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

[simpilotswife]

and again, the Catholic Church has every right to dictate the tenents of their own religion without Government influence.

In fact, the Constitution guarantees it.

You don't have to agree with them, I don't have to agree with them. But I sure would never want to live in a Country where somebody had the ability to take that right away from them.

What about the people who work at the hospital who would choose to give the victim the morning-after pill if it were available? Isn't the hospital also making the choice for them as well?

people have Free Will and the ability to make choices. Drugs do not.

No one knows that better than the Catholic Church. They should allow the individuals to make their choices.

 

[jgmklmhem]

All they would be "forced" to do is hand the victimized girl the pill. Not force it down her throat. Whether or not she takes it will be her free choice. This would not be the same as forcing a medical practioner to perform the abortion themself.

But to Catholics that is like handing a gang banger a gun....do you know he will use it to kill...not really but it makes it sooo much easier. Same thing with this pill. Unlike BCP's this pill has no other use than preventing pregnancy. And in the Catholic's eyes the gang bang murder is on par with the prevented pregnancy. Both are preventing life and being facilitated.

 

[mrsltg]

I said for the sake of argument. I'm not talking about whether they could actually do it, I said I doubt they could.

I think treatment is treatment....if you can't offer proper and available treatment to your patients, then you shouldn't run a hospital.

So is that your opinion on specialties, too? I needed a perinatologist for my second and third pregnancies. The hospitals closest to me did not have one on staff. Should they have been forced to close because they couldn't provide this level of care? What about Sloan-Kettering? They only offer cancer care. Should they be forced to close because they can't treat a trauma? There are hospitals all over the place that have no neo-natal care available. Again, should they close?

Erin

 

[sheriblanche]

First of all- I am pro choice. I believe people have a right to choose what to do with their bodies. Just like,also, I have a right as a nurse not to involve MY body in performing an abortion. If you are employed in an emergency room you deal with emergencies. A morning after pill is not an emergency procedure. Call your own doctor. A prescription can be phoned in. Catholic hospitals are PRIVATE facilities that perform a lot of good in the community. They are usually nonprofit. By the way- In 20 years I have had many, many people ask for morning after pills. None of them reported being raped. It was "the condom broke" or "I didn't plan to sleep with him". Again- call your doctor. Don't take up space in an emergency room because you screwed up.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

What about the people who work at the hospital who would choose to give the victim the morning-after pill if it were available? Isn't the hospital also making the choice for them as well?

They know the policies when they begin work. They are not being forced to work there. Forcing beliefs would be requiring them to convert as a stipulation for employment and requiring patients to convert before treatment would be forcing the faith.

 

[mrsltg]

What about the people who work at the hospital who would choose to give the victim the morning-after pill if it were available? Isn't the hospital also making the choice for them as well?


No one knows that better than the Catholic Church. They should allow the individuals to make their choices.

No one is forced to work anywhere so that arguement holds no water. The Church is not preventing anyone from making any choice. They simply do not provide a service.

Erin

 

[Toby'sFriend]

They should allow the individuals to make their choices.

and unless they are kidnapping women or otherwise preventing them from seeking their care elsewhere, they are in no way preventing them from making a choice.

Originally Posted by simpilotswife
What about the people who work at the hospital who would choose to give the victim the morning-after pill if it were available? Isn't the hospital also making the choice for them as well?

No, they also have every right in the world to go work for a hospital that provides the service.

 

[RachelEllen]

Catholics do NOT believe that pregnancy, or even the chance of pregnancy, is a disease to be treated. The rape victim can be treated for venereal disease, contusions, lacerations, etc but will not be given anything to prevent pregnancy, because that would be against religious belief. The hospital does not (or not until they're forced to do so by law, or close) even have any contraceptives available to give. Just as a patient with a head injury would be treated for obvious bleeding, etc but would be transferred ASAP to a hospital that is able to provide the needed treatment. The hospital does not have a neurosurgeon.

One choice was based on economics, the other on religious belief.

The difference is that the need for a neurosurgeon would be ascertained quickly and the patient would be transferred.

