Coakley: Devout Catholics, pro-lifers “probably shouldn’t work in the emergency room”
A new Suffolk University poll shows Republican Scott Brown pulling ahead in the MA Senate race against Democrat Martha Coakley 50% to 46%.
Boston Herald reported the shocking irony were Brown to win:
But if Brown’s momentum holds, he is poised to succeed the late Sen. Edward Kennedy – and to halt health-care reform, the issue the late senator dubbed “the cause of my life.
From the Washington Post…
The new Suffolk numbers come just as the television airwaves have reached their saturation point – one Republican tells the Fix there is almost no tv time left to buy.
What that likely means is… paid media for both sides will likely cancel itself out and the final few days will be a battle for so-called earned media – aka press coverage by the state’s newspapers, television channels and radio stations.
That means that what Coakley and Brown do – or don’t do – tactically over the next few days on the stump can make all the difference….
And whoops if Coakley didn’t just go and alienate any pro-lifers and the devout Catholic base left in her party.
Yesterday Coakley told WBSM’s Ken Pittman during a radio interview that pro-lifers and Catholics opposed abortion should not work in the ER:
Coakley: I would not pass a bill, as Scott Brown filed amendment, to say that if people believe that they don’t want to provide services that are required under the law and under to Roe vs. Wade that they can individually decide to not follow the law. The answer to that question is no. And let’s be clear, ’cause Scott Brown filed an amendment to a bill in MA that would say that hospital and emergency room personnel could deny emergency contraception to a woman who came in and been raped.
Pittman: Right, if you are a Catholic, and believe what the Pope teaches that any form of birth control is a sin. ah you don’t want to do that.
Coakley: No we have a separation of church and state Ken, lets be clear.
Pittman: In the emergency room you still have your religious freedom.
Coakley: (… uh, eh…um..) The law says that people are allowed to have that. You can have religious freedom but you probably shouldn’t work in the emergency room.
Coakley’s gaffe aside, this is where we’re headed. This is where socialized healthcare is headed. This is where the other side wants it to go for us.
[HT: BigGovernment.com via readers Karen and Mary; photo of Coakley via the Boston Globe]
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
This is where socialized healthcare is headed.
Well said, Jill. Socialized medicine cannot take root if providers have enforceable conscience protections.
Conscience rights have little to nothing to do with Freedom of Religion.
Abortion, and subsequently the emergency “contraception” she’s referring to to be given to a victim of rape, is a human rights battle, not a religious one.
A person’s right to life should be recognized regardless of whether or not someone else believes in God or a god. It would be silly to believe otherwise.
As X and Vannah have commented repeatedly, not all PL’rs are religious.
I don’t see this as a gaff. I think most Catholics would agree with her. If a woman in the ER wants emergency contraception after a rape, she has a right to receive that. Someone who would refuse that request should probably find a place to work where that would not be necessary. It’s part of the job.
I can think of a lot of examples where someone’s religion would prevent him or her from working in certain occupations.
She is one of those awful Emily’s List militants so this is to be expected.
Hal: “It’s part of the job.”
But it shouldn’t be, per the Hypocratic oath. These people want to work as health givers, and our society is forcing the position of health giver to become a position of life taker.
I agree that a Catholic should not be a hitman, or an abortionist, or a strpper, or whatever, but all of those jobs are defined by values that run contrary to the Catholic belief.
Working the health field is defined, if anything, by the very essence of Catholic belief. It is very different.
What if working as a teacher meant that you had to discriminate against black children. Would you tell future teachers that they shouldn’t complain and that they should take it as part of the job?
Thanks for posting this.
Hal, I think you’re on the wrong track. Accommodating conscientious objections has always been at the heart of legal freedoms in the U.S. The freedom, nay duty, to opt out of a morally reprehensible action is what we required at the Nuremburg trials, where soldiers were condemned for not following their consciences by disobeying wrongful orders.
Some teachers might really object to some of the provisions of the No Child Left Behind Act. (as do I) But it’s the law. and if you don’t like it, don’t be a public school teacher. Discrimination is illegal, so it’s not really the same thing.
Why don’t they just have someone else give the rape victim the EC if she wants it? No one would have to violate their beliefs then.
You side-stepped the question Hal. The nature of teaching is to teach students. You can have issues of exact policy, but you should be allowed to object to portions of the job that specifically work against teaching. The same is true for the health workers. Providing pills that harm humans is directly opposite to the purposes of health care.
Oh for heaven’s sake Hal get real,
The woman, a rape crisis volunteer, or family member could go to the drug store and pick up emergency contraception. I worked 4 years in a Catholic ER and never saw a bonafide rape situation.
A local secular hospital didn’t offer emergency or rape care at all. Now, is that where the Catholics should have been working?
Should Catholics, who have opened asylums, hospitals, homeless shelters, charities,
orphanages, schools, etc. now be advised not to work in emergency rooms?
A rape victim brought to an emergency room is traumatized and may not be able to make a quick decision about emergency contraception. Let a woman think about what she wants instead of having a nurse coerce her into something she may regret. Pushing EC hurts some women.
I’m not saying the Hospital should be required to offer anything. (Unless they want to take federal money) But if the Hospital offers emergency contraception to rape victims, it is not unreasonable to expect its medical professionals to carry out hospital policy. That’s all I’m saying. Do what your employer wants you to do or work somewhere else. If the employer has other people to do it and will excuse you, I’m fine with that too.
I should re-phrase..
“Pushing EC hurts women (and their babies, obviously).
When Michelle Obam worked for the hospital in Chicago, their agenda was to ship patients out of ER that didn’t have a certain insurance threshold. I guess patients can be stabilized and sent away.
Hal,
Unless the hospital wants to get federal funds??
Please elaborate.
So a Catholic hospital shouldn’t get federal funds?
Now there’s not a problem with Catholics in the ER?
Oh what a relief.
xppc,
I wonder if they were shipped to some Catholic hospital that didn’t have their federal funds cut off.
Mary,
What’s really aggravating is how pro-choicers like Coakley fail to see the inherent dignity in the life of all babies, no matter how they are conceived.
* * *
Hal,
Put yourself in an employer’s shoes. What’s more important, keeping a skilled OB/GYN on staff or losing him because he objects to dispensing an EC pill (maybe once a year)? Should future OB/GYN doctors be “forced” into a different profession because of their religious objections to an EC pill? What makes abortion so “good”?
As shocking as is Coakley’s statement that Catholics shouldn’t be working in the ER, I find even more troubling her notion of what so-called “separation of Church and State” means.
Like many radicals, she apparently conflates “state” and “public” — to her “separation of Church and State” means “separation of Church and public life.”
