospital and makes the policy to not allow services based on his believes...


 So, in your opinion, doctors should be forced to act against their religious beliefs?





> Oh, come on guys, it's one thing to have circular argument, but don't sew the tail to the dog's mouth to make him chase it!


----------



## billc (Mar 14, 2012)

It is a simple thing.  The government must not be allowed to tell private institutions what product they must sell to their customers.  Healthcare is no different.  Period.  That the government is doing it now just reflects how lazy and weak our regard for freedom has become and it needs to stop here and now.    If you force a hospital to provide a service, that hospital is no longer a free institution/business.  If you force doctors to treat people against their religious beliefs, you have made them less free and more slave.


----------



## shesulsa (Mar 15, 2012)

Cryozombie said:


> So, to be clear you are cool with Suicide, and think if someone wants to off themselves, the hospital should do it?  Bear in mind We aren't making a distinction between Sally who just got dumped by Football Hero Biff, and Aunt Hazel with the Stage 4 lung cancer here... Like the Abortion or Birth Control issues, we are talking about anyone who wants it...


Why aren't we making a distinction between casual blow-my-brains-out depression and physician-assisted suicide? Now you're being ridiculous. Are you really trying to compare preventative care with assisted suicide? Really? REALLY?  



Big Don said:


> Why is it OK to violate the doctor's clearly spelled out First Amendment right?


Any physician can deny performing a procedure they are either opposed to or don't specialize in. WE are talking about the denial of scientific health services by a large religious group.



granfire said:


> Counseling is interferring with what exactly? Ignorance?


Every ... EVERY ... surgical procedure is preceded with counseling of some sort.



> But then again...people....
> 
> ok, according to the definition put forth by billi... I am about as left as it gets, but even I can't make the case that counseling is interferring with anything...except ignorance, of course.
> 
> ...


I don't read Billi, I have him blocked so I have absolutely no frame of reference to what you're going on about here other than you apparently cannot distinguish the need for counseling (or think we can't) in cases of DESIRED, CASUAL SUICIDE and PHYSICIAN ASSISTED SUICIDE IN TERMINAL PATIENTS.  

And did you REALLY have to bring up the jumping thing? Was this a personal dig on me about my son's suicide attempt? Or did you conveniently forget all about that? Did you REALLY bring that up? REALLY???



Big Don said:


> So, in your opinion, doctors should be forced to act against their religious beliefs?


Answered this above.


----------



## granfire (Mar 15, 2012)

I am sorry!
I was not aware of your son's attempt. 

However, I think - at least it would seem to me - that if people knew how bad a failed attempt can be...


----------



## Big Don (Mar 15, 2012)

shesulsa said:


> Why aren't we making a distinction between casual blow-my-brains-out depression and physician-assisted suicide? Now you're being ridiculous. Are you really trying to compare preventative care with assisted suicide? Really? REALLY?


 Yes, really. 





> Any physician can deny performing a procedure they are either opposed to or don't specialize in. WE are talking about the denial of scientific health services by a large religious group.


 You are talking about compelling a religious organization to provide services against their beliefs. Should Muslim charities be compelled to serve Ham on Easter?





> Every ... EVERY ... surgical procedure is preceded with counseling of some sort.
> 
> 
> I don't read Billi, I have him blocked so I have absolutely no frame of reference to what you're going on about here other than you apparently cannot distinguish the need for counseling (or think we can't) in cases of DESIRED, CASUAL SUICIDE and PHYSICIAN ASSISTED SUICIDE IN TERMINAL PATIENTS.
> ...


No, you dodged it by claiming you weren't compelling doctors, but, institutions.


----------



## shesulsa (Mar 15, 2012)

Big Don said:


> Yes, really.


If you can't discern the difference between treating an illness and helping end one then you really shouldn't be arguing your point, should you?



> You are talking about compelling a religious organization to provide services against their beliefs. Should Muslim charities be compelled to serve Ham on Easter?


If you can't tell the difference between the service of food as a casual affair and medical care then you really shouldn't be arguing your point, should you?



> No, you dodged it by claiming you weren't compelling doctors, but, institutions.


If you can't tell the difference between a single doctor's religious beliefs governing their practice and a religious organization refusing certain procedures forcing the hands of doctors and choices of patients, then perhaps YOU shouldn't be arguing your point, should you?


----------



## shesulsa (Mar 15, 2012)

granfire said:


> I am sorry!
> I was not aware of your son's attempt.
> 
> However, I think - at least it would seem to me - that if people knew how bad a failed attempt can be...



It's fine. You were not aware.  

The difference between treating mental illness and death with dignity is clear. When Cryo spoke of assisted suicide I don't believe it a distant reach to assume he was talking of physician assisted suicide in cases of terminal illness.  I do believe it IS a distant reach to assume assisting the mentally ill in suicide without terminal illness is even close to the argument at hand.


----------



## shesulsa (Mar 15, 2012)

Granfire and Cryozombie - 

I want to apologize for the mixup and hot-headed response regarding the jumping incident. While typing my reply, I had some keyboard issues and got my quotes mixed up, so I thought Cryo brought up this incident.  Granfire, you had no idea my son attempted suicide but Cryo does and for some reason I mixed up your quotes when typing before bed early this morning. My apologies to you both.