I've worked in a Catholic hospital. Many times, the patient is not even told that the morning after pill is an option. It is not comparable at all.

I think the problem is that the doctor patient relationship in these cases is skewed. The patient believes they are in a therapeutic relationship for their treatment. In that case, the doctor should facilitate getting the patient the treatment that the patient deems appropriate. For example, if the patient has head trauma and wants care, they would be tranferred quickly to a facility with a neurosurgeon.

If the physician is applying different ethical standards to the care of the patient, they should make that explicit and make it as convientant as possible for the patient to switch to another doctor.

Here's a paralell from my line of work. I take care of premature babies. Many people have very firm, moral stances on the amount of care they find appropriate for extremely tenuous infants. It is appropriate for physicians not to go outside their own ethical/relgious boundries on the amount of care they provide. It would be heinous to be forced into a therapeutic relationship with someone by chance (say because of sudden preterm labor and a patient being delivered by ambulance), and then just treat them according to the physician's moral stance. To the best of your ability, you have to find out what the patient (or in this case, the patient's agent, the parent) wants, and if it is both legal and techincally possible, you help them get that care.

 

[yeartolate]

and unless they are kidnapping women or otherwise preventing them from seeking their care elsewhere, they are in no way preventing them from making a choice.

Although I agree that Catholic Hospitals should not have to offer this service, I hope there is a work around for rape victims that wish to avoid getting pregnant. Not a problem in a good sized city with several hospital choices - but a smaller town this may be difficult. I would hope that the police officer could help the rape victim access these services. Otherwise the other choice is to wait to see if she actually got pregnant and possibly have a REAL abortion verses just having a morning after pill (or in the case of a rape victim - a 2 hours later pill) and having an induced period.

 

[Toby'sFriend]

Originally Posted by MosMom
I said for the sake of argument. I'm not talking about whether they could actually do it, I said I doubt they could.

I think treatment is treatment....if you can't offer proper and available treatment to your patients, then you shouldn't run a hospital.

ok let's continue the sake of argument. Let's say you were a Jehovah's Witness and your religious community opened a Medical Center designed to provide medical care which takes into account you particular Religious Doctrine.

How would you feel about the State Government passing laws which would require your facility and your employees to alter treatment based on the values of people outside of your religion?

I hope there is a work around for rape victims that wish to avoid getting pregnant. Not a problem in a good sized city with several hospital choices - but a smaller town this may be difficult. I would hope that the police officer could help the rape victim access these services. Otherwise the other choice is to wait to see if she actually got pregnant and possibly have a REAL abortion verses just having a morning after pill (or in the case of a rape victim - a 2 hours later pill) and having an induced period.

I agree with that. Most Communities are serviced by a Rape Crises Center and other Not For Profit Agencies. I would have no problem with a law requiring all Emergency Rooms to pass out phone numbers and other contact information to help patients get in contact with the Services they desire.

 

[cardaway]

And if the Catholic hospital takes public money or is licensed through the state then it may very well be deemed legal and constitutional to do this.

In other words, no longer a private church. They are not asking the church to give out the pills, only the business. Their religious angle went out the window when they applied for the license or accepted public funds.

 

[froglady]

The difference is that the need for a neurosurgeon would be ascertained quickly and the patient would be transferred.

I've worked in a Catholic hospital. Many times, the patient is not even told that the morning after pill is an option. It is not comparable at all.

QUOTE]

Then just as some hospitals have chosen to close their ERs, or be designated as a non-trauma hospital, hospitals that choose not to provide this service should be designated as non-providers for rape victims. As soon as a rape victim appears at the ER desk to sign in, she should be told that no morning after pill will be provided and she will be sent to another facility if she requests prevention of pregnancy. All ambulances, rescue, etc should be instructed to not take a rape victim to this hospital.

As hard as it may be for some to believe, not all rape victims are concerned about a possible pregnancy.

Pregnancy in and of itself is not a disease/injury, unless you choose for it to be, or it develops into one due to complications.

 

[froglady]

In other words, no longer a private church. They are not asking the church to give out the pills, only the business. Their religious angle went out the window when they applied for the license or accepted public funds.

