Hospitals should not be owned & run by religious entities

[zendari]

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: zendari
Good idea. Maybe they should just pray when he comes into the ER. Poetic justice of a sort.

It's sad how healthcare providers are forced to treat ungrateful wretches who hate them.

Ungrateful? My insurance company and copay will show my gratitude, but they can keep their religion to themselves. I'm not paying for that.

They are keeping their religion to themselves. You're the one intruding on their hospital.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: zendari
Good idea. Maybe they should just pray when he comes into the ER. Poetic justice of a sort.

It's sad how healthcare providers are forced to treat ungrateful wretches who hate them.

Ungrateful? My insurance company and copay will show my gratitude, but they can keep their religion to themselves. I'm not paying for that.

They are keeping their religion to themselves. You're the one intruding on their hospital.

They shouldn't consider anyone in need of help, "intruding."

 

[m316foley]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: zendari
Good idea. Maybe they should just pray when he comes into the ER. Poetic justice of a sort.

It's sad how healthcare providers are forced to treat ungrateful wretches who hate them.

Ungrateful? My insurance company and copay will show my gratitude, but they can keep their religion to themselves. I'm not paying for that.

They are keeping their religion to themselves. You're the one intruding on their hospital.

Hahaha. Intruding on a hospital.

in·trud·ing - V.
To put or force in inappropriately, especially without invitation, fitness, or permission: intruded opinion into a factual report

Are you trying to say people who don't believe in a certain religion are INTRUDING when they're driven by ambulance to that specific hospital. Oh wait, let's take it a step farther and even say: They're unconscious. But hey, they're not welcome in a Christian Hospital.... what's the Hippocratic Oath say again? What's the Bible say again?

Oh, by the way. Plan B *aka* the morning after pill is NOT an abortion pill, it is an emergency contraceptive.

PS: I'm a Christian as well, so this is from one of your own. :thumbsup:

 

[zendari]

Well if you really want to talk about the Hippocratic Oath..

Text
I will give no deadly medicine to any one if asked, nor suggest any such counsel; and in like manner I will not give to a woman a pessary to produce abortion. With purity and with holiness I will pass my life and practice my Art.

Even if they help him I'm sure the evil Jesusfreak RRR hospitals never sent EatSpam an invitation to the party.

 

[alchemize]

I can't speak for all religious hospitals, but in catholic healthcare ethics (I am not catholic but work for catholic healthcare), the life of the mother is considered above the life of a fetus. If an emergency situation requires a medical procedure to occur that terminates the pregnancy but saves the live of the mother, the HOSPITAL WILL PERFORM THAT SURGERY.

There is no such thing as an "emergency contraceptive", clearly that's a leftist term intended to stir emotion and obscure facts. In Catholic Healthcare, in the case of a rape emergency, the woman would be treated for her emergency conditions. If she then chose to be prescribed an abortive drug, she'd be referred elsewhere, and transported if need be.

Operations, treatments, and medications that have as their direct purpose the cure of a proportionately serious pathological condition of a pregnant woman are permitted when they cannot be safely postponed until the unborn child is viable, even if they will result in the death of the unborn child.

Link

 

[m316foley]

Originally posted by: zendari
Well if you really want to talk about the Hippocratic Oath..

Text
I will give no deadly medicine to any one if asked, nor suggest any such counsel; and in like manner I will not give to a woman a pessary to produce abortion. With purity and with holiness I will pass my life and practice my Art.

Even if they help him I'm sure the evil Jesusfreak RRR hospitals never sent EatSpam an invitation to the party.

Yes, but also fail to mention the classic Hippocratic Oath also forbids surgery as well.

EDIT: Can't find any credible evidence to back this up, but a Doctor did tell me and that's what I was banking on. So I won't bring up that claim, but you notice how we *today* use a modified version of it anyways.