----------



## Cryozombie (Mar 15, 2012)

shesulsa said:


> Why aren't we making a distinction between casual blow-my-brains-out depression and physician-assisted suicide? Now you're being ridiculous. Are you really trying to compare preventative care with assisted suicide? Really? REALLY?



No, however, I am making a point that the Mandate that the Catholic Church has against Birth Control and Abortions is the same mandate that prevents them from performing assisted suicides.  If we invalidate that mandate, they could, then, perform the assisted suicides.  Since we are not even allowing them to make the distinction between, say, Necessary Abortion and voluntary, I wonder why it should be different for assisting in Suicide?


----------



## Big Don (Mar 15, 2012)

shesulsa said:


> If you can't discern the difference between treating an illness and helping end one then you really shouldn't be arguing your point, should you?


 You don't seem to be able to discern the difference between forcing a doctor or group of doctors to acting against their religious principles and not...





> If you can't tell the difference between the service of food as a casual affair and medical care then you really shouldn't be arguing your point, should you?


 If you can tell the difference between forcing one religion, or it's members to violate it's principles and another, you shouldn't be arguing, should you?





> If you can't tell the difference between a single doctor's religious beliefs governing their practice and a religious organization refusing certain procedures forcing the hands of doctors and choices of patients, then perhaps YOU shouldn't be arguing your point, should you?


No one, as far as I know, forces anyone to work anywhere, if a doctor wants to perform abortions, perhaps he/she shouldn't accept a job at a Catholic hospital. Likewise, despite the all too obvious lie that the only hospital in some areas is Catholic and the inference that therefore women are forced to bear children they otherwise would have aborted is laughable, as apparently, cars, buses, trains and aircraft don't work in those remote locales...


----------



## Sukerkin (Mar 15, 2012)

I don't think you ladies and gents are going to get very far with this subject, if the argument descends towards the level of the personal.  

Leaving aside my views on religions, I, personally, don't see that it has to descend into absolutes when you are talking about a point of religious conscience.  

As I noted many pages of angst ago, if the hospital *is* the only one available and there is no other recourse for the patient then, unless there is no one competent to perform the operation, it would be an imposition upon the freedoms of the patient to deny her.  By that same token, if there is only the *one* doctor available and he/she holds religious beliefs that prevent them from carrying out the abortion, then forcing them to do so is a breach of their freedoms too.

So where does the least harm lie?  That should be the yardstick by which the medical practitioner measures their response.  It's hardly a good position for them to be in as there is no good answer as far as they are concerned, for they will be doing harm one way or another whatever they choose.


----------



## Big Don (Mar 15, 2012)

qft


Sukerkin said:


> *As I noted many pages of angst ago, if the hospital is the only one available and there is no other recourse for the patient then, unless there is no one competent to perform the operation, it would be an imposition upon the freedoms of the patient to deny her.  By that same token, if there is only the one doctor available and he/she holds religious beliefs that prevent them from carrying out the abortion, then forcing them to do so is a breach of their freedoms too.*
> 
> So where does the least harm lie?  That should be the yardstick by which the medical practitioner measures their response.  It's hardly a good position for them to be in as there is no good answer as far as they are concerned, for they will be doing harm one way or another whatever they choose.


----------



## Cryozombie (Mar 24, 2012)

An interesting point was brought up regarding this discussion the other night, that has me going, Hmmmm...

The Bill of Rights are rights that belong to the individual... in just the same way that the 2nd Amendment applies to the PEOPLE and, unlike most gun hatin' pinko commie lefties (joke relax) would have you think the NOT the Militia, so to does the right of "Freedom of Religion" belong to the individual, and NOT the organization itself.  

Thoughts?


----------



## elder999 (Mar 24, 2012)

Cryozombie said:


> An interesting point was brought up regarding this discussion the other night, that has me going, Hmmmm...
> 
> The Bill of Rights are rights that belong to the individual... in just the same way that the 2nd Amendment applies to the PEOPLE and, unlike most gun hatin' pinko commie lefties (joke relax) would have you think the NOT the Militia, so to does the right of "Freedom of Religion" belong to the individual, and NOT the organization itself.
> 
> Thoughts?



This is, in fact, a valid argument, excepting, of course, that "_corporations are per_s_on_s."

And "religious organizations" are corporations.....some much more than others.


----------



## The Last Legionary (Mar 24, 2012)

I'm not a person. I'm a figment of my imagination.


----------



## Cryozombie (Mar 25, 2012)

The Last Legionary said:


> I'm not a person. I'm a figment of my imagination.



So you in fact have no rights...


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Mar 25, 2012)

Cryozombie said:


> So you in fact have no rights...



Depends on if the Constitutions in effect that day or not. Most days, not.


----------



## billc (Mar 25, 2012)

I see what might be  a problem with the poll, and somone else may have already pointed it out.  Should Churches be allowed to control what medical services people recieve isn't an accurate representation of the situation.   

The question should be, Should a private religous group be forced to provide certain medical coverage to their employee's if it goes against their religous principals.  That might be a better question but it still doesn't cover the situation.  I know, you can't cover everything with one sentence questions.


----------

