Can doctors actually deny women health care? Yes, they can and do.

[madfloridian]

There is the case of Sister Margaret McBride who was excommunicated for allowing an abortion to proceed to keep a woman from dying. The woman had serious heart problems, and she had four kids at home.

Excommunication of nun

Sister Margaret McBride of Phoenix, Ariz., was excommunicated from the Catholic Church after approving an abortion that saved a woman’s life. The controversial move has raised eyebrows, causing many to take a second look at the institution’s antiquated ideology.

The nun was on the Ethics Committee of St. Joseph's Hospital in Phoenix, which oversaw the decision to terminate the pregnancy of a 27-year-old woman who would have otherwise died. The mother of four had a medical condition called pulmonary hypertension, and doctors agreed that continuing her 11-week pregnancy probably would have killed her.

Catholic leaders teach that an abortion is always sinful and that the baby’s health should be prioritized over the mother’s. Phoenix Bishop Thomas Olmsted automatically excommunicated this nun--described by hospital staff as kind, humble and saintly--because the medical decision to abort countered that ideology.

A blogger at RH Reality Check mentions other cases, one in particular.

And truly, many of these are cases of saving a woman's life. Women who are already in danger due to their pre-existing conditions are being told that not only are they so expendable, and that these hospitals will not perform the abortions that would save their lives, but that they should further risk their lives by seeking out some other place that might provide them care, such as Michelle Lee, who had to travel to a different state to have a necessary procedure performed.

"In 1998, the Louisiana State University Medical Center in Shreveport refused to provide an abortion for Michelle Lee, a woman with cardiomyopathy who was on the waiting list for a heart transplant, despite her cardiologist's warning that the pregnancy might kill her. Hospital policy dictated that to qualify for an abortion, a woman's risk of dying had to be greater than 50 percent if her pregnancy was carried to term; a committee of physicians ruled that Lee did not meet this criterion. Since her cardiomyopathy made an outpatient abortion too dangerous, she traveled 100 miles to Texas by ambulance to have her pregnancy terminated."

Her risk of dying must be more than 50%...and who gets to decide that? That's called playing God.

Many instances are mentioned at another site.

Denial of Health Care

When Elizabeth Dotts walked into her new doctor's office for a gynecologic exam and checkup, she didn't realize she was treading into the front lines of a culture war. "I was just going for my annual visit, nothing out of the ordinary," says the 26-year-old YWCA grant coordinator. Dotts, who was single, had recently moved to Birmingham, Alabama, and was seeing an M.D. recommended by a coworker. The visit was unremarkable until she asked for a refill of her birth control prescription. That's when the doctor informed her that he was Catholic and the pills were against his religion.

She argued with him and got a 6 month refill of her prescription.

At the link there is a very upsetting story of a woman denied emergency care after her water broke.

If there's one thing both sides can agree on, it's this: In an emergency, doctors need to put aside personal beliefs to do what's best for the patient. But in a world guided by religious directives, even this can be a slippery proposition.

Ob/gyn Wayne Goldner, M.D., learned this lesson a few years back when a patient named Kathleen Hutchins came to his office in Manchester, New Hampshire. She was only 14 weeks pregnant, but her water had broken. Dr. Goldner delivered the bad news: Because there wasn't enough amniotic fluid left and it was too early for the fetus to survive on its own, the pregnancy was hopeless. Hutchins would likely miscarry in a matter of weeks. But in the meanwhile, she stood at risk for serious infection, which could lead to infertility or death. Dr. Goldner says his devastated patient chose to get an abortion at local Elliot Hospital. But there was a problem. Elliot had recently merged with nearby Catholic Medical Center—and as a result, the hospital forbade abortions.

"I was told I could not admit her unless there was a risk to her life," Dr. Goldner remembers. "They said, 'Why don't you wait until she has an infection or she gets a fever?' They were asking me to do something other than the standard of care. They wanted me to put her health in jeopardy." He tried admitting Hutchins elsewhere, only to discover that the nearest abortion provider was nearly 80 miles away in Lebanon, New Hampshire—and that she had no car. Ultimately, Dr. Goldner paid a taxi to drive her the hour and a half to the procedure. (The hospital merger has since dissolved, and Elliot is secular once again.)

Could your doctor deny you health care?

In fact the Democrats while in power have made little effort to set things right. There was an executive order added after the new health care bill was passed. Here is the gist of it.

