facepalm of the day

[GenuineRisk]

http://jezebel.com/catholic-hospital...tub-1730775971

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by bigrun

On another note this really ticks me off..

Now I'll have to write 2 checks.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nati...icle-1.2360560

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

http://jezebel.com/catholic-hospital...tub-1730775971

So effing ridiculous.

[OldDog]

The hospital is acting within their legal rights. She could go to another hospital.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by OldDog

The hospital is acting within their legal rights. She could go to another hospital.

Did you read the article? They addressed that. Her doctor only has admitting privileges at that hospital. Speaking as someone who went through a difficult pregnancy and a difficult delivery, it sure helps if you have the same medical professional who saw you through the pregnancy at the delivery because they know your situation better than someone who just met you 30 minutes before.

What I find thoroughly wrong is that when a Catholic hospital conglomerate merges with a secular hospital, the Catholic hospital gets to set the rules about care. And they're buying up a LOT of hospitals. I go to a hospital for medical care, not religion.

Here's a case where religion led to negligent care (no, it's not the Irish lady that hospital killed; American hospital this time):

http://www.nbcnews.com/health/cathol...ays-2D11674429

And an article from 2012 about Catholic hospitals reducing care for women:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/21/he...tive-care.html

[OldDog]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

Did you read the article? They addressed that. Her doctor only has admitting privileges at that hospital. Speaking as someone who went through a difficult pregnancy and a difficult delivery, it sure helps if you have the same medical professional who saw you through the pregnancy at the delivery because they know your situation better than someone who just met you 30 minutes before.

Yes, and I read this one, too.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...ba2_story.html
She has more than 30 minutes to find another hospital, unless she otherwise spends her time in litigation trying to force this hospital to perform a recommended procedure.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by OldDog

Yes, and I read this one, too.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...ba2_story.html
She has more than 30 minutes to find another hospital, unless she otherwise spends her time in litigation trying to force this hospital to perform a recommended procedure.

which would mean her having to get another doctor. something she doesn't wish to do, and frankly, shouldn't have to do.
i mean, it's just her life at stake. no biggie
catholic and other religious groups have every right to open and run hospitals. but medical should come before theological. otherwise, no, they should not be able to run a hospital.
when non medically trained priests are overriding physician recommendations, there's a problem.

[OldDog]

Accommodate me, now! It's my right to force you to do something which runs against your beliefs, even if it's not an emergency and I have alternatives, because your beliefs inconvenience me.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by OldDog

Accommodate me, now! It's my right to force you to do something which runs against your beliefs, even if it's not an emergency and I have alternatives, because your beliefs inconvenience me.

but the hospital did tubals, removes a womans uterus:

and what about this:

At one time, Catholic doctors would have been allowed to perform Mann’s tubal ligation, as Directive number 47 reads:


“Operations, treatments, and medications that have as their direct purpose the cure of a proportionately serious pathological condition of a pregnant woman are permitted when they cannot be safely postponed until the unborn child is viable, even if they will result in the death of the unborn child.”

she hasn't got a condition??


"But a 2010 letter from the Conference of Catholic Bishops clarified the directive: Catholic doctors are only allowed to perform sterilization if it is an unavoidable byproduct of a given procedure—for instance, if a woman with uterine cancer needs to get her uterus removed to survive.

However, Mann’s tubal ligation would be performed with the specific intent of preventing future pregnancies, and thus, is prohibited.


“In this case, if they said, ‘Well, we have to remove the tumor and a result of removing the tumor is that you would become sterile, that might be allowed, but because they’re saying failure to take action related to her pregnancy wil lhave an impact on her brain, that’s not allowed under the directives,” explained Brooke Tucker, the ACLU’s staff attorney focusing on the case, in an interview with Jezebel."

they say this tubal is to prevent the woman getting pregnant, thus isn't allowed....but they are completely ignoring the fact that if she was to get pregnant again, it could kill her.

but yeah, you're right. how dare a woman in the us demand a hospital do a medical procedure.? what nerve.


'first do no harm' hasn't got an asterisk next to it.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

Did you read the article? They addressed that. Her doctor only has admitting privileges at that hospital. Speaking as someone who went through a difficult pregnancy and a difficult delivery, it sure helps if you have the same medical professional who saw you through the pregnancy at the delivery because they know your situation better than someone who just met you 30 minutes before.

What I find thoroughly wrong is that when a Catholic hospital conglomerate merges with a secular hospital, the Catholic hospital gets to set the rules about care. And they're buying up a LOT of hospitals. I go to a hospital for medical care, not religion.

Here's a case where religion led to negligent care (no, it's not the Irish lady that hospital killed; American hospital this time):

http://www.nbcnews.com/health/cathol...ays-2D11674429

And an article from 2012 about Catholic hospitals reducing care for women:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/21/he...tive-care.html

i wonder if anyone would know what was going on if he just went on and did the thing while 'in there'?

[OldDog]

This hospital is not doing harm by refusing to perform the procedure. Her life is not in danger from not having the procedure done at the time of the birth of her child. It was suggested by her doctor that she have it done because with her condition "any future pregnancies could be fatal." She can have it done at another hospital in the future, or have her baby at another hospital (there are several nearby) where doctors will do the procedure after she gives birth. Or, she can litigate and hope for intervention, but that doesn't look promising.

She's had the condition for ten years. She became pregnant three years ago, and it was considered a high risk pregnancy then because of her condition. She didn't have a tubal ligation done after that pregnancy.

