Discussion
  • Read More
    Ari Schwartz: Dark Lord of the SnarkErin Gloria Ryan
    12/03/13 7:04pm

    I'm a bit fuzzy on the math here... but okay!

    I'm also a fan of the ACLU! Yay!

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      Writer4003Ari Schwartz: Dark Lord of the Snark
      12/03/13 7:11pm

      Is...is it incredibly telling that I thought the shoehorn was a riding crop at first?

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      Rusty ElbowsAri Schwartz: Dark Lord of the Snark
      12/03/13 7:11pm

      I don't get it.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    catsloveartErin Gloria Ryan
    12/03/13 7:06pm

    Why on earth are people that are neither the doctor or the patient making decisions on what procedures should be done?

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      Ari Schwartz: Dark Lord of the Snarkcatsloveart
      12/03/13 7:10pm

      Actuaries.

      Actuaries control the world.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      collierLAAri Schwartz: Dark Lord of the Snark
      12/03/13 7:46pm

      Which is why the Insurance. Business. needs to be completely and totally divorced from healthcare.

      Well, it's one of the reasons.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    ilovecarolburnettErin Gloria Ryan
    12/03/13 7:18pm

    When I was trying to have a kid with my husband I had a couple of miscarriages first because I was approaching 40. The first 2 happened early enough that they were like REALLY bad periods. The 3rd one the heart stopped beating when I was further along so I needed a DNC. My OB/GYN worked out of a Catholic hospital so she could not perform the DNC. I remember thinking it was weird because my girlfriend had had the exact same thing happen the week before, but her doctor just took care of it then and there in the office (we were both about 3 months I think). I even asked my doctor why she couldn't do it because I knew it was possible from my friend's experience. She said she couldn't because it was a Catholic hospital and she wasn't allowed to do the procedure. I had to go to a private abortion clinic and be put under (also unnecessary—a local could have done it but wasn't an option. I should have gone to Planned Parenthood). It was such a hassle. I think if Catholic hospitals want to get government money for health care, they need to be willing to provide more comprehensive service. I was more than annoyed by my experience and at no point was my health or life endangered and I wasn't in pain but it just made everything so much more inconvenient—and far more expensive for my health insurance carrier.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      paging_dr_nickilovecarolburnett
      12/03/13 7:46pm

      I'm sorry you had to go through that. That must have been hard, and you didn't need extra hoops to go through for an already sad time.

      I don't think religious anything should get money from the government. You can't have it both ways with the government, Catholic Church. Ugh

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      ilovecarolburnettpaging_dr_nick
      12/03/13 7:54pm

      I wasn't sad. My attitude was influenced by my friend who had said the week before when she miscarried "It's nature's way of taking care of a mistake. That egg wasn't viable. I'll try again next month." I thought it was such a good way to think about it and I truly wasn't upset. I'd been trying for a few months and I expected to have a bit of trouble doing it at 39. But if I had been more effected emotionally (and I think many people are, maybe I'm just weird), I think the dragging it out would have made it all worse.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    AstrueErin Gloria Ryan
    12/03/13 7:23pm

    This issue needs so much more play and it is not just about abortions! Catholic hospitals will refuse treatment if you are pregnant and they think the treatment may harm the fetus.

    True story: someone close to me was pregnant, just a few weeks. Began bleeding. Went to a clinic to confirm a miscarriage. A day or two later she had her nose broken by her asshole boyfriend. She went to a catholic hospital emergency room. They tell her that she needs to have her nose set, but the meds they use during the procedure not safe while pregnant. Okay, she's been miscarrying for a few days. But, pregnancy test still coming up positive. They refuse to do procedure. They tell her that she'll have to wait until miscarriage completes (HGC levels back to 0) then come back (they won't do the D&C to complete the miscarriage). If her nose has started to heal by then, they'll have to rebreak it and do surgery. She's not insured.

    Fucking Catholic hospitals.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      WallflowerAstrue
      12/03/13 8:40pm

      That's awful. I hope your friend is doing ok and can get both the medical and emotional help she needs.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      AstrueWallflower
      12/03/13 8:52pm

      Thanks. This was a few years ago and she is doing fine. She was able to find another hospital to help her. Said ex-boyfriend is in prison for a very long time for unrelated reasons.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    JaniceWaffleErin Gloria Ryan
    12/03/13 7:07pm

    I get that Catholic hospitals are operated without government funding, but their policies seem pretty death panel-y. Since the policies are sex-specific, can they also be sued for discrimination?

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      thinkinghappyJaniceWaffle
      12/03/13 7:23pm

      I don't know the answer to the question but just thought I'd mention that the govt. funding lines can actually get blurry with Catholic and non-sectarian hospital mergers... it's not quite black and white, unfortunately

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      JaniceWafflethinkinghappy
      12/03/13 7:24pm

      Shady, shady shit.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    WallflowerErin Gloria Ryan
    12/03/13 7:07pm

    How does the termination of pregnancy work with something like this? If the hospital would have induced labor the first time, would that be considered abortion or performed like a partial birth abortion? Or would it be a situation where they induce labor, deliver the baby, and let nature take it a course?

