Today Lemmy learns that, in fact, the Catholic church has historically provided health care and education, according to their beliefs, over hundred of years
It’s funny how even catholic views are considered unacceptable now by the liberal society. This is the paradox of your tolerance: you want to accept all kinds of different people for as long as they are the same in what they believe.
I see no reason for catholic medical institutions to provide services they believe to be immoral, I don’t personally, but so what of it, they should not be forced to do it.
It seems that in the US, people are taking more radical and unreasonable attitudes towards abortions(that applies to both sides). Some people may feel the need to defend abortions from anything. But I believe that tolerance should not be cast away for zealotry.
Okay but what happens if a pregnant person gets brought into the ER of a Catholic hospital and they need an immediate abortion or they die. The hospital doesn’t want to perform it because of religion. Should the hospital just let the patient die against the patient’s will? The patient didn’t had a choice into which hospital they were brought in. And this isn’t just a hypothetical this situation has played out in real life. Just look at Ireland.
I do believe that in the case of emergencies, if the threat of death is certain, catholic hospitals should always save the mother and I suspect many catholics would agree, but I would still say that they should not have to perform abortions and prescribe contraceptive treatment generally.
they should not have to perform abortions and prescribe contraceptive treatment generally
Abortions are medical procedures and contraceptives are the medical professional advice to prevent unwanted children/disease. If the institution doesn’t allow for fucking medicine to be practiced, it’s not a hospital, it’s a church.
So yeah, let’s allow catholic hospitals to do whatever the hell they want with regards to religion, idgaf. But if their religion prevents them from offering medical care, they’re not allowed to practice medicine and they sure as shit aren’t allowed to call themselves a hospital.
Their religious morals do not allow them to perform abortions. However, there are medical procedures banned in secular hospitals for moral reasons that are not exclusively religious, like euthanasia. Does that mean that countries that do not allow euthanasia do not have hospitals, but churches?
You can derive your morals from wherever you want, I honestly don’t care. And you can consider those morals when applying for a job, such that you don’t end up with a career in a field where you are forced to go against your morals. This “I’m in emergency care or obgyn but don’t do abortions” shit? That’s too late. You had your time to make a decision - when you’re already hired is not that time.
I’m sure plenty of catholic doctors make great physicians. But if you allow your morals to come before your job, but actually lack the morals to quit that job when it is apparent that it contradicts what you believe - at that point you’re not taking a moral stand, you’re just a cunt with a soapbox.
if the threat of death is certain
Nice little carve out to allow them to sit by and watch women die under the pretense of uncertainty. Fuck off with this death cult bullshit.
If the threat of death is certain, it does not mean that death is. I meant it in a way that if it is certain there is a risk of death, the woman should be saved.
Though I believe catholics would want to try, when possible, to save the child as well, and would use abortion as a last resort. I have no problem with that, for as long as they do abortions when there is no option that would avoid it while not putting the life of a mother under significant risk.
I misread your comment, I now better understand what you were saying, and I apologize for being so hostile.
With that said, pregnancy inherently brings with it the threat of death. All pregnancies have a chance (and therefore threat) of death. So regulating them such that they must perform abortion services when there is a threat of death would be a regulation that would force them to abort 100% of requested pregnancies.
Yes. This is why I said “significant threat” in the previous comment.
Ok, now we’re back to arbitrary carvouts that lead to women dying of preventable issues, so I was right the first time.
Because catholics are known for their tolerance.
Compared to most the protestant sects today they are pretty tolerant.
So up until recently Catholic views were accepted by “liberal” society?
Stop it.
The problem is that in many areas there are no alternative institutions for someone to receive care. Choosing to go to another non-religious hospital is often not an option in many places. I live in a major metro and the majority of hospitals here are religiously affiliated. It’s not a matter of allowing a few random institutions to uphold their beliefs, it’s an institutional problem when a person cannot receive valid medical care because of the objections of a religion. If you live in a small town with a single hospital, and the next closest one is an 8 hour drive away, then that hospital should be required to provide all FDA approved treatments the doctors are physically capable of administering.
I’m all for allowing people to practice their religion however it best suits them to do so, until it negatively interferes with the lives of others. When your religion starts preventing people from accessing widely approved and safe healthcare, then your beliefs should not be protected. I don’t care if you’re Catholic, Muslim, or Pastafarian - you have no right to prevent someone from accessing healthcare because of your beliefs.
This situation is unfortunate, I suppose, but your government is not preventing anyone from getting these services in many states, and as of now, it does not have to provide all procedures to all the people. If you want your government to ensure that all approved procedures are easily accessible, and not leave it to the free market, it should actually manage it’s own hospitals, rather than force catholic ones to do abortions, which to me seems like too much to ask from a religious institution.