What’s more, she says that “the law” grants people freedom of religion, which to her seems to mean the “freedom” to practice religion in private, but not in public.
Freedom of religion is a basic human right. It is not granted to us by the State (“the law”). On the contrary, the U.S. Constitution explicitly acknowledges that the State has no authority to infringe on this right.
Health care workers have a duty to protect the lives of human beings. Many RNs use research to do specific actions not specified by hospital policy. If the patient has a poor outcome related to the specific actions that the RN did, then the hospital would have no liability. However, if the RN is doing what is based on research to be best for the patient, the RN has that right to do so. Thus, if research indicates that human lives begin at conception, then RNs have a DUTY to protect those lives even if it goes against hospital policy. If someone sues the RN because of this action, then that hospital will not defend that RN in court because it wasn’t in the hospital policy.
I floated to a postpartum unit and refused to give Depo-Provera because research has indicated that this contraceptive thins the lining of the uterus thus leading to the death of unborn human beings. I was not reprimanded. No one even rose an eyebrow to my objection. They just had someone who was not against it administer it to the patient. I wish I could have stopped it, but I understand that the law protects this woman’s choice to put her unborn children at risk of death. The only thing I could do was be a “conscientious objector.”
When one is a conscientious objector because he wants to protect human lives the law has always sided with the conscientious objector.
I have an interview at a local hospital’s ER next week. I know for a fact that my job is to provide HEALING to all patients from conception to natural death. I will always be there to heal all people on my job and in public life.
I object to fat people who stuff themselves full of crap which results in my health care premiums being jacked up because these fat jerks have all kinds of health problems. So if I work in a 7-11, can I invoke a “conscience clause” to deny them the right to buy candy?
Oh, and here’s another question. Should a Muslim doctor be allowed to refrain from treating a Christian, in an emergency, because of religious objections? You are saying that we have “freedom of religion” which allows good Catholics to deny health care to those heathen women who want to abort their rapist’s baby (whom she will love and cherish forever if she’s forced to give birth, right?)
So if a woman is raped and drives to a hospital where a good Catholic refuses to prove the emergency contraception, she then has to go to another hospital which might be a distance from the first. She encounters another Pope’s foot soldier and is again refused. There are no more hospitals. The woman is pregnant. Thanks to the Magesterium, she then has an abortion. Kinda counter-intuitive, eh? Nice to know that the Pope would force non Catholic women to bear their rapist’s child. But I suppose if it’s a Catholic woman, the payoff is another Catholic to add to the heavenly roster. Maybe non Catholic doctors should refuse to treat pedohpile priests – freedom of religions and all that. Eh?
Artemis, you are way off base.
Giving a contraceptive like Depo-Provera — Medical reason? NONE.
Giving emergency contraception (ie Plan-B) — Medical reason? NONE.
Administering an elective abortion — Medical reason? NONE.
Contraceptives are not a necessary part of health care because they do not provide a genuine medical reason to be used. Thus, if I know that these contraceptives or that certain procedures kills a human being then I should be allowed to be able to conscientiously object. Now let’s contrast:
Surgical removal of an embryo/fetus implanted in a fallopian tube — Medical reason? To save the life of the mother.
This is a procedure that no one would be able to conscientiously object to because this is a procedure to save the most human life possible. If you can group my first examples with this last one somehow, maybe I’ll change my opinion.
Artemis, maybe I shouldn’t be surprised at your true lack of understanding?
My primary goal is to protect human lives. I do not have to be a Catholic to believe that killing the lives of human beings is wrong. I would like to think that most humans have the common decency to want to help and save human lives. Am I wrong?
Do you understand yet? Or will you just continue to spew hateful rhetoric without any real substance?
“Giving a contraceptive like Depo-Provera — Medical reason? NONE”
So you would force a woman, who does not subscribe to your theology, to bear the child of a rapist. Nice. The medieval misogyny of the pro-life movement is underscored – women as incubators and smiling recipients of the sacred sperm – even if it’s from a rapist. Pro-life = forced childbirth. But here’s an idea – all the little babies born from rape should be dropped off at the nearest rectory so the nice priests can raise them. If they’re boys – think of the possibilities!
Artemis, maybe you can explain to me how human life doesn’t start at conception? If you can prove that, then I will be okay administering Plan-B and Depo-Provera. How do you like that little challenge?
Again, medical workers have a duty to help and save the lives of human beings in their care. A newly conceived embryo, by the definition of science itself, is a human being. Thus, I must protect these little human beings just as much as those who are bigger and visible.
So how about it? You want to prove that human life doesn’t start at conception?
BTW: I could care less about sperm, they can die a tortuous death in a toilet bowl for all I care.
“I would like to think that most humans have the common decency to want to help and save human lives.”
Forcing a woman to bear the child of a rapist is totally indecent. And I know that many clergy from liberal Protestant churches would agreee. But they’re gonna burn in hell. Eh?
**EDIT: The last sentence should read “I couldn’t care less…”
I was not going to comment but Artemis that is one of the stupidiest comments and analogies I have ever heard on this blog and there have been some pretty stupid ones in the past on here. The 7-11 and the Muslim doctor example is crap. I have worked in healthcare for years my co-workers and I have given excellent, compassionate, care to every patient and family no matter their socio-economic status, race, insured, uninsured, Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Buddist, Hindu, non-religious, atheist or any other demographic you can name and I have NEVER had to violate my pro-life convictions to assist in the murder of unborn babies. I would have done what segamon did if I was asked to do something against my prolife principles notified my supervisor and worked it out. Some of the very best care I have seen provided have been by religious healthcare institutions who consider themselves a not-for-profit ministry to the community with ALL patients being treated with dignity, respect, expertise and NEVER killing babies to do it. A doctor refusing to be a healer, practice medicine and help a patient because he is a Muslim and the patient is a Christian. Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaugh! So you equate murdering unborn babies with refusing to be a healer and practicing “Do No Harm”-The Hippocratic Oath? You pro-aborts are absolutely psychotic. You have Pro-Abortion Derangement Syndrome (PADS) or Pro-Death Derangement Syndrome (PDDS). Your elevator doesn not go to the top and your sick mantra is ABORT! ABORT! ABORT! I am sorry prolifers but I cannot help it on this type of stupidity, I had to respond.
@Artemis (at 2:37): Let’s be clear: conscientious objection is NOT the same as imposing a restriction on some third party’s freedom. No, you don’t have the right to limit another person’s candy purchase. But suppose someone were to claim that the only way she could get her candy (which she has a legal, if not moral, right to) was to require you to steal it. Even if we assume for this hypothetical situation that stealing is no longer illegal, the candy-seeker has no case. Analogously, if a nurse or doctor is asked to provide some sort of drug he or she knows can cause an early abortion (this is not in dispute; it’s in the package inserts of these drugs), then the patient’s “right” to the drug does not trump the health care provider’s right to personal autonomy and conscience. A law requiring the health care provider to violate her conscience is an infringement on her own rights. Even more importantly, it goes against the very nature of health care to require her to kill, or to provide the patient with the means of doing so. The patient can’t reasonably demand that.
