|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: ACLU vs. US Catholic Bishops Abortion Lawsuit
|
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
The case particulars sound a lot like this Irish example we discussed last year. As for the legal tactic of suing the bishops directly, it doesn't seem unreasonable. If their pronouncements are demonstrably (that's the key word) affecting medical care, they're liable.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
The Canadian situation has some parallels. We have RC affiliated hospitals. All hospital services by law are paid by government. In my area, the RC hospital would have sent the woman to the designated hospital in the health region that does the abortions. They would have also sent a patient with an eye injury to another hospital because they don't have those services there. The issue initially was who pays for transport, and the health region dealt with non-urgent (non-ambulance) transport with a within region patient shuttle which doesn't charge for the trip.
Thus, I would suggest that these USA RC hospitals might create an agreement with neighbouring hospitals for services they don't or won't provide.
-- It does make me question more broadly what religion is doing in hospitals any more. It's not like you can get a uniquely RC hip replacement or tonsillectomy.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
The Canadian situation has some parallels. We have RC affiliated hospitals. All hospital services by law are paid by government. In my area, the RC hospital would have sent the woman to the designated hospital in the health region that does the abortions. They would have also sent a patient with an eye injury to another hospital because they don't have those services there. The issue initially was who pays for transport, and the health region dealt with non-urgent (non-ambulance) transport with a within region patient shuttle which doesn't charge for the trip.
Thus, I would suggest that these USA RC hospitals might create an agreement with neighbouring hospitals for services they don't or won't provide.
-- It does make me question more broadly what religion is doing in hospitals any more. It's not like you can get a uniquely RC hip replacement or tonsillectomy.
What happens when a woman shows up at a RC hospital who will die very soon if she does not have an abortion, and there is no time to move her to another hospital (or if moving her itself might kill her)?
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
AIUI, there is no specific law dealing with abortion in Canada, but there are clear legislated guidelines on the provision of health care.
Denying someone an arguably life-saving service would get the hospital in quite a lot of trouble.
I can't answer for the RC hierarchy, but they probably do not want unfavorable publicity on that kind of case, so I would expect any comment would be limited.
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
The Canadian situation has some parallels. We have RC affiliated hospitals. All hospital services by law are paid by government. In my area, the RC hospital would have sent the woman to the designated hospital in the health region that does the abortions. They would have also sent a patient with an eye injury to another hospital because they don't have those services there. The issue initially was who pays for transport, and the health region dealt with non-urgent (non-ambulance) transport with a within region patient shuttle which doesn't charge for the trip.
Thus, I would suggest that these USA RC hospitals might create an agreement with neighbouring hospitals for services they don't or won't provide.
-- It does make me question more broadly what religion is doing in hospitals any more. It's not like you can get a uniquely RC hip replacement or tonsillectomy.
What happens when a woman shows up at a RC hospital who will die very soon if she does not have an abortion, and there is no time to move her to another hospital (or if moving her itself might kill her)?
I haven't heard of a case like this. I don't think the mother would be so imminently dying that the ambulance would not take her to the correct hospital, and I also don't know that someone is on the doorstep of death if they don't have an abortion. All the cases I've seen have been subject to debates of several days through to weeks, not minutes nor seconds or woman will die. This may be a strawman type of situation.
But I would think, both from knowing a number of physicians and from understanding the general policy that if the mother's life is in danger that Canadian RCs would accept that all necessary measures should be taken including abortion. Though we would call this a D & C. Which is probably what it actually is from a procedural standpoint. I know that there is no question in the case of tubal pregnancies, but these are also not emergencies, so they'd be sent to the designated hospital for care.
In the one case of which I am aware in a rural area where the only hospital was RC affiliated (Grey Nuns), the decision was made when abortion services were not available was that it had to disaffiliate from the RCs and become a general non-religious hospital. The Canada Health Act imposes things like reasonable and equitable access to health services. -- we are willing in Canada to leave decisions about when and whether to have an abortion to the individuals and doctors involved because we have no abortion laws at all - none. The absence of any abortion law helps with that. As does the lower abortion rate here than within the USA which is our most frequent comparative group.
[[tangent]] I have been surprised that in the USA which prides itself as being so promoting of individual rights that they specifically are much less free to individually decide when it comes to reproduction, and to sexual education. Considering the condom machines in some high school washrooms, explict sexual education in the schools, lower abortion rates, lower teen pregnancy rates, and no higher percentage of kids having sex than in restrictive countries. -- I suspect that those kids having sex probably enjoy it more when they have some info. Their parents may have had much more direct and explicit talks about sex with them also. I certainly know I/we did. [[/tangent]]
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