Executive Order -- Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act's Consistency with Longstanding Restrictions on the Use of Federal Funds for Abortion...Section 1

Section. 1. Policy. Following the recent enactment of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (the "Act"), it is necessary to establish an adequate enforcement mechanism to ensure that Federal funds are not used for abortion services (except in cases of rape or incest, or when the life of the woman would be endangered), consistent with a longstanding Federal statutory restriction that is commonly known as the Hyde Amendment. The purpose of this order is to establish a comprehensive, Government-wide set of policies and procedures to achieve this goal and to make certain that all relevant actors -- Federal officials, State officials (including insurance regulators) and health care providers -- are aware of their responsibilities, new and old.

There appears to be no exception for the health of the mother. In the past Conservative Democrats and Republicans have said that allowing the health exemption gives too much leeway and would allow for too many abortions.

Yes, doctors can deny health care to women based on their religious belief.

[saracat]

1. My anger about this has no limit. I literally can say no more.

[bliss_eternal]

3. ....what she said.

:grr::mad::cry:

[Control-Z]

6. I've been in the same

angry, rather speechless mode for so long now. There's plenty to say...but how..? Does it do any good? We're working with facts here - no gimmicks. It can sound repetitive. It's not sexy. It's just honest. And the only way to argue the truth is to lie, fabricate and fantasize that what "might be" or "could be" has more value than what is.

No one but the truly twisted believes a fetus has more value when it comes to "their" loved one. Suddenly the exceptions become cases of rape or incest, when the life of the woman would be endangered, or when the woman is their daughter, wife, mother...

[madfloridian]

13. I think women have been trained so often to put themselves...

in the background and not demand what is due them.

Even within our party the calls go out that we must win elections and that our rights of necessity must go into the background.

And women too often say ok for the sake of winning.

[Control-Z]

18. I recently noted in another thread

that women, pre-Roe, seemed more enlightened about abortion, than women today.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=103&topic_id=538227&mesg_id=538386

'And women too often say ok for the sake of winning.'

And then there is that other group of women - the ones who aren't willing to stand up for women's rights. Who don't even recognize the need, having bought into fetal rights and person hood claims.

[bliss_eternal]

34. excellent observation....

:hi::hug:

(thanks for the link);)

[Control-Z]

35. Hey bliss!!

:hi: How have you been?

I hope you are well and happy, my friend. :pals::hug:

[bliss_eternal]

45. hey control-z...!

:hi: i'm good, thanks for asking...how are you doing? hoping all is well in your world, friend!
shoot me a pm sometime, if you'd like. :pals::loveya:

[madfloridian]

49. The message machine of the anti-choice is much stronger.

They have the GOP behind them. Pro-choice now has no party to count on. That's a shame.

[bliss_eternal]

79. it is a shame...

...we can't even get everyone in this party to agree that choice should be an individual decision, left up to the woman. :eyes: it sickened me the first time i was confronted by an anti-choicer on this board (implying i was enabling murder, by being pro-choice). :puke:

[prairierose]

81. Control-Z, I would have to agree with you...

not only were women more informed about abortion but they saw the necessity of working for women's rights. Today, young women have no knowledge of what our society was like even 30 years ago and the changes that we have made. They have bought into the idea that feminism is evil and they want nothing to do with it. And because of that, more women and children live in poverty in this country than ever before.

Since the corporatists look over our party, women's issues have been pushed to the back of the bus and since Clinton left office, they have been stuffed in a sack. Yes, there are really big problems that need to be addressed but women's issues can not be ignored forever. I swear, I feel like it is 1960 again and we are starting all over trying to educate an ignorant population to the dangers of population growth and the dangers to women and the need for women's rights.

[bliss_eternal]

33. great point...

...so many have essentially adopted male views of women and what it means to be female. this is done to the extent that women spew misogyny as a value, while rejecting feminist ideals. they seem to have no idea that they are teaching this (hatred of women)to their daughters, sons, and in essence hating themselves.

quote:
I think women have been trained so often to put themselves...
in the background and not demand what is due them.

[nemo137]

2. K&R people need to see this.

[saracat]

4. People need to KNOW this!

[Cleobulus]

5. We need to find ways to reverse this trend, and forbid religious hospitals...

from restricting medical access for women based on their superstitions. The First Amendment should end when it affects the health and welfare of others.

[laughingliberal]

7. +1 nt

[madfloridian]

10. I think I read that many of them get government money.

Can't find the info now. The scary part is that the article said patients might not know when a hospital was bought by a religious group because the name stays the same. Looking up the quote now.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

8. like saracat and bliss_eternal....

too angry for words.