    This pisses me off to no end that it's acceptable to let a woman suffer and risk serious complications and death to save an unsaveable pregnancy. If god is so almighty and really wants the baby to be born why not deliver the baby, treat the mom and see if god magically saves it?

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      quagmireWallflower
      12/03/13 7:20pm

      Since the pregnancy was non-viable and in the process of miscarrying/about to miscarry, they should have (at the very least), kept her in the hospital to monitor her for infection, etc, and so when the pregnancy started to deliver, or was officially dead, they could have dealt with it. They told her nothing was wrong, not that the best course of action was essentially an abortion and they couldn't do that for her, so she should go somewhere else, or stay put and this is what they COULD do for her.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      Falcongirl77quagmire
      12/03/13 8:41pm

      Even that's not quite enough. When something like this happens, the safest course of action is to terminate the pregnancy, even if there is still a heartbeat. After all, Savita Halapanavar was in the hospital being monitored by doctors, but she still became septic and died, all because the doctors were waiting for the heart beat to stop. But, yeah, the doctors' actions in this case was just an extra bit of gross malpractice.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    RoczaErin Gloria Ryan
    12/03/13 8:12pm

    Savita... Savita... hmm. The name should really ring a bell to the Catholic Bishops Conference. :| Here's hoping we don't have to have an American Savita before things change.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      opheeliaRocza
      12/03/13 10:22pm

      We've had a lot of near Savitas. This is a horrible and graphic read:

      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/P...

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      Roczaopheelia
      12/03/13 10:29pm

      Agreed. I'm afraid it's going to actually take a woman publicly dying for Catholic hospitals to be forced to offer recognized basic care to women who are miscarrying.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    Joseph FinnErin Gloria Ryan
    12/03/13 7:06pm

    I wonder...would it legal to require Catholic hospitals to label themselves as such much clearer than they already are?

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      the-fresh-prince-of-middle-earthJoseph Finn
      12/03/13 7:55pm

      It does not matter whether they are identifying with a christian or any other religious doctrines because medical institutions like this are accepting the money, and insurance of individuals of any faith, or no faith. Health care falls into the section of secularism, a health care clinic is obliged under law to present all reasonable, and legal available options on the table, the patient has the option to insert their beliefs in making a decision on these options. It should always be the interest of the patients first when it comes to their health.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      Joseph Finnthe-fresh-prince-of-middle-earth
      12/03/13 9:13pm

      Hell yeah.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    CrimeSceneShoeErin Gloria Ryan
    12/03/13 7:33pm

    Anyone remember what happened to Angela Carder? She was basically murdered by so called "pro lifers":

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angela_Ca...

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      Little Miss MuffetCrimeSceneShoe
      12/03/13 9:11pm

      OH MY GOD. WHAT DID I JUST READ!??!

      ... AND WHY IS THIS THE FIRST TIME I'VE HEARD ABOUT HER?

      I'm so saddened, disgusted, and horrified I don't even know what to do. And at a secular university hospital nonetheless. IS THERE NO HOPE?!??

      (I apologize for the liberal use of caps and punctuation, I couldn't stop myself.)

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      Hamlet goes safariCrimeSceneShoe
      12/03/13 10:14pm

      I always bring up her case when we get a Jez post on medical mistreatment of pregnant women. It still makes me sick when I think of what happened to her.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    MsCinephileErin Gloria Ryan
    12/03/13 8:07pm

    "Claim: 'Catholic health care does not offend the rights of individual conscience by refusing to provide or permit medical procedures that are judged morally wrong by the teaching authority of the Church.' –USCCB, The Ethical and Religious Directives for Health Services, 2011.

    In Fact:While it serves neither the patient seeking care nor the dictates of conscience to force individual medical professionals to provide services they consider immoral, it goes too far to grant such blanket rights to an institution. Catholicism requires deference to the conscience of others in making one’s own decisions. Its intellectual tradition emphasizes that conscience can be guided but not forced in any direction. The Directives, in their rigidity and their enforcement by the bishops, dictate to people what services they may provide and access rather than respecting the individual capacities of women and their doctors to form their own decisions.

    When a young pregnant woman with pulmonary hypertension finds her life in danger and decides that it is best to defend herself by discontinuing her pregnancy, as happened in the case of St. Joseph’s,[25]the hospital where she is treated has an ethical obligation to respect her decision. When an unemployed mother of five decides that she cannot have more children and seeks a tubal ligation, she should not have to worry about whether her right to follow her conscience will be denied.[26]When a doctor has made the choice to save a woman on her operating table rather than waiting to perform unnecessary tests and waste precious minutes, that provider should have the ability to provide rapid, life-saving care without fear of retribution from administrators or the local bishop."

    (Source.)

    Reply
    <