Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
The Pro Choice Party is not
Posted by: Jon Henke on Thursday, July 13, 2006

Firedoglake condemns Joe Lieberman's position on respect for religious beliefs, linking to Connecticut Choice Voice's "Five Reasons We Cannot Support Senator Lieberman"...
#2 Rape Victims’ Access to Emergency Contraception

Joe Lieberman is on record as opposing the proposed legislation in Connecticut that would require all Connecticut hospitals to offer emergency contraceptives to rape victims. According to the New Haven Register, “Lieberman believes hospitals that refuse to give contraceptives to rape victims for ‘principled reasons’ shouldn’t be forced to do so.”
Likewise, Zuzu at Feministe finds the notion that Catholics should also have a freedom of choice "odious".

Democrats care about your freedom of choice, but only insofar as it applies to your uterus. Economic, medical, school and gun-related choices will be made for you.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
I’m a pro choice Catholic. We are not that rare. Its not that "Catholics" don’t have the right not to perform abortions, its that the Catholic Church does not allow abortions in its hospitals. Individuals have choices, organizations have policy options. This is just the policy of a forign organization. The policy was instituted in the late 1800s. Prior to that it was ok.

These hospitals are tax exempt, and paid for directly and indirectly with government money. Hospitals are regulated. You can’t legally build another non-sectarian hospital next door to the catholic hospital. If another hospital was built the regulators would insist upon the Catholic hospital being torn down before they would certify it. This is how they "control medical costs". The prevailing governmental view is that an oversupply of hospital rooms raises the fixed costs of health care and the government will be responsible. They also want to guarantee that the hospitals are not forced out of business by competition.

If they pay taxes like an individual, I’d agree where their choices should be honored. They don’t. We should not be subsidizing them.
 
Written By: cindyb
URL: http://
Democrats care about your freedom of choice, but only insofar as it applies to your uterus. Economic, medical, school and gun-related choices will be made for you.
Liberals are anti-choice right down the line. The only reason they make an exception for abortion is because they haven’t (yet) come up with the formula to determine when it should be made mandatory.
 
Written By: Xrlq
URL: http://xrlq.com/
These hospitals are tax exempt, and paid for directly and indirectly with government money.


All business should be tax exampt, since they simply pass the taxes on to individuals, anyway.

Medicare is an example of government money going into hospitals. Didn’t the legislators promise not to f**k with doctors decisions back when they were coming up with medicare? Unintended consequence?
If another hospital was built the regulators would insist upon the Catholic hospital being torn down before they would certify it. This is how they "control medical costs". The prevailing governmental view is that an oversupply of hospital rooms raises the fixed costs of health care and the government will be responsible. They also want to guarantee that the hospitals are not forced out of business by competition.
Ahh, yes. The world in which increasing supply results higher prices, and consumers are benifitted by government protection of inefficient buisness.
If they pay taxes like an individual, I’d agree where their choices should be honored. They don’t. We should not be subsidizing them.
They never will pay taxes—only individuals pay taxes. Tax the hospital, and the hosptial will pass the tax on.

I agree we should not subsidize them. End medicare now!
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
I have to add that, mid ’80s, my lefty anthro prof was not too bothered by China’s forced abortions. Some of the books on the reading list for her class were pro forced abortion in China.

Fact is, the left was never pro choice. On anything.
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
Jon, putting everything under the overly broad rubric of "choice" is unhelpful, I think. There are perfectly sound reason to compel health care workers and hospitals to dispense actual care. What if hospitals could refuse to treat severe bleeding or cancer for "principled reasons"? There’d be chaos. Most libertarians believe that some choices should be curtailed for the public good; they draw the lines in different places than liberals do, but neither stance is necessarily hypocritical.
 
Written By: Brad Plumer
URL: http://plumer.blogspot.com
What if you think about this question not from the point of view of the hospital, but the point of view of the individual being treated?

They are being denied a choice because they were taken to the nearest hospital that just happens to be catholic. So now this young woman will be forced to carry a baby to term that was concieved when someone forced themselves on her. Just because she ended up at the wrong hospital.

I guess it comes down to whose choice do we protect? The choice of a publicly funded hospital to take a stand on a moral issue, or the choice of individuals to be saved from physical and emotional suffering by an easy medical treatment.
 
Written By: Shinobi
URL: http://liesandstatistics.blogspot.com
If I were a rape victim and a hospital told me that due to "principled reasons" that they could not provide contraceptives that would be wrong. We’re talking about a RAPE VICTIM FOR God’s sake. And for Lieberman to cavalierly suggest that I get off the gurney and go elsewhere is preposterous. What if the next hospital said the same thing. And the next. I get on my knees and pray that Ned Lamont will be the next senator from Connecticut.
 
Written By: Lady Jane
URL: http://
Democrats care about your freedom of choice, but only insofar as it applies to your uterus. Economic, medical, school and gun-related choices will be made for you.
So requiring taxpayer subsidized hospitals to provide a legal medical procedure means Democrats are against freedom of choice? I suppose you would have no problem with such a hospital turning away blacks or Hispanics for "principled reasons" as well.