[Danzig]

the very best time to have it done is immediately after giving birth. there is NO reason why she should have to arrange a separate procedure.
they're a hospital, they should do hospital things or get the hell out of the business.

oh, and chances are they'll do it because:

http://www.sfgate.com/health/article...on-6463205.php

and that was a case without health issues.

and note:

Although sterilization is normally voluntary, major medical organizations say a tubal ligation immediately after a woman’s last intended pregnancy is such a safe and quick procedure, and so effective in preventing unwanted future pregnancies, that it should be considered “urgent” medical care.

“The immediate (post-childbirth) period ... is the ideal time to perform sterilization because of technical ease and convenience for the woman and physician,” said the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists in a 2012 report. “Obstetrician-gynecologists need to identify themselves as champions or patient advocates for post-partum sterilization in their respective hospitals.”

[Danzig]

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/jon-stewa...rst-responders

well, hell, if the govt can **** all over the military veterans, why are first responders so special? let them fight for every crumb just like the soldiers and sailors who answer the call, and get injured.

true story--during vietnam, if you suffered PTSD, they'd discharge you because you had a 'medical condition'. but they didn't recognize it as legit, so you got ZERO medical help for it from the VA.
a guy i know was in airborne...was part of a demonstration. they told him he landed properly...but all he remembers is fighting with the chute, because it didn't open correctly-it was in what they call a cigar roll.
anyway, broke most of his body. woke up weeks later in hospital, fake knees in place, god knows what all broken.
funny how much one zero can affect a person. the dingbat at the va that entered his info, put him at 10% disability instead of 100%. he had to fight for years with them over that.
'oh, hehe, sorry', she said.

[OldDog]

Originally Posted by Danzig

the very best time to have it done is immediately after giving birth.

I can see why she would like to do it then, which is why she should choose a hospital willing to accommodate her wishes.

Originally Posted by Danzig

there is NO reason why she should have to arrange a separate procedure.

That is up to her. See above.

Originally Posted by Danzig

they're a hospital, they should do hospital things or get the hell out of the business.

Catholic hospitals generally don't do sterilizations. Why this would surprise anyone I don't know. Why a patient feels that her wishes trump the wishes of hospital administrators I don't know, unless it is because we are increasingly beset by people who feel that they are entitled to whatever they want, whenever they want it from the hands of people who don't want to give it to them.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by OldDog

I can see why she would like to do it then, which is why she should choose a hospital willing to accommodate her wishes.

That is up to her. See above.

Catholic hospitals generally don't do sterilizations. Why this would surprise anyone I don't know. Why a patient feels that her wishes trump the wishes of hospital administrators I don't know, unless it is because we are increasingly beset by people who feel that they are entitled to whatever they want, whenever they want it from the hands of people who don't want to give it to them.

yeah, go figure someone in this secular country expecting medical care at a hospital.
again, if the church can't separate theology from medicine, they should not own hospitals.
and they have sterilized people. I'm sorry you keep ignoring that part.

but yeah, it's just her life, her soon to be born kids health, her future at stake. absolutely, here in the u.s., religion should dictate...
'whatever they want'? catholic hospitals have done tubals, so they have no argument due to past practice.
and don't forget, this is the same business sued for wrongful death, whose lawyers argued that 7 month old viable twins weren't alive, and that the hospital couldn't be held accountable for 'wrongful death'.
so, their theology fits unless money is at stake.
I wonder how many insurers will start dropping such hospitals...who would rather force more procedures and extra costs because of a book written by people who didn't know where the sun went at night. I mean, it's the patients and insurance companies who pay....so, yes, the patient should get what it needs-and this is medically dictated by her doctor.
and i'll listen to a doctor over a religious guy who doesn't give a rats behind about women any day.

have catholic hospitals done tubal ligations? yes. so, what's the deal?

and what about the fact that this very hospital has done tubals til late last year? no wonder her and her doctor were surprised at the sudden turn of events...because they been done there for years. he's probably done them there before.

[Danzig]

http://www.propublica.org/article/u....-sterilization

another article about genesis.
and it's not even as tho this woman is asking for a tubal to prevent pregnancy because she wants no more kids.
it's to prevent a pregnancy that could take her life.
bah, who cares..
more women made every day

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Danzig

http://www.propublica.org/article/u....-sterilization

another article about genesis.
and it's not even as tho this woman is asking for a tubal to prevent pregnancy because she wants no more kids.
it's to prevent a pregnancy that could take her life.
bah, who cares..
more women made every day

Religion: Men telling women what they're permitted to do with their own bodies.

[OldDog]

But, but . . . you used to do them. It used to be okay.

It's as if people, parties, governments and churches have nevah evah changed their minds/laws/doctrines.

https://reason.com/blog/2015/08/26/w...-party-was-lik

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by OldDog

But, but . . . you used to do them. It used to be okay.

It's as if people, parties, governments and churches have nevah evah changed their minds/laws/doctrines.

https://reason.com/blog/2015/08/26/w...-party-was-lik

no, according to the church it was never ok. yet they did them.
but now, with no reason given, bishops are cracking down.
not enough new catholics? we all know that birth rates are lower than ever.
need more people to put money in the baskets on sundays.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

Religion: Men telling women what they're permitted to do with their own bodies.

and how seriously do they take all this god stuff, considering their past and present actions regarding pedophile priests.
850 years give or take after henry the second and Thomas a becket, we're still having issues with the state and criminous clerks.
unreal.