Should religous groups be allowed to control the health services they provide?

[ETinCYQX]

I think we need to make a distinction between 'refusing to provide a service' and 'forcing their beliefs' on someone.

If I say "No, I am opposed to abortions on religious grounds, so I will not provide you with one," I am not forcing you to be religious. I am not forcing you to partake of my religion or worship my God. I am making decision about what *I* will do or not do, based on *my* beliefs. I am not forcing *anything* on you.

And let's face it, everybody operates in accordance with their own beliefs, regardless of what motivates them. Acting based on our own beliefs is not 'forcing our beliefs' on others. It's merely acting in accordance with our own beliefs.

And since you seem determined to claim that religious hospitals refuse to provide services that 'protect' and 'help' people, what are those services? Please be specific.

Er, no, I didn't claim that. Quite the opposite. I said (or meant, anyway), actually, that all the religious hospitals I have experience with did anything another hospital would do regardless of their specific religious orientation.

Would you give a pass to a cop who ticketed people of different races more heavily? That's acting in accordance with his beliefs. Would I be right, if I was a school teacher, to refuse to teach Muslim kids because I believe they're dangerous? (Of course I don't believe that) Acting in accordance with my own beliefs. It's not right, sorry, especially for a hospital.

And yes, actually, as a medical professional, hospital director, whatever, if you refuse a treatment and your refusal directly impacts a patient's quality of life, that is forcing your beliefs on them. Just like a teacher refusing to teach evolution.

If you still don't like my phrasing, how about this: I absolutely do not think that a religious organization should be permitted to allow their specific beliefs to affect medical treatments if that will compromise their patient's health. On the same subject, as stupid as I personally think the idea is, I vehemently believe a Jehovah's Witness patient should be allowed to refuse a blood transfusion for themselves. I just do not believe a Jehovah's Witness surgeon, doctor or hospital should have the right to make the same decision for a patient (Again, hypothetical example.)

 

[Tez3]

Absolutely. This is supposed to be a free country after all. The government has no right to tell a business what healthcare they have to provide, if any at all. People need to re-read their constitution.

Besides, this is all in the plan for obamacare. They want to force as many people as possible off of private health plans and into the government plan. If they can get religious institutions to just drop all health care, one more win for obama care.

That only works however if the healthcare provide is self funding, as someone pointed out before they can't take money from the government then screech when they are told what use that money is to be for. If the religious organisations are self funding then they can be independant, if they take government/tax payers money well, they have to do as they are asked, common sense. Your employer pays you to do the works he wants, not your own idea of it, go self employed it's up to you.

 

[Sukerkin]

I think we need to make a distinction between 'refusing to provide a service' and 'forcing their beliefs' on someone.

If I say "No, I am opposed to abortions on religious grounds, so I will not provide you with one," I am not forcing you to be religious. I am not forcing you to partake of my religion or worship my God. I am making decision about what *I* will do or not do, based on *my* beliefs. I am not forcing *anything* on you.

I see what you are trying to say there but I don't think that that logic entirely carries through. If it's an individual doctor and there are others available then I absolutely agree that the doctor should not be forced to violate his own conscience.

If there is only the one doctor/facility available tho' then the dogmatically instructed views of the medical personnel is being enforced upon the patient - i.e. it becomes a de facto a denial of medical service based on religion if there is no alternative.

 

[Jenna]

The same question from the OP poll might be rephrased in another way...

Should religious groups be forced to abide by your personal medical wishes even if it means acting contrary to their religious freedoms / rights?

I do not know, does that make a difference to how you all view it that are against the moral principle of refusal to provide?

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Would you give a pass to a cop who ticketed people of different races more heavily? That's acting in accordance with his beliefs. Would I be right, if I was a school teacher, to refuse to teach Muslim kids because I believe they're dangerous? (Of course I don't believe that) Acting in accordance with my own beliefs. It's not right, sorry, especially for a hospital.

Not at all, nor would I 'give a pass' to a doctor who refused to treat certain races or members of certain religions. I don't even understand the analogy.

And yes, actually, as a medical professional, hospital director, whatever, if you refuse a treatment and your refusal directly impacts a patient's quality of life, that is forcing your beliefs on them. Just like a teacher refusing to teach evolution.