As for Dems making medical choices for you, give me a break. Take medical marijuana. Dems want to give you the choice to use it. Hundreds of thousands of people need it. It helps diminsh nausea so they can eat. It helps with glaucoma. It helps with a variety of ailments. Republicans? Well, they don’t want you to have it. They think they know better than you do.

Or how about the ultimate medical decision - assisted suicide. Control over your own death/death with dignity? Dems are for giving people control. Republicans are against it. See, once again Republicans know better than you do.

Name one medicine or medical procedure that Dems say you cannot have that Republicans say you should be able to have. Just one. (A hint: you can’t)



 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
Most libertarians believe that some choices should be curtailed for the public good; they draw the lines in different places than liberals do, but neither stance is necessarily hypocritical.
Well, libertarians generally are not friendly toward policy decisions based on abstract notions like the "public good," "common good," "social justice" & etc. That said, I agree with those who think Catholic hospitals should not be given a "choice" on this issue.

Mind you, I got into quite the p*ssing match w/John Cole on the subject of pharamcists being required to dispense contraceptives or "Plan B." Given that there is almost nowhere in which one cannot locate several pharmacies within a reasonable disance, there is no justification, in my view, in coercing pharmacists on this issue. John, to understate, sees it differently.

But hospitals with emergency rooms, vis-a-vis rape victims, are in the position of common carrier, which entities have long been subject to regulation that would not otherwise be justified. Rape victims are not going to, and certainly ought not be required to, "hospital shop" in order to obtain standard treatment. Each individual rape victim is entitled to the full and necessary treatment that she not only reasonably expects, but urgently needs from any hospital that provides ER services.

 
Written By: Mona
URL: http://
The whole reason the abortion issue is so divisive is that there is a fundamental inability for the two sides to agree on when exactly life starts. To equate those who disagree with your beliefs (MKUltra) to racists is a weak argument. You are smart enough to come up with better contributions to the discussion than that crap.

For example, I will agree completely that the Dems are not the only ones infringing upon my ability to make free choices - including marijuana for medicinal (or recreational) purposes, or assisted suicide.

In other words, both parties wish to limit my choices - hence the word "government". The irony is when my Republican neighbor tells me that his party is for less spending, and my Democrat neighbor tells me that his party is for more freedoms and choices.
 
Written By: Wulf
URL: http://www.atlasblogged.com
Termination of a pregnancy is an emergency?

Emergency rooms MUST treat emergencies. But, they only have to do so, up to the point where the patient is ambulatory.

And since when is it up to the patient what reasonable care is or isn’t?

So I think your reasoning re: treating an emergency victim falls flat Mona.
 
Written By: Keith, Indy
URL: http://
Pity you decided to mischaracterize what I said.

What I said:
I’ve written a bit about why I found Lieberman’s remarks about rape victims brought to Catholic hospitals not being inconvenienced by the “short ride” to the nearest public hosptial so odious.
What you said I said:
Likewise, Zuzu at Feministe finds the notion that Catholics should also have a freedom of choice "odious".
I will not hold my breath for a correction.
 
Written By: zuzu
URL: http://www.feministe.us
Cindyb says that if hospitals pay taxes like an individual, then their choices should be honored. I am curious to know what limits she or the rest of you would put on that. Assume that the Catholic Church or some other organization opened up a medical center that did pay taxes (which yes, Don, are passed on to the customers).
They say they will not provide contraception, abortions, or doctor assisted suicide. They choose to purchase and sell organs for transplant. They choose to turn away ethnic minorities and men with long hair. Still good? I am not arguing that it shouldn’t be okay – I am just curious to know what limits if any you feel should exist.

For the record, I am one of those crazies who believe that freedom of association means freedom of disassociation, and in a free society it should be reprehensible to tell someone that just because they studied medicine and offered some services, they therefore have to offer whatever services they are asked for. I mean, I don’t waltz into Subway and demand pancakes, complaining that they are restricting my freedom of choice by not having it on the menu.
 
Written By: Wulf
URL: http://www.atlasblogged.com
Emergency rooms MUST treat emergencies. But, they only have to do so, up to the point where the patient is ambulatory.
Well Keith, most women are not going to be receptive to the idea that after they’ve been raped, then as long as they can walk an emergency room shouldn’t have to provide them with the drug that is standardly used to prevent their becoming impregnated by the degenerate who just violently invaded their body. I agree with those Jon links to regarding what that experience fully means and can be like; it is no time to be sitting around discussing whether hospital Wal-Mart or hosptial Target will properly treat one, as if one were pondering where to get the best deal on cosmetics.

There is no way to advocate an ER "choice" policy — once the actual world of rape victims is introduced — without sounding pretty cold, and divorced from reality.
 
