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

[cardaway]

If they are a privately funded hospital, then no I don't believe they should be compelled to practice medicine in a manner against their religious beliefs.
And if their is no other "Public Hospital" in the area, then that is a failing of the Government and Public --- not the Catholics.

1. Are there any 100% privately funded hospitals?

2. Not sure if it's a failing if there is only one hospital in the region. Maybe this will make people rethink if there should only be one hospital in any given area, but for all the wrong reasons. Some places simply can't afford everything.

 

[poohandwendy]

No, they should not. By forcing a Catholic Hospital to provide a medicine that goes against the fundamental beliefs of the religion, it is infringing on it's constitutionally protected religious rights. If the govt wants women to have that medicine easily accessable, it is up to the govt to provide that access in govt facilities. IMHO

 

[Lyn5]

I am Catholic and attended a Catholic college that did have medical facilities on the campus (but it wasn't a hospital). This was several years ago, but at that time if a young woman needed the morning after pill, she couldn't get it from the onsite clinic, she needed to go into the town to a local hospital. I think under those circumstances, it would have been helpful to go to the small clinic and recieve medication/counselling as the person needed/wanted, but I can also see that the church/school didn't support intercourse, etc. on campus and didn't hand out the pill either.

Recently, my sister wanted to have a tubal done and her regular doctor refused to perform it (also Catholic) so she went eslewhere for the surgery. I can understand that if it is against your beliefs, you shouldn't have to perform a task. If I were asked to do something I felt was greatly immoral at my job, I wouldn't want to do it either.

 

[cardaway]

No, they should not. By forcing a Catholic Hospital to provide a medicine that goes against the fundamental beliefs of the religion, it is infringing on it's constitutionally protected religious rights.

I disagree. They would be holding them accountable to what business they chose to get a license for, nothing about their religoin.

If we were to go with your way any religious group could start a business and think they wouldn't have to follow the rules for that given business. That isn't the way things work.

 

[froglady]

I disagree. They would be holding them accountable to what business they chose to get a license for, nothing about their religoin.

If we were to go with your way any religious group could start a business and think they wouldn't have to follow the rules for that given business. That isn't the way things work.

You are aware that the majority of hospitals were not started as a "business?" The religion based hospitals were started as charities, as were older community hospitals. So the Catholic hospitals didn't "choose" to get into a "business" that would force them to go against their religious doctrines. It wasn't an issue 100, or even 50, years ago. Doctors who had religious convictions against contraception chose to work at a hospital where they had every reason to believe it wasn't an issue. I personally changed my OB/GYN because I DIDN'T want to deliver in a Catholic hospital in case there were any problems.

Giving medical care while still following the tenets of your faith WAS the way things worked when they chose their "business." The "rules" for what is or is not good medical care keep changing, but not the tenets of their faith. They adapt anything that is shown to be beneficial to their patients so long as it does not go against their faith.

As far as medicare/medicaid goes, those are INSURANCE payments. The insurer in this case just happens to be the US government, and they're paying with tax money taken from citizens by force, but it's no different than accepting payment from Blue Cross, etc. (Except that the medicare/medicaid insurer has unlimited power to force you to abide by their rules.)

So I guess you feel that all of the Catholic hospitals, even the ones that have been around for 100+ years and might be the only hospital in a town, should get out of the medicine "business" just to prevent a few women from having to go elsewhere to get the morning after pill, and the hell with everyone else who might have a life-threatening illness.

 

[Toby'sFriend]

If we were to go with your way any religious group could start a business and think they wouldn't have to follow the rules for that given business. That isn't the way things work.

It isn't?

I as an Accountant have every right not to do business with clients that I feel are participating in unethical or immoral practices. I'm not obligated to serve them just because I might be the closest Accountant around to serve their needs.

 

[cardaway]

So I guess you feel that all of the Catholic hospitals, even the ones that have been around for 100+ years and might be the only hospital in a town, should get out of the medicine "business" just to prevent a few women from having to go elsewhere to get the morning after pill, and the hell with everyone else who might have a life-threatening illness.

Lots have businesses, both public and private, have had to make changes as new laws came around. They are no different.

 

[cardaway]

It isn't?

I as an Accountant have every right not to do business with clients that I feel are participating in unethical or immoral practices. I'm not obligated to serve them just because I might be the closest Accountant around to serve their needs.

I was thinking more along the lines of not following other laws in place for businesses. Equal opportunity laws for example. If you're going to go into business, you have to obey the laws, right?

