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.
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.
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
Religious circumcision is not a medically required procedure, its a religious procedure from the stoneage that should be outlawed
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.
?
I’m thinking that you missed the point here.
Point being that if you’re a doctor you cannot cherrypick what procedures you’d like to do based off your religious preferences. Science isn’t pick and choose, you take it all or nothing
You don’t understand how medicine works.
A doctor can’t just decide to start doing a new medical procedure. They need to learn and practice. It takes a significant investment. And to be good at a procedure requires doing it often.
Even my dentist referred me to another dentist for a relatively simple procedure, because the other dentist is better at it and does it more often.
For a doctor that is not experienced in performing abortions, doing an abortion would be medical malpractice. If anything goes wrong, and the chance is higher due to lack of experience, they will be sued and they will lose the tort case.
So doctors have to choose what procedures they specialize in. And obviously, nobody who is morally opposed to performing abortions will choose to specialize in performing abortions.
It is a conscious choice and long term commitment to be an abortion providing doctor.
I very much understand that, but it is not what I meant.
Let’s out a hypothetical example, just to make the point. Let’s say that a white doctor refuses to treat a Muslim patient because of his religion. Or let’s say that a Muslim doctor refuses to treat a women, even though he could because his religion doesn’t allow him to do that.
That lady one sort of happened a long time ago in my town
My point is not that a doctor must perform all procedures whether they can or not, my point is that they must perform all procedures to help a patient, irrespective of what they think or fell about that patient.
A nice opposite of my example, and how it should be is that rather famous picture of a black doctor saving the live of a KKK asshole. That is how it’s supposed to be. You are a doctor, you do what you can and you don’t opt out ONLY because you don’t like something about the patient or procedure they need
No, but that person should not be a doctor at all if they cannot prioritize patient health.
Not performing a procedure that you don’t regularly perform is prioritizing patient health.
“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.
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 fireman refused to put out a fire because they didn’t feel like it, they’d be lose their job too.
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.
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.
Imagine I’m a doctor who refuses to prescribe medication because it makes people weak.
Same amount of body fluids.
Today Lemmy learns that, in fact, the Catholic church has historically provided health care and education, according to their beliefs, over hundred of years
Ok, and?
It’s funny how even catholic views are considered unacceptable now by the liberal society. This is the paradox of your tolerance: you want to accept all kinds of different people for as long as they are the same in what they believe.
I see no reason for catholic medical institutions to provide services they believe to be immoral, I don’t personally, but so what of it, they should not be forced to do it.
It seems that in the US, people are taking more radical and unreasonable attitudes towards abortions(that applies to both sides). Some people may feel the need to defend abortions from anything. But I believe that tolerance should not be cast away for zealotry.
I see no reason for catholic medical institutions to provide services they believe to be immoral
If they let their backwards sexist standards for what is “immoral” get in the way of medical services, they shouldn’t fraudulently call their facility a hospital.
Opposition to abortion is not necessarily motivated by sexism. There is no reason why a hospital has to have principles that are in accord with yours to call itself a hospital. In fact, for most of history, hospitals and medical practitioners did not share your beliefs.
In fact, for most of history, hospitals and medical practitioners did not share your beliefs.
Yeah, and then we abandoned the barbarism that insecure men who want to control women still cling to.
Okay but what happens if a pregnant person gets brought into the ER of a Catholic hospital and they need an immediate abortion or they die. The hospital doesn’t want to perform it because of religion. Should the hospital just let the patient die against the patient’s will? The patient didn’t had a choice into which hospital they were brought in. And this isn’t just a hypothetical this situation has played out in real life. Just look at Ireland.
I do believe that in the case of emergencies, if the threat of death is certain, catholic hospitals should always save the mother and I suspect many catholics would agree, but I would still say that they should not have to perform abortions and prescribe contraceptive treatment generally.
they should not have to perform abortions and prescribe contraceptive treatment generally
Abortions are medical procedures and contraceptives are the medical professional advice to prevent unwanted children/disease. If the institution doesn’t allow for fucking medicine to be practiced, it’s not a hospital, it’s a church.
So yeah, let’s allow catholic hospitals to do whatever the hell they want with regards to religion, idgaf. But if their religion prevents them from offering medical care, they’re not allowed to practice medicine and they sure as shit aren’t allowed to call themselves a hospital.
Their religious morals do not allow them to perform abortions. However, there are medical procedures banned in secular hospitals for moral reasons that are not exclusively religious, like euthanasia. Does that mean that countries that do not allow euthanasia do not have hospitals, but churches?
You can derive your morals from wherever you want, I honestly don’t care. And you can consider those morals when applying for a job, such that you don’t end up with a career in a field where you are forced to go against your morals. This “I’m in emergency care or obgyn but don’t do abortions” shit? That’s too late. You had your time to make a decision - when you’re already hired is not that time.