Written By: Mona
URL: http://
Well mona, since what we are talking about is what is legally required, and not what you wish their moral obligation was or is...

http://www.cms.hhs.gov/EMTALA/
Doctors and hospitals have asked the Government to clarify its interpretation of the 1986 law, the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act. Under the law, if a person seeks care at an emergency room, the hospital must provide "an appropriate medical screening examination" and "such treatment as may be required to stabilize the medical condition" of the patient.
BY LAW
Emergency medical condition is defined by law as “a medical condition manifesting itself by acute symptoms of sufficient severity (including severe pain) such that the absence of immediate medical attention could reasonably be expected to result in (i) placing the health of the individual (or, with respect to a pregnant woman, the health of the woman or her unborn child) in serious jeopardy; (ii) serious impairment to bodily functions; or (iii) serious dysfunction of any bodily organ or part. . .”
 
Written By: Keith, Indy
URL: http://
What if hospitals could refuse to treat severe bleeding or cancer for "principled reasons"? There’d be chaos.
No, there would be hospitals going out of buisness, and opportunity for their competition.
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
oh, and personally, I’m all for the death penalty for anyone convicted of a violent sex crime...

My comment that is your appeal to emotions and moral obligations doesn’t change what the law says, or the treatment a hospital is required to give in its emergency room.
 
Written By: Keith, Indy
URL: http://
What if you think about this question not from the point of view of the hospital, but the point of view of the individual being treated?
The hospital represents individual’s points of view as well. If your are having trouble visualizing it, replace "hospital" with "doctor".
They are being denied a choice because they were taken to the nearest hospital that just happens to be catholic.
My right to choose ends when I’m demanding that someone else provide a service. Unless we decide slavery is something we should practice.
I guess it comes down to whose choice do we protect? The choice of a publicly funded hospital to take a stand on a moral issue, or the choice of individuals to be saved from physical and emotional suffering by an easy medical treatment.
The ’choice’ you want to defend is the ’right to choise’ to demand something from someone else. The right to coerce . . .
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
Each individual rape victim is entitled to the full and necessary treatment that she not only reasonably expects, but urgently needs from any hospital that provides ER services.
Needs don’t generate rights. No matter how much you need something someone else produced, you have no right to it.
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
Assume that the Catholic Church or some other organization opened up a medical center that did pay taxes (which yes, Don, are passed on to the customers).
Passed on to customers, shareholders, or employees. Passed on to individuals to be sure, but I’m not sure we will always know which individuals. Although I suspect the customers are usually the one footing the bill . . .
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
Emergency rooms MUST treat emergencies. But, they only have to do so, up to the point where the patient is ambulatory.
And that is moraly wrong, and economically stupid.
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
Those of you who are complain about instances of democrats not being really caring about giving people choice and government regulating what should be personal decisions should remember congress coming back in session to mandate life support after death for Terri Schiavo.

The republicans have no better record than the dems.

Don, Most of us have insurance. We never see a medical bill. Yes we pay for that insurance .... Pre tax. Medicine is not a free market in this country. It is heavily regulated and subsidized.
 
Written By: cindyb
URL: http://
I’m a pro choice Catholic.
I’m a christian who does not believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ...

oh, I guess I’m not really a christian after all.
 
Written By: bains
URL: http://
Name one medicine or medical procedure that Dems say you cannot have that Republicans say you should be able to have. Just one. (A hint: you can’t)
Does John Edward’s junck science lawsuits against obstetricians count?

How about the assault on silicon breast implants?

Democrats work to limit medical care by pushing socialism and junk lawsuits. It is a different approach than, say, banning medical marajuana, but it is a much nastier approach.

To a large extent, the Democrat approach hides cause and effect from the average voter. Effectively, stealth bans on medical care.
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
. . . Terri Schiavo.

The republicans have no better record than the dems.
I disagree. Slowely destrying the medical system via socialism, regualtion, and lawsuits is much more incidiuous than obvious actions like Schiavo (although I must admit Bush’s pill plan almost makes him a Democrat).
Don, Most of us have insurance. We never see a medical bill. Yes we pay for that insurance .... Pre tax. Medicine is not a free market in this country. It is heavily regulated and subsidized.


The fact that most of us pay via medical insurance is one of the key reasons our medical system costs so much.

Medicine is regulated, but it isn’t fully socialized. The fact that it remains partially free is the reason our healthcare is superior to that of Canada. Our best path towards improving our system is to free it up, but the Democrats want to go the opposite direction.
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
Most of us have insurance. We never see a medical bill
Talk to me, I want whatever health insurance provider you use.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
I’m a christian who does not believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ...

oh, I guess I’m not really a christian after all.


Kinda depends on how one defines "Christian", doesn’t it? Who gets the final say on that, given that the man Himself isn’t around to tell us the ultimate answer?
 
Written By: kenB
URL: http://
How about the assault on silicon breast implants?
Silicon breast implants have serious medical implications that make women seriously ill. In fact they were recently reveiwing silicon implants that would geatly increase the amount of chromium that would absorb into a woman’s body, this is especially bad for survivors of brest cancer who may want to have implants after mastectomy.

That’s not restricting medicine, it’s restricting buisness from putting toxic substances into their products. Last I checked there are still saline implants.
 
