I think we should also force chuck e cheese to perform abortions.
fun for the whole family!
Instead of doctors we’d have AI controlled animatronics doing the deed.
We have a Catholic hospital here in the city where I live in Ontario. Being publicly funded makes what they do different from the American ones, but despite doing women’s health and obstetrics they don’t do tubal ligation unless it’s approved by their board, so even if you had a planned c section and were planning on having your tubal during the procedure, if you had to have your c section on an emergency basis because you labour early, they won’t do it. It’s so fucked up. It’s a good hospital but come on. It’s 2025, most Catholics use birth control. If you don’t want to do abortions, fine, but a tubal during a c section is really just saving someone a second surgery.
they don’t do tubal ligation unless it’s approved by their board
So they aren’t above doing the procedure entirely? They’re just persnickity about who is “worthy” of receiving the service?
If you don’t want to do abortions, fine
It’s crazy how a life-saving procedure is off-the-table on the “Pro-Life” grounds.
Well I mean what are called therapeutic abortions. Not someone who needs a D and C for tissue that didn’t pass spontaneously or something. The Americans are crazy in that regard. If a pregnancy is nonviable it isn’t therapeutic abortion.
A hospital is just a building and the organization that owns the building.
The real question is, should hospitals be allowed to force or forbid doctors from providing medical care?
A doctor (Catholic or not) should never, and can never, be forced to perform a medical procedure, including abortions. And they also shouldn’t be forbidden from performing a medical procedure.
Hospitals just provide rooms and equipment so that doctors can provide the care that their patients need, within their ability to provide that care.
If a doctor refuses to perform a medically necessary procedure because of his/her religion, as far as om concerned that should invalidate their medical license immediately.
The is a medical as is already you want to cut the amount of practicing nurses and doctors to fit your agenda. It’s a two way street. I don’t think a doctor should be forced to circumcise someone either just because it’s a religious ritual
I don’t think a doctor should be forced to circumcise someone either just because it’s a religious ritual
I’m petty sure most religious rituals are medically unnecessary, and medical doctors ought to be free to refuse to perform them.
Right, because you would want to be the patient to undergo a procedure by a doctor that never performs that procedure?
No sane country does this.
Maybe go live in a dictatorship if you like to force people to cut into other people’s bodies.
No, but that person should not be a doctor at all if they cannot prioritize patient health.
should hospitals be allowed to force or forbid doctors from providing medical care?
They provide the facilities, which includes administration and legal and billing. So in that regard, they have to have some kind of say, simply because they need to stock the equipment, train the nurses/MAs, and establish standard protocols for a given procedure. Otherwise, how do you contest a medical malpractice claim?
A doctor (Catholic or not) should never, and can never, be forced to perform a medical procedure, including abortions. And they also shouldn’t be forbidden from performing a medical procedure.
Doctors can and do regularly incur liability if they fail to perform certain necessary medical procedures, particularly in emergency room settings. A doctor that fails to follow protocol can be subject to malpractice. If, for instance, a Christian Scientist doctor refused to provide a blood transfusion to an individual suffering from sever blood loss or a narcotics prohibitionist doctor attempts to do surgery without providing anesthesia, they can get in some serious trouble.
Religious convictions don’t override medical protocols. What’s at issue is the legality of the protocols as they stand. Can a woman whose health is at risk from pregnancy receive an abortion without the doctors incurring criminal liability?
Right now, it appears that State AGs in prohibitionist states are threatening the licenses and freedoms of doctors who would provide life-saving care. Hospital administrators are acting as intermediaries because the hospital itself would suffer legal liability if staff knowingly permitted/facilitated an illegal procedure.
“do no harm, unless it violated your specific religious ideology” that’s how the oath goes right?
“Do no harm” is not the same as “Do prevent harm.”
Also, if you’re citing the Hippocratic Oath,…
I will not give to a woman a pessary to cause abortion.
The Hippocratic Oath was created to forbid surgery, since it was a provable harm before modern hygienic standards. No one has sworn the original in centuries, but they do swear modernized versions which don’t include such ignorant nonsense.