 

[m316foley]

Originally posted by: alchemize
I can't speak for all religious hospitals, but in catholic healthcare ethics (I am not catholic but work for catholic healthcare), the life of the mother is considered above the life of a fetus. If an emergency situation requires a medical procedure to occur that terminates the pregnancy but saves the live of the mother, the HOSPITAL WILL PERFORM THAT SURGERY.

There is no such thing as an "emergency contraceptive", clearly that's a leftist term intended to stir emotion and obscure facts. In Catholic Healthcare, in the case of a rape emergency, the woman would be treated for her emergency conditions. If she then chose to be prescribed an abortive drug, she'd be referred elsewhere, and transported if need be.

Operations, treatments, and medications that have as their direct purpose the cure of a proportionately serious pathological condition of a pregnant woman are permitted when they cannot be safely postponed until the unborn child is viable, even if they will result in the death of the unborn child.

Link

No such thing as an emergency contraceptive. Hmmmmmm, so let's see what a contraceptive is:

contraceptive: A device, drug, or chemical agent that prevents conception.

Well, I think that would fall under it....but now lets see if it could be called an abortion pill....

abortion: An aborted organism.

It never aborts an organism; therefore, it's an emergency contraceptive....

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: m316foley

Originally posted by: alchemize
I can't speak for all religious hospitals, but in catholic healthcare ethics (I am not catholic but work for catholic healthcare), the life of the mother is considered above the life of a fetus. If an emergency situation requires a medical procedure to occur that terminates the pregnancy but saves the live of the mother, the HOSPITAL WILL PERFORM THAT SURGERY.

There is no such thing as an "emergency contraceptive", clearly that's a leftist term intended to stir emotion and obscure facts. In Catholic Healthcare, in the case of a rape emergency, the woman would be treated for her emergency conditions. If she then chose to be prescribed an abortive drug, she'd be referred elsewhere, and transported if need be.

Operations, treatments, and medications that have as their direct purpose the cure of a proportionately serious pathological condition of a pregnant woman are permitted when they cannot be safely postponed until the unborn child is viable, even if they will result in the death of the unborn child.

Link

No such thing as an emergency contraceptive. Hmmmmmm, so let's see what a contraceptive is:

contraceptive: A device, drug, or chemical agent that prevents conception.

Well, I think that would fall under it....but now lets see if it could be called an abortion pill....

abortion: An aborted organism.

It never aborts an organism; therefore, it's an emergency contraceptive....

So a window of 5 days constitutes an "emergency"? Whether or not its a contraceptive or abortion pill is moot - it is not "emergency".

 

[totalcommand]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: zendari
Good idea. Maybe they should just pray when he comes into the ER. Poetic justice of a sort.

It's sad how healthcare providers are forced to treat ungrateful wretches who hate them.

Ungrateful? My insurance company and copay will show my gratitude, but they can keep their religion to themselves. I'm not paying for that.

They are keeping their religion to themselves. You're the one intruding on their hospital.

As is the federal and state government by providing the religious hospitals money for hospital related expenses. They are bound to the government also by the money, and therefore have less say in what care they may provide care than you think they do.

Unless you want that money to be taken away of course, and then the Hospital will be out of business.

 

[m316foley]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: m316foley

Originally posted by: alchemize
I can't speak for all religious hospitals, but in catholic healthcare ethics (I am not catholic but work for catholic healthcare), the life of the mother is considered above the life of a fetus. If an emergency situation requires a medical procedure to occur that terminates the pregnancy but saves the live of the mother, the HOSPITAL WILL PERFORM THAT SURGERY.

There is no such thing as an "emergency contraceptive", clearly that's a leftist term intended to stir emotion and obscure facts. In Catholic Healthcare, in the case of a rape emergency, the woman would be treated for her emergency conditions. If she then chose to be prescribed an abortive drug, she'd be referred elsewhere, and transported if need be.

Operations, treatments, and medications that have as their direct purpose the cure of a proportionately serious pathological condition of a pregnant woman are permitted when they cannot be safely postponed until the unborn child is viable, even if they will result in the death of the unborn child.

