Hospitals should not be owned & run by religious entities

[Vic]

Originally posted by: marincounty
Hospitals should not be owned & run by religious entities-

I agree, get religion out of the hospital.
Why does the Catholic church run hospitals? It can't be the money, hospitals are usually money pits, and are closing in a lot of areas.
It must be that they think they can influence people, prevent abortions or other medical treatments they object to. And the fact that we are even having a discussion about it shows that they are successful in shaping debate and medical treatment in the US.

Or maybe... just maybe... they do it for charitable reasons? In accordance with their religious oaths? Nah, couldn't be that...

:roll:

 

[m316foley]

Originally posted by: pinion9

Originally posted by: m316foley
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?

You obviously have no idea what an emergency is. In hypothetical B, I would like to see the reaction of the people in the ER who have gunshot wounds, broken bones, and 104 degree fevers when some slut comes walking in and says "Like, I totally just had sex and need an emergency contraceptive so I don't have to be responsible for my own actions." You have 72 hours. I guarantee you will be able to find a secular hospital within 3 days driving time.

Obviously your stuck on the name. Get over it. It's a name. From here on out I'll call it the morning after pill. Happy? I'm still right, deal with it.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: zendari
Don't go to a Christian hospital then.

Since not all religion-affiliated hospitals enforce the same "morality", I'm sure you agree with me that if a hospital does not offer particular services because of religious concerns, then the hospital should be required to PROMINENTLY publicize these limitations so that it becomes common knowledge what to expect from that institution.

Such prominent notice would allow even those prospective patients not directly affected by limitations in offered services to easily make their own "moral decisions" as to which hospitals deserve their business.

Yes, I'd like hospitals and other health clinics to receive the FULL "benefit" of their morality-based treatment decisions.

 

[m316foley]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: pinion9

Originally posted by: m316foley
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?

You obviously have no idea what an emergency is. In hypothetical B, I would like to see the reaction of the people in the ER who have gunshot wounds, broken bones, and 104 degree fevers when some slut comes walking in and says "Like, I totally just had sex and need an emergency contraceptive so I don't have to be responsible for my own actions." You have 72 hours. I guarantee you will be able to find a secular hospital within 3 days driving time.

Liberals aren't interested in that. They're only idea is to force their beliefs onto Christian healthcare providers and pharmacists, forcing them to conform with liberal prosexualirresponsiblepromiscuity. It's a form of indentured service.

Haha. Liberals pushing ideas onto Christians. HAHAHAHAHA. Liberal, the whole idea is having choices. I'm sorry, people shouldn't have any type of choices or options.

A.) We're talking about rape victims, not sluts. You brought that up to put a twist on things
B.) You wouldn't need to go to the doctor/hospital if the pill was just OTC!
C.) If you don't like... don't take the government's money!

 

[m316foley]

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: 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.

A lovely oath then. Just take out the parts you don't like.

The original oath:

I SWEAR by Apollo the physician, and Aesculapius, and Health, and All-heal, and all the gods and goddesses, that, according to my ability and judgment, I will keep this Oath and this stipulation- to reckon him who taught me this Art equally dear to me as my parents, to share my substance with him, and relieve his necessities if required; to look upon his offspring in the same footing as my own brothers, and to teach them this art, if they shall wish to learn it, without fee or stipulation; and that by precept, lecture, 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 disciples bound by a stipulation and oath according to the law of medicine, but to none others. I will follow that system of regimen which, according to my ability and judgment, I consider for the benefit of my patients, and abstain from whatever is deleterious and mischievous. 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. I will not cut persons laboring under the stone, but will leave this to be done by men who are practitioners of this work. Into whatever houses I enter, I will go into them for the benefit of the sick, and will abstain from every voluntary act of mischief and corruption; and, further from the seduction of females or males, of freemen and slaves. Whatever, in connection with my professional practice or not, in connection with it, I see or hear, in the life of men, which ought not to be spoken of abroad, I will not divulge, as reckoning that all such should be kept secret. While I continue to keep this Oath unviolated, may it be granted to me to enjoy life and the practice of the art, respected by all men, in all times! But should I trespass and violate this Oath, may the reverse be my lot!