The Hippocratic Oath was created to forbid surgery,
I will not use the knife […], but I will give place to such as are craftsmen therein.
Wtf? I don’t trust any physician who hasn’t sworn to Zeus!
Fuck Zeus.
Do you trust me as your physician now?
Idk it’s really more about Hermes, what’s your feelings on winged sandals?
You’re trying to sell us shoes aren’t you Herm. We know you’re the protector of thieves and merchants as well as the god of primitive medicine. Anyway yes I’m interested, how much?
This is really it. If a doctor has a moral objection to abortions, maybe gynecology wasn’t the right discipline for them to practice. That’s on them, and they should be upfront about it being a personal moral objection and for them to seek another doctor.
I’m fine with that compromise, because I suspect those doctors are and will remain the minority, and everyone’s rights are preserved.
But if a chief of medicine, or worse, a board of non-doctors, says their hospital won’t perform abortions on religious grounds? Then fuck you, you’re not a hospital, you are a faith-based healing center, and need to be treated as such.
Hospital administration needs to be science-based care and check their religion at the door, especially if they aren’t directly practicing. They shouldn’t be making decisions that directly effect people that they are indirectly related to based upon someone’s interpretation of an old anthology of fables.
I disagree somewhat. If a doctor is practicing in a situation where an abortion is necessary, it was their duty to not be a doctor if they find that morally repugnant.
That’s fine. Just don’t expect to keep your medical license as you sit around doing nothing as people die of preventable deaths.
If you’re a doctor, your job is to save lives. If you intentionally fail to do that job it shouldn’t be your job.
If a firefighter refused to put out a fire because they didn’t feel like it, they’d be lose their job too.
Imagine I’m a doctor who refuses to prescribe medication because it makes people weak.
How come 90% of these twitter screenshots I see on lemmy are all just witty comebacks to fake opinions that nobody actually holds? This is like those “feminist gets rekt with facts and logic” compilation videos on youtube, but for liberals. Poking fun at strawmen every once in a while is entertaining, but it gets old really quickly.
This is a 100% real opinion a lot of people hold.
Nevermind, I think you’re right. I was confused by the term “catholic hospital”, but I looked it up and apparently a lot of hospitals around the world really do have a religious affiliations.
a woman i nannied for almost died giving birth to both of her sons. when she had the second one, she asked them to tie her tubes while they were doing the c section and they refused due to their religious policies. she had to fully recover from the birth and then find a doctor who would do the procedure, then had to recover again from that surgery.
If they want to have an argument on the Internet they don’t need to make up a bad take; it’s an abundant resource on the web.
Sadly, I have met actual Catholics who believe this.
Perhaps Catholic institutions shouldn’t be forced to perform actions against their beliefs, but then they don’t get to use the word “hospital” in relation to whatever their building does.
I feel this should apply to pharmacies too. If you want to have pharmacists that can deny you valid prescriptions from your doctor, then they don’t get to call that building a “pharmacy”. Just like cigarettes there should be a large lettered warning on the door to the establishment informing you that the person inside has indicated they will deny you a prescription if they feel like it. If the pharmacists want to exercise their moral discretion, they don’t get to use the word “pharmacy” for whatever building/business they’re doing it in.
If they aren’t a hospital or pharmacy then they shouldn’t be able to practice medicine.
I mean, they could run clinics. Nothing saying they can’t specialize. Podiatrists don’t perform a lot of abortions, I’d imagine.
They’d try to be midwifes but end up aborting the baby during delivery because they take the feet out first. /s
Agreed. If you want to be a pharmacist, then be prepared to dispense contraceptives. If that conflicts with your religious beliefs, then you better figure our what you’re going to do with your life before you become a pharmacist.
