|
|
 |
|
|
|
#1
09-16-2015, 09:49 AM
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
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
__________________
Gentlemen! We're burning daylight! Riders up! -Bill Murray 
|
|
#2
09-16-2015, 10:14 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
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.
|
|
#3
09-16-2015, 10:20 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
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.
__________________
Books serve to show a man that those original thoughts of his aren't very new at all. Abraham Lincoln
|
|
#5
09-16-2015, 11:00 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
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.
__________________
Books serve to show a man that those original thoughts of his aren't very new at all. Abraham Lincoln
|
|
#6
09-16-2015, 01:32 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
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.
|
|
#7
09-16-2015, 02:39 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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.”
__________________
Books serve to show a man that those original thoughts of his aren't very new at all. Abraham Lincoln Last edited by Danzig : 09-16-2015 at 03:57 PM.
|
|
#8
09-16-2015, 11:06 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
__________________
Books serve to show a man that those original thoughts of his aren't very new at all. Abraham Lincoln
|
Hybrid Mode