Written By: Billiebunny
URL: http://
cindyb wrote:
I’m a pro choice Catholic.
my understanding is that either you are a catholic, or you make your own choices, not both. if i’m wrong, please send me the link to the online petition to the pope for personal override of his inconvenient doctrines. (damn you bains for catching this first)

keith wrote:
Termination of a pregnancy is an emergency?
i believe emergency contraception is only that. (perhaps you meant abortificiant?)

wulf wrote:
I don’t waltz into Subway and demand pancakes
ah, but neither did rachael corrie
 
Written By: window licker
URL: http://
Silicon breast implants have serious medical implications that make women seriously ill.
Many medical procedures have potential negative outcomes. Silicon breast implants were stopped based upon junk science.
That’s not restricting medicine, it’s restricting buisness from putting toxic substances into their products. Last I checked there are still saline implants.


Yes, it’s restricting medicine.

Note that the Republicans don’t view medical marajuana as valid medicine. Their view on marajuana mirrors your’s on silicon breast implants.
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
bains and window licker, you both snatched my comeback to cindyb right out from underneath me. Catholic doctrines are partially based on the concept of Papal Infallibility. This was originally formalized during the first Vatican Council and was supported by additional work such as Pastor Aeternus. This is separate from the teachings of the magisterium which are usually held to be infallible but under a different doctrine than that used to establish Papal Infallibility.

Abortion very clearly falls under the Papal Infallibility issue. American cafeteria Catholics cannot have their cake and eat it too. If you wish to oppose a legitimate and orthodox ruling of your Pope (if it is considered an Infallible teaching according to canon law and tradition), then please start attending Greek Orthodox or Episcopal services from now on. Papal Infallibility has become one of the central tenents of the Catholic faith. There is certainly no shame in not believing in it; simply convert and join another sect of Christianity, but don’t be a hypocrite and continue to call yourself Catholic.

Another issue which has been skimmed over a bit, but not clearly mentioned is the responsibility of doctors to perform abortions in Catholic hospitals. It should be assumed that if you are a doctor who chooses to work at a Catholic hospital, you will abide by Catholic doctrines in your practice. The local Catholic hospital in my city requires all employees to sign a statement declaring that they believe in the healing power of Jesus Christ (pbuh) before they are hired. If doctors do, in fact, have an obligation to abide by Catholic teachings in their practice, then they do not have the right to perform an abortion (or for that matter euthanasia). Or would those of you who support forcing Catholic hospitals to perform abortions in the case of rape like federal agents to storm in and start arresting doctors who refuse to comply? Slippery slope, here we come.
 
Written By: The Poet Omar
URL: http://
Keith: You are making an (irrelevant) "is" argument about what the law provides in terms of when an ER generally may refuse to treat someone at all or may cease treatment; mine, by contrast — and Lieberman’s for that matter — is an "ought" argument pertaining to the policy I advocate when a hospital opens an ER wrt to rape victims.

Don: I imagine there are libertarians who have fulminated against the common law’s common carrier doctrine, but I’m not one of them. And that’s what I think the subject under discussion fits within.
 
Written By: Mona
URL: http://
"Lieberman believes hospitals that refuse to give contraceptives to rape victims for ’principled reasons’ shouldn’t be forced to do so."
I’m OK with it.
Just as long as they cease to call the institution “Hospital”.

After all, there’s supposed to be truth in advertisement.
HOSPITAL
1242, "shelter for the needy," from O.Fr. hospital "hostel," from L.L. hospitale "guest-house, inn," neut. of L. adj. hospitalis "of a guest or host," from hospes (gen. hospitis); see host (1). Later "charitable institution to house and maintain the needy" (1418); sense of "institution for sick people" is first recorded 1549. Hospitalize is from 1901, "Freq(uently) commented on as an unhappy formation" [OED].
So, if an institution wishes to advertise as a “shelter for the needy” and yet they determine what is needed, then it would no longer be a shelter for the “needy” after all.

Right?

They should call the institution “Catholic Care Center”.

Where their slogan could be,
Well if the Pope doesn’t think you need it, well.. then… we don’t think you need it either. And we won’t give it to you. Go down the road, … whore.

Now that’s a place where I want to do business with.

Cheers.


 
Written By: PogueMahone
URL: http://
So the inmates get to make the rules Pogue? You enter into a hospital with the idea (since you don’t expect false advertisement here) of receiving the treatment that YOU deem appropriate. So, if I feel like a need a PET scan or a hit of methadone, I can saunter on in and clearly declare what I "need."

Patients who enter a hospital are not entering the local Burger King. It’s not your way, every time. It’s the doc’s way, or the highway. If a doctor or hospital makes a decision not to perform a certain treatment because it is medically unnecessary or morally questionable, you are always welcome to find another doc or hospital.

Unless, of course, you are prepared to pass laws which may force doctors to either violate the Hippocratic Oath and/or their institutions’ code of ethics or face criminal charges. Either doctors decide what procedures they are willing to perform or the government does. We can’t have it both ways.
 
Written By: The Poet Omar
URL: http://
So, if an institution wishes to advertise as a “shelter for the needy” and yet they determine what is needed, then it would no longer be a shelter for the “needy” after all.
Doesn’t that apply to ALL socialist ’hospitals’ as well?