 

[Just2554]

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.

I agree 100%.

13 years ago when my sister was born, there were only 2 hospitals in the area. One was under fire for being unsanitary at the time and the other had religious affiliations. Obviously my mother had no choice but to give birth at the Catholic hospital, but afterwards she refused to breastfeed. Well the religious beliefs at the hospital insisted she HAD to breastfeed and she refused, so she ended up with a severe infection because they refused to provide medication or whatever it is they do when women don't breastfeed and have to deal with that (I'm not familiar with this process).

My point in telling this story is this: some people are forced to go to Catholic hospitals for whatever reason and Catholic hospitals should provide the same kind of care that any other hospital would. If should be up to a patient if their religious beliefs affect their treatment or not.

 

[barkley]

medicare and medicaid ARE basicly insurance plans (and different from gov. grants and the like) but providers who accept them contractuly agree to adhere to the medicare/medicaid laws which have clauses that bind the providers to adhere to both the rules/regs of the individual program AS WELL as any state or local laws regarding treatment.

the feds establish the minimum criteria for what is coverable/treatable-individual state programs (like california's medi-cal) have to meet those minimum standards of care and may elect to exceed. so if the feds say a procedure is coverable a state can't opt to not cover it (or enact a law that prohibits getting treatment for it) or if a state decides that they want something made available to their medicaid patients (but the fed's don't require it) the state will have to come up with the funds for it but they will require any provider that accepts this "insurance" to provide it-or just opt out of accepting this form of "insurance" entirely.

if anyone can come up with a purely "private" hospital i would be surprised. most have some form of funding through reasearch grants, partnerships in teaching (if they tie in with a publicly funded college and receive financial benefit via education, staff development and the like they likely have some indirect government alliance, or the like). we have lots of "private hospitals" (catholic, seventh day adventist, children's hospitals) in our area-not one will accept a case as eligible to their charitable funds until they first exhaust any government funding the patient may be eligible to.

i think one solution might be if a purely private hospital existed and they for whatever reason took in emergency patients subject to this situation there would be a designated contact person outside the hospital who would be contacted and would intervene to advise the patient of their options and if the patient elected refer them to a location that could/would provide (my understanding is that there is a 72 hour window of opportunity to take this pill). since the police have to be contacted immediatly in these situations perhaps it could be a similar protocal-hospital immediatly notifies police as well as the designated "medical advisor". seems it would be easier to just hand the patient an informing notice but that might be objectionable within the realm of their religion as well.

don't see any easy answers with this issue.

 

[Toby'sFriend]

well first - no your mother was not forced to go to the Catholic Hospital. She CHOSE to go to the Catholic Hospital because she believed that the level of care that they could provide was superior to that of the other hospital.

When you make a choice to use the Catholic Hospital, then you are also making the choice to subject your Medical Care to the religious doctrine that supports the hospital.

I agree that it is probably not the optimum choice. The optimum choice would be for the Community to provide a high level of care in the Publically funded hospital. Unfortunately, most Communites and States are not willing to fund Health Care well enough to make that possible.

It kind of reminds me of the parents who send their kids to the Religious Private School because the education is so much better than the Public School - and then come to the PTA meeting complaining because their kids are expected to Pray and learn Catechism. It doesn't make alot of sense to me.

Equal opportunity laws for example. If you're going to go into business, you have to obey the laws, right?

What laws would those be? Because as far as I'm aware, Catholic hospitals do not pick and choose on handing out birth control -- they deny it to all.

As far as Emergency Rooms go, laws in general dictate that they must provide the immediate care necessary to stabilize a patient whose life is in danger. They are not allowed to withhold life saving measure to a patient based on ability to pay. Once the patient is stable, they are required to advise the patient on the best place to receive Publically funded care and when appropriate help transport them to that facility. In the case of a Rape, they are required to report it to Authorities. As far as I'm aware, Catholic Hospitals follow all of those guidelines.

 

[punkin]

I agree 100%.

Well the religious beliefs at the hospital insisted she HAD to breastfeed and she refused, so she ended up with a severe infection because they refused to provide medication or whatever it is they do when women don't breastfeed and have to deal with that (I'm not familiar with this process).

I didn't realize breastfeeding was a catholic religious requirement.

 

[DawnCt1]

I agree 100%.