Link

No such thing as an emergency contraceptive. Hmmmmmm, so let's see what a contraceptive is:

contraceptive: A device, drug, or chemical agent that prevents conception.

Well, I think that would fall under it....but now lets see if it could be called an abortion pill....

abortion: An aborted organism.

It never aborts an organism; therefore, it's an emergency contraceptive....

So a window of 5 days constitutes an "emergency"? Whether or not its a contraceptive or abortion pill is moot - it is not "emergency".

Obviously you no nothing about the morning after pill.

A.) It's 3 days (72 hours) after having sexual intercourse
B.) Hypothetical: You have sex on a friday night, doctor's office is closed till monday.... see the issue as far as it being an OTC drug?

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: m316foley

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: m316foley

Originally posted by: alchemize
I can't speak for all religious hospitals, but in catholic healthcare ethics (I am not catholic but work for catholic healthcare), the life of the mother is considered above the life of a fetus. If an emergency situation requires a medical procedure to occur that terminates the pregnancy but saves the live of the mother, the HOSPITAL WILL PERFORM THAT SURGERY.

There is no such thing as an "emergency contraceptive", clearly that's a leftist term intended to stir emotion and obscure facts. In Catholic Healthcare, in the case of a rape emergency, the woman would be treated for her emergency conditions. If she then chose to be prescribed an abortive drug, she'd be referred elsewhere, and transported if need be.

Operations, treatments, and medications that have as their direct purpose the cure of a proportionately serious pathological condition of a pregnant woman are permitted when they cannot be safely postponed until the unborn child is viable, even if they will result in the death of the unborn child.

Link

No such thing as an emergency contraceptive. Hmmmmmm, so let's see what a contraceptive is:

contraceptive: A device, drug, or chemical agent that prevents conception.

Well, I think that would fall under it....but now lets see if it could be called an abortion pill....

abortion: An aborted organism.

It never aborts an organism; therefore, it's an emergency contraceptive....

So a window of 5 days constitutes an "emergency"? Whether or not its a contraceptive or abortion pill is moot - it is not "emergency".

Obviously you no nothing about the morning after pill.

A.) It's 3 days (72 hours) after having sexual intercourse
B.) Hypothetical: You have sex on a friday night, doctor's office is closed till monday.... see the issue as far as it being an OTC drug?

Umm...this isn't about OTC/prescription, this is about emergency room services.

 

[m316foley]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: m316foley

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: m316foley

Originally posted by: alchemize
I can't speak for all religious hospitals, but in catholic healthcare ethics (I am not catholic but work for catholic healthcare), the life of the mother is considered above the life of a fetus. If an emergency situation requires a medical procedure to occur that terminates the pregnancy but saves the live of the mother, the HOSPITAL WILL PERFORM THAT SURGERY.

There is no such thing as an "emergency contraceptive", clearly that's a leftist term intended to stir emotion and obscure facts. In Catholic Healthcare, in the case of a rape emergency, the woman would be treated for her emergency conditions. If she then chose to be prescribed an abortive drug, she'd be referred elsewhere, and transported if need be.

Operations, treatments, and medications that have as their direct purpose the cure of a proportionately serious pathological condition of a pregnant woman are permitted when they cannot be safely postponed until the unborn child is viable, even if they will result in the death of the unborn child.

Link

No such thing as an emergency contraceptive. Hmmmmmm, so let's see what a contraceptive is:

contraceptive: A device, drug, or chemical agent that prevents conception.

Well, I think that would fall under it....but now lets see if it could be called an abortion pill....

abortion: An aborted organism.

It never aborts an organism; therefore, it's an emergency contraceptive....

So a window of 5 days constitutes an "emergency"? Whether or not its a contraceptive or abortion pill is moot - it is not "emergency".

Obviously you no nothing about the morning after pill.

A.) It's 3 days (72 hours) after having sexual intercourse
B.) Hypothetical: You have sex on a friday night, doctor's office is closed till monday.... see the issue as far as it being an OTC drug?