I’m sure plenty of catholic doctors make great physicians. But if you allow your morals to come before your job, but actually lack the morals to quit that job when it is apparent that it contradicts what you believe - at that point you’re not taking a moral stand, you’re just a cunt with a soapbox.
Precisely, this is why I would work in a catholic hospital if I was in that situation.
if the threat of death is certain
Nice little carve out to allow them to sit by and watch women die under the pretense of uncertainty. Fuck off with this death cult bullshit.
If the threat of death is certain, it does not mean that death is. I meant it in a way that if it is certain there is a risk of death, the woman should be saved.
Though I believe catholics would want to try, when possible, to save the child as well, and would use abortion as a last resort. I have no problem with that, for as long as they do abortions when there is no option that would avoid it while not putting the life of a mother under significant risk.
I misread your comment, I now better understand what you were saying, and I apologize for being so hostile.
With that said, pregnancy inherently brings with it the threat of death. All pregnancies have a chance (and therefore threat) of death. So regulating them such that they must perform abortion services when there is a threat of death would be a regulation that would force them to abort 100% of requested pregnancies.
Yes. This is why I said “significant threat” in the previous comment.
Ok, now we’re back to arbitrary carvouts that lead to women dying of preventable issues, so I was right the first time.
Religion and healthcare do not mix. Very simple.
Judging by the amount of catholic hospitals in the world, it would appear like they do.
I too can write ‘roses’ on a sign and put it in my back yard next to the pile of manure.
Very mature. I am not quite sure what you think they do at catholic hospitals, but there are a lot of medical operations other than abortion.
Nah, man. You can’t be responsible for the middle ages and denial of science and then turn around and say “oopsies, actually we’re good with some science now”. You can’t be the greatest threat to several civilizations and the reason wars were fought and crusades killed millions and then claim “nah bro, on God, we’re just finna heal some people, trust us np”. You can’t cover up pedophilia in your ranks and move offending priests from parish to parish, from abuse to abuse, and then say “yo, just let us take care of people when they’re at their weakest, trust us bro, we just need a bit more power over people in a position of weakness bro, just this one more time bro”. No, catholic hospitals are like saying Isis summer camps or CIA flower planting trips.
Your institution is evil. You don’t get to give yourself some good PR and wash the evil away. Everyone knows you’ll just use whatever power people give you to further your own agenda - like push for letting women die instead of performing abortions, or preaching abstinence instead of teaching teenagers how contraceptives work. You’re evil and will die evil. All society can do is not help you slow down your death.
You = catholicism, not you as a person. I’m sure you’re cool and all, and it’s a shame you haven’t yet gotten out of the indoctrination - though it’s not surprising, catholics have been indoctrinating people for literal millenia. They’ve gotten really good at sinking their teeth into people and guilting them into following along with the rest of the flock.
I am not a catholic. Never have been.
The church has always helped the poor and the ailing, this is not a recent development. This is simply a part of their tradition, their doctrine. It was happening when 99.9 per cent of christian europe was christian, and for centuries(thousands of years by now).
Also, while the church was often conservative, it would not be accurate to say it has stalled science to a significant degree, as there were only a few issues it took a hard stance on with regards to science.
We inherited the concept of the “dark ages” from the biased culture of the rennaisance(towards the classical roman culture and against the medieval), but modern historians are revising this issue, and I would say that it was not as bad as it is painted in pop culture, and towards the end of the era civilisation was very developed, and even if it was, christianity was not responsible for it, since it is doubtful the empire would have remained if it stayed pagan, plus the east did not experience this decline despite being christian.
What’s next, jehovian hospitals that’ll refuse ppl blood transfusions? Maybe amish hospitals that’ll treat 'em with 100% organic snake oil?
I mean, you’re either a medical institution, and then you do whatever is legal to help the patient, or you’re a sect, and then you tell ppl how they should live their lives according to a bunch of long-dead dudes. Not both.
I would say, morality always comes into play when you decide which actions are permissible and which are not when it comes to healthcare, from designing legislation and hospital policy, to decisions doctors take on the spot, whether it is secular morality or religious(for example, many people oppose euthanasia, and not necessarily for religious reasons). I see no reason to discredit catholics and their moral views, I respect them, and see the appeal and logic of condemning abortion, even if personally I am not a catholic.
What makes your morality better than religious morality?
What makes your morality better than religious morality?
My morality doesn’t involve covering up sexual abuse of minors, for one.
Christian morality quite clearly does not involve that.
Not officially, no. But it sure seems to happen a lot for people who want to police how others have sex.
I’d say it’s more about letting ppl choose what they do with their body and their lives in general, as long as it doesn’t hurt the others. I can be against abortions or euthanasia, yet it’s not me who’s going to suffer the childbirth/dementia/terminal cancer/etc.