Segamon and Courtney I appreciate your discourse on this but I think if someone is that sick that they would make the statements Artemis did about pro-life healthcare workers and hospitals they are indeed we are dealing with a pro-death reprobate. I think I will take a pass. God bless.
On a different note I wonder how many Catholic, Protestant, Evangelical, other denominations are right now in Haiti or trying to get into Haiti to help the millions of people hurting right now? Someone want to take a guess on the missionaries, pastors, priest, medical missionaries, Catholic and other churches, Catholic or church hospitals that are helping them and how many have already lost their lives because they were there ministering in that nation before the earthquake hit?
Well put, Prolifer L. How easily it’s forgotten that the beginning of medical care in any organized form took place when Catholic orders and organizations established hospitals at great personal sacrifice and considerable risk. How would you like to have taken in plague victims knowing it was highly contagious and there was no cure.
And, back to the topic at hand, I’m not sure what the heated objections to conscience provisions are. My sister, who’s a devout Catholic nurse declines to prescribe the morning-after pill or refer to abortion, but if it’s what the patient wants, she turns the case over to a colleague.
So if a woman is raped and drives to a hospital where a good Catholic refuses to prove the emergency contraception, she then has to go to another hospital….
Baloney. EC is available over the counter without a prescription.
Artemis,
Please allow me to confuse you with some facts.
A rape victim, counselor, friend, or family member could obtain the emergency contraception at the nearest pharmacy if the patient so desires.
Many hospitals do not offer any number of services, forcing patients to look elsewhere, maybe even travel long distances.
I trained at a facility that did occasional abortions. It was the right of all OR staff to refuse to participate and most did in fact refuse.
It often caused inconvenience and lots of griping but it was arranged that those who would involve themselves did the abortion. BTW, this was not a Catholic hospital and staff did not refuse solely on religious grounds. Medical personnel could always refuse to involve themselves in any surgical procedure that violated their conscience for whatever reason, and this included tubal ligation. No one refused to do tubals.
I like to throw this question out to people like you.
I knew an OB/GYN who was requested by a patient to perform an amniocentesis, this was before ultrasound became routine. The patient wanted to know if the baby was female because if it was, she planned to “get rid of it”.
The OB refused, advising her that she would have to find another physician, he would have no part of it. The OB by the way supported abortion.
She delivered a healthy baby girl several months later.
Would you argue this OB had no right to follow his conscience and in effect force his ethical beliefs on his patient?
True, L. I can’t imagine the type of life they must’ve had, having your own mother tell you that your life isn’t as important as her career by having your sibling killed. I feel sorry for this person.
BTW,
If one would like to see how truly “concerned” Martha Coakley is about rape victims and punishing sexual predators, watch Hannity tonite.
Apparently there was a situation involving the rape of a 23 month old child with a hot curling iron that Coakley handled, and some argue, not very well. I don’t know the full story so you won’t want to miss Hannity.
Apparently Mrs. Coakley is also pro-choice when the choice is to rape a baby with a curling iron. I suppose that only follows logically, since a baby is a non-self-sufficient collection of cells, right? Just property, to be done with as the person in custody of said cell collection deems fit? And Keith Winfield (the perp), said that taking this child on placed an undue burden on he and his wife…Pro-choice all the way, right Artemis?
(my point is, rather than prevent things like this from occurring, as abortion proponents claimed would happen through legalized abortion, all it has done is devalue human life to the point that ever more terrible evils are able to be perpetrated against the most vulnerable among us.)
“your own mother tell you that your life isn’t as important as her career by having your sibling killed. I feel sorry for this person.”
WTF??? My “life” had nothing to do with it. Hellooo??? But once again, the “conscience clause” is just another way to impose a religious belief on those of us who don’t share that view. (Ewwwww – Christian Shariah) The notion that emergency contraception is “murder” is not a universal one. Oh, I forgot, the pro-life “Christian” (and Roman Catholic) view is the “true” view. But yeah, let’s encourage unfettered reproduction and we’ll end up like Haiti. Yeah, that’s the ticket.
And “raping a baby with a curling iron” – pulleeze. Where was your compassion when Catholic priest were (are still are) protected by the not so holy “fathers.”
I’m an atheist, you idiot.
Would you argue this OB had no right to follow his conscience and in effect force his ethical beliefs on his patient?
Posted by: Mary at January 15, 2010 4:05 PM
If the doctor refused to do the amniocentesis, I would argue that he violated his Hippocratic oath. His decision was an undue hardship on the woman who, if she desired, would have had to look elsewhere. If she looked no further and the fetus had been damaged then the burden for the ensuing disabled “post born” child should have been the doctor’s. Sex selection – still her choice. But thankfully, we do have technology which identifies fetuses with problems. If it were up to the “anti-aborts” then that techonology wouldn’t be available and women would be forced to bear children with disabilities. Unlike Sarah Palin, many wouldn’t have the resources to deal with it.
“And “raping a baby with a curling iron” – pulleeze”
I suppose you didn’t hear how Coakly let the perp go who did this.
And re the Coakley endorsement of “raping a baby with a curling iron” thingie – could ya provide us with some primary sources here????? The “drive-by” comments are just so – uh – weak!!! Links????
AGAIN, Artemis, you’re the one who brought up religion into this debate. Why are you being so sheepish by not answering simple requests? Again, I would like you to demonstrate, using scientific research and knowledge, that human life does not start at conception. Once you can prove that, then I will be fine administering Depo-Provera and Plan-B.
and oh, YOUR life had nothing to do with it, so it’s fine. As long as your mom isn’t having YOU scraped out and thrown in the trash, it’s all good. Ok. Since you’re over here, I’ll just post what I had on a different thread for you. You pretty much answered any questions I had for you with that statement though:
“It’s also saddening to me that either your own mother was able to tell you outrightly how much more her “lucrative career” was worth than your sibling (I can’t imagine how that would make me feel, if my own mother told me that she pretty much would’ve had me killed if I had gotten in the way of her life goals)…or…that you think your mother’s career was worth more than the brother or sister she had killed because she thought that was the only way she could keep it (I find it impossible to equate the value of the lives of any of my siblings, all 5 of them, with any sort of goal, achievement, or life’s work. You must have a very low appreciation for human life…do you include yourself in that? Or have you done enough with your life that you “deserve” to live, in your mind? If so, who doesn’t deserve to live, in your opinion?)