I don’t want religious institutions near healthcare. Imposing attitudes of abstinence only moral puritanism on others. Thats not medicine. Like the WHO said 7 almost 8 years ago drug use needs to be globally decriminalized to remove attitudes of discrimination from health care settings. And at the time then nobody foresaw roe v wade being knocked back and turning the clock of social progress back 5/6 decades+ i wish j could say things cant get any worde but they can and they will. So we don’t need the people making things worse involved in the administration of medical care. We already have too many religious bigots with hoarded wealth whispering in the ear of the dumbest moron on the planet who has control of the nuclear football. And healthcare is already bastardized by the incentives of shareholder profits and the vultures of the for profit insurance industry whos sole purpose is tk deny people adequate health care to boost profits whenever possible so lets not shove religion down the throats of people who are often denied basic dignities.
I simply don’t want religious anything that is essential services.
What the fuck even is a catholic hospital? Praying the pain away? Offering a free confession close to death?
Surely they are not making use of modern medicine based on science that defies their beliefs.
They’re just hospitals. In fact they’re the biggest group of non-profit hospitals in the country. They are generally speaking a very good thing. The main problem as discussed here is their restrictions on reproductive care, which is a huge problem and should not be allowed. It isn’t even like to be employed there you must be Catholic, or even Christian.
deleted by creator
Catholicism is not Christian science. They don’t reject science, they just view abortion as ending life. If it weren’t for Catholic hospitals, huge swaths of the US (and much of the developing world) wouldn’t have access to healthcare at all.
They also said abortion up to 5.5 months was good for a very long time and then a random Pope changed it.
(It was Pious I think)
Didn’t most early hospitals in the west start as Christian hospitals?
Religion makes some BIG BUCKS so they invest in things like universities and hospitals.
A lot of historical institutions have religious backing.
I’m not saying I support it. I just follow the money. (Tinfoil hat)
Religious hospitals? What will they think of next!
At least in countries that charge patients money for their healthcare, these religious hospitals are free, right? Given how much money Christianity makes in donations, and given that their whole religion is all about helping others for nothing in return and without judgement, it would make sense they’d run free hospitals providing healthcare for all, no matter their situation ♥️
At least in countries that charge patients money for their healthcare, these religious hospitals are free, right?
A few, but not remotely all. It’s really up to the individual hospital.
Then you’ve got the weird case of St. Jude’s which is somehow not a Catholic hospital despite literally being built as a shrine to St. Jude Thaddeus (patron saint of hopeless causes) by a Catholic man to fulfill a promise he made to build a shrine to St. Jude. St. Jude’s also does not charge patients for treatment, travel, housing, or food though they will bill insurance where possible.
wtf is a catholic hospital? you get wine and crackers while you wait in purgatory?
They add indulgence cost to your hospital bill
Remaining alive: such an indulgence…
I do not currently feel as though I am indulging…
I shall have another beer! Bravo!
Many hospitals are owned by the Catholic Church and are a huge source of income.
Not just the catholics, either. Many flavors of Christianity run hospitals.
It’s a good cover for diabolical greed
That’s all that organized religion has ever been about.
the only 2 hospital networks in my area are literally named Trinity and Genesis, very blatant religious connotations there.
Catch some deathbed conversions mostly.
The kind that demon mother teresa ran. Where care is secondary to conversions
Edit: i said conversations. Lol
She who believed that people suffering was a good thing, actually… Seriously, the more someone learns about her, the more vile she is
Faith healin’, money stealin’! Git it all in ONE PLACE!!
If y our religion dictates that you not perform life saving procedures, Then you have no business being in medicine.
Same amount of body fluids.
I rotated through a Catholic hospital while getting my degree in genetic counseling. Our whole job was to give women with pregnancies at high risk of genetic conditions all the information they needed to make an informed decision on how they want to move forward, and we weren’t even allowed to mention the option of abortion. I was very glad when that rotation was over.
I would really like to see someone who is getting their degree or license push back on the requirement to rotate through a religious hospital, on the grounds that it violates the religious freedoms of the students.
If we’re going to have unconstitutional religious freedom laws, we may as well try and use them against our oppressors.
Wow
I thought the term “catholic hospital” was a joke. That doesn’t even make sense to me.