Umm...this isn't about OTC/prescription, this is about emergency room services.

Yes, however, if a patient gets refusal from the Hospital *like the ones in question* then they have to go seek it out on their own.

 

[m316foley]

Originally posted by: totalcommand

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: zendari
Good idea. Maybe they should just pray when he comes into the ER. Poetic justice of a sort.

It's sad how healthcare providers are forced to treat ungrateful wretches who hate them.

Ungrateful? My insurance company and copay will show my gratitude, but they can keep their religion to themselves. I'm not paying for that.

They are keeping their religion to themselves. You're the one intruding on their hospital.

As is the federal and state government by providing the religious hospitals money for hospital related expenses. They are bound to the government also by the money, and therefore have less say in what care they may provide care than you think they do.

Unless you want that money to be taken away of course, and then the Hospital will be out of business.

:thumbsup:

 

[Vic]

I fail to see how a 72 hour window constitutes an "emergency." You could fly around the world or drive across the country in that length of time, much less make it to the nearest secular hospital.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: m316foley

Originally posted by: alchemize


Umm...this isn't about OTC/prescription, this is about emergency room services.

Yes, however, if a patient gets refusal from the Hospital *like the ones in question* then they have to go seek it out on their own.

If the patient was unstable, and desired this, then they would be transferred to another hospital. Otherwise, yes they can go seek that non-emergency optional treatment after discharge.

So where are the rights of the patient being infringed upon?

 

[m316foley]

Originally posted by: Vic
I fail to see how a 72 hour window constitutes an "emergency." You could fly around the world or drive across the country in that length of time, much less make it to the nearest secular hospital.

You're missing the point, if a woman is raped and beaten or unconscious, she has no choice which hospital she goes to. I know 3 states off the top of my head that require ALL hospitals to at least offer the contraceptive to rape victims. Ok, so lets say they don't get the pill. It's just advocating abortion for rape patients...

 

[m316foley]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: m316foley

Originally posted by: alchemize


Umm...this isn't about OTC/prescription, this is about emergency room services.

Yes, however, if a patient gets refusal from the Hospital *like the ones in question* then they have to go seek it out on their own.

If the patient was unstable, and desired this, then they would be transferred to another hospital. Otherwise, yes they can go seek that non-emergency optional treatment after discharge.

So where are the rights of the patient being infringed upon?

So you plan on trasfering a patient to another hospital, costing extra money to everyone around, JUST because you know nothing about a pill that you absolutely are against because people mis-label it an "abortion pill." Makes sense.....:roll:

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: m316foley

Originally posted by: Vic
I fail to see how a 72 hour window constitutes an "emergency." You could fly around the world or drive across the country in that length of time, much less make it to the nearest secular hospital.

You're missing the point, if a woman is raped and beaten or unconscious, she has no choice which hospital she goes to. I know 3 states off the top of my head that require ALL hospitals to at least offer the contraceptive to rape victims. Ok, so lets say they don't get the pill. It's just advocating abortion for rape patients...

So she gets the abortion. I still don't see where this extreme and rare example justifies the closing of all religion-owned hospitals, as the OP advocates (and you seem to be siding with).
I don't agree with the Catholic position here, but I think it better to humor them on this rather minor issue than to close down a considerable percentage of our nation's hospitals over what is really a political (rather than a health) issue.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: m316foley

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: m316foley

Originally posted by: alchemize


Umm...this isn't about OTC/prescription, this is about emergency room services.

Yes, however, if a patient gets refusal from the Hospital *like the ones in question* then they have to go seek it out on their own.

If the patient was unstable, and desired this, then they would be transferred to another hospital. Otherwise, yes they can go seek that non-emergency optional treatment after discharge.

So where are the rights of the patient being infringed upon?

