Should Catholic Hospitals be compelled to provide the "morning after pill"?

[DawnCt1]

The Ct. Legislature is considering a bill that would force all hospitals, including the Catholic Hospitals to provide the "morning after pill" to rape victims. Since the Catholic Church has always had a firm and consistant stance on birth control and abortion, should they be forced to violate their religious convictions to comply with this law? There are other hospitals that rape victims can be treated.

 

[cardaway]

If their convictions are going to get in the way of complying with the law and practicing standard medical treatment, they need to get out of the medical business.

That goes double for pharmacists.

 

[diskids2]

This will go hand in hand with my beliefs and although I am Catholic, born and raised, I believe that they need to provide the morning after pill to all rape victims that ask for it.

 

[eyeoreismyhero]

I say it depends on if they're private or public hospitals.

 

[DawnCt1]

If their convictions are going to get in the way of complying with the law and practicing standard medical treatment, they need to get out of the medical business.

That goes double for pharmacists.

It isn't the law yet. The Catholic Church will be lobbying to have themselves exempt. The Catholic hospitals for years have not done abortions, sterilizations, etc because patients know that if that is a procedure that they are seeking, they ought not to seek it in a Catholic hospital. I am sure that law enforcement, ambulance crews and first responders are aware of the policy as well. They can easily take victims, patients and women elsewhere.

 

[mrsltg]

Absolutely not. As long as they are private the government has no business intruding on their beliefs. Not to mention, this legislation is B-R-O-A-D. A doctor or nurse working in a Catholic hospital is not necessarily Catholic. They can refer a patient to another doctor to provide the pill. Yes, a rape is traumatic, the victims rights cannot infringe upon religious freedom, however.

Erin

 

[maddiel]

According to David E. Kelley and the folks on Boston Legal , yes.

M.

 

[jonestavern]

I don't believe they should have to provide it--but most definately the woman/girl should be clearly, & w/o prejudice, informed of it's existence & ease of availability-
If the female chooses that route the hospital should, with immediate expediency, transport the female to the nearest Dr dispensing such or allow the dispensing physician to administer such care

It is not the case here, but, FYI, there are some insurance companies that prevent Drs (via signed contracts) from
being frank with patients regarding all the possible protocals for the treatment of various ailments/injuries. That is, more costly treatments. This is quite legal, morally corrupt, but legal.
I believe strongly in informed choices, presented w/o prejudice

Jean

 

[beattyfamily]

NO! They shouldn't be compelled.

I still can't believe that Walmarts in MA were forced to sell it!

 

[CathrynRose]

If their convictions are going to get in the way of complying with the law and practicing standard medical treatment, they need to get out of the medical business.

That goes double for pharmacists.

 

[barkley]

boston legal did a great episode last week dealing with this issue.

in my mind any hospital that takes public funds (via medicare or medicaid billing and the like) should have to adhere to the same rules be they private or not.

there is not always a choice in receiving medical treatment, the town i grew up in still only has one hospital (catholic) and unless you can find someone who WILL transport you over 30 miles away to another hospital (and the ambulance companies won't if it's emergency treatment) it's the only choice. the patients don't have a choice if admitted of having their own private doctor providing treatment unless the doctor has privlidges at that hospital (so they could'nt get emergency care and call in their doctor for the morning after pill if the hospital refused it).

i don't think any catholic or other religious hospital that accepts public funds will successfully be able to fight a law like that. it reminds me of our local seventh day adventist hospital-for years it refused to serve meat to any patient because of the chruch's vegetarian beliefs. several patients who HAD to be treated there (it was the only regional treatment facility for a few select ailments and had the market cornered with most of the insurance plans) argued in court that they should'nt be held to the religious dictates of the hospital's sponsoring church. the courts ruled that because the hospital accepted public funds it could not impose the religious dictates on the patients. they started offering meat (but they still get around it by employing almost entirely seventh day adventist doctors who largly write up the medical orders to not include meat as part of the "treatment plan" ).

 

[cardaway]

I am sure that law enforcement, ambulance crews and first responders are aware of the policy as well. They can easily take victims, patients and women elsewhere.

Actually, in many rural areas, that is NOT an option.

 

[Beth76]

I still can't believe that Walmarts in MA were forced to sell it!

Why does that make you so mad?

To the OP, hmmm, I sort of agree with Cardaway that if they have problems doing things that are medically necessary or desired then they shouldn't be in the business. But, I suppose as long as there are other places to go they shouldn't be required. Hopefully, it would take business away from the Catholic hospital then.

 

[In a hurry]

Actually, in many rural areas, that is NOT an option.

I agree. In many areas, the Catholic hospitals are the only option. And a trauma victim may very well just go to the hospital she usually deals with. I understand the religious stance (even though I personally disagree with it), but at some point compassion needs to take the place of doctrine.

 

[DawnCt1]

Actually, in many rural areas, that is NOT an option.

In Ct there are other options. The Catholic Hospitals tend to be in urban areas and there aren't any Catholic hospitals in remote rural areas.

 

[beattyfamily]

Why does that make you so mad?

One reason, I don't like businesses being forced so sell products they don't want to sell. Walmart only offers it in ONE other state, and now MA too.

 

[barkley]

this is why i keep getting on my mom to revise her advanced medical directive. she lives in a town where there is only a catholic hospital and they made it very clear publicly (following the teri schivo case) that if an amd was not very specific in spelling out what the patient wanted/did not want for end of life treatment they would err on the side of their religious doctrine.

i respect the wishes of a private practitioner or private hospital that does'nt take public funds in operating (there are a few doctors in our area that will not accept any form of insurance-cash only because they want to operate on their beliefs and not be dictated to by an insurance company regarding what they do/do not offer), but if you're going to accept public funds i think you should be held to public law.

 

[wvrevy]

If this were anything other than healthcare, I would tend to side with those saying that the government shouldn't be dictating to a private entity what services they must perform. However, that it is a healthcare issue clouds that judgement considerably. I do not view healthcare providers as being on the same level as any run-of-the-mill business. They should not be allowed to pick and choose what medicines they will allow their medical staff to provide, based on anything other than scientific evidence. Since the morning after pill has been proven to be safe, they should not get the choice in whether or not they will provide it.

 

[Galahad]

Why does that make you so mad?

To the OP, hmmm, I sort of agree with Cardaway that if they have problems doing things that are medically necessary or desired then they shouldn't be in the business. But, I suppose as long as there are other places to go they shouldn't be required. Hopefully, it would take business away from the Catholic hospital then.

Most OB/GYN's - by a large margin - do not do elective abortions. Should they be forced to do so or get out of the business?

 

[CathrynRose]

Most OB/GYN's - by a large margin - do not do elective abortions. Should they be forced to do so or get out of the business?

This is not an abortion. This is an induced period - thats it.