Something like 15% of hospitals in the US are Catholic hospitals.
True story about catholic hospitals, Sometimes, when a woman comes in having a miscarriage, catholic hospitals will just push her to the parking to die so Jesus won’t judge them for performing an abortion.
Homicide via medical neglect is totally fine as long as it’s done so the hospital staff doesn’t go to hell.
My wife had 2 miscarriages in the past few years, the first one almost killed her, she got sepsis and I genuinely thought she was going die for a while. It was around the time that I was hearing a bunch of stories from Texas, we’re no where near there but I remember being so scared that they would just push us out.
As soon as they realized what was happening they were 1000% on it. They had to call a doctor in who showed up within 10 minutes chugging a coffee at 3am. No one hesitated.
Everything I hear makes me tear up a little and appreciate that hospital so much. It’s 45 minutes away from us and there’s closer ones but that’s just where we go now and where we’re having our son in 2 months. I can’t imagine how things would have gone if we were 30 minutes west in a Bible thumping state.
That is so fucking scary and I am very happy to hear your wife made it through and the hospital you were at was invested in saving her life… as it should be.
If only these ridiculously dangerous religious hospitals could understand that.
If they don’t want to perform particular procedures based on their faith then they can call themseves a “Western Faith Therapy Centre”
“Western”? No, thank you.
I was going to suggest “Southern European” as an alternative but when you get down to it, everyone in their canon is from North Africa and the Middle East so maybe “Middle Eastern Faith Therapy Centre”?
If abortion is an option, it is the only option worth considering.
The only kids who should be carried to term are the ones that have been planned and prepared for.
This is my reason for my answer to the pro-choice question. It is only a baby once you have decided to carry it to term. Before that decision it isn’t.
Dual homicide if you kill a pregnant woman who wanted a child. Not a baby when aborting an unwanted pregnancy.
Deny owner class slave labour.
There is no excuse to have more than one kid unless you are able to properly provide for all of them.
I understand being poor with one child though, I don’t understand the need to spread limited resources over multiple children.
Focus on getting family out of poverty first.
There is no excuse
There’s the problem. Instead of letting other people make their own choices, you’re prescribing what they should and shouldn’t do.
If you told me in my face “there’s no excuse to have more than one child” while i want multiple children, i would see it as an assault and would react accordingly (that might include punching you in the face.)
unless you are able to properly provide for all of them.
That’s what we need UBI (Universal Basic Income)
By the way, what you’re saying feels the same as in the 1960 when women were expected to carry children (without being asked, of course). Just as we condemn that today, we should condemn people pushing other people to have fewer children.
That’s what we need UBI (Universal Basic Income)
Isn’t UBI just a way to accelerate inflation? How will that help anyone?
there’s a certain amount of money in the economy. let’s say $1 million.
of that, $500K belongs to the billionaires and $500K to the average people. Which means the population owns half of all.
Now, you distribute another $1 million among the average people.
Now, the billionaires still have $500K, but the people have $1.5 million, which is 3/4, which is more than 1/2, so it’s an improvement.
Thank you! Reproductive freedom includes not just access to abortion, but also the choice of how many children (if any) to have. Applying arbitrary restrictions to the number of kids other people can have would be the same kind of controlling garbage.
But it’s not an arbitrary restriction, I don’t think.
A child in neglect would be removed from the ‘caretaker(s)’ who are allowing them to live in squalor, assuming CPS isn’t as underfunded etc. as it is in actuality, etc. And even that isn’t a full solution, it’s just the first step to getting that kid into an environment that at least reaches some minimum standard.
Isn’t not creating that life until/unless you’re able to provide a ‘better than squalor’ environment for that child just a more proactive, and arguably better since there is no suffering child in the meantime, version of the exact same ‘intervention’?
I see a lot of people saying things like what you’re saying above, while also agreeing with the kind of ‘intervention’ described in the first paragraph of this comment. How is that not doublethink?
Reclassify abortion as an exorcism, get a priest chanting some Latin during the procedure and done.
