• Our software update is now concluded. You will need to reset your password to log in. In order to do this, you will have to click "Log in" in the top right corner and then "Forgot your password?".
  • Welcome to PokéCommunity! Register now and join one of the best fan communities on the 'net to talk Pokémon and more! We are not affiliated with The Pokémon Company or Nintendo.

Catholic hospital's religious rules led to negligent care in miscarriage

900
Posts
13
Years
    • Seen Jul 22, 2016
    Not too long ago there was a case in Ireland where a woman died of septicemia because the Catholic Hospital refused to perform an abortion that would have saved her life. Now, in the U.S. it looks as though another Catholic Hospital has put another woman's life in jeopardy by their actions... or inaction. Luckily the woman did not die as a result. But it is frightening to say the least to think that any hospital would deny proper care to any patient because of that hospital's administration's relgious beliefs. Here is the story:

    Catholic hospital's religious rules led to negligent care in miscarriage, ACLU says
    JoNel Aleccia NBC News

    Tamesha Means, 30, of Muskegon, Mich., claims in a lawsuit that she received negligent treatment from a Catholic-run hospital that abided by religious directives instead of appropriate medical care when she miscarried in 2010.

    A Michigan woman who suffered a dangerous, painful and prolonged miscarriage when she was 18 weeks pregnant is at the center of a lawsuit that claims she was denied appropriate treatment by a Catholic hospital guided by religious, not medical, concerns.

    The American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU of Michigan are suing the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops on behalf of Tamesha Means, 30, of Muskegon, Mich., according to a lawsuit filed Friday in U.S. district court in eastern Michigan.

    The suit comes amid growing numbers of mergers between Catholic hospitals and non-religious systems in the U.S. and it argues that the Bishops' directives — particularly those that ban abortion — result in negligent treatment for certain patients.

    "They have an obligation to ensure that the directives do not increase harm to women's health and that women have the information they need," said Louise Melling, an ACLU spokeswoman.

    The lawsuit claims that Means, then the 27-year-old mother of two children, received negligent care at Mercy Health Partners hospital in Muskegon after her water broke in December 2010. She visited Mercy Health Partners, the only hospital in her county, three times.

    Means says she was given medication and told to go home and wait for the pain to get better. On a third trip, as the hospital again prepared to send her home, she miscarried and the fetus was delivered feet-first in a painful and prolonged breech delivery, the lawsuit says.

    "Each time I went into the hospital, the same thing happened," Means said via an ACLU spokeswoman. "They should act like it's their mother or sister or daughter they're treating. I pray to God someone stops this from happening again. My life could have been taken. I was in a very dangerous situation."

    Because of the Catholic-run hospital's medical directives, which prohibit abortion, Means was not told that the child had "virtually no chance of surviving" and that continuing the pregnancy would endanger her health.

    "Nor did MHP tell Ms. Means that the safest treatment option was to induce labor and terminate the pregnancy," the complaint says. "MHP also did not tell Ms. Means that it would not terminate her pregnancy, even if necessary for her health, because it was prohibited from doing so by the Directives."

    The lawsuit aims to highlight what ACLU calls the "trauma and harm that Tamesha and other pregnant women in similar situations have experienced at Catholic-sponsored hospitals."

    A spokesman for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops said the organization would not comment on the lawsuit. Mercy Health officials did not respond immediately to an NBC News request for comment.

    Catholic systems run 630 of the nearly 5,000 community hospitals in the U.S., according to the Catholic Health Association of the United States.

    They're governed by religious directives, which generally prohibit abortion and also forbid sterilization procedures such as tubal ligations or vasectomies.

    Those rules can cause conflict in certain situations where medical need may be at odds with the directives, research shows. More than half — 52 percent — of obstetrician-gynecologists working in Catholic hospitals have faced such conflicts with religious policies, according to a 2012 study in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology.

    One doctor encountered a conflict with a hospital ethics committee when he wanted to terminate the pregnancy of a woman with aggressive cancer who needed chemotherapy, according to a report in the American Journal of Bioethics Primary Research led by Lori Freedman, an assistant professor at the University of California, San Francisco.

    Other bioethicists agree.

    "The ACLU is right," said Art Caplan, director of the division of medical ethics at New York University Langone Medical Center and a frequent NBC News contributor. "At a minimum, patients deserve to know all medically, not theologically, appropriate options. Minimally, patients have the right to know where to get those options. And if no other facility can perform them, patients have a right to expect that a hospital will put aside its theology and do what is medically best for each patient, even if that means violating a deeply held religious view."

    Mercy Health Partners is overseen by parent company Trinity Health, which merged in May with Catholic Health East, a health system that includes 82 hospitals in 21 states. It's the second-largest non-profit health system in the U.S., according to Moody's Investors Service.