They determine what you need, and when you need it, after all.
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
Don: I imagine there are libertarians who have fulminated against the common law’s common carrier doctrine, but I’m not one of them. And that’s what I think the subject under discussion fits within.
I view this as a basic property rights issue (the doctor has the right his labor, etc.).

However, viewing it as a common carrier problem simply means that, for X rate, the carrier has to provide Y service. Now, Y service is the service the carrier provides, not whatever service the consumer might demand. If the carrier provides only rail service, the consumer has no right to demand steamboat service.

 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
Still no correction, I see.

But then, I see that nobody has a really good grasp on papal infallibility, either. The Pope is only infallible when he speaks ex cathedra, and he doesn’t do that very often. Not even on all points of the catechism.
 
Written By: zuzu
URL: http://www.feministe.us
Zuzu, perhaps you haven’t the sturdiest grasp of Papal Infallibility either.

The concept of Infallibility rests on three pillars : the Pope (speaking either ex cathedra OR giving solemn papal definitions [I’m fairly sure encyclicals fall under this, though not 100%]), the Sacred Magisterium (including the ordinary and universal Magisterium), and Ecumenical Councils. Theoretically all of the above fall under Sacred Magisterium, but it’s easier to consider them separately.

Papal encylicals and an Apostolic Constitution are both unquestionably infallible. Zuzu, if you believe there is wiggle room for Catholics on the abortion issue, please consult Evagelium Vitae, among other encyclicals. By all means, be pro-abortion, but don’t be such a hypocrite as to still call yourself Catholic.
 
Written By: The Poet Omar
URL: http://
"They are being denied a choice because they were taken to the nearest hospital that just happens to be catholic. So now this young woman will be forced to carry a baby to term..."

Nonsense.
Only if she is in labor, otherwise, she can go somewhere else. Get real.

"If I were a rape victim and a hospital told me that due to "principled reasons" that they could not provide contraceptives that would be wrong. We’re talking about a RAPE VICTIM FOR God’s sake"

and pregnancy last nine months for God’s sake. Plenty of time to go somewhere else.

"But hospitals with emergency rooms, vis-a-vis rape victims, are in the position of common carrier,..."
," but urgently needs"

When did abortion become an emergency procedure? In any case, it is pretty standard procedure to direct emergency cases to various facilities based on how busy they are or the type of injury. Why should rape, which is not time critical, be any different?

Since abortion is not time critical, why is it necessary to force someone to perform it in violation of their religious or moral principals? What gives the rape victim the power to force someone else to do their bidding when there are alternatives?

 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
So the inmates get to make the rules Pogue? You enter into a hospital with the idea (since you don’t expect false advertisement here) of receiving the treatment that YOU deem appropriate. So, if I feel like a need a PET scan or a hit of methadone, I can saunter on in and clearly declare what I "need."
In most cases. If you were to walk into a hospital and slap fifty large on the table and requested a PET scan, I’ll bet Lincolns to lollipops that they’ll give you one. And then trot out the dessert tray.

It is my argument is that if “doctors” refuse to medically treat an individual citing causes of their own moral, not medical… not legal…, objections. Then the institutions that house these “doctors” should not call themselves “hospitals”. It’s a marketing fallacy, pure and simple.

When someone finds themselves – whether by choice or not – at an establishment calling itself a “hospital”, there is a reasonable expectation that the potentially life threatening decisions that these “doctors” make, are decisions made through a sound, legal, medical formula. Not a formula doused in superstition… well, okay… you call it religion. Six to one, you understand.

I have no problem with “doctors” withholding potentially life saving drugs because of their own personal demons, or angles (half-dozen to the other, you gather), they just shouldn’t refer to the establishments that house them as “hospitals”. Call it what they are, a Church that offers medical treatment… maybe, … sometimes, … if you’re lucky enough to be ailing with something that doesn’t give some whack-job shaman the willies.
Unless, of course, you are prepared to pass laws…
Let me stop you there, Omar. Passing laws just ain’t my thang. I’m not a “there oughta’ be a law” type o’ guy. So I’ll just skip all that.

I guess it boils down to a definition of “hospital”. Yours may be one where young Clarissa is brought in by ambulance and tells the shaman, “doctor, I’ve just been brutally raped and I know that I have a condition that if I were to ever get pregnant it could possibly kill me. Could you please help me?”
And the shaman says, “What!? Are you insane? You don’t tell me what to do. The Pope does. SO HIT THE ROAD!

Ummm. Yeah… Not really my definition of a “hospital”.
 
Written By: PogueMahone
URL: http://
Zuzu, if you believe there is wiggle room for Catholics on the abortion issue, please consult Evagelium Vitae, among other encyclicals. By all means, be pro-abortion, but don’t be such a hypocrite as to still call yourself Catholic.
I don’t, and I don’t (because I don’t, among other things). But Plan B is not an abortifacient, it’s a contraceptive. Because it must be administered before the sperm even reaches the egg to be effective, which means that yes, it does matter that it’s administered at an emergency room. And it does matter if Catholic hospitals refuse to provide it to their patients but won’t tell them that it’s an option.