Well the religious beliefs at the hospital insisted she HAD to breastfeed and she refused, so she ended up with a severe infection because they refused to provide medication or whatever it is they do when women don't breastfeed and have to deal with that (I'm not familiar with this process).

.

Most non breast feeding women are not given medication these days to dry up the milk. Its an outdated practice. It was an outdated practice 18 years ago when DS 18 was born. He wasn't able to nurse due to a cleft palate. Her infection had nothing to do with the hospital's philosophy on breast feeding and that is not Catholic doctrine anyway. If the milk is not removed, milk production slows and eventually ends.

 

[VSL]

don't see any easy answers with this issue.

Me neither - one of those things that could be debated forever. Too grey.

 

[Caradana]

It might be a gray issue to some - so let's talk about the realities of this law.

I live in the West Village of NYC. You would think that NYC would have many hospitals and many options, eh? So when a very close friend of mine had a condom break at 11 PM (not a rape), she did what responsible twentysomething women with good health insurance coverage and no desire for illegitimate kids do, and headed immediately to the hospital for the morning after pill - St. Vincents, about twelve blocks away. She sat in triage for two hours before she was told that the hospital doesn't dispense scrips for this drug, nor would they tell her where she could go. (Protestant - first time getting the drug - she had no idea). She went outside and begged male ambulance squad members for help (keep in mind - it's now 1 AM). They told her the closest place that would be safe at that hour was Beth Israel, across town on the East Side. One $21 cab ride later, another hour in triage, a medical exam and a $150 copay later, she had the morning after pill. Oh, $21 home. She got home at 3 AM.

All this for a drug that should be OVER THE COUNTER, according to the AMA. It's safe. It's easy to use. It's effective. It prevents unwanted pregnancies. And in my lifetime, it will be available at Walmart in all 50 states with no scrip necessary, and give women another way to take control of their lives when rapes and accidents happen.

 

[punkin]

It might be a gray issue to some - so let's talk about the realities of this law.

I live in the West Village of NYC. You would think that NYC would have many hospitals and many options, eh? So when a very close friend of mine had a condom break at 11 PM (not a rape), she did what responsible twentysomething women with good health insurance coverage and no desire for illegitimate kids do, and headed immediately to the hospital for the morning after pill - St. Vincents, about twelve blocks away. She sat in triage for two hours before she was told that the hospital doesn't dispense scrips for this drug, nor would they tell her where she could go. (Protestant - first time getting the drug - she had no idea). She went outside and begged male ambulance squad members for help (keep in mind - it's now 1 AM). They told her the closest place that would be safe at that hour was Beth Israel, across town on the East Side. One $21 cab ride later, another hour in triage, a medical exam and a $150 copay later, she had the morning after pill. Oh, $21 home. She got home at 3 AM.

All this for a drug that should be OVER THE COUNTER, according to the AMA. It's safe. It's easy to use. It's effective. It prevents unwanted pregnancies. And in my lifetime, it will be available at Walmart in all 50 states with no scrip necessary, and give women another way to take control of their lives when rapes and accidents happen.

Now imagine the same scenario except you live in a rural area and you have just been raped and there is no other hospital for a 100 miles around.

 

[HOGFAN]

If they are a private institution, no. Private hospitals are a BUSINESS, and they shouldnt be forced to provide a service that they dont want to. The catholic hospital around here wont even do tubals. dont like it, go somewhere else.

 

[DawnCt1]

Now imagine the same scenario except you live in a rural area and you have just been raped and there is no other hospital for a 100 miles around.

Again, this is Connecticut and the Connecticut Legislature. There is nothing in Ct that is a 100 miles away...except Boston.

 

[chobie]

If they are a private institution, no. Private hospitals are a BUSINESS, and they shouldnt be forced to provide a service that they dont want to. The catholic hospital around here wont even do tubals. dont like it, go somewhere else.

Yeah, stupid rape victims, what are you thinking going to the nearest hospital?

 

[froglady]

Now imagine the same scenario except you live in a rural area and you have just been raped and there is no other hospital for a 100 miles around.

Then you buy an OTC pregnancy test that can be used as early as possible, and IF it is positive, you travel to the nearest abortion provider, or continue with the pregnancy and give the baby up for adoption. OR you raise the child.

You still have choices; they're just not as convenient.

The hospitals are not refusing to treat rape victims; they're just not willing to prevent a POSSIBLE pregnancy. And quite frankly, I would be much more concerned about STDs than pregnancy.