    The lawsuit alleges that Means' case was among five instances in which Mercy Health Partners had not induced labor in pregnant women whose water broke before their fetuses could survive. Joseph O'Meara, the hospital's vice president of mission services, said that the directives authorized by the Catholic bishops prohibited the hospital from inducing labor.

    The suit seeks damages to be awarded at a jury trial.

    What do you think?
     

    LoudSilence

    more like uncommon sense
    590
    Posts
    10
    Years
    • US
    • Seen Aug 7, 2016
    Um...well up until now I didn't even know there was such a thing as a "Catholic" hospital. Other than offering specific religious accommodations, what benefit is there to theming an entire medical establishment on that premise?

    A public service institution cannot ever be selective or restrictive in its practises, especially if it's going to allow anyone into its doors (would have been "better" if they had just turned the women away...). This would make more sense maybe if it were a private Catholic clinic where a potential patient made the choice to be treated there knowing the consequences of such a choice.

    I'm all for respect of different beliefs but this situation is kind of stupid.
     
    14,092
    Posts
    14
    Years
  • It's essentially negligent homicide no matter how you look at it, and if I were the family of the dead woman, I'd bring a suit against the Hospital. Refusing a woman a life-saving procedure over something so petty as religious beliefs is pretty sick, to me.
     
    4,181
    Posts
    10
    Years
  • ^I agree with you. Thing is, though, to many people, religion is more than just something that's petty (as you described it), so much so that it clouds their better judgment.

    LoudSilence is spot on. I don't see the point in Catholic hospitals exactly for the reasons he described.
     
    10,769
    Posts
    14
    Years
  • The problem, I think, is that Catholic hospitals are sometimes the only ones available or are the closest ones in an emergency. There should always be a secular option available, but we perhaps have been lax and allowed too many areas to be covered only by Catholic hospitals.

    As to the "reason" for Catholic hospitals, well, I'm trying to look into that, but my understanding has been that it's one of those things where, because of the tenets of their faith you get the church specifically creating hospitals to care for people. Which would be fine if it weren't for instances like this one where there's a conflict of religious belief and medical practice.
     
    319
    Posts
    10
    Years
    • Seen Jun 19, 2022
    Religions have supported medicine for eons - having hospitals based on religions isn't that new a thing; after all, those religions paid for the hospitals to exist in the first place since governments never gave a crap until the last century.

    I was born in a baptist hospital. They didn't dump me in holy water, k? Religious hospitals need to understand that what matters most is life - not their ethical look on things.

    At the same time, it's not as if the hospital was required BY LAW to do an abortion, so they didn't do anything "wrong" in that sense.
     
    10,769
    Posts
    14
    Years
  • At the same time, it's not as if the hospital was required BY LAW to do an abortion, so they didn't do anything "wrong" in that sense.
    It can fall under malpractice or negligence. It may be true that no laws say a hospital must do x, y, or z, but they do have to live up to a minimum quality of care. The whole issue is whether or not they neglected their patient by not giving her an abortion and whether an abortion at the time was what she should have had to get proper care.
     
    900
    Posts
    13
    Years
    • Seen Jul 22, 2016
    It can fall under malpractice or negligence. It may be true that no laws say a hospital must do x, y, or z, but they do have to live up to a minimum quality of care. The whole issue is whether or not they neglected their patient by not giving her an abortion and whether an abortion at the time was what she should have had to get proper care.

    Essentially what the hospital did was tell the woman: "take two aspirin and call us in the morning."
     

    LoudSilence

    more like uncommon sense
    590
    Posts
    10
    Years
    • US
    • Seen Aug 7, 2016
    I was born in a baptist hospital. They didn't dump me in holy water, k? Religious hospitals need to understand that what matters most is life - not their ethical look on things.

    At the same time, it's not as if the hospital was required BY LAW to do an abortion, so they didn't do anything "wrong" in that sense.

    It may not have been unlawful in its essence, but like Esper said, malpractise is a big deal, and this is outright negligence when compared to normal hospital standards.

    I think if these institutions are going to call themselves "hospitals", they should be ready to fulfill every role a hospital fulfills. If they are not willing to do so, they should not be called hospitals and instead be called "religious establishments that happen to offer selective medical services".

    That's the reality, isn't it? And it would stop messes like abortion refusal because people would not be taken to them in times of an emergency.
     
    10,769
    Posts
    14
    Years
  • I think if these institutions are going to call themselves "hospitals", they should be ready to fulfill every role a hospital fulfills. If they are not willing to do so, they should not be called hospitals and instead be called "religious establishments that happen to offer selective medical services".

    That's the reality, isn't it? And it would stop messes like abortion refusal because people would not be taken to them in times of an emergency.
    If that happened, and I'm not saying I'd be against it in theory, we'd have an immediate shortage of hospitals in a lot of places. Certainly, we'd have no less care when it comes to broken bones and things like that, but it would take a lot of money and time to build up new hospitals - that is, non-religious, will-do-all-procedures hospitals - and then you'd still have to staff them. I don't know how many people who work at Catholic hospitals do so because they're Catholic/religious or because it's just the best job they can get.

