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

[shesulsa]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[granfire]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?

“Our mission, our vision, our values are not changing nor will they change,” claimed Sister Judy Carle, a member of the board of Dignity Health. Future affiliates will be required to subscribe to a “Statement of Common Values” 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]

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]

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.