Posted by: xalisae at January 15, 2010 3:48 PM”
I’m also not threatened by those with religious views being allowed to practice those by not being forced to dispense EC. If ever I needed it, I would’ve just gone to someone who did. I understand their point, and although I don’t fully agree with it, they have their right not to give something that they believe could cause an abortion, just as if I were a nurse in a hospital that preformed abortions, I wouldn’t want to be made to assist in one, and I wouldn’t want to have to risk being fired because of that.
“Unfettered reproduction”. Funny. As if people are just walking around naked and some just happen to trip on a stone or something resulting in accidental vaginal intercourse with instantaneous ejaculation. I have complete control over my reproduction, no abortion/etc. needed. Most civilized individuals should, if they don’t already.
“As if people are just walking around naked and some just happen to trip on a stone or something resulting in accidental vaginal intercourse with instantaneous ejaculation”
I don’t know what that means – but it sounds pretty freaky!!!! Flintstone Sex? Yabbadabbdo!!!
“Posted by: xalisae at January 15, 2010 5:34”
I forgot to mention that my father had massive psychiatric problems. But hey – if my mother had just said one more Rosary, it would have been just A-OK. I do love how you “anti-aborts” can judge everybody.
If the doctor refused to do the amniocentesis, I would argue that he violated his Hippocratic oath. His decision was an undue hardship on the woman who, if she desired, would have had to look elsewhere.
The refusal to perform a medically unnecessary procedure is a violation of the oath? What a hoot. If you think the denial of an elective, unnecessary procedure is an undue hardship, you’ve got a rude awakening coming under socialized health care.
“The refusal to perform a medically unnecessary procedure is a violation of the oath?”
It is a procedure that is recommended for women over 30 so that they can have the chose whether to carry a damaged fetus to term. Ewww – modern science. Unnecessary – so is a vasectomy but I don’t hear any outcry for the “anti-aborts” crowd about that!
And if the Catholic hospitals shut down – who cares!!! Let the market decide who stays open and who stays shut. Pray to Jesus and you won’t need health care. Right?
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010/01/06/some_saw_coakley_as_lax_on_05_rape_case/
Did Mary say the woman was over 30?
Let the market decide who stays open and who stays shut.
Oh yeah. Socialized medicine is based on market forces and patient choice. Forgot about that.
Artemis, just tell me that you won’t answer my question about when life begins and I’ll stop bugging you about it.
Posted by: Fed Up at January 15, 2010 6:05 PM
Uh, it’s called “snark.” Google it.
“I forgot to mention that my father had massive psychiatric problems.”
That explains a lot.
“…if my mother had just said one more Rosary, it would have been just A-OK.”
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: I’m an atheist. The sibling your mother had killed was every bit a person worthy of protection under the law as you or I, regardless of your father’s psychiatric problems. My husband takes meds for those problems too…should I go have my kids executed if his medical problems ever cause the dissolution of the relationship their father and I have? You make no sense, and your justifications are weak at best.
“Posted by: Artemis at January 15, 2010 5:40 PM”
I’m not surprised the idea of self-control seems foreign to you and you’re unable to grasp a sarcastic statement made about the matter.
No thanks, Artemis. I’ll leave it to others to feed your craving for negative attention. G’night.
Posted by: segamon at January 15, 2010 6:09 PM
If you define “life” as “ensoulment” or “personhood” – a theological concept – the major religious groups differ on when it begins. If you mean “life” as something with DNA, then that would apply to anything in the plant and animal kingdom. By that definition, my fibroid (long gone) was “life.” “Personhood” is very different from scientific “life” and that is why the “Personhood” initiatives are bound to fail. (Actually, one was thrown out of court recently.)
“My husband takes meds for those problems too…”
Well, goody for you. Everybody’s life situations (and psychiatric situations) are very different; but if it works for you then it should work for everybody. But thank you for being so judgemental. (BTW, those drugs were not available in 1956).
No, we mean its own distinct set of DNA which also designates it as a member of the human species separate from its mother.
You pro-choicers are so cute when you’re pretending to be scientific.
Well, goody for you. Everybody’s life situations (and psychiatric situations) are very different; but if it works for you then it should work for everybody. But thank you for being so judgemental. (BTW, those drugs were not available in 1956).
Posted by: Artemis at January 15, 2010 6:20 PM
Yes, and he was certainly a joy to be around before he was formally diagnosed and before he was taking his meds, also! My, but you are ignorant. We were split up for a year because we he started having problems at about 6 months of me gestating our daughter, but I guess I just should’ve had her destroyed then. Silly me.
I’m also silly because I think people who have their children killed SHOULD be judged since in almost every other instance when a parent kills their child, they’re judged in a court of law. Now that’s crazy!
Artemis, you brought up theological concepts although I never mentioned them in this conversation.
I didn’t ask you when “life” began in a broad sense; this is a separate issue with separate body of theses altogether. Some say that life began some billions of years ago and evolved from a single celled organism to what exists today. Yet, this is a completely different topic than what I was referring to.
I’ll repeat myself and then rephrase my question as it seems you have a problem understanding simple English.
I said “answer my question” in reference to the following: “maybe you can explain to me how human life doesn’t start at conception?” What I mean, more specifically, is “can you prove to me that a separate and unique human being’s life does not start at conception?”
I hope that you understand now.
And again, please do not bring up religion again in regards to answering my question. This is purely a scientific question I am asking you.
However, I do want to counter your statement: “If you mean ‘life’ as something with DNA…” First, you do not understand what makes something alive. DNA does not mean ‘life.’ Scientists have been able to separate DNA from organisms yet the DNA itself is not life. DNA is only a string of intricately webbed protein, not life as you claim. Open up a basic biology text book to find out the real answer.
Artemis, so if the rape victim is given the contraception pill and has a reaction to it and dies, then what?? If you think that it’s not possible, think again!
Besides, killing the child doesn’t do a darn thing in helping the rape victim forget the rape; in fact perhaps she keeps the child and finds a love that heals those very wounds?
I speak from experience as I was conceived from such a nightmare and as my mother says, I’m the good that came out of the evil!
Besides, what’s the percentage of abortions performed out of rape or incest anyways, like 4 percent tops.
You seriously do suffer from Pro-Abortion Derangement Syndrome as Prolifer L said along with the typical excuse used in promoting your hatred for the Catholic Church with the claim of priests as pediophiles; again, the percentage of priests were like a fraction of a percent. It doesn’t excuse it, however look at the public school system in this country and you’ll find far greater numbers of sickos!
Fulton Sheen once spoke of how he was told that Communists feared the power of the Church and sent out agents to infiltriate the Church by becoming priests and destroying the Church from within. Of course those who have faith understand that the gates of hell would never prevail against the Church; so I often wonder if some of the abuses that took place were just another outside plan against the Church as well.
