Female rape victims in CO should stay away from Catholic Hospitals

[sinker 0]

touche!

well, what may seem like the reasonable application of a principle in every circumstance may, in fact, not be reasonable at all.

underlying the hippocratic oath is the principle that existence is better than nonexistence. existence is a good and nonexistence is a privation of good. that's all.

but you're right in saying that great care must be taken when dealing with issues of life and death, I'd say much more care than what our present society gives it. I think we're far too cavelear (sp?) about it, really.

-the artist formerly known as sinker

[jdhill 0]

I don't see the two situations being alike at all... one is withholding information about life saving procedures and options, the other is withholding information about optional, not medically necessary procedures.

In your scenario, I would say the withholding of information is unethical, in the second I would only see it that way if the patient asked for the information and the doctor lied about it.

J

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke

[sinker 0]

Quote

You're right -- I worded that poorly.

I'll go fix it.

Wendy

hi wendy... another temp. thread hijack... so you folks are gettin ready to send up that shuttle again huh?

-the artist formerly known as sinker

[sinker 0]

well, they DO differ in terms of how you described them, (and I agree w/ you on that) but they ARE similar in that in both cases, we're hypothetically talking about a physician being told BY LAW that he must inform a patient about procedures he deems unethical.

It seems to me the real place where the two camps in this thread part company is where the line is drawn w/ respect to what constitutes "informing" another about a particular medical practice.

For ex. if I were a Catholic doc, I could not, in good conscience inform a woman that if she wanted to take an abortifacient, she could go see Dr. So and so at 555 So and so Street and they are open from 9 to 4 mon through thursday. I would, however, have to tell her that she may be pregnant as a result of the rape and that if she wished to take an abortifacient, she would need to do so at another facility. I would also be VERY careful to not say anything that could be construed as coercion to NOT take an abortifacient, given the extremely sensitive nature of the situation.

-the artist formerly known as sinker

[jdhill 0]

Quote

Dr. So and so at 555 So and so Street and they are open from 9 to 4 mon through thursday. I would, however, have to tell her that she may be pregnant as a result of the rape and that if she wished to take an abortifacient, she would need to do so at another facility

I don't think a doctor should be compelled to offer the information and/or a referral (as seems to be required in the bill in question)... I agree that the Dr. should advise the patient of the possibility of pregnacy... if the patient asks for options, then the Dr. should advise the patient of the options available at that facility, and that other options may be available at other facilities... beyond that the patient needs to do the work, even a rape victim.

J

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke

[sinker 0]

i think we're talking about the same thing here. to go further would get into providing the means for someone to carry out an abortion...

i dug out one of my catholic and medical ethics texts... i'll post some from it here later...

-the artist formerly known as sinker

[Zenister 0]

Quote

The more I learned, the less I believed.

funny how it works like that... of course knowledge and faith are mutually exclusive

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[ryoder 1,590]

Quote

Quote

The more I learned, the less I believed.

funny how it works like that... of course knowledge and faith are mutually exclusive

I actually had a bible-thumping fundamentalist, (to whom I am unfortunately related), warn me about the "danger of getting too much education".

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[wmw999 2,589]

Quote

shuttle

Yup. Launch Planning Window: May 15 - June 3, 2005
Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[billvon 3,120]

>In the scenario we have been discussing, the doctor is not trying to
>coerce the rape victim to DO ANYTHING according to the doctor's beliefs.

If that is what he is doing, then I have no problem with that. As long as he tells her the options and lets her make her own decision, then he has discharged his medical duties and allowed her to make her own moral decisions. Which is how it should be.

>People are always obligated to act according to their informed consciences!

Not true; you have admitted this yourself. A marine who refuses to fight because his conscience prohibits it will be forced to act in contradiction to his conscience, or risk disciplinary action. So there are some cases where people must act AGAINST their conscience because they agreed to do so.

Needless to say, it is much better to decide this before you make the commitement to either the military or medicine.

[Lindsey 0]

But a doctor who holds, in this case, principles consistent w/ the Catholic Church, is only obligated to say that any procedure or drug administration that is explicitly for the purpose of aborting the product of rape cannot/will not be given at this Catholic facility. Implicit in that statement is that such services are available at non-Catholic medical institutions.