We charge for teaching of medicine, perform surgery, and don't practice abstinence... Modern doctors are as far from many parts of the Hippocratic oath as modern medicine is from the one his practiced.

If you cannot accept the fact that the world has changed since 400 BC, or simply want to be an ass and a drama queen, then I will ask you to kindly leave this discussion immediately.

P.S. Modern oath:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/doctors/oath_modern.html

As you notice it's far longer reflecting, unsurprisingly, the increased complexity of the world we live in, compared to the world of Hippocrates.

All I gotta say is: BOOYA I'm right Zendari! I love how he found the Hippocratic Oath without the surgery involved. Just taking parts of the truth huh?

 

[totalcommand]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: totalcommand

Originally posted by: zendari
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.

And people like EatSpam will be out of emergency healthcare. Consider the funding to cover the expenses of hospital patients who aren't members of the church.

If the government has a problem with what the hospitals are doing, by all means, strip the funding.

The hospital will follow whatever the Massachusetts gov't says, because they would be out of business without the money. It will never come to stripping the funding.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: zendari
Don't go to a Christian hospital then.

Since not all religion-affiliated hospitals enforce the same "morality", I'm sure you agree with me that if a hospital does not offer particular services because of religious concerns, then the hospital should be required to PROMINENTLY publicize these limitations so that it becomes common knowledge what to expect from that institution.

Such prominent notice would allow even those prospective patients not directly affected by limitations in offered services to easily make their own "moral decisions" as to which hospitals deserve their business.

Yes, I'd like hospitals and other health clinics to receive the FULL "benefit" of their morality-based treatment decisions.

As long as "prominently" is reasonable, I agree. Prospective patients will take their business elsewhere in the free market if needed and people like myself would be more inclined to take my business there.

The same is true for pharmacies.

Most taxpayers outside the far left see the good these hospitals do in treating secular patients and have no problem with the funding.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: marincounty
Hospitals should not be owned & run by religious entities-

I agree, get religion out of the hospital.
Why does the Catholic church run hospitals? It can't be the money, hospitals are usually money pits, and are closing in a lot of areas.
It must be that they think they can influence people, prevent abortions or other medical treatments they object to. And the fact that we are even having a discussion about it shows that they are successful in shaping debate and medical treatment in the US.

Then establish your own hospitals. Competition is a good thing.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: m316foley
Haha. Liberals pushing ideas onto Christians. HAHAHAHAHA. Liberal, the whole idea is having choices. I'm sorry, people shouldn't have any type of choices or options.

A.) We're talking about rape victims, not sluts. You brought that up to put a twist on things
B.) You wouldn't need to go to the doctor/hospital if the pill was just OTC!
C.) If you don't like... don't take the government's money!

Or they'll just continue taking the government's money and not offering the pill, because most people are smart enough to realize that half a hospital is better than no hospital at all.

Funny how that works.

 

[Meuge]

Notice how my post was conveniently disregarded. Selective vision acting up again, Zendari?

 

[m316foley]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: m316foley
Haha. Liberals pushing ideas onto Christians. HAHAHAHAHA. Liberal, the whole idea is having choices. I'm sorry, people shouldn't have any type of choices or options.

A.) We're talking about rape victims, not sluts. You brought that up to put a twist on things
B.) You wouldn't need to go to the doctor/hospital if the pill was just OTC!
C.) If you don't like... don't take the government's money!

Or they'll just continue taking the government's money and not offering the pill, because most people are smart enough to realize that half a hospital is better than no hospital at all.

Funny how that works.

So I thought religion was supposed to rely on the concepts of Christ and being Christ-like. Personally, a lot of religion-based hospitals around here are under extreme pressure for lack of care of the patients. I know 2 mal-practice suits going on right now. So maybe they will learn their lesson... so much for ethics and morals.....

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: m316foley
So I thought religion was supposed to rely on the concepts of Christ and being Christ-like. Personally, a lot of religion-based hospitals around here are under extreme pressure for lack of care of the patients. I know 2 mal-practice suits going on right now. So maybe they will learn their lesson... so much for ethics and morals.....

