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

[shesulsa]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[granfire]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?

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.

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.

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?!)

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???

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

Answered this above.

 

[granfire]

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]

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.

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???


Answered this above.

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

 

[shesulsa]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.