One more thing, as people tend to mix up what Roe vs. Wade claims: it’s not a right to have an abortion, it’s a right to seek one! If no one wants to perform it, tough shit! having a child is a gift, life is a gift, human beings are a gift, about time we remember that!
We are endowed by OUR CREATOR, is in our constitution, separation of church and state IS NOT!
Artemis: ” “Personhood” is very different from scientific “life” and that is why the “Personhood” initiatives are bound to fail. ”
Possibly, but that does not change the fact that an embryo is a unique human life, unlike a plant or animal. Why do some living humans deserve rights and others no rights?
Tie it all together…
45% of physicians plan to retire early in the event of obamacare.
Insiders have told us that Planned parenthood pushes its clinic directors to drum up abortion business.
Plan B, certainly is good for bringing abortion business since it’s less effective than the withdrawal method. WHAT A SCAM!
Catholic hospitals serve 16 percent of US patients, and as non profits, handle a good load of the indigent patients. Those hospitals are either going to have to abort or close
Coakley gave the public a window to see what’s coming. Take a look.
Once health care providers are forced to provide abortions, women will be forced to have abortions, and this coercion will be even stronger than vaccine coercion.
Thanks for putting up that Coakley interview here.
Coakley might wish there were more Catholics working in emerg when she’s an old fart and comes in and the secular staff decide she’s wasting healthcare resources and “off” her…..
Hey Xalisae and Mary how are you doing? How has your new year been? Good posts all you prolifers but I think you are “casting your pearls” on that pro-abort with Pro-Abortion Derangement Syndrome, even wants to shut down all the Catholic hospital because they won’t slaughter innocent unborn babies. Sounds like someone who should definately be on meds to me.
Artemis,
There was no medical justification for the amniocentesis. She just wanted to “get rid of” a female child for who knows what reason.
The doctor would not violate his ethics in this way and told her. If it posed a hardship on her to go look for another doctor, that’s the breaks. There’s no reason why the doctor should do a procedure he considered unethical.
Had he done so, it would have been one less female in the world. Great, eh? BTW, the baby was perfectly normal and healthy, just female.
Also Artemis, a major burn center in our state is a Catholic hospital. Patients are air-evacuated from all over the state, including our city. I saw a badly burned child evacuated to this center.
It was heartrending but thankfully, horror of horrors, there was this, this, Catholic burn center that specialized in the care he needed.
Are you so certain you would want this burn center to close?
Oh, and the Catholic ER where I worked. We handled trauma, heart attacks, injuries, domestic violence, child abuse, illness, you name it. Would you have wanted us to close?
Mary,
What is the hospital named that you are referring to? It sounds good.
I live in the Inland Empire area of California and I have heard most of my nursing instructors say that if they ever get a heart attack that they want to go to the Catholic hospital St. Bernardine’s. Most people in this area feel that this hospital is the best in cardiac care and good at almost every other field that they provide.
Hi Segamon,
The burn center is Columbia St.Mary’s, sponsored by Catholic Ascension Health and Columbia Health systems. These two groups sponsor 4 hospitals, a nursing college, 64 community clinics, an orthopedic hospital, and 4 urgent care centers.
Again I ask Artemis if she really wants the Catholic hospitals shut down.
Hello PLL,
My new year couldn’t be better, thank you. I hope yours is good as well.
I hate to confuse bigoted people with facts but its isn’t just Catholic hospitals that do not perform abortions, its also secular ones. Should these close as well? These people are so blinded by their bigotry its mind boggling. Close the hospitals and more people are out of work. Close the Catholic hospital I work at now and such community services as wig and makeup information for women on chemotherapy will be gone. Also, the yearly collections by hospital employees for people in the community that are in need. Just a few of the services the Catholic hospital I work at provides for the community, in addition to medical care.
I’m so tired of these ignoramus’ who “know” what Catholic hospitals will and will not do for patients.
One previous poster argued that Catholic hospitals ignore living wills and advance directives. We CAN’T ignore these, they are legal documents!! In fact, we always ask patients on admission if they have them and put a copy in the chart.
Just where do people hear this horse puckey?
Mary: “The burn center is Columbia St.Mary’s, sponsored by Catholic Ascension Health and Columbia Health systems. These two groups sponsor 4 hospitals, a nursing college, 64 community clinics, an orthopedic hospital, and 4 urgent care centers.”
Awesome! That’s pretty impressive.
Our local Catholic Healthcare West is the largest hospital provider in the state of California. They have 33 hospitals and 7 care centers located mostly in California but also in Nevada and Arizona.
My brother’s wife had a baby in a Catholic hospital in Oklahoma. They said that the service that they received there was the best they ever had (better than Kaiser here in CA).
I am a new grad nurse and will probably work at a county hospital. I certainly want to work in a Catholic hospital in the future, though.
Wow, I for one am glad that Artemis is here making lame, scientifically STUPID statements (a fibroid is another individual because it has DNA?). What a joke! She wouldn’t know health care if it chased her with a turkey baster.
So, Artemis, insult my religion all you want. Frankly I’d rather have you waste your time. At least it means your legs are shut for a few minutes, and that another fetus won’t have to die because of you.
How pathetic that you come to the defense of your mom who had your sibling snuffed. Do you go to bed every night thanking (something) that she didn’t have you or your poor nutty dad killed? Or do you wish she did?
Wow
Artemis hates disabled children from the way
she says she’s glad there’s tests to detect them before
birth.
You know what that is called? Eugenics.
Posted by: Hal at January 15, 2010 12:49 PM
——
Hal – I know your background is civil law – but imagine if, as part of your job as a state prosecutor, you were required to administer death sentence to those you successfully prosecuted by operating a gas chamber.
Further, your objections that you found such a requirement morally and spiritually unconscionable (given your Jewish background) was completely ignored.
Would you stand to defend your own principles and beliefs?
“At least it means your legs are shut for a few minutes, and that another fetus won’t have to die because of you”
Ah the old “pro-life” canard about “closing the legs.” If that ain’t a misogynistic statement, I don’t know what is. It just underscores the notion that the anti-choice movement hates women because of their sexuality. It’s the old patriarchal belief that the descendents of the mythical Eve are the “temptresses” who lead men astray: i.e. they “open their legs.” These evil females need to be punished and forcing them to be incubators can be, as in my mother’s case, a punishment. We’re talking rape here and in that case the legs are opened for them. But I do love the tolerance here that accuses my mother of being a murderer. I guess the “pro-life” movement wants women to suffer. Yeah, that’s the ticket.
