The final arbiter is the local bishop
Just imagine, some people see handing over medical care to god-botherers as a bad idea.
“Physicians are being told they must refuse to provide certain services even when they believe their refusal would harm their patient and violate established medical standards of care,” said Lois Uttley, who heads MergerWatch, a New York-based group that fights the takeover of secular medical centers by religiously affiliated hospitals.
Church officials, bioethicists and hospital officials counter that the facilities are guided by directives calibrated to deliver state-of-the-art medical care without violating religious and moral beliefs.
But they shouldn’t be guided by directives calibrated to avoid violating religious beliefs. Period. Religious beliefs have nothing to do with decisions about what the best medical care would be, and they should stay out of it. Doctors, nurses, hospital administrations, ethics committees have no business imposing religious beliefs on other people.
Disagreements between dioceses and hospitals, as well as cases in which patients do not receive needed care, are exceedingly rare, they say.
They should be non-existent. Exceeding rarity doesn’t make them ok.
“We have literally hundreds of institutions that care for men, women and children every day and provide excellent care, especially to the poor,” said Richard M. Doerflinger of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops Secretariat for Pro-Life Activities. “We always do so with respect for each and every life in our care.”
No you do not. That is not true. That is exactly what you don’t do. That is a falsehood. One of your bishops in particular, and your whole vicious Conference in general, insists that in a case like the one in Phoenix the mother must be allowed to die along with her fetus. Don’t tell falsehoods about your murderous policy; tell the truth about it so that everyone will know exactly what is at stake here.
Since 1971, Catholic hospitals have been guided by the Ethical and Religious Directives , which detail religious and moral justifications for care extending from conception to death. The interpretation of those directives is the responsibility of ethics committees at the hospitals, and the final arbiter is the local bishop.
The local bishop has the final word on policy for all Catholic hospitals in his diocese. The local bishop can set aside medical judgment any time he wants to. That’s an appalling arrangement.
We should no more give Catholics the ability to veto medical care than we would the Jehovah’s Witnesses. They’re looking out for the best interest of a nonexistent metaphysical construct that is judged on rules that only they know, rather than the best interest of the living meat based person.
I think its time that religious institutions just give money to hospitals. They should not run hospitals, any more than any wealthy donor should run a charity he donates to. Actually, less than that.
The Final Arbiter could be the name of a sci-fi/horror movie. Or maybe I’m just thinking that because I managed to play through half of the Halo trilogy(*) before I got married and had a kid (a second any day now!) and my opportunities to play violent video games dwindled to virtually nothing…
* Yes, half a trilogy. I played all the way through the first one, and probably half or two-thirds of the way through the second. Then. somehow, trivialities like sex and marriage and child-rearing started to interfere with the important business of playing XBox. Dammitall…
The only religious constraints on medical should be those of the patient him/herself. I regard it as a matter of personal autonomy to be able to refuse treatment for pretty much any reason, no matter how silly the rest of us may think it is. So if a Catholic woman wants to die due to some horrendous complication of pregnancy which is treatable only by abortion, or a JW for lack of a blood transfusion, that’s their right, and I’ll direct my rage at the institutions that brainwashed them to think that way.
Also possible exception for individual doctors and nurses with personal scruples — seems like a grey area to me.
But the hospital? Why should my care potentially be compromised, just because the people that run the place adhere to some ethical system that I regard as medieval?
I like the way the Catholic church parasitically latches onto another institution such as a hospital, like a limpet on the hull of a ship, and then seems to think the very good work of the hospital is the work of the church. As far as I’m aware, the Catholic church does not even contribute financially to the hospital.
I’m reminded of organized crime and protection rackets, sounds very much the same thing.
Is money going from hospitals to the church or the church to hospitals?
One of the aspects of the enormous presumption the religious feel is the right not only to follow their own laws but demand (or force) you to follow them also. For them it’s just perfectly reasonable that everyone else should follow their religious laws.
Don’t like abortion? Don’t have one. Disgusted by homosexuality? Don’t have sex with other men/women. But don’t use your power to interfere with other people’s lives and call it “respect.” It isn’t.
[…] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Skeptic South Africa, Ophelia Benson. Ophelia Benson said: The final arbiter is the local bishop http://dlvr.it/Dl5W0 […]
God help the poor!
Egbert @ #4, here’s a bit of data once collected:
From this wonderful link:
http://www.atheists.org/The_Question_of_Atheists_Hospitals
–Diane
“I like the way the Catholic church parasitically latches onto another institution such as a hospital, like a limpet on the hull of a ship”
*sigh*
The Church pretty much invented hospitals.
“The First Council of Nicaea in 325 AD urged the Church to provide for the poor, sick, widows, and strangers; it ordered the construction of a hospital in every cathedral town.”
“Founded in 1895 by the Sisters of Mercy, St. Joseph’s was the first hospital in the Phoenix area.”
http://www.stjosephs-phx.org/Who_We_Are/index.htm