When I was checking in to the ER on Tuesday one of the questions I was asked in registration was what my religious preference was. I quickly responded, “atheist,” but what I was thinking was, “Why the hell does that matter? I’m here with an allergic reaction. You are wasting time asking me what I believe, when the only thing that maters right now is what might kill me!” But I kept my mouth shut because I was a little more worried about my throat closing up on me and I sure didn’t want to waste any more time.
I took a class in college on hospital chaplaincy, so I understand that religious hospitals (the one’s in Boise are Catholic) want to know if they should administer last rites if you’re about to die or what denomination’s minister to call in if you find yourself in need of someone to talk to. However, I was in the EMERGENCY ROOM, I didn’t need a pastor or priest, I needed a doctor. Save my life first, then you can worry about my nonexistent soul.
While we’re on the topic of Catholic Hospitals, I’m sure a lot of you saw in the news that St. Joseph’s Hospital and Medical Center in Phoenix has been stripped of it’s church affiliation by Bishop Thomas Olmstead, a decision that was seconded by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. What grievous thing did the hospital do?
In November 2009, a 27-year-old mother of four in her third month of pregnancy arrived at St. Joseph’s. She was diagnosed with pulmonary hypertension, a serious complication that might well have killed her if she had continued the pregnancy.
The hospital performed an abortion…
Let’s weigh the options here:
Option 1: Follow Church Doctrine
- Mother dies.
- Pregnancy is terminated.
- Four children left motherless.
Option 2: Abort
- Mother lives.
- Pregnancy is terminated.
- Four children get to keep their mother.
Honestly I’m not sure if this bishop needs a heart or a brain…
Obviously the hospital did the right thing. However, what if the hospital had refused the abortion on religious grounds?
I cherish religious (and anti-religious) liberty, but what happens when beliefs can kill? Should the state have the right to force hospitals and doctors to perform life saving procedures that are against their religious beliefs?
I’m torn on this one. Let’s hash it out in the comments.
Permalink
Separation of church and state has two elements, freedom OF religion, and freedom FROM religion. An example of freedom of religion is that the government can't tell me what church to attend. An example of freedom from religion is that a church can't order me to follow their beliefs. In the case of the hospital in Phoenix these two principles contradict. Freedom of religion says that the church should be able to refuse to perform an abortion. Freedom from religion says that I should not have to die because of the religious views of someone else. But which of these principles trumps the other? I think freedom from religion is superior. Take the following thought experiment, let's imagine that some nut starts a religion that believes they must commit ritual human sacrifice. I am fine with this as long as they are sacrificing each other (freedom of religion.) But if they want to kill me I am no longer OK with it (that is my freedom from their religion.) I think most people would side with freedom from religion in this case.
That being said, I don't think doctors should be required to perform operations they don't think is right. (Not to be confused with a religion ordering a doctor to not perform an operation he/she thinks is right.)
I think the bottom line is that the government should protect doctors from religions that prevent them from doing what is best for the patient. The patients rights ultimately outweigh the churches rights even if the doctor is working in the churches hospital.
BP
Permalink
BP,
To clarify, you're saying that the church should be legally prevented from dictating the institutional practice of medicine, even in church owned or affiliated hospitals. Am I right?
Now, let's say that all of the doctors at the hospital personally refuse to perform the procedure on religious grounds, either due to personal conviction or threat of excommunication. Assuming there is time and the conditions (such as weather) permit, who should have to pay for the transport of the patient or to bring in doctors who would perform the life saving procedure?
If on the other hand, due to the situation it is not possible and the patient dies due to the doctors refusing to perform the procedure on religious grounds should they be culpable for malpractice?
Permalink
Dustin,
You understood correctly. I do think that "the church should be legally prevented from dictating the institutional practice of medicine, even in church owned or affiliated hospitals."
If there are no doctors willing to perform an operation based on their own beliefs I think it is up to the patient (or their insurance) to pay the cost of transport to a different hospital, or bringing in a different doctor. If a hospital can not provide a service the patient will have to pay for going to a hospital that does. I don't think the reason that non of the doctors can provide the service comes into play.
To address your third question. It would be illogical of a doctor to refuse an abortion because it was murder and then have both mother and child die. So we are really debating the rights of illogical people to be illogical.
I see two principles here, the right to refuse to be involved and the duty to help. According to The Good Samaritan law, you have the duty to help someone in immediate need (injured in a car accident, etc.) By the logic of this law the doctor must perform the opperation. However, the United States military recognizes conscientious objectors. A soldier has the right to refuse to kill one enemy soldier even if that enemy is about to kill 100 American soldiers. According to the logic of this law the doctor does not have to perform the operation. I am completely stumped on which of these is right. On the one hand, I see individual rights as being the ultimate principle (I am a libertarian), but on the other hand, letting someone die because of religious stupidity seems ridiculous. What do you think Dustin?
To the rest of Dustin's readers, Comment! I know there are more people out there with just as good of (if not better) opinions as I have. Please share them!
Bryan
Permalink
In our scenario, the patient's death would have been avoidable and it was directly related to a decision of the attending physician. That would seem to be malpractice at the least, if not manslaughter.