And it should matter to these hospitals because providing EC means fewer abortions.

So, where’s my correction?
 
Written By: zuzu
URL: http://www.feministe.us
So Zuzu, you had a serious problem with the remarks, but not the content of what he was saying? Is that why you’re asking Jon for a correction?
 
Written By: OrneryWP
URL: http://
Briefly:
Jon, putting everything under the overly broad rubric of "choice" is unhelpful, I think.
I’m sure it’s unhelpful, but the principle applies.
What if hospitals could refuse to treat severe bleeding or cancer for "principled reasons"? There’d be chaos.
No, there would be persistent operating losses.
Most libertarians believe that some choices should be curtailed for the public good; they draw the lines in different places than liberals do, but neither stance is necessarily hypocritical.
If that’s your position, then I think you’ve just agreed with my argument. The "pro choice party" is not actually pro-choice, except insofar as it applies to the uterus.
They are being denied a choice because they were taken to the nearest hospital that just happens to be catholic. So now this young woman will be forced to carry a baby to term that was concieved when someone forced themselves on her. Just because she ended up at the wrong hospital.
There are two problems with this and some other similar comments:

1) In what part of the country is the nearest hospital 6-9 months away?

2) If a hospital is known not to perform such operations, then the patient should be/and will be taken to a different hospital. If ACME Medical Center doesn’t do oncology, cancer patients go to the hospital that does. They don’t demand ACME MC open an oncology ward. Gunshot victims are routinely transported to more distant hospitals that offer different specialties and services. Surely nobody here would argue that a rape victim is more time-sensitive than a gunshot victim?


 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.QandO.net
Pogue -

Your problem is with the name they slap on the building?
So if they called it "St. Jude’s" instead of "St. Jude’s Hospital," you wouldn’t have a problem with people walking around in white coats and blue/green scrubs with degrees in medicine, treating 99.99% of conditions that ail people who have already been born?
After all, they’re just shamans unless they affirm that they will perform a procedure that they believe causes harm, is that it?

The fact that they won’t perform a procedure that is repugnant to Catholics doesn’t create a marketing fallacy. After all, it’s a Catholic hospital. It’s not like they make a big secret of it.
Who walks into a Catholic hospital and has a reasonable expectation of getting an abortion? Nobody.

And if you don’t think a law should exist getting them to change their behavior, then of what consequence is your objection against them calling themselves a hospital?
 
Written By: OrneryWP
URL: http://
Pity you decided to mischaracterize what I said. [...] I will not hold my breath for a correction.
If I’ve mischaracterized your position, I apologize and will make a correction. But you’ll have to explain to me how finding Lieberman’s statement of his position "odious" differs from finding Lieberman’s position "odious".

If you make a reasonable case that the two are distinct, I’ll correct the record. I’d also appreciate it if you’d clarify whether Lieberman’s position on forcing catholic hospitals to provide services that violate their moral values is "odious". If you don’t find it objectionable, I’ll completely retract the sentence.
Still no correction, I see.
My apologies. I spent most of yesterday away from the computer taking care of my son, who was recovering from one of those illnesses children pick up from time to time. I’ve only just now returned to address the blog.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.QandO.net
Hey, what about us guys? Don’t we get a choice? I demand equality! I want to be able to choose something too!
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
Your problem is with the name they slap on the building?
Exactly. I know it sounds irrational, but whudayagunna do? If an establishment refuses to give legal, safe, potentially life saving drugs to someone because it may damage their sensitive emotions, I don’t believe it is unreasonable - and you’ll forgive me if I take issue with them calling themselves a “shelter for the needy”.

And make no mistake, we are talking about a potentially life saving drug. I knew a girl once that took extra caution concerning contraceptives because she was told by her doctor that if she were to ever get pregnant, there was 50% chance it would life threatening. Without going into details, when coupling we “doubled up”. Now I seriously doubt that a rapist would be quite so patient. Do you?

So if a “doctor” would save the lives of 99.99% of other patients, but he won’t save the life of my friend, then I have no problem calling him a quack fraud and demoting his establishment from a “hospital” to a “Church”.
Mmkay?
The fact that they won’t perform a procedure that is repugnant to Catholics doesn’t create a marketing fallacy. After all, it’s a Catholic hospital. It’s not like they make a big secret of it.
I disagree. The fact that a particular hospital is Catholic may not be secret, it does not, IMHO, exempt the fact that someone in need of care has a reasonable expectation that a “hospital” would treat them without the restrictions of a Papal Bull.

However, I do not believe that an establishment calling itself a hospital must treat any and all ailments. There are reasonable limitations, after all. Mr. Henke’s oncology example fares. Mr. Henke’s gunshot victim scenario is lacking a bit, though. Yes, a hospital may transfer a gunshot victim to another hospital, but only because the other hospital may be better equipped to handle the care, NOT because said hospital refuses to treat the gunshot victim out of some “moral” disagreement.
And if you don’t think a law should exist getting them to change their behavior, then of what consequence is your objection against them calling themselves a hospital?
No consequence other than a justifiable difference of opinion.