[tango-tee]

40. Here's one more!

Speechless.

[Solly Mack]

9. K&R

[madfloridian]

11. Doctor used religious beliefs to deny care to a single woman

who was looking to adopt a child.

http://www.self.com/health/2007/05/denial-of-health-care?currentPage=4

"The stakes were high for Realtor Cheryl Bray when she visited a physician in Encinitas, California, two and a half years ago. Though she was there for a routine physical, the reason for the exam was anything but routine: Then a single 41-year-old, Bray had decided to adopt a baby in Mexico and needed to prove to authorities there that she was healthy. "I was under a tight deadline," Bray remembers; she had been matched with a birth mother who was less than two months from delivering. Bray had already passed a daunting number of tests—having her taxes certified, multiple background checks, home inspections by a social worker, psychological evaluations. When she showed up at the office of Fred Salley, M.D., a new doctor a friend had recommended, she was looking forward to crossing another task off her list. Instead, 10 minutes into the appointment, Dr. Salley asked, "So, your husband is in agreement with your decision to adopt?"

"I'm not married," Bray told him.

"You're not?" He calmly put down his pen. "Then I'm not comfortable continuing this exam."

Bray says she tried to reason with Dr. Salley but received only an offer for a referral at some future date. Dr. Salley disputes this, telling SELF that he offered to send Bray to another doctor in his group that day. "My decision to refer Ms. Bray was not because she was unmarried; rather, it was based on my moral belief that a child should have two parental units," he adds. "Such religious beliefs are a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States."

Bray sobbed in her parked car for another 45 minutes before she could collect herself for the drive home. "I had a lot of pent-up emotions," she remembers. "When you are going through an adoption, you have to prove that you are a fit parent at every stage. I really felt put through the ringer, and the doctor compounded that feeling."

[LiberalFighter]

32. Does the idiot understand how many women raise their children alone

as a result of the spouse dying? Divorce? Rape?

[bliss_eternal]

46. the problem is, he probably doesn't care....

:(

....people like this are more concerned w/passing judgement, than with truly helping another human being. they tend to presume that any woman who is single (with children) wouldn't be--if she was worthy of a man marrying her :eyes: (i.e. in other words, she's unfit, stupid, a slut, a tramp, etc.). how's that for christian charity and ethics? judge the woman in a challenging place, instead of doing your job, and helping her.

:grr::mad:

[Arkansas Granny]

74. Don't they understand that to a child with no parents, even a single parent would seem a luxury?

Perhaps having a loving father and a loving mother raising the children is the ideal situation, but it is certainly not the only formula that works.

[Foo Fighter]

38. Oh, so can we assume Dr. Salley would be OK with it if Bray was a lesbian?

"rather, it was based on my moral belief that a child should have two parental units," he adds.

So if Bray was a lesbian and had a partner, we can assume he would be A-OK with her adopting a kid. After all, that kid would have two "parental units."

Hmmm...somehow I get the feeling that he would object to that...

BTW, is Salley a Conehead? Who the hell else calls them "parental units" instead of parents?

[Echo In Light]

12. K/R

[leftstreet]

14. K&R

[skygazer]

15. Care providers need to either keep their religion out of it and do their jobs

Or get out of the business of care. I cannot think of a single procedure for men that involves these risks - the risk of death because someone decides their belief trumps someone else's life.

It makes me physically ill to think about.

[madfloridian]

19. Agreed.I know of no such procedures involving men...

that doctors refuse to perform.

[burnsei sensei]

26. Religious principles

are not the same as professional ethics.
There should be a wall of separation between the two in everyone's life.

[Greyhound]

16. K&R.

Reality vs. Fantasy.

How do we get more people to see the former and reject the latter?
:kick: & R

[Missy Vixen]

17. I wonder if I can refuse their fees due to religious belief

It's against my religion to give money to those who discriminate against women.

In the meantime, those who allow their religious beliefs to trump their professional responsibilities need to find another line of work. Those who insist on continuing in the medical field should have their "exclusions" displayed prominently on all marketing materials, posted in the office waiting room, and a hard copy handed to all female patients before the exam commences.

[activa8tr]

27. Great idea!

[Angry Dragon]

41. I agree with you

[Liberal_in_LA]

20. K&R

[Starry Messenger]

21. k & r

[Mojeoux]

22. Regarding Catholism, I'm confused about "limbo."

The nuns taught us that this is where the un-baptized aborted babies go This was supposedly where all un-baptized innocents would go also.

But the church issued an edict that there was NO "limbo."

I vote for reincarnation.

[madfloridian]

23. This is a post about religion carrying over into business decisions

and affecting women's lives.

I am not criticizing Catholics, just pointing out that some rights for women are worth speaking out about.

[Cleobulus]

47. It was a scam for money, no more, no less. n/t

[totodeinhere]

24. She is better off to have been excommunicated.

Now she can be rid of that superstitious regressive institution once for all. And now that she has that monkey off her back she can be free to serve her fellow man without the ridiculous restrictions mandated by that hateful racist sexist church controlled by pedophilic old men.

[iamjoy]

29. No, She's Not

I am not a person of faith, but I do believe I understand those who are. By excommunicating her, they are basically telling her she's doomed to hell. She was raised to believe that. I wonder if she feels betrayed - here she has devoted her life to the church, she makes a painful decision and at the time she needs their support to get though it, they abandon her.

If her faith and spirituality has been a comfort to her, I hope she finds another path and comes to a realization that God not only forgives her, but loves her courage.

[totodeinhere]

31. They can tell her she is doomed to hell, but of course that's a lie.

There is no such thing as hell, unless you want to call the Catholic Church "hell on earth," which would be a pretty accurate description. She may not realize it right away, but she is better off without a church that would let an expectant mother die out of respect for some kind of superstitious dogma.

[dflprincess]

39. If she truly has faith, then she already knows that God is not Catholic

and the boys running the local diocese & the Vatican can tell her she can't have the sacraments but they can't separate her from God.

[burnsei sensei]

25. Let me present to you,

with baited breath,
and trembling hands . . .
the motto of for-profit, pro-life health care:

Quote
'Why don't you wait until she has an infection or she gets a fever?'
end quote.

[madfloridian]

28. That statement really stands out, doesn't it?

The utter disregard of a woman's life by those who are doing it in God's name.

[Control-Z]

36. Welcome, burnsei sensei!

I have a feeling you will quickly become a valued member here at DU.

[burnsei sensei]

68. I've been lurking for a long time.

I posted over at Radio Left back in 2003. Have been a Daily Kos a little, but I am not quite comfortable there.

[iamjoy]

30. Wow...

it's really stunning. You know, I thought I had made my peace with compromises on "elective" abortions. But of course, as we see, the idea of what is or is not medically necessary is quite subjective.

[SheilaT]

37. What I honestly don't understand is why

any person who sincerely believes that a woman should be able to control her own body could possibly be or remain a Catholic.

I've known quite a few, and I try to tell them that by remaining in the Church they are helping perpetuate all this awful stuff. They seem to think that they can somehow pick and choose, or that maybe their simple presence will somehow change things. But it won't. Perhaps if Catholics who are pro-choice (and they are undoubtedly a majority of Catholics) were to stop giving money to the church, to stop going to Catholic hospitals, were to picket and speak up and all of those things, maybe, just maybe the Church would start to understand how wrong they are. But I doubt it. I think leaving would be a much more powerful statement.

[Angry Dragon]

42. How about a new refermation of the church

What the catholic church needs is a new Martin Luther. The ones that believe in a woman's rights, birth control, perhaps the new church needs to have women at the top instead of men. I think that would force the church would change or they would lose a great many followers.

[defendandprotect]

44. IMO, these Catholics who stay on still trust the church more than those criticizing it....

That trust continues to limit what they will acknowledge about church "sins" --

They still feel safer within the church than outside of it --

[SheilaT]

52. That's an interesting point of view.

From my perspective, as a woman, I can't imagine a feeling of safety within an organization that is so utterly dismissive of a woman's autonomy.

But then, I have always been beyond willing to think for myself, and feel absolutely no need to belong to any sort of church. For me, I see all organized religion as forcing people into believing whatever it is they promote. I know that for many people small differences between what the individual believes and what a particular religion says is so are not very important. I can respect that. I can't understand, possibly even can't respect, staying with a group (in this case the Catholic Church) that is completely out of sync with a fundamental belief. Here I'm referring specifically to anyone who is pro choice and remains a Catholic.

I am aware that in many parts of this country is is practically impossible not to belong to a local church. I was not raised in any such place, and if life took me to such a community I'd probably not stay very long.

[defendandprotect]

73. Well, I'd elaborate on that and say there are two kinds of Catholics staying . . .

and this is strictly my opinion --

One is a large block trying to change the church and make Swiss Cheese of it --

the other is the block I referred to. Not people who ever saw the need for change.

Maybe they even fear it. "Good enough for my parents, good enough for me?"

People who shun controversy, rocking the boat -- like a sure thing.

Not people who challenge authority.


That's an interesting point of view.
From my perspective, as a woman, I can't imagine a feeling of safety within an organization that is so utterly dismissive of a woman's autonomy.

I'm a recovering Catholic -- old NYC Irish Catholic family -- never quesitoned anything.

Father came from a Protestant family - German Protestant.

Neither of them were involved in Church after childhood, really -- but my Mom did what was

expected -- enrolled the kids!


I could pretty much vouch to you that NO ONE in my neighborhood ever discussed religion, the

impact it was having on children, nor families! No one ever asked me about the daily insanities

of Catholic School! Not even how I liked it!

Well, maybe then you might see it as being reasonable that not a lot of females were challenging

this male-surpemacist church -- but even today the Vatican continues to NOT acknowledged the

full personhood of females as it acknowledges the full personhood of males.

That should be annoying some families about now, shouldn't it??


Also, keep in mind that the Catholic Church is actually acting completely contrarily to what their

members want -- i.e., birth control and abortion and universal health care for all -- and

coverage for abortion when necessary!

Just as many Catholic women as any other women have abortions.

And re health care, a majority want abortions paid for when necessary.


Very often I hear from internet acquaintances living in other states that their area can

be very MIC/Catholic -- and unpleasant to live in -- very right wing.


Otoh, corporatism/MIC seems to be a cancer that is overtaking everything in America --

certainly our colleges/universities.


:)

[defendandprotect]

43. Everyone has the right to "self defense" . . . except women -- !!

[madfloridian]

48. Good point...it really comes down to that.

A woman should have the right to defend herself when there are physical problems during pregnancy. The way it is now, she is at the mercy of men with opinions they formed in the name of God.

[nightrain]

50. I don't often hear of female healthcare practitioners denying care to women.... would

be interesting to see that breakdown. Archaic, how men think they can, and want to, control others (women) in so many ways.

We haven't traveled all that far!

[PassingFair]

51. "That's called playing God. "

That's what religion IS.

Screw the whole woman-hating lot of them!

[maxanne]

80. not my religion

Unitarian Universalists don't hate women, and many don't believe in God.

We do, however, believe in letting women make their own decisions - and letting gay folks get married.

[elias7]

53. Um, folks, this is not really about doctors at all.

Case #1: nun excommunicated by CHURCH after doctors performed life saving abortion.
Case #2: hospital policy is made by ADMINISTRATORS, not doctors. Talk to the ADMINISTRATORS about playing God.
Case #3: A co-worker from the Young Women's CHRISTIANS Association recommended a doctor. She got her prescription by that doctor in the end.
Case #4: The doctor was the hero here. Catholic Medical Center ADMINISTRATOR policy: no abortions. Doctor paid for a 1 1/2 hour taxi ride to Dartmouth.

Look, I am a physician and in 15 years, I did know of one MD who wouldn't Rx OCP's, but this is quite uncommon. Even the doc in the story ultimately gave the script. Most of these stories are about private religious based medical centers. Understand that docs do not set policy, the administrators do. If you want to thoughtlessly and uncritically criticize doctors-- and many people do-- why not criticize the CMC doc who paid for an hour and a half taxi ride out of his own pocket, because he didn't go the extra mile and drive her there himself.

[madfloridian]

55. "thoughtlessly and uncritically criticize doctors-" Oh really!!!

What does one say to that.

The doctor is the ultimate decider....follow church policy or treat their patient appropriately.

They get to decide.

[elias7]

56. wrong...

Look. Doctors use an evidence based approach to decision making. So, you can make a determination of risk to say if there is a greater or lesser chance than 50% of a woman with cardiomyopathy surviving a pregnancy. Internists and cardiologists stratify surgical risk all the time. Say a morbidly obese person with heart disease needs emergency surgery for a ruptured viscus comes into my ER. I call the general surgeon, who feels it is beyond the capabilities of our hospital to handle all possible scenarios, so I transfer the patient to a tertiary care center. We didn't refuse the patient care, we put the patient's life as priority.

If I am employed at, say, Catholic Medical Center in Manchester, I cannot perform an abortion. It is hospital policy, not a medical decision. If I performed the procedure, I would be fired.

So when you say I am the ultimate decider, what would you have me choose? Follow hospital policy or get fired? If I wanted to perform abortions, then I get a job at a non-religiously affiliated hospital, not a problem. If a woman needed an emergent operation to save her life, and that procedure involved aborting a child, it would be done. Administration would be forced to make an exception. But make no mistake, the administrators are the deciders.

In all the examples you provided in the OP, the doctors acted appropriately (even the religious nut ultimately wrote the Rx for birth control). No patient was harmed. They all got what they needed.

I don't know what you do for a living, but unless you are self employed, anyone will tell you. If you go against company policy, you'll not be employed there long.

So, yes. In your OP and many comments that follow, there is a thoughtless and uncritically considered criticism of doctors. You're pointing your finger in the wrong place. But, take heart, you're giving me a bad name so you're not all wrong.

[madfloridian]

59. A doctor has a responsibility to his patient, or to his religion.

It is his decision to make.

He can decide to work where a woman's life is put at stake, or not.

But it IS his decision.

I hate the kind of specious argument you are making.

I presented my case.

You are evading the issue by trying to blame me for writing about how women's rights are being compromised.

[elias7]

62. I don't disagree that women's rights are being compromised

I just feel if you're going to call the doctors the villains the above cases, you're putting blame at the wrong feet.

Again:
Case #1: nun excommunicated by CHURCH after doctors performed life saving abortion.
Case #2: hospital policy is made by ADMINISTRATORS, not doctors. Talk to the ADMINISTRATORS about playing God.
Case #3: A co-worker from the Young Women's CHRISTIANS Association recommended a doctor. She got her prescription by that doctor in the end.
Case #4: The doctor was the hero here. Catholic Medical Center ADMINISTRATOR policy: no abortions. Doctor paid for a 1 1/2 hour taxi ride to Dartmouth.

As to doctors, it is HIS or HER decision where to work. In no case that you mentioned was a women's life lost based on policy. Policy made by ADMINISTRATORS, not doctors. Why not blame the nurses and the clerks and the housekeeping staff and everybody affiliated with the hospital that doesn't support abortion?

My argument is not specious. You are confusing doctors with having some sort of power that we don't have. We make MEDICAL decisions. If my hospital cannot do want a person needs us to do, we find an alternative hospital. You want me to quit my job because I don't agree with everything administration does. I have no control over them. Yet you blame me.

[madfloridian]

63. You are saying the doctor bears no responsibility if a woman's life or health are in danger.

Of course he does. He is part of the system there by his own volition.

[elias7]

64. I'm not saying that at all

I deal with this all the time. I work in an ER at a community hospital. If a patient has a life threatening emergent condition and our hospital does not have sufficient resources, I arrange emergent transfer by helicopter or ground ambulance to an appropriately resourced facility. If they have a life threatening, but non-emergent condition, but which also exceeds our capabilities, I will give contact information for where to seek appropriate care, make calls to the appropriate physicians, or both. If I don't do this, I am morally, ethically and legally in the wrong.

Our hospital does not have a specialist to perform surgery to repair ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms. but we get people who come with a ruptured AAA's several times a year. It is, in part, the hospital's choice to have or not have a vascular surgeon (not always in their control), but lacking one, am I part of the problem for working at a facility that cannot care for such a patient?

Same goes for abortion. Not all hospitals perform them. I don't think I'd like to work at a hospital that refuses on religious grounds to do them. My choice. But I don't believe that an institution is putting a woman's life in danger by not doing them.

And I think this is the issue here. You believe that if an institution refuses to perform abortions, then women's lives are at risk. In a sense, my hospital puts a lot of people at risk-- those with advanced cardiac, neurologic, obstetric, infectious, vascular, trauma, etc. are in danger coming here. That's my job, though. Making sure someone with a life threatening problem gets the care they need at the place that can handle it. It doesn't really matter why we can't care for these things, the fact is we don't.

And again, why are the doctors at fault in the examples you mention? I'll remind you again, so perhaps you can address the points I raise this time.

Case #1: nun excommunicated by CHURCH after doctors performed life saving abortion.
Case #2: hospital policy is made by ADMINISTRATORS, not doctors. Talk to the ADMINISTRATORS about playing God.
Case #3: A co-worker from the Young Women's CHRISTIANS Association recommended a doctor. She got her prescription by that doctor in the end.
Case #4: The doctor was the hero here. Catholic Medical Center ADMINISTRATOR policy: no abortions. Doctor paid for a 1 1/2 hour taxi ride to Dartmouth.

[madfloridian]

65. "I don't believe that an institution is putting a woman's life in danger by not doing them. "

That is your comment on abortion.

Therein lies the basic difference in our beliefs. A woman has a right not to have her life or health put in danger by a hospital or doctor because of their religious beliefs.

A doctor has a choice. He/she can be told what they can do based on religion, or they can work elsewhere.

You keep mentioning case 4. Where did I criticize that doctor? You seem to have half read my post.

A woman has a right to have a procedure that will save her life....without having to beg, plead, and be driven miles to another hospital.

Something is very wrong with a society that singles out women for such demeaning treatment.

[elias7]

71. We are talking about different things

You equate "hospital" with "doctor". You need to learn the difference and learn who calls the shots.

A woman does indeed have the right to have a procedure that will save her life. We agree on that. You fail to understand that not all hospitals do all procedures. I have tried to draw a parallel with people needing to be transferred to another institution because of resource limitations at community hospitals vs tertiary care centers, yet you don't seem to get what I am saying.

Until we can ban administrators from creating policy based on religious beliefs, here is how it works: If you're pregnant and you haven't yet gotten an OB from an institution that you have verified respects women's reproductive rights, do that, and your problem is solved. If you've managed to get far along in your pregnancy and have need for an abortion due to a life threatening problem, and you've unfortunately stumbled into a catholic hospital that does not perform abortions. They have the obligation to refer you to an appropriate institution if non-emergent, and they have the obligation to transfer you to an appropriate institution if emergent. You do not have to beg or plead, it happens.

Remember, it's not the doctors, it's the Catholic church. Know your enemy...

[madfloridian]

72. I disagree. Remember what Joe Lieberman said about rape victims in 2006?

The doctor is the one the patient sees. The responsibility is his.

Well, that attitude toward women is rampant today. Whether doctor, admin, or hospital....making a woman search for a hospital in her time of need is cruelty plain and simple. Whether an abortion or the morning after pill for rape victims...same principle. She should not be sent on a journey to find her medical care.

http://www.nhregister.com/articles/2006/03/13/import/16292372.txt

"Rape counseling activists say a recent study shows that about 20 percent of hospitals in Connecticut — including the state’s four Catholic hospitals — fail to routinely offer contraceptives to all rape victims.

They said all rape victims deserve to be offered emergency contraceptives immediately at whatever hospital they go to for treatment. Rape victims, they argue, are often physical and emotional wrecks, and that sending them to another hospital or a pharmacy to obtain contraceptives amounts to cruelty.

Officials of the Roman Catholic Church responded that the refusal to offer contraceptives to rape victims who are determined to be ovulating is a fundamental matter of religious freedom. They say they do make every effort to get rape victims to other facilities where they can obtain contraceptives, if they wish.

.."Lieberman said he believes hospitals that refuse to give contraceptives to rape victims for "principled reasons" shouldn’t be forced to do so. "In Connecticut, it shouldn’t take more than a short ride to get to another hospital," he said."

[elias7]

76. You're just not hearing me. Nor did you hear Lieberman...

He said he believes HOSPITALS that refuse to give contraceptives...shouldn't be forced to do so. He doesn't say anything about doctors.

You are failing to understand a basic distinction between hospitals and doctors. Hospital policy is governed by its administration, not its doctors. Read some of what I've written in my last 4 posts to you instead of merely disagreeing with something you think I'm saying.

I have never said that a woman should be sent on a journey in a time of need. I'm tired of repeating the same things over and over only to find that you haven't processed any of it. Goodnight...:shrug:

[madfloridian]

78. The doctor does bear responsibility if he agrees to send a woman on that journey.

[AdHocSolver]

66. In misunderstanding Elias7's argument, you are overlooking a major problem with medicine in the U.S.

I worked several years in large hospitals. One thing I learned, which surprised the heck out of me, was how little independence a staff doctor in one of these large hospitals has.

These large hospitals are run by people with business degrees. The most important criterion for hospital administrators is the bottom line. The doctors are looked on, not as healers, but as profit centers, and that is how they are judged.

Women may get treated worse in hospitals where policy is set based on religious dogma, but all patients would have issues with hospitals if they realized that the quality of the care they receive is based less on medical principles and more on the same principles a car dealership is run on.

For this reason, the doctors I deal with are in independent practice. That gives me the ability to have some input into any treatment I get, and that means I can rely on my doctor to be my advocate should I need any services provided by a hospital.

Staff doctors at hospitals are under considerable pressure to follow hospital policies of all types that may be detrimental to patient welfare. Doctors in these cases have to carefully weigh how far they can buck hospital "policy", do what is best for the patient, and still keep their jobs.