And “the percentage of priests were like a fraction of a percent” – more like 10% but I did love the idea that the pedophiles were secret communists. LOL!!!
“We are endowed by OUR CREATOR, is in our constitution, separation of church and state IS NOT” Lisa, please read your Constitution. There is no mention of a creator or god in it. You are quoting the Declaration in which the religious sentiments are based on Masonic concepts of a distant god. It’s also based on the ideas of the Enlightement. Separation of Church and State is the “establishment clause” and was first invoked in Jefferson’s (he wrote a New Testament with the miracles excised) Letter to the Danbury Baptists. The “establishment clause” is used by the courts do decide issues regarding church and state. It’s most famous application was the Warren Court’s decision about public school prayer. It is also used in decision about those dreadfully drecky creche thingies on public property.
And re the Coakley endorsement of “raping a baby with a curling iron” thingie – could ya provide us with some primary sources here????? The “drive-by” comments are just so – uh – weak!!! Links????
Posted by: Artemis at January 15, 2010 5:31 PM
Are you kidding me? Have you been living under a rock? It is a well documented case that, thank goodness, is causing her a significant amount of trouble right now.
And as far as Thomas Jeffersons statement of Separation of Church and State, our courts are supposed to use the Constitution to decide issues. It seems very ironic that they would use a statement written to a religious group to decide separation matters. And anyone with half a brain knows (since Jefferson was religious) that separation meant the takeover of one religion in the form of government, not the total void of any kind of morals to guide us that it has become.
And “the percentage of priests were like a fraction of a percent” – more like 10% but I did love the idea that the pedophiles were secret communists. LOL!!!
Posted by: Artemis at January 16, 2010 6:57 AM
Talk about a drive-by comment! Why dont you search percentage of pedophile priests on Google. There are hundreds of articles, the vast majority not sympathetic to the RCC, and NONE of them even come close to 10%. However, protestant clergy abusers do come in around 10%. Do a little research….
This “seperation of church and state” is highly selective.
Didn’t Rev. ML King violate this sacred liberal mantra when he led a religiously oriented civil rights movement from the pulpit of his church?
The Berrigan brothers were Catholic priests who opposed the Vietnam War
How about Clinton campaigning from the pulpit of a black church?
So liberals, let’s hear about seperation of church when it involves causes you support.
It was very nice of Rush Limbaugh to mention Martha Coakley’s problem of religious intolerance on his Friday radio show.
Hopefully with all of our combined efforts, Obama will have to directly address this problem during his trip to Massachusetts to support his leftie Senate candidate.
Posted by: Hal at January 15, 2010 12:06 PM
“I think most Catholics would agree with her.[Coakley].”
—————————————————–
HAL,
I ‘think’ what you are really doing is ‘believing’ that most Catholic’s would agree with Coakley, because you most certainly cannot ‘know’ most Catholics views on the subject.
You are projecting your ‘humanistic utilitarian liberalism’ on ‘most’ catholics.
Coakley does not even agree with herself.
Just ask her today.
She was just doing some political vamping and something really stupid came out of one or both sides of her mouth.
Her forked tongue got tied for just a moment and when it became untangled she stumbled verbally and said what was really on her heart at that moment.
A high school teacher in New Mexicos was gender challenged so he underwent gender re-assignment surgery.
He, sans male reproductive organs and with surgically augmented breasts and daily estrogen infusions dolled himself up with womens clothes and makeup and went back to work at an elementary school in the same school district.
But the adolescents students could see there was something not right about this fellow and would/could not stand to be in his classroom.
Said fellow lost his job.
The conditions of his employment did not change.
HE did!
The catholics who work in emergency rooms have not changed. The proposed conditions of their employment have after they had already entered into a contract under the former conditions.
If catholics or non-catholics are no longer affored the ‘right of conscience’ then they must be compensated or accomodated.
missy Coakley wants to make it about ‘religion’ because that is one of liberal/humanists default politically correct positions when people refuse to comply with the ‘new order’.
The fascists ‘staw boogey man’ is now dressed up like a priest.
yor bro ken
Hi Pharmer,
It seems Obama may have stuck his foot in it. In his video ad for Coakley, he described her as his ally and the voice of the people of Massachusetts.
Excuse me, but isn’t a senator the ally of the people he/she represents, not the president?
Bill Clinton was in Massachusetts yesterday.
By going to Massachusetts on Sunday Obama has missed an opportunity to serve Bill Clinton his coffee.
Well hopefully, there were other light skinned Negroes with no Negro dialect available to serve Bill.
Mary, any cozying up that Obama does with Coakley after her display of religious intolerance will only help the conservative side in the long run.
Judging from the vigorous political awakenings and transformations occurring in Massachusetts, I’d say that the dems are hurting very badly.
Another sign of hope is that Sen Nelson was run out of a restaurant in his home state of Nebraska.
Pharmer,
Consider too that Obama’s presence doesn’t have a particulary impressive track record. Corzine,Deeds, Copenhagen..
This is probably the best thing he could have done for the Republicans.
When Obama graced my city with an appearance, the secret service checked out our hospital. I hope they knew it was Catholic and checked the religious beliefs of all the employees.
I was just stewing because it was the day I planned to leave on a trip I had planned for six months. Of course the Annointed One had to pick the day I fly out to have one of his farces called a townhall meeting. We heard celestial choirs singing all week so we knew some event of a divine nature was about to occur. Thankfully The One ascended back into heaven sooner than expected and my flight didn’t leave too late. I just made my connection.
“Ah the old “pro-life” canard about “closing the legs.” If that ain’t a misogynistic statement, I don’t know what is. It just underscores the notion that the anti-choice movement hates women because of their sexuality.”
Once again, Artemis proves how stupid they are. Your mother had an abortion. That killed your sibling. Your mother is female. We want people to stop the behavior that leads to pregnancy so they will not kill others by having an abortion. In the case of women, that implies keeping one’s legs closed simply due to the physiology of a woman. Had your father been capable of getting pregnant and killing your sibling in an abortion, we’d have told him to keep it in his pants. Had your father forced your mother to have an abortion against her will, we’d have said he needed to keep it in his pants. The fact you indicate rape(?) in your mother’s instance (I guess…I don’t know. I can’t tell at this point, you’re so all over the place) means that your father should’ve kept it in his pants. But I dunno…I guess just telling women to shut up and kill your child in an abortion in the event of rape is a perfectly just alternative to actually prosecuting rapists, right? Girl power! 9_9
Artemis,
Only the stupid would ignore the truth. Why do you ignore the facts I present. Why do you ignore the question I ask? Why do you not address anything that I have said? Be smart and address my question, please.
The catholics who work in emergency rooms have not changed. The proposed conditions of their employment have after they had already entered into a contract under the former conditions.