I realize that like you Ornery, and unlike me – though an establishment refuses to offer potentially life saving care – most folk do not have a problem with calling St. Jude’s Hospital … a hospital.

It’s not the first time, and it won’t be the last time, that my opinions are in the minority.

That’s my story and I’m sticking to it.

Cheers.
 
Written By: PogueMahone
URL: http://
Yes, a hospital may transfer a gunshot victim to another hospital, but only because the other hospital may be better equipped to handle the care, NOT because said hospital refuses to treat the gunshot victim out of some “moral” disagreement.
Pogue, what are the odds that a Catholic Hospital will have birth control drugs on hand to give to said rape victim? Wouldn’t you think that would make a Catholic hospital rather ill-equipped to handle rape cases?

 
Written By: Mark A. Flacy
URL: http://
Wouldn’t you think that would make a Catholic hospital rather ill-equipped to handle rape cases?
Exactly why I would label it a “Church” in lieu of “hospital”. To me, an inventory void of potentially life saving drugs for moral reasons is not a reasonable limitation afforded to entities claiming to be “hospitals”.

And I wouldn’t wish to patronize a Catholic hospital if I had a choice. Not because I disagree with their morals, but because I would question their competency. If a “doctor” would refuse potentially life saving care on account of his own religious beliefs, I would hesitate to relinquish mortality pending his personal, religious judgment.

God only knows what he would (n’t) do.
 
Written By: PogueMahone
URL: http://
Pogue, only in your bizarro world are contraceptives considered "potentially life saving drugs". Are all hospitals supposed to have units of every single drug which are as likely to save a life as contraceptives?

That’s insane.
 
Written By: Mark A. Flacy
URL: http://
Mark’s picked up the point perfectly and meshed it well with Jon’s. Just as some hospitals aren’t well equipped to handle gunshot victims (but are still called hospitals, go figure), a Catholic hospital is really not equipped to handle birth control and abortions. So you skip by the Catholic hospital and drive down the road to the one that gets all the contraceptive business.

I mean, did your friend have some condition where once sperm met ovum, she had a few minutes to live (in which case: dude, trade favors instead!)? Or could she drive past "St. Jude’s Hospital" down to "Anytown Hospital"?
 
Written By: OrneryWP
URL: http://
Pogue, only in your bizarro world are contraceptives considered "potentially life saving drugs".
Oh. Forgive me, Mark. I didn’t know you were a doctor.

Perhaps then you could enlighten me, because I thought that there were several health conditions with risk factors that dramatically increase after becoming pregnant. Diabetes, advanced cervical cancer, sickle cell disease, Primary pulmonary hypertension, and Eisenmenger’s syndrome just to name a few.

What? Do those only exist in Pogue’s bizarro world?

I mean, did your friend have some condition where once sperm met ovum, she had a few minutes to live (in which case: dude, trade favors instead!)? Or could she drive past "St. Jude’s Hospital" down to "Anytown Hospital"?
Well, Ornery. I don’t know what her condition is, I didn’t ask. But I’m sure that in all likelihood, if she was brutally raped and then taken to St. Jude’s Hospital, her risk factors could be dealt with somewhere down the line, most likely in another medical establishment at a later date.

I bet I can kick back and dream up a scenario that would threaten my statement above, however. It would no doubt involve a brutal rape, a savage beating, coma, a grieving husband, feuding in-laws, priests, lawyers, judges, courts, governors, the House, the Senate, and the President flying back to Washington to sign emergency legislation.

But why bother? It’s not what I’m talking about anyway. I’m talking about a place where medicine is delivered, not a Missionary.

And if I were driving my friend and “Anytown Hospital” was next door to St. Jude’s, you can bet I’ll choose the former. Because I believe the former to actually be a “hospital”, where actual doctors approach medicine with a sound, legal, safe, medical formula. Where they don’t put their own religious convictions before the wishes and alleviations of the patients.

It’s simply just where I draw the line.

Others may consider that irrational and disconnected.

Riiight.

And refusing to administer safe, legal drugs in order to stop an egg from being fertilized for fear of offending a deity…
Well, that’s completely rational and realistic.

To each their own, I guess.
 
Written By: PogueMahone
URL: http://
Yes, Pogue, to each their own. That’s exactly what people — occasionally irrational and unrealistic people, many of whom believe in a higher power without empirical proof — deal with in a free society. I’m glad you’ve come around.

So you’re free to go to a hospital where doctors don’t believe a particular procedure causes harm, and other people are free to go to a nearly identical institution where they don’t perform that procedure. A very slight difference of opinion on ethics doesn’t change the fact that both institutions are very clearly hospitals, with staff probably trained at the same schools performing most of the same functions.

What if Anytown Hospital puts its ethical consideration of euthanasia or certain forms of cosmetic surgery as an intolerable medical practice above the "wishes and alleviations of the patients," as you put it? Would it be a hospital still, or a voodoo house?