This state of affairs is due to the high cost of starting an independent medical practice, on top of the high cost of getting a medical degree. Doctors become beholden to the large medical corporations, whose main (only) interest is the bottom line. This holds true for the so-called "nonprofit" hospitals as well.

[madfloridian]

67. I am defending the rights of women to have religion-free health care.

I think the ultimate responsibility lies with the doctor.

[AdHocSolver]

69. The responsibility lies with policies set by medical corporations, and a government that lets them.

Most doctors who join large medical corporations do so because they don't have the monetary means or the ambition to set up an independent medical practice.

They are just as beholden to that corporation to keep their jobs as any other type of employee. If a doctor gets fired for any reason, she will have trouble finding another position at another corporate hospital no matter how good a doctor she is, and no matter how flaky the reason for the dismissal. If that doctor can't find a private practice to join, that would be the end of her medical career.

To solve a problem, one first has to know what is the main cause of the problem. While there are many doctors who are blameworthy for a lot of problems, blaming doctors for bad policies over which they have little control won't solve anything.

If an example had been given about a doctor at a hospital, which had a policy of performing abortions under circumstances which applied to a given case, and the doctor refused to refer the woman for an abortion, then the responsibility would apply to that doctor alone.

It would seem that you have difficulty seeing the differences in these examples because you have an opinion about the power and authority of doctors that does not accord with reality. Having worked in hospitals, I had many opportunities to see administrators (who have business degrees) set policies that conflicted with what the doctors would prefer to do.

[madfloridian]

70. Yes, I do have difficulty seeing that. I really do.

I feel the same way about teachers who have so much demanded of them, but they are caught in a system.

No one excuses them, though.

If a doctor has a patient in an emergency situation, it becomes his responsibility.

[AdHocSolver]

75. I have written many posts on DU defending teachers based on the same logic regarding doctors.

Teachers are expected to solve a host of societal problems while being given the fewest tools and the least authority to deal with them.

Teachers are supposed to provide the "antidote" to poverty, ignorance, unemployment, child neglect, social unrest, foreign economic competition -- have I left out any social issue -- while being relatively low on the pay scale, having to deal with constantly diminishing school budgets, frequently vindictive and incompetent school administrations, often clueless parents, at the same time that politicians and citizen groups with an ax to grind use them for target practice.

Colleges of education are inhabited mostly by ineffective "snake oil salesman", and then there are education bureaucrats with scams like NCLB and RTTT. There is no more fraudulent excuse for pedagogy than "teaching to a test". This is a lot of what causes failure in schools anyway, and to make it a key educational principle, as if it measured anything meaningful, is the acme of incompetence.

I know what kind of environment teachers work under, as I tried teaching a couple of years after making it through college of education courses. Just as doctors working for a large corporate hospital have less control over how they do their job than it appears to outsiders, I discovered that I had almost no authority in my classroom. I had no control over class size, I had no disciplinary control, I was constantly watched and admonished by department heads, or assistant principles, and in the last school at which I taught before I gave up, had my authority in the classroom undercut by the principal himself.

This is not to say that I didn't positively influence many of my students. My success with students, or lack thereof, was never at issue. The only issue was how well I kowtowed to some administrator, or how thoroughly I imposed an authoritarian discipline on my classes.

The medical profession is backed by wealthy and powerful political groups -- the AMA, big Pharma, medical insurance companies. Blaming the doctors is giving these groups that dictate medical practice a free pass.

Blaming teachers is giving a free pass to all those groups that profit from practices that end up shortchanging teachers and the young -- Corporations that offshore jobs, charter schools, textbook companies, and education bureaucrats, to name a few.

[truedelphi]

54. Horrid, horrid, horrid. A year ago this month

I was denied pain meds, on account of my Seventh Day Adventist practitioner thinking I could suffer through it.

Now I have the most wonderful doctor in the world, also a 7th day A. But he understands that medicine is medicine and that pain needs relief.

[DFW]

57. I am SO glad that my daughters kept their German citizenship

They are proud to be both American and German, but it's things like this that make me relieved they have
an escape valve in case they are confronted by religious maniacs who put their dogma above the lives of
those they have supposedly sworn an oath to save. Something like this just doesn't happen in Germany.

[mainer]

58. Wow, good for Dr. Goldner. Paying a patient's taxi fare for 80 miles.

That's called being a real doctor who cares about his patients.

[madfloridian]

60. Very much agree. Kudos to him.

[Odin2005]

61. KICK

[ohheckyeah]

77. How stupid were we, 37 years ago,

when we thought we had won the battle.