So you plan on trasfering a patient to another hospital, costing extra money to everyone around, JUST because you know nothing about a pill that you absolutely are against because people mis-label it an "abortion pill." Makes sense.....:roll:

I'm not planning on doing anything, I'm not an MD. And I've made no statements about being absolutely for or against anything, you are assuming quite a bit there. If you'd like my opinion on it, ask for it, don't assume it.

I'm stating the position of Catholic Healthcare, which accomodates the diversity of people it treats while also standing by it's own ethics.

I would also guess that the hospital would also eat the cost of the transport. What is the relevance of the cost? Aren't we talking about the rights of the hospital and the rights of the patient here? You still haven't answered my question. Where are the rights of the patient being infringed on?

 

[m316foley]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: m316foley

Originally posted by: Vic
I fail to see how a 72 hour window constitutes an "emergency." You could fly around the world or drive across the country in that length of time, much less make it to the nearest secular hospital.

You're missing the point, if a woman is raped and beaten or unconscious, she has no choice which hospital she goes to. I know 3 states off the top of my head that require ALL hospitals to at least offer the contraceptive to rape victims. Ok, so lets say they don't get the pill. It's just advocating abortion for rape patients...

So she gets the abortion. I still don't see where this extreme and rare example justifies the closing of all religion-owned hospitals, as the OP advocates (and you seem to be siding with).
I don't agree with the Catholic position here, but I think it better to humor them on this rather minor issue than to close down a considerable percentage of our nation's hospitals over what is really a political (rather than a health) issue.

Whoa whoa whoa.... I would like to make it absolutely clear: I do NOT agree with the OP's view to close down all religion-based/religion-owned hospitals. However, I do agree they need to change certain practices if they are going to be given any type of money/tax break at all from the government. One practice being the practice of offering emergency contraceptives to rape patients.

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: m316foley

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: m316foley

Originally posted by: Vic
I fail to see how a 72 hour window constitutes an "emergency." You could fly around the world or drive across the country in that length of time, much less make it to the nearest secular hospital.

You're missing the point, if a woman is raped and beaten or unconscious, she has no choice which hospital she goes to. I know 3 states off the top of my head that require ALL hospitals to at least offer the contraceptive to rape victims. Ok, so lets say they don't get the pill. It's just advocating abortion for rape patients...

So she gets the abortion. I still don't see where this extreme and rare example justifies the closing of all religion-owned hospitals, as the OP advocates (and you seem to be siding with).
I don't agree with the Catholic position here, but I think it better to humor them on this rather minor issue than to close down a considerable percentage of our nation's hospitals over what is really a political (rather than a health) issue.

Whoa whoa whoa.... I would like to make it absolutely clear: I do NOT agree with the OP's view to close down all religion-based/religion-owned hospitals. However, I do agree they need to change certain practices if they are going to be given any type of money/tax break at all from the government. One practice being the practice of offering emergency contraceptives to rape patients.

did you read the thread? As many replies have pointed out, THERES NO SUCH THING AS AN EMERGENCY CONTRACEPTIVE

 

[alchemize]

"Emergency contraceptive" is even more of a misnomer than the debated "abortion pill" description.

There is some debate between "implanted" vs. fertilized.

Only one with a political agenda would consider 72 hours an "emergency". It's an inconvienience, at most.

 

[m316foley]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: m316foley

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: m316foley

Originally posted by: alchemize


Umm...this isn't about OTC/prescription, this is about emergency room services.

Yes, however, if a patient gets refusal from the Hospital *like the ones in question* then they have to go seek it out on their own.

If the patient was unstable, and desired this, then they would be transferred to another hospital. Otherwise, yes they can go seek that non-emergency optional treatment after discharge.

So where are the rights of the patient being infringed upon?

So you plan on trasfering a patient to another hospital, costing extra money to everyone around, JUST because you know nothing about a pill that you absolutely are against because people mis-label it an "abortion pill." Makes sense.....:roll:

I'm not planning on doing anything, I'm not an MD. And I've made no statements about being absolutely for or against anything, you are assuming quite a bit there. If you'd like my opinion on it, ask for it, don't assume it.