Did you just say that BILL's statment was ignorant??? When a woman is raped and being taken to the emergency room, probably the last thing on her mind is that this facility might be supported by the Catholic Church and might somehow punish her for being raped. To say that if she wants care that is more in line with her own moral/ethical convictions then she should seek it elsewhere is a little outside the realm of what's acceptable.

The issue is not whether they will provide a prescription for this medication (which I also believe they should do if she desires it), but whether they will inform a woman who was raped that it is an option for her.

linz

--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Dr. So and so at 555 So and so Street and they are open from 9 to 4 mon through thursday. I would, however, have to tell her that she may be pregnant as a result of the rape and that if she wished to take an abortifacient, she would need to do so at another facility

I don't think a doctor should be compelled to offer the information and/or a referral (as seems to be required in the bill in question)... I agree that the Dr. should advise the patient of the possibility of pregnacy... if the patient asks for options, then the Dr. should advise the patient of the options available at that facility, and that other options may be available at other facilities... beyond that the patient needs to do the work, even a rape victim.

J

With this I can agree

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Muenkel 0]

Quote

The more I learned, the less I believed.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


funny how it works like that... of course knowledge and faith are mutually exclusive

Interesting. I made the exact same comment in this thread with an opposite conclusion and you chose that one to make your commentary.

You have 2 posters here who make similar but opposing posts (in a very civil manner) and your conclusion is that one is more knowledgeable.

If this was poker, you just showed your hand.

Chris

_________________________________________
Chris

[Zenister 0]

Quote

Quote

The more I learned, the less I believed.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


funny how it works like that... of course knowledge and faith are mutually exclusive

Interesting. I made the exact same comment in this thread with an opposite conclusion and you chose that one to make your commentary.

You have 2 posters here who make similar but opposing posts (in a very civil manner) and your conclusion is that one is more knowledgeable.

actually i chose to comment based on simple observation, nearly everyone I know that seriously questioned their faith has recognized that there are answers it does not contain, every clergy member interested enough to seriously discuss the issues involved have always retreated to ‘it’s a matter of faith’ when faced with questions their dogma cannot answer.. knowledge, education and inquiry about ‘how things really work’ ALWAYS brings dark age dogma into question…

There is quite a difference between someone who seeks knowledge by asking questions and someone who looks for questions that fit their answers...
do you dispute the original assertion? Knowledge and faith are mutually exclusive?

Quote

I never challenged what I was taught and just tried to grow with it.

you’ve admitted that you never questioned the beliefs you were initially indoctrinated with, do you recognize how limited the position of' learning' you claim (vs study outside of a particular belief) to have done really is?

Would you say the Muslim who has never read any religious text other than the Koran has truly sought ‘God’, has really attempted to educate himself on the true nature of divinity? Or does he cling to what he knows because it provides a safe, unquestioning refuge from true knowledge? Why do you believe a Catholic indoctrination to be more impartial?

One of the first principles of education is the recognition that everything you ‘believe you know’ you know may be incorrect.. just as you cannot cannot pour wine into a vase full of water, you cannot teach anyone ANYTHING who believes they already have the answers…... do you think a catholic education provides an impartial base to acquire true knowledge?

Quote

If this was poker, you just showed your hand.

You believe you know what my hand contains, but if we're playing poker, you have already bet on the BELIEF that you have a pair of kings. I’ve at least examined my cards, and so have a much better grasp on the ‘real’ odds, given the realitive position, i'm certainly game to raise, are you going to keep betting on faith?? remember, as soon as you look at your hand, you've denied it....

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[Nightingale 0]

If a woman is raped and beaten and picked up by an ambulance, she has no say in where she is taken. None. the ambulance must take her to the nearest hospital that provides emergency care, whether it's a catholic hospital or not.

If she is injured enough, she may have to stay in the hospital for a few days. Insurance companies won't pay for an elective transfer to another hospital. A woman shouldn't be put in a position where she would need to get a friend or family member to sneak medicine into a hospital. If she's in that hospital more than 72 hours without access to emergency contraceptives, if she wants them when she's released, they won't help because too much time has passed. Whether to take EC or not should be HER choice, not the hospital's, doctor's, or state's. No one should force her to take EC, but nobody should prevent her from doing so either. It should be her decision and hers alone.