"We don’t do that kind of procedure here" is not your cue to whine that they’re obligated to perform whatever kind of procedure you consider ethical. You want different treatment? Ask another doctor for a second opinion.
 
Written By: OrneryWP
URL: http://
Since this discussion seems to have moved closer to what physicians should and should not do (ethically), let’s start at the very beginning, shall we?

I swear by Apollo the physician, and Asclepius, and Hygieia and Panacea and all the gods and goddesses as my witnesses, that, according to my ability and judgement, I will keep this Oath and this contract:

To hold him who taught me this art equally dear to me as my parents, to be a partner in life with him, and to fulfill his needs when required; to look upon his offspring as equals to my own siblings, and to teach them this art, if they shall wish to learn it, without fee or contract; and that by the set rules, lectures, and every other mode of instruction, I will impart a knowledge of the art to my own sons, and those of my teachers, and to students bound by this contract and having sworn this Oath to the law of medicine, but to no others.

I will use those dietary regimens which will benefit my patients according to my greatest ability and judgement, and I will do no harm or injustice to them.

I will not give a lethal drug to anyone if I am asked, nor will I advise such a plan; and similarly I will not give a woman a pessary to cause an abortion.

In purity and according to divine law will I carry out my life and my art.

I will not use the knife, even upon those suffering from stones, but I will leave this to those who are trained in this craft.

Into whatever homes I go, I will enter them for the benefit of the sick, avoiding any voluntary act of impropriety or corruption, including the seduction of women or men, whether they are free men or slaves.

Whatever I see or hear in the lives of my patients, whether in connection with my professional practice or not, which ought not to be spoken of outside, I will keep secret, as considering all such things to be private.

So long as I maintain this Oath faithfully and without corruption, may it be granted to me to partake of life fully and the practice of my art, gaining the respect of all men for all time. However, should I transgress this Oath and violate it, may the opposite be my fate.

Translated by Michael North, National Library of Medicine, 2002.

I have quoted that directly from the National Institutes of Health website. Notice that several prohibitions appear in there which physicians seem not to give a hoot about these days. Among the major prohibitions are : abortion, euthanasia, and doing no harm (sometimes refered to as primum non nocere). Now here is a perfect example of moral relativity in practice.
 
Written By: The Poet Omar
URL: http://
Sorry, I meant to put block quotes around the Hippocratic Oath.
 
Written By: The Poet Omar
URL: http://
Pogue,

Since you are just angry at the hospital you therefore agree with Jon that while everybody is free to consider the hospital’s policy odious, you feel Lieberman’s position supporting their right to be odious is not odious. You believe that because, like in many other areas, you consider people’s right to do things which some people might consider odious protected. Kind of like you are glad that Catholics no longer get to keep people from having contraceptives which they view as odious, or keep Nazi’s or A.N.S.W.E.R. from marching, flag burning, Hustler magazine, etc. Do I have it correct?

If so we are pretty close, because the churches position on this does bother me, just not as much as it does you.

Now a different question, which of course makes me wonder why I let it bother me at all, but I’ll go there anyway, because maybe it shouldn’t.
Yes, a hospital may transfer a gunshot victim to another hospital, but only because the other hospital may be better equipped to handle the care, NOT because said hospital refuses to treat the gunshot victim out of some “moral” disagreement.
This is what bothers me about how this made me feel, and your response made me question if it makes sense oddly enough. What you are saying is that a hospital which for business reasons decides not to have the expertise or equipment to treat a particular injury doesn’t bother you, it is only if they do it for moral reasons. This seems a little odd for a number of reasons. Why is it that financial choices are more defensible than moral ones? The gunshot victim likely needs treatment quicker than the rape victim, so it isn’t a matter of efficacy. It is not as if having any particular skill or expertise just happens, concious choices are made and if I can be okay with a hospital choosing to not treat certain conditions for reasons based on helping the bottom line then I should be able to accept it for other reasons.

Also it occurs to me that physicians have to make decisions on care for moral (or ethical reasons) all the time that people disagree on. Are they only invalid if it is a moral or ethical decision based on what you consider a superstition? The more I think about it, if we only went to hospitals that in every instance made such decisions according to our opinion of how they should be made we would have few hospitals we could go to. I don’t see why I would avoid going to a hospital for treatment that I trusted them to carry out just because they have some areas where I think the doctors are making choices I am not on board with. Wouldn’t the same apply here?

I also wonder about your shelter for the needy example. If a shelter for the needy chooses to not meet certain dietary needs, whether the reasons are financial or ethical, could it still consider itself a shelter for the needy? I think so.

So I am still bothered, but I think I probably shouldn’t be.
 
Written By: Lance
URL: http://
Oh. Forgive me, Mark. I didn’t know you were a doctor.
It’s as likely as you being one.
 
Written By: Mark A. Flacy
URL: http://
Talk about bizarro illogic...

Pregancy could increase the chance of certain life threatening diseases...

ergo

Potential pregancy (in the case of rape) should be treated as a life threatening condition.

Get a grip.
 
Written By: Keith, Indy
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider