Should religious dogma override a doctor's opinion on a patient's need or desires? It's a question that is increasingly plaguing health care providers across the nation, especially in the area of reproductive medicine, as a major player in the hospital industry -- the Catholic Church -- asserts its influence over decisions at its institutions.
Needless to say, abortions are taboo in most locations but even in several major dioceses when that may be necessary to save the life of a mother, doctors and administrators are being told that performing them could and probably will mean the loss of affiliation. In Phoenix in 2009 a bishop excommunicated a distinguished long-time administrator, Sister Mary McBride, for permitting an abortion at St. Joseph Hospital even though a team of doctors had counseled that it was the only way to save the mother's life and despite the fact for more than a 100 years the church permitted termination under those conditions.
When the bishop demanded that the hospital forgo any further such activity and apologize, the board refused and Bishop Thomas Olmstead decertified the hospital as a Catholic institution. Last month, Olmstead told reporters that he had not wanted that action, but that the "faithful of the diocese have a right to know whether institutions of this importance are indeed Catholic in identity and practice."
But terminating a pregnancy is only the most dramatic of conflicts between the church and the medical profession's oath to provide whatever assistance is necessary. More and more bishops are including such practices as tubal ligation to prevent further pregnancies and an array of other women's services including fertility treatments on a list of banned procedures in the church's hospitals. This might not seem so serious if it weren't for the fact that a large number of the nation's churches are Catholic and they exert a great deal of influence in states with substantial numbers of parishioners who subscribe to the church's edicts.
Montgomery County, Md., one of the nation's wealthiest and best educated venues in the nation, decided to award a permit for the construction of the first new hospital in 30 years to Catholic Holy Cross Hospital rather than to Adventist HealthCare. The granting authority's decision was overwhelming despite a large number of protests over concern about the action's impact on reproductive services. Maryland is a heavily Catholic state. Consolidations between religiously affiliated hospitals and secular ones have grown substantially because of economic conditions. The denominational facilities bring with them an adherence to church directives and a further erosion of patients' medical rights in those facilities.
For the average lay person, of which of course I am one, it is becoming increasingly difficult to comprehend mindless adherence to doctrine that outlaws any medical procedure that is legal, ethical and based on sound judgment. If a physician warns that a pregnancy would seriously jeopardize a woman's life and the only sure way to prevent that would be to tie her tubes and she decides to accept that advice, should a religious directive supersede that? Such interference would be extremely difficult to accept, particularly if there is no other medical facility available and even if the woman and her husband or significant other are devoted to their church. Should that devotion extend to what could be a death penalty?
These certainly are questions more and more doctors and their patients are being forced to confront. In fact, according to recent news reports, doctors are coming under pressures they never anticipated. Religiously affiliated hospitals have played a huge role in the advancement of medicine in this country. But religious zealotry that refuses to acknowledge any diversion from dogma no matter how necessary is counterproductive to the cause of sound medicine.
One can understand the refusal to permit affiliates to perform some legal procedures that are not life threatening even if the doctor believes this would be to the patient's advantage in the long run. But the second the matter becomes one of critical importance, the church's directives seem to me to lack any authority in the decision. It would be far better if the church's top authorities sit down with hospital officials and hammer out a new sensible solution that applies uniformly and mandatorily.
Dan K. Thomasson is former editor of the Scripps Howard News Service.
abimopectore posted at 9:57 pm on Sat, Jan 29, 2011.
Freethinker,
I'll help your thought process. I meant integrity in terms of stating the Catholic Church's position which has been CONSISTENT, it has never condoned/permitted abortion. It seems that you're imbuing my use of integrity with regards to other thoughts you're thinking.
As for the link you provide, it misrepresents the position by claiming the motivations behind the position of the Church, and hence therefore implies an acceptance of abortion. It's not even a sincere explanation of the facts since if you continue reading further down the web page you've indicated, it contradicts clearly what it's claiming. If you can't see this, you need reading comprehension skills.
Here's a web page that cites the history and backs it up citing SPECIFIC documents and the quotes the early Church Fathers:
http://www.catholic.com/library/Abortion.asp
You can examine this evidence instead of the made-up fancies of the web page you provided. Maybe then you'll finally learn what integrity means.
Freethinker posted at 9:01 am on Fri, Jan 28, 2011.
abimopectore wrote:
"the Catholic Church has NEVER permitted abortion. Anybody with any ounce of integrity would know this to be true."
You might want to look up that word - INTEGRITY - you are misusing it.
Actually the Catholic Church's stance on abortion has changed over a DOZEN TIMES since its inception:
http://faculty.cua.edu/Pennington/Law111/CatholicHistory.htm
It doesn't take integrity to know that this is true, just an examination of the evidence.
abimopectore posted at 6:35 pm on Tue, Jan 25, 2011.
"a team of doctors had counseled that it was the only way to save the mother's life and despite the fact for more than a 100 years the church permitted termination under those conditions."
The problem with this editorial as with most of the editorials I've read on this subject is that the facts are NOT known. And if you think the hospital is going to reveal facts that will possibly reveal causes for any possible litigation, then you're only fooling yourself. As for the Church permitting termination, I believe before Dan Thomasson can make such a statement he needs to provide facts because the Catholic Church has NEVER permitted abortion. Anybody with any ounce of integrity would know this to be true. This brings into question AGAIN the factual accuracy of this editorial. After I read that line, I knew absolutely that this person didn't know what they were talking about.
samkat posted at 6:25 pm on Tue, Jan 25, 2011.
Dale: I hope I never end up in a Catholic hospital governed by the church and unable to make my own decisions. I will take science and medicine over church doctrine any day when my health or the health of my family is at stake. I just had heart surgery and was clinically dead for over 4 hours when they hooked me up to a heart lung machine, collapsed my lungs and stopped my heart. Would the kindly and very opinionated bishop have condoned that? It certainly was not faith that healed my heart but rather a highly skilled surgeon and medical technology. If I want religion, I will go to church but if I want my body healed, I will trust a good doctor any day.
PS: If I choose to die, it should be my decision, not some hypocrite church official.
Dale Whiting posted at 3:32 pm on Tue, Jan 25, 2011.
But Freethinker,
When the sponsoring institution is supersititous and non-sensical, medical science will be over ridden. The remedy is to have alternatives facilities available. That is the conservative alternative.
Freethinker posted at 12:13 am on Tue, Jan 25, 2011.
Superstitious nonsense should never override valid medicinal science.
Ever.