[kbordson 8]

Very interesting thread and some very well thought out posts.

Some quick background on my perspective. I am 34 years old, an OB/GYN resident, a DO (as opposed to an MD, so never took the Hippocratic Oath), raised Catholic and went to Catholic grade school through 8th grade, was "excommunicated" for marrying my husband as he has never had his previous marraige annulled, and now have a personal "relationship" with those above me. I have been on both sides of the hospital bed in this situation.... I have given this some thought.

What I chose to do, or what I choose to believe for moral reasons has so VERY LITTLE to do with what I tell my patients. It is not my place to tell them what to think or what to feel. I give options. Risks, benefits and alternatives... full and informed consent. And I do it in terms that are "real"... not the medical lingo that is so easy to slip into but truly is a scary language if you don't understand it. And when they ask me "what would you do?" I typically try to reply that I can't answer that. My decisions are based on my beliefs and my understanding of the situation. Neither of which might be where they are. I sometimes mention risks and stakes.... the risks of pregnancy, the risks of STDs, the risks of.... thsoe are quantifiable numbers. One in a 100 or 1:500 or whatever.... but if you're that ONE, then the risks don't really matter... the stakes, we're not betting with penny chips in the kitty, we're talking about this womans future, the possible new life, the effects it will have- both keeping vs. preventing.... stakes are different for everyone and understanding that this person has her own perspective on life is the most important thing that you could do.
I am saddened that they had to pass a law to remind doctors to respect patients autonomy, and I am more saddened that it was vetoed. The choices are very important... especially in a setting where this woman has just had her choice forcibly removed. What she decides is her life.... and I am angry when anyone, be it a he or she, doctor or politician, liberal or staunch believer, tells her what she should do. Until you are walking in those shoes, it's not your place to judge or decide.
What would I do - as her doctor, offer all the options. Would I write the script? Probably. Would I do an abortion? No... but I would refer her to someone who could, by name and number (she's been through enough, why make it a wild goose chase).
This might not be in line with some thoughts, and might be perfectly synced with others.... but the the final thoughts here should reflect back on what "her" thoughts would be.

Karen

[sinker 0]

Still, you cannot ask a Catholic facility to violate what it believes to be the most sacrosanct of things, an unborn child.

If the woman becomes pregnant as a result of the rape, and a Catholic facility does not provide "emergency contraceptives" in the form of abortifacients, she can have an abortion after being discharged from the hospital if she so chooses. If there are "emergency contraceptives" that are NOT abortifacients, the Catholic facility can administer them to the rape victim since, in the case of rape, the teaching of the Church regarding the evil of contraception in relation to sexual intercourse does not apply b/c rape is NOT intercourse. Intercouse, as defined by the Church is the mutually chosen act of giving onself to another in the deepest way possible. Rape, on the other hand is an act of aggression only and the victim of the rape has the right to repel the aggression before the act of rape, during rape and also the right to expel or block the continuation of the act in the form of the aggressor's sperm still invading her body.

The only problem is, I don't know if there are any contraceptives that act soley and purely as a contraceptive and NOT also as an abortifacient. That should be something that Catholic hospitals should research.

michael

-the artist formerly known as sinker

[sinker 0]

that was a very well said and thought out post, which I highly respect. A couple of things...

You were "excommunicated" for marrying a man w/o an annulment? Surely you weren't literally excommunicated. That is not the proper response. If you and your husband don't believe in what the Church teaches about marriage, then getting an annulment shouldn't have been important to you or him nor their judgement on your state in life now. I'm not saying this is how you think, but too many people want to participate in the life of the Church (esp. sacramentally) w/o first fulfilling the prerequisites required by that very institution. Cafeteria Catholicism is just oxymoronic. If one doesn't agree w/ what the Catholic Church teaches, there are PLENTY of other churches out there, I'm sure there is one or two of the more than 26,000 Protestant (or even non-Christian churches) that would be a good fit.