I see no reason for catholic medical institutions to provide services they believe to be immoral
If they let their backwards sexist standards for what is “immoral” get in the way of medical services, they shouldn’t fraudulently call their facility a hospital.
Catholic priests raps kids for centuries. Fuck em.
It’s funnier how the catholic church defends pedophilia on an institutional level, but you “think of the children” types don’t seem to care.
Fun fact, the tolerance paradox isn’t a paradox. It’s a social contract. The contract is to be tolerant. Catholics are intolerant of anything they disagree with. They don’t abide by the contract, therefore we aren’t obligated to tolerate their bullshit.
Even more fun facts, the late term abortions catholics LOVE to hate-monger about (I went to the march for life I know first hand) make up a tiny fraction of total abortions, and they are almost always emergency situations, or discovered fetus conditions incompatible with life. Any arbitrary ban WILL kill women, and disproportionately kill women who actually want children. Three women died in Texas in November alone due to abortion laws.
I’m sure there can be some reasonable agreement that gives doctors greater discretion while not allowing elective late term abortions or whatever you think is happening, but for right now, you’re killing actual people.
Religion and healthcare do not mix. Very simple.
Judging by the amount of catholic hospitals in the world, it would appear like they do.
I too can write ‘roses’ on a sign and put it in my back yard next to the pile of manure.
Very mature. I am not quite sure what you think they do at catholic hospitals, but there are a lot of medical operations other than abortion.
I think we should also force chuck e cheese to perform abortions.
A hospital is just a building and the organization that owns the building.
The real question is, should hospitals be allowed to force or forbid doctors from providing medical care?
A doctor (Catholic or not) should never, and can never, be forced to perform a medical procedure, including abortions. And they also shouldn’t be forbidden from performing a medical procedure.
Hospitals just provide rooms and equipment so that doctors can provide the care that their patients need, within their ability to provide that care.
should hospitals be allowed to force or forbid doctors from providing medical care?
They provide the facilities, which includes administration and legal and billing. So in that regard, they have to have some kind of say, simply because they need to stock the equipment, train the nurses/MAs, and establish standard protocols for a given procedure. Otherwise, how do you contest a medical malpractice claim?
A doctor (Catholic or not) should never, and can never, be forced to perform a medical procedure, including abortions. And they also shouldn’t be forbidden from performing a medical procedure.
Doctors can and do regularly incur liability if they fail to perform certain necessary medical procedures, particularly in emergency room settings. A doctor that fails to follow protocol can be subject to malpractice. If, for instance, a Christian Scientist doctor refused to provide a blood transfusion to an individual suffering from sever blood loss or a narcotics prohibitionist doctor attempts to do surgery without providing anesthesia, they can get in some serious trouble.
Religious convictions don’t override medical protocols. What’s at issue is the legality of the protocols as they stand. Can a woman whose health is at risk from pregnancy receive an abortion without the doctors incurring criminal liability?
Right now, it appears that State AGs in prohibitionist states are threatening the licenses and freedoms of doctors who would provide life-saving care. Hospital administrators are acting as intermediaries because the hospital itself would suffer legal liability if staff knowingly permitted/facilitated an illegal procedure.
“do no harm, unless it violated your specific religious ideology” that’s how the oath goes right?
“Do no harm” is not the same as “Do prevent harm.”
Also, if you’re citing the Hippocratic Oath,…
I will not give to a woman a pessary to cause abortion.
The Hippocratic Oath was created to forbid surgery, since it was a provable harm before modern hygienic standards. No one has sworn the original in centuries, but they do swear modernized versions which don’t include such ignorant nonsense.
That’s fine. Just don’t expect to keep your medical license as you sit around doing nothing as people die of preventable deaths.
If you’re a doctor, your job is to save lives. If you intentionally fail to do that job it shouldn’t be your job.
If a firefighter refused to put out a fire because they didn’t feel like it, they’d be lose their job too.
This is really it. If a doctor has a moral objection to abortions, maybe gynecology wasn’t the right discipline for them to practice. That’s on them, and they should be upfront about it being a personal moral objection and for them to seek another doctor.
I’m fine with that compromise, because I suspect those doctors are and will remain the minority, and everyone’s rights are preserved.
But if a chief of medicine, or worse, a board of non-doctors, says their hospital won’t perform abortions on religious grounds? Then fuck you, you’re not a hospital, you are a faith-based healing center, and need to be treated as such.