Posted by: kbhvac at January 16, 2010 9:17 AM
Hi Ken. Thanks for bringing up that point. What are seasoned professionals to do? Take their expertise to a setting that doesn’t treat female patients of childbearing age? Isn’t that the only way to preclude being asked for an abortion referral or an EC script? It’s not like EC is only requested by women alleging sexual assault. Even if the professional moves to a male-only setting, what’s to prevent a patient from asking about local abortion providers on behalf of his partner or family member?
I don’t think for a moment that this is about Catholic ER workers, they’re just an easy target. It’s about phasing out people of conscience, regardless of their faith, from the health care system. Socialized health care only works when providers will administer care based on government dictates, not the dictates of conscience which put the patient first.
Hi Mary we have had good new year as well. I am grateful for life and praying that God will demonstrate his awesome power by continuing to transform this nation into one that embraces and protects life and dismantles the diabolical culture of death. God is more than able to do this. I continue to pray daily for our nation and even for pro-death reprobates spewing their poison on this blog. Take care.
I am pro-life. I work in the emergency room (yes, it’s a pediatric one, but we still deal with pregnancies, rapes, etc.)
I do not, have not, and will not administer EC. All I have to do is tell my charge nurse that it violates my religious beliefs and he’ll say, OK and get someone else to give it. Like others have said, it is that simple.
I can’t change the world (or the doctor’s orders) but I don’t have to participate.
Hi Elisabeth,
When I trained years ago in the OR, very few staff members would participate in the occasional abortion that took place. It was a large OR. Anyway I was asked if I did abortions and I said no. No issue was made of it, this was simply viewed as your right to conscience.
BTW, this was a secular hospital.
I was surprised that while many staff members paid lip service to “choice”, they weren’t going to dirty their own hands.
Also the staff that would do abortions resented always being “stuck” with them, even if they had no moral qualms.
Mary,
Is it possible to know which OB units/hospitals provide abortions? Abortion clinics are obvious, but hospitals are not. I go to hundreds of hospital websites but, of course, they never mention what procedures that they provide specifically. Is calling actual units be the only way?
Mary, I think that when Obama ascends, it’s to Mt. Olympus ;-)
I do resent Obama looking for Catholic institutions to visit and spray, as a dog does to a fireplug.
Responding to the general talk about freedom of conscience in the hospitals, that’s variable. One cannot simply opt out at many hospitals, and there’s even some resentment at the religious hospitals for those who won’t give out the morning after pill.
Also there’s the methotrexate for “ectopic” pregnancies and the fake D & Cs. These things allow abortions to slip by even at hospitals with policies against it. It’s fairly easy to get methotrexate for a women whose pregnancy really isn’t ectopic, for example.
Given this, it’s next to impossible to have a list of hospitals at which there are no abortions. The best one can do is get the policies of the hospitals on abortion, and listen to the nursing rumor mill in your locality.
Our organization has for decades been helping health care professionals who suffer discrimination because they won’t participate in abortion.
Coakley is plainly speaking what pro-life health care professionals will be facing with obamacare.
We will be out of there, and it won’t be good for patients left to the mercies of the other kind of health care provider.
Hi Segamon,
I would suppose you could e-mail and ask specifically. Websites usually have someone you can contact and I would just make my concerns known and ask if they perform abortions. If they won’t give you a straight forward answer, then I would be suspicious.
As for specific doctors, that may be more difficult. You can see if they have an office or clinic website and again make see if you get a straightforward answer.
Mary,
Thanks for the information. A local hospital (and a well known one at that) Loma Linda University Medical Center has been known to do research on aborted fetuses. Although the hospital has a very high status throughout the area, this fact makes me wary of working for them in the future. This is why I would feel more comfortable working for a Catholic hospital or a hospital that doesn’t participate in elective abortions.
Can it be safe to say that abortions do not occur at all Catholic hospitals in the US?
I wish that this information would be more public and more easily accessible (which it should be).
Thanks again. ^_^
Pharma,
I can imagine that happens though in Catholic hospitals we are very particular about pregnancy tests and ultrasound scans.
Certainly before the modern diagnostic techniques, many abortions were performed in hospitals under the guise of “miscarriage”, “vaginal bleeding”, therapeutic abortion, “diagnostic D&C,”, etc.
Its interesting that at the hospital I trained at, there was never a problem at “opting out”.
Its true that doctors can perform procedures in their offices that you have no way of knowing about, except through the “rumor mill”.
I know that when the abortionist in our city was interviewed by the local paper, he would not deny or confirm that he performed abortions though everyone in the city knows he does! He used the excuse of “patient confidentiality” which is absurd since no one was asking him to name or discuss his patients and doctors certainly advertise the services they perform.
Hi Segamon,
Fairly safe to say. They will perform them if necessary to save the life of the mother. Ectopic pregnancies are removed. Also, some will perform them for anacephaly.
Mary,
Other than the killing of children with anencephaly, that’s good news to hear. The more that the Catholic hospitals can provide medical services in line with Catholic teaching the better.
Segamon, why not check the hospital’s physician directory (usually available online) to see if any known abortionists in the area are on staff? Even if the doc doesn’t do abortions on site, you could still end up with referral issues. And if the facility is “catholic,” you can probably eliminate it from consideration as one that adheres to the principles of Catholic health care in the way you’d like. Just my two cents worth.
Segamon,
Thankfully the anacephalics are extremely rare. Also there must be an exact diagnosis as to the severity of the disorder. I’m not certain the two cases I saw even had much head, only brainstem. Very tragic.
Otherwise, except under extreme circumstances ie life of the mother, fetal deformity incmpatible with life such as severe anacephaly, Catholic hospitals will not perform them.
Big question is…….. how does one justify killing a baby because his life will be short?
The purpose of the killing is not to save the life of the mother, it is supposedly to spare emotional distress. American Life League publishes stories of the moms who choose not to kill the kids with fatal deformities.
Also there are anecdotes of misdiagnosis, moms who give birth to normal kids after being told the baby has severe or fatal defect.
There’s the analogous practice of killing people who, though fully conscious, have lost the ability to convey the consciousness to others.
When these people are killed, the survivors have to live with the nagging possibility that the diagnosis was incorrect, along with the memory of euthanizing their family member.
I suspect from the huge numbers of females on antidepressants, that the act of killing babies is not shielding women from emotional distress. Reardon’s and Gissler’s suicide studies add evidence for my suspicion.
Pharmer… that is precisely why although I have put a great deal of prayer and thought into going into school to become a pharmacist (I have the chemistry and math grades to support it and am fascinated by how medications work… I’m constantly studying my nurse’s drug guide)… I have chosen NOT to go into that field… I can see finishing all of the necessary schooling only to have to leave the field due to no longer being able to act on my conscience.