I agree, but I would rather catholic institutions are not forced to act in accordance with a moral system they do not believe in. Since your country leaves healthcare up to the free market, it is not commited to make sure everyone gets all the services the could possibly want, but it is not preventing it either. You can open an abortion clinic near a catholic hospital if there is demand. The solution to this should not be forcing catholics to do abortions.
I agree, but I would rather catholic institutions are not forced to act in accordance with a moral system they do not believe in.
No one’s forcing them to practice medicine, then.
Catholics and their views are perfectly fine so long as they don’t interfere with other people’s lives. Simple as.
Only your views are allowed to interfere with other’s lives?
Only the laws of a secular, liberal democratic and pluralistic state, with rule of law and universal respect for human rights are allowed to interfere with people’s lives, to the extent that said interference adheres to the social contract.
If you think this makes me somehow a hypocrite, go cry me a river.
But how can you not interfere with the lives of other people? Shold I go live in the woods? If I am a private company, how much agency do I need to have to avoid interfering with the lives of other people?
Interesting word you have there, “pluralistic”. Do you reckon catholics will have a say in what laws are passed?
Catholics do have a say in what laws are passed, tho. And it’s kinda intended.
Basically, they’re outnumbered by those who think abortions are ok, yet it’s not good enough for them.
But how can you not interfere with the lives of other people? Shold I go live in the woods? If I am a private company, how much agency do I need to have to avoid interfering with the lives of other people?
Follow the law.
Interesting word you have there, “pluralistic”. Do you reckon catholics will have a say in what laws are passed?
Democracy means democracy.
The problem is that in many areas there are no alternative institutions for someone to receive care. Choosing to go to another non-religious hospital is often not an option in many places. I live in a major metro and the majority of hospitals here are religiously affiliated. It’s not a matter of allowing a few random institutions to uphold their beliefs, it’s an institutional problem when a person cannot receive valid medical care because of the objections of a religion. If you live in a small town with a single hospital, and the next closest one is an 8 hour drive away, then that hospital should be required to provide all FDA approved treatments the doctors are physically capable of administering.
I’m all for allowing people to practice their religion however it best suits them to do so, until it negatively interferes with the lives of others. When your religion starts preventing people from accessing widely approved and safe healthcare, then your beliefs should not be protected. I don’t care if you’re Catholic, Muslim, or Pastafarian - you have no right to prevent someone from accessing healthcare because of your beliefs.
This situation is unfortunate, I suppose, but your government is not preventing anyone from getting these services in many states, and as of now, it does not have to provide all procedures to all the people. If you want your government to ensure that all approved procedures are easily accessible, and not leave it to the free market, it should actually manage it’s own hospitals, rather than force catholic ones to do abortions, which to me seems like too much to ask from a religious institution.
The irony is the state government in many instances has defacto prevented it in many states, even before the overturning of Roe. In a lot of states the governments passed laws making it so egregiously difficult, both logistically and financially, for small clinics to provide even simple abortion pill services, that every clinic was forced to close. This leaves only the larger hospitals, which are, you guessed it, religious institutions.
The long and short is, our country is a shit show. That said, I still do not think people should be able to deny medical care or government services (like marriage licenses) to others based on religious beliefs unless there is someone else immediately available to provide them instead.
The “unless someone else can provide them” part is unrealistic and unenforceable. I sympathise with you, but you should really just get your shit together first. Catholic hospitals are a drop in the ocean.
Boy would I like to live in the America that you think exists lol. Nearly 20% of US Hospital beds are at religiously affiliated hospitals. According to the Catholic Health Association 1 in 7 patients in the US are cared for in a Catholic hospital
They’re not a “drop in the ocean” - they’re prolific and everywhere. This is especially a problem in rural locations where they are the ONLY hospital. Even places that are metropolitan outliers, like a place I lived in high school, have issues because it may be a 30-45min drive to another hospital, that may or may not be covered by your insurance.
You think you understand the problem, but it’s way bigger than you realize.
I meant it in a way that this is a very minor issue overall that is a direct consequence of your general approach to healthcare.
So up until recently Catholic views were accepted by “liberal” society?
Stop it.
‘Even catholic’. Fuck me i lolled
what do you mean by “even” catholic views?
There are a lot of catholics in the world, and a lot of them are in the west. In the USA they might be a minority, but it is still weird how hostile people are to this rather popular church that has always been very influential culturally in the west.
It’s funnier how the catholic church defends pedophilia on an institutional level, but you “think of the children” types don’t seem to care.
Fun fact, the tolerance paradox isn’t a paradox. It’s a social contract. The contract is to be tolerant. Catholics are intolerant of anything they disagree with. They don’t abide by the contract, therefore we aren’t obligated to tolerate their bullshit.