I think your definition of 'forcing your beliefs' on someone and mine are different. If I refuse to do business with you on a Saturday because that is my Sabbath, are you now Jewish? Did I 'force you' to take on my religion? That's 'forcing my beliefs' on someone, if I cause you to accept my beliefs. Instead, I am acting in accordance with my beliefs; you can be whatever you want to be.

If you wander into a butcher shop and all they have is halal meat, is the butcher turning you into a Muslim? But he's forcing his beliefs on you by refusing to sell other kinds of meat, isn't he? No, he is acting in accordance with his own beliefs; what you are is entirely your own business.

If you still don't like my phrasing, how about this: I absolutely do not think that a religious organization should be permitted to allow their specific beliefs to affect medical treatments if that will compromise their patient's health. On the same subject, as stupid as I personally think the idea is, I vehemently believe a Jehovah's Witness patient should be allowed to refuse a blood transfusion for themselves. I just do not believe a Jehovah's Witness surgeon, doctor or hospital should have the right to make the same decision for a patient (Again, hypothetical example.)

Again, I ask you what specific procedures you are referring to. As I've stated, most Catholic-affiliated hospitals that I'm aware of refuse to provide things like contraception, abortions when the mother's health is not in danger, sterilizations, and in-vitro fertilization. Now please, which of these is an emergency situation requiring immediate action to save the life of the patient. If you know of any actual issues where hospitals have refused treatment in life-threatening situations, I ask you again to trot them out. I understand your hypothetical situation, but since to the best of my knowledge, that has never happened, I have to reject it. Tell me of some real danger, not one you admittedly made up.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I see what you are trying to say there but I don't think that that logic entirely carries through. If it's an individual doctor and there are others available then I absolutely agree that the doctor should not be forced to violate his own conscience.

If there is only the one doctor/facility available tho' then the dogmatically instructed views of the medical personnel is being enforced upon the patient - i.e. it becomes a de facto a denial of medical service based on religion if there is no alternative.

Again, we're talking about (in the case of Catholic-affiliated hospitals, which is what I'm aware of), refusal to provide contraception, abortions where the mother's life is not in danger, sterilizations, and in vitro fertilization. Again, please inform me which of these is a life-threatening situation which the patient will die of if not given immediately.

I see lots of hypothetical situations being posted. What if the hospital is religious but the only one within hundreds of miles, what if the hospital is run by religious types that refuse even blood transfusions, and etc. While hypothetical situations are useful for the sake of illustration, we're talking about restricting the right of religious-affiliated hospitals to act in accordance with their own principles for violating things they do not violate.

In the case of Catholic-affiliated hospitals, the hospitals themselves, many run or administered by Catholic Nuns as well as Catholic lay staff, have broken with the Catholic church over providing abortions when the life of the mother is at risk. This was well before any of this White House directive stuff came up relating to what religious-affiliated hospitals may and may not due. I understand the objection of the Church, and I support the decisions of the hospitals, even though it has led to a breaking of the direct affiliation between the Church and the hospitals in question (the largest Catholic health care providers in the world, by the way). It was the only reasonable accommodation they could come to; if the Church relinquishes day-to-day control of the hospitals, they can be at ease concerning certain procedures which occur but they do not approve of. I suspect that many in the Church found this the only way they could ensure that the right thing was done, but Church law was not ignored.

However, those institutions are still Catholic. They do not provide (as the link I provided previously indicates) certain services which the Church sees as wrong and which are NOT life-threatening.

Some hospitals do not provide kidney transplants, yet they are the only hospitals for many miles around. Should they be forced to do so anyway? That's the same issue. If a patient wants in-vitro fertilization and the hospital nearest them does not provide it, then they have to go elsewhere. Same for sterilization, abortion where the life of the mother is not at risk, and contraception. I'm sorry, I just do not see why that should be forced by law.

I would also ask another question. The Church has stated flat-out that they will not comply with legal requirements that they provide things they do not wish to provide. What that means is that if push comes to shove, the hospitals will close. What then? Do we force the hospitals to open by force of law, regardless of what the owners want to do? Do we wait for for-profit hospitals to open in their place? Do we take them over and run them as state institutions?