Again, most of these hospitals were established BEFORE any government involvement of any form. The hospital was not founded as a business, it was founded as a mission of the church. Many (if not most) of them only accept "government" funds by way of medicare/medicaid payment, with other funds coming from private insurance and donations. It's cheaper for the government to "pay" these private hospitals a percentage of operating costs than it is to allow them to close, and force the government to fund 100% of their services. If you think ERs are crowded now, just imagine what they'll be like if the government takes complete control.

I'll be very interested in seeing what happens with this. It may be a case of throwing out the baby with the bath water if neither side is willing to change its beliefs.

 

[chobie]

Again, most of these hospitals were established BEFORE any government involvement of any form. The hospital was not founded as a business, it was founded as a mission of the church. Many (if not most) of them only accept "government" funds by way of medicare/medicaid payment, with other funds coming from private insurance and donations. It's cheaper for the government to "pay" these private hospitals a percentage of operating costs than it is to allow them to close, and force the government to fund 100% of their services. If you think ERs are crowded now, just imagine what they'll be like if the government takes complete control.

I'll be very interested in seeing what happens with this. It may be a case of throwing out the baby with the bath water if neither side is willing to change its beliefs.

That's neither here nor there. If they are taking public money NOW then they are acountable to the state. If they want to go out to business because they might have to offer a pill to rape victims, so then so be it.

 

[JennyMominRI]

Ok, one more time for the non-believers - providing medication to a sick person is not a sin. Providing a medication that will amount to an abortion in the eyes of the Church is.

And, while I don't the specifics of this young woman's situation, my guess is the school didn't feel she was setting a proper example. That, too, is their perogative. They are not judging whether or not she sinned.

?
Erin

How is preventing an egg from being fertilized, a sin? An abortion
Edited to add.Keep in mind I'm actiually on the Churchs side on this one.If they are a private organiation,they should not be forced to provide ANY treatment they don't want to provide.I'm simply asking why the MAP is a sin...I think I'm getting it in the sense that it just falls under another form of BC to prevent prgnancy,which is sin enough even though it my not be an actual abortion

 

[froglady]

That's neither here nor there. If they are taking public money NOW then they are acountable to the state. If they want to go out to business because they might have to offer a pill to rape victims, so then so be it.

Let all of their other patients suffer and have to travel to another facility when they close. How compassionate.

 

[BelleMcNally]

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.

Yes, I agree. If people feel strongly enough about this, they need to lobby their politicians to push for better Public Health Care instead of trying to punish the Catholic hosptials.

That said, it is a sticky situation; tell me what rape victim is going to have the presence of mind to dictate the kind of care they want to receive? On the one hand, whoever is treating such a victim should be, first and foremost, their advocate. On the other, I understand that doctors and nurses with certain beliefs might have legitimate (in light of their beliefs) objections. For reasons I won't go into here, this is a topic that is very, very close to me and I feel strongly about it. As such, my knee jerk reaction is to say "yes! provide them with whatever medication and treatment you possibly can and to heck with your personal beliefs!", but I realize that could very well be my own very personal bias getting in the way.

The ideal situation would allow everyone to have a choice in health care providers and pharmacists; however, in rural (and often very conservative) ares, this is just not the case. This law might be a way to protect the most vulnerable--those that have no other option than to allow their care to be dictated by the personal beliefs of the only doctor or pharmacist they have the ability to see.

So..I guess I don't know, really. Just kind of rambling out my thoughts here...

 

[froglady]

How is preventing an egg from being fertilized, a sin? An abortion

Sometimes the morning after pill prevents implantation of a fertilized egg, depending on sperm motility, timing, etc. And technically, ANY contraception is a sin in the RC church, not just BCPs.

 

[cardaway]

Again, most of these hospitals were established BEFORE any government involvement of any form.

So? The same can be said for many of this nations largest businesses. Should they get a pass too if they have some laws they would rather not deal with?

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

That's neither here nor there. If they are taking public money NOW then they are acountable to the state. If they want to go out to business because they might have to offer a pill to rape victims, so then so be it.

Food stamps are public money as well.

But it does not mean that the government can control what a grocery store choose to not stock on the shelves.