Even more fun facts, the late term abortions catholics LOVE to hate-monger about (I went to the march for life I know first hand) make up a tiny fraction of total abortions, and they are almost always emergency situations, or discovered fetus conditions incompatible with life. Any arbitrary ban WILL kill women, and disproportionately kill women who actually want children. Three women died in Texas in November alone due to abortion laws.
I’m sure there can be some reasonable agreement that gives doctors greater discretion while not allowing elective late term abortions or whatever you think is happening, but for right now, you’re killing actual people.
I am not opposed to abortion, personally, nor is it banned anywhere in my country. I also have not killed anyone yet, but I’ll yet you know if anything changes. However, I am not particularly interested in forcing chrstians to accept secular morality.
The paradox I am referring to, is not in the fact that people that preach tolerance should be tolerant to everyone. I am instead pointing out the fact that western progressive culture, while preaching diversity, do not actually accept people that disagree with them, so inclusivity is contingent on acceptance of certain views, in that sense, this “diversity” is skin deep, we only accept you if you already agree with us.
This is similar to how christians have historically thought, ironically. So while blaming catholics of being intolerant of everything they disagree with, it seems like you are doing exactly that.
Yeah, because Western cultures have realized that trying to compromise with people on concepts like “human rights” and “medical requirements” doesn’t work. There is no room for agreement with someone who thinks “abortions are always immoral.” They’re wrong. We know this because we value human life.
You’re so close to realizing that Christian ideology is fundamentally intolerant and wrong, but are getting so weirdly hung up on this idea of “but what if killing women is actually based? shouldn’t they be allowed?” No. We can be intolerant of people who have been intolerant of science-based thinking for centuries. It’s actually the only way society can progress forward.
While there is probably no room for agreement with someone who thinks “abortions are always immoral”, this does not mean their position is wrong somehow. What do you mean “we know this because we value human life”? I would say opposition to abortion is motivated by an appreciation for human life, even before birth we are valued.
A situation when a woman’s life is contingent on doing an abortion is a rare edge case, and I would say you should always save the mother then, but if they want to try to make sure the child survives as well in most cases where it is feasible, I can respect that since I see their rationale.
I would say, that the church while there were issues in which the church opposed some ideas that are now considered scientific consensus, most notably evolution and heliocentrism, I would say that it is not accurate to say it is opposed or has ever been opposed to science, nor that it opposes scientific thinking. This is like saying Marxists are opposed to science(which they famously love) because they opposed the theory of relativity in the soviet union.
You are saying they are wrong that it is immoral, but what gives you the right to say what is and what is not moral like you are some kind of prophet? The point is, if you accept their moral views, which are quite reasonable, and in case of their view on abortion not exclusively christian, their actions are perfectly rational most of the time in that regard, this has nothing to do with the denial of science.
I already addressed the point in your second paragraph directly.
while preaching diversity, do not actually accept people that disagree with them
“I don’t think women should have rights” is not a differing opinion worthy of consideration.
I don’t think you did address it. What do you mean women shouldn’t have rights? There are more rights than right to abortion, and you don’t have to be dogmatic about it.
Because catholics are known for their tolerance.
Compared to most the protestant sects today they are pretty tolerant.
Catholics are very tolerant, although in the same way liberals and progressives are - for as long as you agree with them.
But to be fair, a lot of them are actually tolerant, they are people too, believe it or not.
Not in my experience.
I do not doubt your experience, it sucks, I suppose but in my opinion it depends on the country and culture. A lot of christians(hardcore christians) are quite intense, let’s say, but a lot of them are pretty chill, in my experience, at least. I would say, some protestant denominations are the worst in that regard.
Protestants are less awful imo. At least the two people I got to know, keep their opinions mostly to themselves. So maybe that’s why they seem more upstanding.
Though one of them expressed that he does believe his gay friend will go to hell.
Catholics are much more rule-bent in my experience and far less tolerant.
They are more rule-bent, but a hardcore protestant is a lot more fanatical than a deboted catholic in my opinion. But with protestants it differs a lot between confessions.
Catholic priests raps kids for centuries. Fuck em.
wtf is a catholic hospital? you get wine and crackers while you wait in purgatory?
the only 2 hospital networks in my area are literally named Trinity and Genesis, very blatant religious connotations there.
Catch some deathbed conversions mostly.
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 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!!
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.
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.
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
If y our religion dictates that you not perform life saving procedures, Then you have no business being in medicine.
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.
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.
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.
If people suddenly have more money out of nowhere, shop owners will start raising prices to compensate. So the long-term effect is that how much goods people can afford doesn’t really change, but the value of their savings keeps on dwindling. Unless there is a fault in my logic or an additional policy meant to prevent this, UBI just sounds like a way to make sure people never retire because their savings are made worthless by inflation.
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?
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.