What if the hospitals in question decided to only accept patients that were of that religion? So I could get admitted to St Joseph but you could not. Therefore, I would have no objection to my treatment there; and you, since you are not Catholic, would have no objections, being not admitted. Say the hospital accepted all for emergency care in order to save life and stabilize patients, but then immediately shipped off all non-Catholics and refused to provide any non-emergency care for non-Catholics. Would that be OK then?

It seems to me that the basic argument is that if an institution is anything but a hospital, they can do as they please. But if it is a hospital, it must provide any care demanded, even non-emergency care, and the hospital must comply regardless of whether or not they choose to provide that service. That just seems odd to me. Actually, it seem more anti-religion and pro-state than anything else; which is actually what I believe it to be. Nothing more than a veiled attack on religion.

 

[Sukerkin]

Again, we're talking about (in the case of Catholic-affiliated hospitals, which is what I'm aware of), refusal to provide contraception, abortions where the mother's life is not in danger, sterilizations, and in vitro fertilization. Again, please inform me which of these is a life-threatening situation which the patient will die of if not given immediately.

Just to clarify a little, I was speaking of the principle inherent in the logic. Whether the treatment involved is life-saving or not is a distraction from the core concept; if there is an alternative then, clearly, it is less of an issue.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Just to clarify a little, I was speaking of the principle inherent in the logic. Whether the treatment involved is life-saving or not is a distraction from the core concept; if there is an alternative then, clearly, it is less of an issue.

The problem is that people want law to be set based on the 'principle', which affects many to provide for a solution to a hypothetical which no one has even shown exists, as far as I know.

It reminds me of a dispute I had with my hateful neighbor last summer. He complained that my dogs were destroying his fence. I asked what they did to his fence. Well, nothing, but they might. He told my landlord that I am destroying his property. I asked my landlord in what way I had destroyed his property. The answer? I hadn't, but I might.

Prior restraint sucks, let me tell you. I really dislike being punished for what hypothetically might happen.

Someone tell me what damage is being done, and we can talk about what the solution for that ought to be; I'm a reasonable person. But if all we have are hypothetical situations and demands that these potential issues be solved by rule of law, I'm not on board with that.

 

[shesulsa]

When women die because an abortion could save their lives and the abortion is refused because of religion, this is a violation of rights. Is this not sufficient harm to you Bill? (please note I'm in a hurry and realize this could be read as snarky - this is not the intent).

 

[Big Don]

Chik Fil a is closed on Sundays, thus forcing their religion on everyone

 

[Big Don]

When women die because an abortion could save their lives and the abortion is refused because of religion, this is a violation of rights. Is this not sufficient harm to you Bill? (please note I'm in a hurry and realize this could be read as snarky - this is not the intent).

That is such a crock of ****. Name 5 women, in the past 10 years that have died because no one would provide them with an abortion

 

[Bill Mattocks]

When women die because an abortion could save their lives and the abortion is refused because of religion, this is a violation of rights. Is this not sufficient harm to you Bill? (please note I'm in a hurry and realize this could be read as snarky - this is not the intent).

I do not think you have read what I have said. No snark taken or given; I have said that it appears to me that Catholic-affiliated hospitals are providing such treatment in such cases; even losing their affiliation with the Church over it. What they continue to refuse to provide are abortions when the life of the mother is NOT at stake. And no, I do not have a problem with the latter.

 

[oftheherd1]

well, then they better not accept a penny of federal money, in any shape or form.

...

That is true. Suppose they do not. Will you then grant them the right to refuse some medical procedures based on their religious beliefs?

...

Shall we say that if hospitals take federal dollars, they are also required to take federal orders regarding patient treatment?

That is pretty much how it works, and perhaps should be. You take someone's money, you obligate yourself to do their bidding.
...
Frankly, I think this whole thing is a red herring. There simply isn't a major issue here; this is a thinly-disguised attempt to consolidate power in the hands of the federal government. It's manufactured. And that's unfortunate.