Sorry for the digression. You said that if you were in that situation, you would probably prescribe the emergency contraceptive. I'm assuming you're referring to one that is abortifacient. I'm also assuming you'd do so while working in a Catholic hospital. Sorry, but if that is the case, it is disingenuous and hypocritical to work in a place like that then deliberately act in a manner contrary to it's misson and philosophy. In such a case, such a physician should be released of her duties at said hospital. Another question... you said you'd prescribe the contraceptive, but not perform an abortion. Are you speaking of a contraceptive that is also abortifacient? If so, that IS, ipso facto, providing an abortion.

It's quite similar to the Cafeteria Catholic situation regarding divorce/annulment/remarriage. If your beliefs don't adhere to those of the institution you work for, you SHOULDN'T work there. To do so shows an incredible lack of integrity.

-the artist formerly known as sinker

[Zenister 0]

Quote

Intercouse, as defined by the Church is the mutually chosen act of giving onself to another in the deepest way possible.

by this definition we have an astounding number of children who were born, not from 'Intercourse' but from a base physical act common to all species with gender determinators, the majority of who's births have little to do with "giving onself to another in the deepest way possible' and more to do with simple lust.

any modern adult, and even 'the church' should recognize that there is far more to "giving onself" than the simple physical act that results in pregnancy.

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[Ron 10]

Quote

Ok, then any doctor who adheres to that should also not do anything to help a woman get pregnant if she is having trouble conceiving. That too would be interfering with God's job. And then technically they shouldn't do anything to help someone who is dying either because that was obviously God's plan as well.

Keep in that line then Drs should not do anything since everything that happens is Gods will....Including killing.

However most people can see a CLEAR difference between killing and rendering aid to save or create life.

Only god (If you believe in him) can create life, but any jackass can take one.

Your argument is still weak.

The Hippocratic Oath (classic version) says:
"I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody who asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect.(That means no abortion pill) Similarly I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy (That spells it out). In purity and holiness I will guard my life and my art."

The new one:
"Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death (Abortion is death). If it is given me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God."

BTW I am for Abortion, and not religious at all...But I don't think a RELIGIOUS hospital should be forced to do them, or perscribe the morning after pill.

Got to the Pagan hospital down the road.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[mr2mk1g 10]

Quote

BTW I am for Abortion, and not religious at all...But I don't think a RELIGIOUS hospital should be forced to do them, or perscribe the morning after pill.

That's not what the bill is seeking.

[Ron 10]

Quote

That's not what the bill is seeking

There are people who have said they thing the religious hospital should *give* the pill.

Still a religious hospital should not have to do something that is against its core beliefs.

Never forget that a woman can have an abortion mths later.

If they are so stupid as to not know that then they should not be allowed to have kids.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[mr2mk1g 10]

Quote

There are people who have said they thing the religious hospital should *give* the pill.

I'm not one of those people, nor is the bill about which this thread was started. Under the above circumstances I would agree with you.

Quote

Still a religious hospital should not have to do something that is against its core beliefs.

The bill does not seek to do that.

As I pointed out 4 pages ago, the bill would only require the hospital to tell the patient that there is such a thing as the morning after pill and that it may prevent pregnancy.

As I pointed out, Catholics do not believe you go to hell for telling someone of the existence of the morning after pill; Catholics believe you go to hell for taking the morning after pill.

The bill requires only the transmission of information. The transmission of information is not against the core beliefs of Catholicism (though no doubt some might well argue with that).

[sinker 0]

Quote

As I pointed out, Catholics do not believe you go to hell for telling someone of the existence of the morning after pill; Catholics believe you go to hell for taking the morning after pill.

I *think* you're speaking tongue-in-cheek here, at least I hope so, b/c this is just pattenly false. The Catholic Church doesn't say you go to hell if you take the morning after pill, rather that it is a grave evil to deliberately and intentionally take the life of an innocent human being. Only God knows the state of one's soul/heart and can say that this person or that person is going to hell.

-the artist formerly known as sinker

[mr2mk1g 10]

Accepted. I was using the phrase as a colloquialism for the fact that it is a grave evil and all the associated potential ramifications.