Hospital administration needs to be science-based care and check their religion at the door, especially if they aren’t directly practicing. They shouldn’t be making decisions that directly effect people that they are indirectly related to based upon someone’s interpretation of an old anthology of fables.
If a doctor refuses to perform a medically necessary procedure because of his/her religion, as far as om concerned that should invalidate their medical license immediately.
The is a medical as is already you want to cut the amount of practicing nurses and doctors to fit your agenda. It’s a two way street. I don’t think a doctor should be forced to circumcise someone either just because it’s a religious ritual
I don’t think a doctor should be forced to circumcise someone either just because it’s a religious ritual
I’m petty sure most religious rituals are medically unnecessary, and medical doctors ought to be free to refuse to perform them.
Religious circumcision is not a medically required procedure, its a religious procedure from the stoneage that should be outlawed
I simply don’t want religious anything that is essential services.
What the fuck even is a catholic hospital? Praying the pain away? Offering a free confession close to death?
Surely they are not making use of modern medicine based on science that defies their beliefs.
Catholicism is not Christian science. They don’t reject science, they just view abortion as ending life. If it weren’t for Catholic hospitals, huge swaths of the US (and much of the developing world) wouldn’t have access to healthcare at all.
They’re just hospitals. In fact they’re the biggest group of non-profit hospitals in the country. They are generally speaking a very good thing. The main problem as discussed here is their restrictions on reproductive care, which is a huge problem and should not be allowed. It isn’t even like to be employed there you must be Catholic, or even Christian.
Religion makes some BIG BUCKS so they invest in things like universities and hospitals.
A lot of historical institutions have religious backing.
I’m not saying I support it. I just follow the money. (Tinfoil hat)
Religious hospitals? What will they think of next!
At least in countries that charge patients money for their healthcare, these religious hospitals are free, right? Given how much money Christianity makes in donations, and given that their whole religion is all about helping others for nothing in return and without judgement, it would make sense they’d run free hospitals providing healthcare for all, no matter their situation ♥️
wtf is a catholic hospital? you get wine and crackers while you wait in purgatory?
Many hospitals are owned by the Catholic Church and are a huge source of income.
Not just the catholics, either. Many flavors of Christianity run hospitals.
It’s a good cover for diabolical greed
That’s all that organized religion has ever been about.
Perhaps Catholic institutions shouldn’t be forced to perform actions against their beliefs, but then they don’t get to use the word “hospital” in relation to whatever their building does.
I feel this should apply to pharmacies too. If you want to have pharmacists that can deny you valid prescriptions from your doctor, then they don’t get to call that building a “pharmacy”. Just like cigarettes there should be a large lettered warning on the door to the establishment informing you that the person inside has indicated they will deny you a prescription if they feel like it. If the pharmacists want to exercise their moral discretion, they don’t get to use the word “pharmacy” for whatever building/business they’re doing it in.
Agreed. If you want to be a pharmacist, then be prepared to dispense contraceptives. If that conflicts with your religious beliefs, then you better figure our what you’re going to do with your life before you become a pharmacist.
If they don’t want to perform particular procedures based on their faith then they can call themseves a “Western Faith Therapy Centre”
I don’t want religious institutions near healthcare. Imposing attitudes of abstinence only moral puritanism on others. Thats not medicine. Like the WHO said 7 almost 8 years ago drug use needs to be globally decriminalized to remove attitudes of discrimination from health care settings. And at the time then nobody foresaw roe v wade being knocked back and turning the clock of social progress back 5/6 decades+ i wish j could say things cant get any worde but they can and they will. So we don’t need the people making things worse involved in the administration of medical care. We already have too many religious bigots with hoarded wealth whispering in the ear of the dumbest moron on the planet who has control of the nuclear football. And healthcare is already bastardized by the incentives of shareholder profits and the vultures of the for profit insurance industry whos sole purpose is tk deny people adequate health care to boost profits whenever possible so lets not shove religion down the throats of people who are often denied basic dignities.
Reclassify abortion as an exorcism, get a priest chanting some Latin during the procedure and done.
If abortion is an option, it is the only option worth considering.
The only kids who should be carried to term are the ones that have been planned and prepared for.
Deny owner class slave labour.
There is no excuse to have more than one kid unless you are able to properly provide for all of them.
I understand being poor with one child though, I don’t understand the need to spread limited resources over multiple children.
Focus on getting family out of poverty first.
This is my reason for my answer to the pro-choice question. It is only a baby once you have decided to carry it to term. Before that decision it isn’t.
Dual homicide if you kill a pregnant woman who wanted a child. Not a baby when aborting an unwanted pregnancy.
