Should You Be Informed Your Medical Provider is Religious?

[Paratus]

Samantha Bee did several disturbing interviews with women who needed abortions or other OB-GYN services and were turned down. The thing all the stories had in common was the health care provider was religiously owned or affiliated.

The story's included:

• A woman who wanted a child but before 20 weeks her doctor identified the fetus has having encephalopathy and would not survive. Since it was a Catholic hospital they would not terminate the pregnancy. She went to a different hospital but they would not help without documentation from the original hospital who refused. She eventually began bleeding and it was only after they measured the quantity of blood in her pads before they would remove the fetus. Which she got to watch turn blue and die over a couple of hours. http://youtu.be/9finqZJJNA8
• A resident who had to transfer a 19 year old to another hospital because her water broke at 17 weeks and after two days she became septic. The hospital would not terminate the pregnancy since there was a fetal heart beat. She miscarried in the ambulance after nearly going into shock. http://youtu.be/obC0IjaKzgE
• A woman who fell and dislodged her IUD and began bleeding and cramping. She looked up OBs in her medical directory and went to the first one who could see her after explaining her problem. The Dr confirmed the IUD was dislodged but as they had been bought by a catholic organization and her IUD was for birth control they couldn't touch it. She also said that all OBs in the area on her insurance were now part of that catholic network so she would have to change insurance which could take weeks to months. After two weeks she managed to find someone to remove it. http://youtu.be/C6iyAMFDjy4
• Finally a mother who had suffered from eclampsia had her IUD fail. When she began to stroke out at 29 weeks the hospital she ended up at was catholic. She asked them to tie her tubes after the c-section. They told her they couldn't and she'd have to sign herself out against medical orders and drive herself to another hospital. http://youtu.be/xFWRfhDr000

So my question is, should religiously affiliated hospitals be required to inform female patients as soon as possible that there are standard procedures they will refuse to do and that they will take more risks with their patients life and health to satisfy their owners religious demands?

Normally I would say they should be held to the appropriate standard of care but I understand about religious freedom.

I would also say the free market could take care of it since their poor treatment of women seeking OB GYN procedures should push consumers away. But since this is health care emergencies take away this option, the provider networks can monopolize entire areas, and they just don't inform you until it's too late this isn't an option either.

 

[sandorski]

If it means it affects what services they will render, yes.

 

[theeedude]

I can't imagine who supports the idea of a doctor making medical decisions for them based on something other than medicine, be it money, religion, whatever, and not disclosing it.

 

[Paratus]

I can't imagine who supports the idea of a doctor making medical decisions for them based on something other than medicine, be it money, religion, whatever, and not disclosing it.

While they do disclose it, in these stories the patients don't find out until it affects their desired treatment.

The main problem I see with informing patients is that only works for the ones who are capable of making the decision and the time to go somewhere else. Even if ambulance drivers give you a choice of where to go it doesn't help if you are unconcious or must go to the closest hospital. (This whole argument applies to in and out of network insurance bullshit as well)

 

[Brainonska511]

I think the bigger issue is simply access to care. In some parts of the country, the religiously-affiliated hospital might be your only available provider. A very Hobson choice.

 

[Sunburn74]

I don't think religious hospitals should be able to refuse these types of procedures. Essentially, if you are a providing a public service where people get no choice but have to select you, you should not be allowed to turn down lifesaving therapy based on religion. Imagine if there was a religious fire fighting service for example that refused services to blacks and gays. You can't have that!

Whats odd is that a hospital may be religious but a provider is not necessarily that. I find it odd that a hospital can force its views on the providers who work there. That I think is legitimately disputable and I believe the providers who work there can legitimately sue a facility that prevents them from delivering substandard care and gives them exposure to liability because of religious objectives by a hospital.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

If it means it affects what services they will render, yes.

Agreed in full. It should not only be told to you - You should be forced to advise people of it in ALL ways (on your website front page, advertisements on TV, etc... etc...)

 

[Sunburn74]

Agreed in full. It should not only be told to you - You should be forced to advise people of it in ALL ways (on your website front page, advertisements on TV, etc... etc...)