This I strongly agree with. Does no one see a problem here? We are taxed by the federal government who then returns the money to the states. The federal government then gets to dictate how the money is used. Why do we need to support an extra layer of government to have our money used in our interests, except we don't get to say what our interests are. In federal republics, there is supposed to be a separation of powers and responsibilities between the national and state governments. The idea is supposed to be the local state has a better idea how they wish to live. There are some things that the federal government can properly get into, but not as many as our government seems to want to do.

When women die because an abortion could save their lives and the abortion is refused because of religion, this is a violation of rights. Is this not sufficient harm to you Bill? (please note I'm in a hurry and realize this could be read as snarky - this is not the intent).

What right would that be? Rights are granted.

 

[WC_lun]

This is just my personal look on these type of issues. Keep medical decisions between a person and thier medical providers. If a person has religious views that dictate certain actions or non-actions, then that is between the doctor and patient to work out an outcome with that in mind. Start bringing in entities that have agendas other than the patients health as priority, then the patient's health WILL suffer.

 

[Cryozombie]

Well, if you want an elective procedure that isn't covered by the Church Hospital, can you not go elsewhere? Facilities here choose what services they offer all the time: For example, We have (non church BTW) hospitals here with no Birthing centers, you cannot go there and give birth even if you are gonna have the kid in the back of the taxicab... in many cases you need to go SEVERAL towns away to find a facility that still have open birthing centers. Is that really any different? Or should we force ALL healthcare providers to provide staff and medical professionals for ALL services that are going to potentially come up at their facility even if the possibility is so remote as to be unprofitable or create significant increase in cost of service to have a medical professional, the equipment, and facility on hand for that particular service...?

I also think there should be a distinction between providing a medical service to save a pregnant woman's life that results in the abortion of the baby, and going in and having an abortion because you don't want the kid.

 

[Cryozombie]

Also, the wording of the poll is misleading and biased. A much more fairly worded assessment would be more along the lines of "Should a Church decide what medical services they want to provide you with", because I don't think there are many Churches telling non-members "Under no circumstances may you have this done even if you go elsewhere!" Which is basically what your wording suggests.

 

[shesulsa]

Elsewhere as in where, Cryo? Another location they own? Seems your question is biased as well.

I guess I assumed the fine people of MartialTalk are intelligent enough to interpret the question and answer it according to their personal loyalty. Was I wrong?

 

[shesulsa]

That is such a crock of ****. Name 5 women, in the past 10 years that have died because no one would provide them with an abortion

Even in this age of information, most of these cases are not indexed on the internet. If it's something you really want to learn, Google is your friend. There are many women who will never reveal that they have indeed had abortions and some of them are women of faith.

I'd apologize for being privy to these conversations as a woman that you might not be privy to as a man, but ... well, I rather like being a woman outside of the obvious continuous attempts at controlling my choices and health based on religious beliefs.

Today, because abortion is still largely legal, woman who become pregnant and are diagnosed with cancer or who face some other life-threatening condition and who must choose between treatment and the continued pregnancy are able to abort and delay reproduction until their health is recovered, providing an optimum environment for a child.

As to the availability of services, it truly blows my mind that it seems so impossible to some that there really are townships so small and so remote that the poorer populations who are served only by healthcare institutions owned by religious entities really can't afford to go anywhere else.

Remember - just because it hasn't happened to you doesn't mean it doesn't happen to others. These are not hypothetical situations.

 

[Big Don]

While there may well be medically necessary abortions that are denied, medically necessary abortions are the rarity rather than the norm in abortions. Not only that, but, a doctor that refused to perform a genuinely medically necessary abortion would be just as guilty of malpractice as one who refused to amputate a gangrenous limb, thus the hew and cry about medically necessary abortions is a crock of ****.

 

[shesulsa]

While there may well be medically necessary abortions that are denied, medically necessary abortions are the rarity rather than the norm in abortions. Not only that, but, a doctor that refused to perform a genuinely medically necessary abortion would be just as guilty of malpractice as one who refused to amputate a gangrenous limb, thus the hew and cry about medically necessary abortions is a crock of ****.

Do you even care that this happens in other countries as a matter of law? do you really think that this is not a possibility here?