The Washington Post had an article recently about religious hospitals. It turns out that Catholic Bishops are doing more than just trying to restrict hospitals from performing medically necessary abortions. Two hospitals in Texas have stopped performing tubal ligations and a Catholic Hospital in Oregon was stripped of it’s church affiliation for refusing to make the same change.

Here’s a summary of some of the points from the article:

• Due to economic pressures hospitals are merging, including secular hospitals being taken over by Catholic institutions.
• Bishops are getting more conservative and influencing hospitals more.
• Catholics and Adventists are fighting over who gets to build the new hospital in a county in Maryland. A lot of groups are siding with the Adventist bid over issues around reproductive rights.
• Many Catholic hospitals are prohibiting doctors from performing tubal ligation during a c-section, even if an additional surgery or pregnancy would be very risky to the patient.
• “Standard care for ectopic pregnancies, which are life-threatening, is to inject the drug methotrexate or to remove the embryo surgically while leaving the fallopian tube intact, both procedures that are intended to preserve fertility. But some Catholic hospitals refuse to perform either and will extract the embryo only by taking out the fallopian tube.”
• “For miscarriages in which the fetus is not expelled quickly, doctors often use drugs or surgical procedures to protect the woman from potentially fatal infections and bleeding. But if the fetus still has a heartbeat, some Catholic hospitals refuse to intervene. And the patient has to go to another hospital, sometimes hours away, or wait for the heart to stop.”

A few weeks ago when I covered this issue, I had trouble drawing the line between patients rights and religious liberty. But I have since developed at stance. This extends to pharmacists who refuse to fill certain prescriptions.

If there are other health care options in the local area, less than 50 miles and not separated by mountains, then the hospital should be free to set guidelines on whether or not elective procedures are permitted, however this list should be clearly posted at every registration desk, every building entrance, and on the hospital’s website. If a patient is inquiring about an elective procedure the hospital will not perform then they should provide a free referral to someone who will. If its a formerly secular hospital that has been taken over by a Catholic institution, then the hospital should still perform all procedures that were scheduled prior to the merger.

If it’s a case where the patient requires an emergency abortion, if the hospital refuses to perform the procedure or refuses to use the least invasive and/or damaging procedure to get the job done, then they should be required to transport the patient to a local hospital that will, and NOT charge the patient for the visit.

It would be like taking your car to a mechanic. He get’s the engine torn apart and discovers that you have cracked piston. Unfortunately this mechanic believes that every piston is sacred and thus refuses to replace it. I would say that a mechanic like that belongs in an asylum and definitely should not work as a mechanic, but at the very least, he shouldn’t be able to charge you for any labor and should have to pay to have your car towed to a shop that will fix it.

The other situation is where there are no other options. Either its a place like Boise where all the hospitals in the area are Catholic or its a remote mountain town where the only hospital in the valley is Catholic. Either way there is a monopoly. It goes beyond just the fact that you have no choices, but somebody else’s religious beliefs are forced on you. In this case the hospital should be required to allow all legally permitted and medically relevant procedures as decided by the doctor and patient. If the hospital refuses then it should be seized by right of eminent domain.

I know, that seems harsh. But it is perfectly justifiable to seize someone’s house to build a road. How much more important is the community’s health care options?

The biggest issue I have here is that bishops are making health care decisions. I have theological training, but that doesn’t qualify me to make medical decisions. It should be doctors and their patients making these decisions, not clergy. It’s even more absurd considering the fact that it’s someone who has taken a vow of celibacy making decisions about reproductive health.

Now, for my next point, if you can’t do your job then you should get a new one. You don’t see very many Jehovah’s Witnesses working in blood banks or members of the Church of Christ’s Scientists (the most horribly named group ever) working as pharmacists. If you aren’t willing to fill all prescriptions then you shouldn’t be a pharmacists. If you won’t perform an abortion to save your patient’s life or won’t perform a tubal ligation while the patient is already opened up, then you shouldn’t be an OB/GYN. If you ever have to invoke religious objections to doing the job you’re paid to do, THEN YOU’RE IN THE WRONG LINE OF WORK.