Maybe. Running hospitals doesn't seem to be very profitable in our new lawsuit society.

 

[her209]

So should private higher education institutions be free to teach what they wish as they wish even if they recieve government funding? Just a thought.

 

[sandorski]

If a woman is raped and requires Emergency Healthcare, she should get it, but is "Emergency Contraception" so urgent that a Hospital's Emergency Dept *must* provide it? I'd say No, as it needs taken within 24hrs, not 24 minutes.

If she's in real rough shape and needs to be in the hospital for an extended period(Days or longer), then there could be an issue as she may not be able to access a Dr. to get the Contraception.

 

[m316foley]

Why do you even bother to comment if you don't read the entire thread?

The Morning After Pill *AKA Emergency Contraceptive* needs to be taken within 72 hours of having sexual intercourse for it to be effective. However, the longer the wait to get the pill, the less likely it will have chance at preventing pregnancy.

All it is is a series of pills taken *generally* but the faster it's in a woman's system, the more effective it is. Forget the term "Emergency Contraceptive."

And this could all easily be solved if it were over the counter........

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: m316foley
Why do you even bother to comment if you don't read the entire thread?

The Morning After Pill *AKA Emergency Contraceptive* needs to be taken within 72 hours of having sexual intercourse for it to be effective. However, the longer the wait to get the pill, the less likely it will have chance at preventing pregnancy.

All it is is a series of pills taken *generally* but the faster it's in a woman's system, the more effective it is. Forget the term "Emergency Contraceptive."

And this could all easily be solved if it were over the counter........

Tried to, but it was mostly crap and skipped the rest.

 

[realsup]

Yawn another thread more Christian bashing.

 

[m316foley]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: m316foley
Why do you even bother to comment if you don't read the entire thread?

The Morning After Pill *AKA Emergency Contraceptive* needs to be taken within 72 hours of having sexual intercourse for it to be effective. However, the longer the wait to get the pill, the less likely it will have chance at preventing pregnancy.

All it is is a series of pills taken *generally* but the faster it's in a woman's system, the more effective it is. Forget the term "Emergency Contraceptive."

And this could all easily be solved if it were over the counter........

Tried to, but it was mostly crap and skipped the rest.

Haha, well at least it was an honest response. I definitely respect that.

 

[sdifox]

Why isn't Plan B OTC? I mean, if I understand correctly, abortion is legal in the US of A. So why shouldn't Plan B be OTC? Here in Canada, it is controlled, but the lady just has to fill out a form, give it to the pharmacist and off they go. I have no problems at all with any group wanting to run a hospital.

The hospital's religious right is as important as the rape victim's right. However, getting the pill from the religious hospital is not a right. If the government gave said faith associated hospitals waivers on the pills, then alternatives have to be provided. Like I said, OTC would have just simplified the whole thing.

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: sdifox
Why isn't Plan B OTC? I mean, if I understand correctly, abortion is legal in the US of A. So why shouldn't Plan B be OTC? Here in Canada, it is controlled, but the lady just has to fill out a form, give it to the pharmacist and off they go. I have no problems at all with any group wanting to run a hospital.

The hospital's religious right is as important as the rape victim's right. However, getting the pill from the religious hospital is not a right. If the government gave said faith associated hospitals waivers on the pills, then alternatives have to be provided. Like I said, OTC would have just simplified the whole thing.

Because the FDA chief is a lunatic appointed by Bush, who went above the heads of his staff who proved the drug met all the criteria to be approved.

Put it another way - it wasn't approved for religious reasons.

 

[sdifox]

Originally posted by: Meuge
Because the FDA chief is a lunatic appointed by Bush, who went above the heads of his staff who proved the drug met all the criteria to be approved.

Put it another way - it wasn't approved for religious reasons.

Humm, talk about ultra right wing. This is bad for the country. And the guy can't be touched? I mean doctors get sued all the time for malpractice (be it real or not). Can't this guy be sued for violating secular law?

 

[Meuge]

It's within his jurisdiction. Unfortunately, like so many other acts committed in the past few years, this one will remain unpunished.

But like I said - any woman that can get birth control pills, can use them as emergency contraception.