As far as transporting the patient or bringing in another doctor, I would think that if the hospital isn't going to foot the transportation bill then they should not be able to charge for the patient's time and care at their facility since they refused to provide the necessary medical care.
While this scenario seems quite unlikely, just looking at the area I'm in, every hospital here is Catholic. I'm sure there is some remote valley in Idaho with only a Catholic hospital and if a severe weather system came through transportation might not be possible. So while it's unlikely, it is possible.
Permalink
Moral and ethical issues aside, hospitals have a duty to treat the patients that walk (or ride) through their doors. That's what they are there fore. In fact, once you put the hospital sign outside your building the hospital is required by law to address any and all life-threatening conditions as they are able to. Medically speaking, the hospital has a duty to put the well being of the patient above it's own beliefs.
Furthermore, doctors took an oath "to do no harm". They to are required to perform any and all life saving procedures as they have been trained to do. If either the hospital, or the doctor are not prepared to do these procedures, they have no right to be practicing.
If the patient, on the other hand refuses any life saving procedures for any reason, given that they are of "sound" mind, that is a whole other story.
Permalink
David,
I'm sure your recent EMT training has informed your response. I like it. I do however find it quite interesting that the believer has an easier time separating freedom of religion from medical practice than the atheists do.
Permalink
After lying on the kitchen floor for two days I decided to stagger to my feet and drive myself to the closest "quick fix" center. I was too dizzy to call 911 – don't ask. Instead of recieving an aspirin, a pat on the back and sent home I was placed in a wheel chair and scooted across the street to "Mercy's" ER. There were cross' hang'n in the halls, reception area and ER. Next came a gurney which whisked me to ICU. They never asked me my religious preference. They didn't get a chance. My statement that there had better not be a cross in my room when we get there seemed to suffice. I stated it's depressing enough being here, I don't want to view that bloody symbel at the foot of my bed each time I 'come to'! There was none when we arrived.
Permalink
Good question & debate. I would caution that the oath to "first do no harm" is not to be taken entirely at face value. The overall harm must be taken into account and the attempt is to cause the least amount of harm for the greatest outcome.
An example – Dustin goes to Mexico for vacation and, while relaxing in the sun and surf, gets a nasty spider bite on his big toe. He refuses to go to a hospital until his entire foot is black. The doctors take a look at it & say it's too late – the foot has to go. If it will cause harm (cutting through skin, muscle, & bone is harmful to your health), shouldn't the doctor leave it be? It's the greater harm if nothing is done that causes this to be an easy call with no moral dilemma.
I see the story given as acutely similar. I'm sure if it had been sufficiently safe to mother and unborn child to induce labor or do a c-section, they would have. However, the surgeons must have made that call and opted to go in a safer route, leaning toward securing the life of a wife & mother. I would think the church could understand this and would provide a counseling option or something useful. Just my opinion.
— Justin
Permalink
Good question & debate. I would caution that the oath to "first do no harm" is not to be taken entirely at face value. The overall harm must be taken into account and the attempt is to cause the least amount of harm for the greatest outcome.
An example – Dustin goes to Mexico for vacation and, while relaxing in the sun and surf, gets a nasty spider bite on his big toe. He refuses to go to a hospital until his entire foot is black. The doctors take a look at it & say it's too late – the foot has to go. If it will cause harm (cutting through skin, muscle, & bone is harmful to your health), shouldn't the doctor leave it be? It's the greater harm if nothing is done that causes this to be an easy call with no moral dilemma.
I see the story given as acutely similar. I'm sure if it had been sufficiently safe to mother and unborn child to induce labor or do a c-section, they would have. However, the surgeons must have made that call and opted to go in a safer route, leaning toward securing the life of a wife & mother. I would think the church could understand this and would provide a counseling option or something useful. Just my opinion.
— Justin
Permalink
Good question & debate. I would caution that the oath to "first do no harm" is not to be taken entirely at face value. The overall harm must be taken into account and the attempt is to cause the least amount of harm for the greatest outcome.
An example – Dustin goes to Mexico for vacation and, while relaxing in the sun and surf, gets a nasty spider bite on his big toe. He refuses to go to a hospital until his entire foot is black. The doctors take a look at it & say it's too late – the foot has to go. If it will cause harm (cutting through skin, muscle, & bone is harmful to your health), shouldn't the doctor leave it be? It's the greater harm if nothing is done that causes this to be an easy call with no moral dilemma.
I see the story given as acutely similar. I'm sure if it had been sufficiently safe to mother and unborn child to induce labor or do a c-section, they would have. However, the surgeons must have made that call and opted to go in a safer route, leaning toward securing the life of a wife & mother. I would think the church could understand this and would provide a counseling option or something useful. Just my opinion.
— Justin
Permalink
In our scenario, the patient's death would have been avoidable and it was directly related to a decision of the attending physician. That would seem to be malpractice at the least, if not manslaughter.
As far as transporting the patient or bringing in another doctor, I would think that if the hospital isn't going to foot the transportation bill then they should not be able to charge for the patient's time and care at their facility since they refused to provide the necessary medical care.
While this scenario seems quite unlikely, just looking at the area I'm in, every hospital here is Catholic. I'm sure there is some remote valley in Idaho with only a Catholic hospital and if a severe weather system came through transportation might not be possible. So while it's unlikely, it is possible.