There is no way it gets told to you. There are too many medical procedures and treatments out there to have an informed discussion about them all.

 

[Paratus]

There is no way it gets told to you. There are too many medical procedures and treatments out there to have an informed discussion about them all.

Well for most procedures it doesn't matter. It's just reproductive medicine where they purposely differ.

It would at least be a start if they had to advertise that.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

There is no way it gets told to you. There are too many medical procedures and treatments out there to have an informed discussion about them all.

I somewhat get your post, but in the context of this, we are talking SPECIFIC procedures that the hospital is saying they will not do simply based on their religious practice. That is very much limited to reproductive based procedures and medications.

 

[Puffnstuff]

Religion and health care don't mix. Religion and pretty much anything normal don't mix. The churches and Christians in general have abandoned Christianity for religion and they are not one and the same thing. The religitards have gone too far and need to be shutdown.

 

[werepossum]

Hey, maybe under President Clinton II you guys can finally get that big yellow star law passed, so you don't accidentally interact with any undesirables.

 

[theeedude]

While they do disclose it, in these stories the patients don't find out until it affects their desired treatment.

The main problem I see with informing patients is that only works for the ones who are capable of making the decision and the time to go somewhere else. Even if ambulance drivers give you a choice of where to go it doesn't help if you are unconcious or must go to the closest hospital. (This whole argument applies to in and out of network insurance bullshit as well)

I think if your doctor provides you care that is not in line with best medical practices without your explicit consent, they should be liable for any negative consequences, regardless of what was the motivation.

 

[Paratus]

I think if your doctor provides you care that is not in line with best medical practices without your explicit consent, they should be liable for any negative consequences, regardless of what was the motivation.

I absolutely agree, but it seems like the laws in these cases put more weight on the religious rights (self-righteousness) of the hospital than on the health and life of the woman.

 

[trenchfoot]

It seems to me that these religiously influenced hospitals do not want to post any kind of information about what services they will not perform because they fear that clearly advertising such would not only turn away patients that require those forbidden procedures as well as any other procedure they might require, it would also turn away potential patients that simply object to that kind of discriminatory practice.

So the only recourse for these religiously affiliated hospitals is to inform "as needed" on the down low and have the patient suffer the consequences of that policy.

That's not a really good way to "spread the gospel" in order to attract new members to the church, nor is it humane and compassionate to have these folks who are in pain and agony get turned away at the door for lack of prior knowledge.

 

[Commodus]

Hey, maybe under President Clinton II you guys can finally get that big yellow star law passed, so you don't accidentally interact with any undesirables.

Congratulations on invoking Godwin's Law so soon into the discussion -- you just lost the argument.

This is about making you aware of a hospital's religion-based policies so that they don't force you to go elsewhere to get a potentially life-saving procedure. If the hospital loses customers when its policies are out in the open, that's too bad -- maybe they shouldn't believe that it's acceptable to kill a woman in the name of protecting her fetus.

 

[sdifox]

Provide the full range of service or lose your licence. End of story.

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

I think a number of people are missing the point which is that it's not the doctors who are refusing service but, the medical group they work for. However, the doctors do have the choice to tour tell the group to take a flying leap and possibly loose their ability to practice.

 

[Perknose]

Hey, maybe under President Clinton II you guys can finally get that big yellow star law passed, so you don't accidentally interact with any undesirables.

Wow, that's some really over-the-top bullshit rhetoric, unworthy of the person I believe you to be.

 

[PottedMeat]

That's not a really good way to "spread the gospel" in order to attract new members to the church, nor is it humane and compassionate to have these folks who are in pain and agony get turned away at the door for lack of prior knowledge.

but that's not the point of owning a healthcare network. it's to make money hand over fist.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Hey, maybe under President Clinton II you guys can finally get that big yellow star law passed, so you don't accidentally interact with any undesirables.

you drunk or something?? Or perhaps you had us fooled.....

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Hey, maybe under President Clinton II you guys can finally get that big yellow star law passed, so you don't accidentally interact with any undesirables.

wtf are you saying? Aborting fetuses with terminal birth defects is akin to the Holocaust?