Hi Pharmer
The hospital’s religious superiors must be satisfied that this is indeed an accurate diagnosis and with modern techniques, it is more likely to be. I can certainly understand your perspective and I don’t know that I am all that comfortable with it myself. However the Catholic hospitals I know of will abort an anacephalic baby after meeting very strict diagnostic criteria.
In the “old days” babies were often unknowingly and unintentionally aborted because the mother was bleeding, thought to have miscarried, etc. That’s how my cousin was almost aborted in the late 1940s!
There are people who purport to possess the moral authority to determine which humans ought to be purposely killed. As information about medicine, the limits and the errors is accumulated, I realize the lack of hard criteria for determining when it is right to actively kill a patient, no matter the developmental stage.
A really good weekend question for the forum might be “Whom do you trust to correctly determine when, and under what conditions it is time for you to die?
A really good weekend question for the forum might be “Whom do you trust to correctly determine when, and under what conditions it is time for you to die?
Posted by: pharmer at January 17, 2010 9:53 PM
Good question. It wouldn’t be a bureaucratic panel, that’s for sure.
pharmer,
I meant really good question!
:)
Hi Janet and Pharmer,
I am certain an anacephalic fetus is considered brain dead, thus with no life.
Decisions like this are made all the time in hospitals concerning brain death.
Yes, patients are taken off life support and continue to breathe and have a heartbeat for a brief or extended time. Are the alive?
Who makes these decisions? Is the brain dead patient aware at all? Is the anacephalic?
Was a mistake made? Again I’m afraid there are no simple answers, only very heartrending decisions.
Janet, maybe that question can be used for the blog. Might create a big long discussion thread.
Mary, i guess it’s good to know what brain death is before determining that the anencephalic babies are brain dead, right?
I can’t make the assumption that all of them are brain dead, as consciousness begins at the level of the hypothalamus. I guess it depends on the actual location of the neural tube defect.
It appears that the Catholic church does not approve of what those hospitals are doing when they abort anencephalic babies.
Of course, other religions have different rules regarding abortion.
http://www.ewtn.com/library/PROLIFE/bcdanen1.htm
http://www.anencephaly.net/
Hi Pharmer,
Thank you for the info.
There are varying degrees of severity of anacephely just as there are varying degrees of brain injury, consciousness, etc. I have seen anecephalics with intact skulls who have survived for an extended time. Some do not even have heads or facial structure.
I have only seen this twice in 30 years and I would assume the severity of the anacephely, which can be determined by ultrasound, was a factor. In some cases these children may not even have heads or faces and I know there is strict criteria that must be met and approval given by religious advisers.
The situation is also true with brain trauma. Every effort will be made to help someone and they spend their lives and die in a nursing home. Other patients make remarkable recoveries.
People must decide to take a loved one off life support or just maintain their bodily functions interminably. Would any of us just want to be “maintained”?
Also, the brain stem may keep the heart and breathing going while the brain itself is dead.
I wish I had the answers Pharma, I don’t. I think people sincerely make difficult and traumatic decisions, with the help and advice of clergy, based on the information they have.
Have “wrong” decisions been made? I have no doubt they have.
We can only hope we are never in a position to make such decisions.
BTW I supported Karen Ann Quinlen’s parents’ decision to remove her from a respirator. She continued to survive in a nursing home for several years I believe. I did not advocate starving or killing her in any way, and neither did her parents, when she continued to breathe on her own.
The answer is to avoid purposely killing a patient. Once the motivation for an ACT is to get rid of a patient, there’s a problem.
The motivation for the therapeutic abortions of kids with severe defects is basically to get rid of the kid earlier and get mom’s life back on track. Unfortunately abortion doesn’t really get the mom’s life back in order, nor can it be relied on to assist with the grief. It does help with costs of burial or other disposition of the deceased.
Just for the time being, it might help orderly thought to consider allowing a kid to live out the natural lifespan without intervention (killing), as a distinct thing from applying the proper procedure to wean a patient from the respirator, and allowing things to take their natural course.
Starving and dehydrating a patient who has ready access (creating the terminal state) is another one of those things the Catholic Church opposes, though other religions might have different rules.
Installing life support for a patient, only to cause them a prolonged rotting in bed is another matter entirely, and is not a matter of contention.
All three of my pregnancies were later in life, and therefore considered high risk, and kids were delivered by C-section. I signed refusals for the alpha-fetoprotein tests each time, but only had to tell the doc once: I have to keep whoever comes out. That’s the deal….
(even through their years of hormonal flux ;-p )
Hi Pharmer,
These children often die in utero and in a more advanced pregnancy, that might cause problems.
Again, if there is no brain function the anacephalic fetus is legally dead. As is the patient on life support with brain activity at a flat line.
Often with severe long term brain injury, the decision is made that no “heroics” will be done.
Is this killing the patient?
Again, devastating and tragic situations. Decisions I can only hope I never have to make.
Mary
I’m reposting the parts of my prior post that address your question.
Just for the time being, it might help orderly thought to consider allowing a kid to live out the natural lifespan without intervention (killing), as a distinct thing from applying the proper procedure to wean a patient from the respirator, and allowing things to take their natural course.
Starving and dehydrating a patient who has ready access (creating the terminal state) is another one of those things the Catholic Church opposes, though other religions might have different rules.
Installing life support for a patient, only to cause them a prolonged rotting in bed is another matter entirely, and is not a matter of contention.
********
How is the brain activity of the kid being monitored in utero at your hospital????
Killing the kid before he dies is the same, regardless of the location. If there is a worry, the mother can visit the doc more frequently to monitor, as is done with other high risk pregnancies.
I understand that this practice has become culturally entrenched, and is happening at religiously affiliated hospitals. The patrons of the hospitals deserve to be notified, so that they can consider reallocating their charitable donations in accordance with their beliefs.
Hi Pharmer,
I can certainly understand your perspective. This remains an extremely gray area, for both the unborn and born. We make judgment calls and can only hope they are correct. A unborn baby with no head development may be a safer call than a “brain dead” patient we’re considering for organ donation.
How do we know for certain any patient is brain dead, especially before we “kill” them by taking their internal organs? I’ve kept patients “alive” for such procedures and these are done very frequently. Its a ghoulish thought but it crossed my mind that this patient may be aware and feel pain.
I do not condone nor do I know of any situation of the deliberate starving or dehydrating of patients. I was referring to artificial breathing. Do we know for certain a patient is brain dead before removing “killing” them from the ventilator?
There have been some recoveries after all that have defied medical science, one of them before a patient was taken to the OR to “donate” his organs.
Again Phamer, I never want to be forced to make these heartrending decisions.