I'm stating the position of Catholic Healthcare, which accomodates the diversity of people it treats while also standing by it's own ethics.

I would also guess that the hospital would also eat the cost of the transport. What is the relevance of the cost? Aren't we talking about the rights of the hospital and the rights of the patient here? You still haven't answered my question. Where are the rights of the patient being infringed on?

The more time wasted during the 72 hour period, the less it becomes effective. That's one infringement. Transporting the patient would be billed to either the patient or the insurance company, thus costing the patient more money. Second infringement. Not following state laws (which this has been documented) is infringing on the patient's rights as well as the tax-payer's rights.

Not to mention, the cost of an abortion is much more than the cost of the pill.

My view: Don't accept government money if you're not going to play by the rules.

 

[m316foley]

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: m316foley

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: m316foley

Originally posted by: Vic
I fail to see how a 72 hour window constitutes an "emergency." You could fly around the world or drive across the country in that length of time, much less make it to the nearest secular hospital.

You're missing the point, if a woman is raped and beaten or unconscious, she has no choice which hospital she goes to. I know 3 states off the top of my head that require ALL hospitals to at least offer the contraceptive to rape victims. Ok, so lets say they don't get the pill. It's just advocating abortion for rape patients...

So she gets the abortion. I still don't see where this extreme and rare example justifies the closing of all religion-owned hospitals, as the OP advocates (and you seem to be siding with).
I don't agree with the Catholic position here, but I think it better to humor them on this rather minor issue than to close down a considerable percentage of our nation's hospitals over what is really a political (rather than a health) issue.

Whoa whoa whoa.... I would like to make it absolutely clear: I do NOT agree with the OP's view to close down all religion-based/religion-owned hospitals. However, I do agree they need to change certain practices if they are going to be given any type of money/tax break at all from the government. One practice being the practice of offering emergency contraceptives to rape patients.

did you read the thread? As many replies have pointed out, THERES NO SUCH THING AS AN EMERGENCY CONTRACEPTIVE

So what would you call it then? It stops contraception.... I know! We'll call it a Contraception STOPPER!

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: m316foley

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: m316foley

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: m316foley

Originally posted by: alchemize


Umm...this isn't about OTC/prescription, this is about emergency room services.

Yes, however, if a patient gets refusal from the Hospital *like the ones in question* then they have to go seek it out on their own.

If the patient was unstable, and desired this, then they would be transferred to another hospital. Otherwise, yes they can go seek that non-emergency optional treatment after discharge.

So where are the rights of the patient being infringed upon?

So you plan on trasfering a patient to another hospital, costing extra money to everyone around, JUST because you know nothing about a pill that you absolutely are against because people mis-label it an "abortion pill." Makes sense.....:roll:

I'm not planning on doing anything, I'm not an MD. And I've made no statements about being absolutely for or against anything, you are assuming quite a bit there. If you'd like my opinion on it, ask for it, don't assume it.

I'm stating the position of Catholic Healthcare, which accomodates the diversity of people it treats while also standing by it's own ethics.

I would also guess that the hospital would also eat the cost of the transport. What is the relevance of the cost? Aren't we talking about the rights of the hospital and the rights of the patient here? You still haven't answered my question. Where are the rights of the patient being infringed on?

The more time wasted during the 72 hour period, the less it becomes effective. That's one infringement. Transporting the patient would be billed to either the patient or the insurance company, thus costing the patient more money. Second infringement. Not following state laws (which this has been documented) is infringing on the patient's rights as well as the tax-payer's rights.

Not to mention, the cost of an abortion is much more than the cost of the pill.

My view: Don't accept government money if you're not going to play by the rules.

1) Wasted time - that's an irritant, not an infringement of the patients rights.
2) Transport is a financial and contractual issue, not an infringement of anyone's rights. Allieviated if the hospital picks up the tab, which I'm assuming they would.
3) Not following state laws is a legal issue, not an infrinment of anyone's rights.