    So there would need to be a lot of work started right now to build up the infrastructure for any eventual replacement of these Catholic hospitals. That, of the church changes its stance on abortion (and contraception in some cases).
     
    319
    Posts
    10
    Years
    • Seen Jun 19, 2022
    That, or the church changes its stance on abortion (and contraception in some cases).

    It may eventually change its stance on contraception, but the Catholic church will NEVER change its stance on abortion.
     
    900
    Posts
    13
    Years
    • Seen Jul 22, 2016
    It doesn't matter what the church believes. What matters is what type of care, religiously run or not, will hospitals provide to those needing help. Will the Catholic hospitals go the way of the hospitals in Ireland where a mother was permitted to die because the hospital refused to perform an emergency, life-saving, abortion? Or will they actually adhere to the oath they all take: to do not harm! In this case, clearly, the hospital failed miserably. I don't know what kind of system permits a hospital to pick and choose the care a patient received based on some religious belief. But here, where I live, no hospital, religiously run or not, is permitted to do that. ALL doctors here are paid by the government through the citizens of Canada and all are required to provide the best possible of care to every patient that walks in through their doors. That means if an abortion needs to be performed in order to save the mother's life, then it must be done, and religious beliefs be da**ed.
     
    86
    Posts
    10
    Years
    • Seen Sep 18, 2017
    hmm... slippery slope here...

    tell ya one thing though, the Catholic hospital was handling that pretty shady. should have been up front about not wanting to do the deed. =3= honesty works. the much less time is wasted w/ either party.
     
    Last edited:
    900
    Posts
    13
    Years
    • Seen Jul 22, 2016
    Honesty and the Catholic Church? Not two things that go together very well. I expect the church is about as honest as a politician when it comes to issues such as this.
     
    Last edited:

    Atomic Pirate

    I always win.
    930
    Posts
    12
    Years
  • And this is why religious organizations cannot become directly involved in science and medicine. I'm perfectly fine with people being religious and going to church, and I support churches feeding the poor and helping those in 3rd world countries, but I cannot support churches trying to force their religious outlook on science and medicine, two fields that faith has no place in.

    And then we have this hospital. Because of a petty religious belief, an innocent life was put in danger, and another woman's life was lost. And for what? To save the life of a fetus? See, that excuse doesn't work here, because the fetus was doomed from the start. There was no rational excuse not to abort it, considering that the women could die if it wasn't aborted. And they decided to forfeit a woman's life anyway, forcing her to die for a baby that would die anyway. She died seemingly in vain, simply because the church believed it was wrong.

    They may claim that "Thou shalt not kill" is their excuse for refusing women abortion rights, but they are the ones doing the killing. The blood is on their hands, and they are responsible for the murder of the women who die from their refusal of care. Even their precious fetus didn't survive. They killed them, and they will continue to do the same. If these people had any rational sense in their head, they would realize that they were responsible for the deaths and injuries they cause.
     

    LoudSilence

    more like uncommon sense
    590
    Posts
    10
    Years
    • US
    • Seen Aug 7, 2016
    If that happened, and I'm not saying I'd be against it in theory, we'd have an immediate shortage of hospitals in a lot of places. Certainly, we'd have no less care when it comes to broken bones and things like that, but it would take a lot of money and time to build up new hospitals - that is, non-religious, will-do-all-procedures hospitals - and then you'd still have to staff them. I don't know how many people who work at Catholic hospitals do so because they're Catholic/religious or because it's just the best job they can get.

    Hm, true. However, I think this is serious enough to start a movement towards such a change (as opposed to saying it's too arduous a task).


    And this is why religious organizations cannot become directly involved in science and medicine. I'm perfectly fine with people being religious and going to church, and I support churches feeding the poor and helping those in 3rd world countries, but I cannot support churches trying to force their religious outlook on science and medicine, two fields that faith has no place in.

    And then we have this hospital. Because of a petty religious belief, an innocent life was put in danger, and another woman's life was lost. And for what? To save the life of a fetus? See, that excuse doesn't work here, because the fetus was doomed from the start. There was no rational excuse not to abort it, considering that the women could die if it wasn't aborted. And they decided to forfeit a woman's life anyway, forcing her to die for a baby that would die anyway. She died seemingly in vain, simply because the church believed it was wrong.

    I dunno about that. Science and medicine both flourished quite expansively during the "Golden Age" of the Islamic Caliphate, for example. I think it's quite possible to approach both fields from a religious perspective in such a way that it does not hinder advances in either.

    Also you need to look at this more objectively. Obviously the beliefs are not "petty" to those who hold them, and they may be quite willing to be treated the same way if they were found in the same situation. The problem isn't the belief per se, but rather its imposition on people who do not subscribe to it.
     

    twocows

    The not-so-black cat of ill omen
    4,307
    Posts
    15
    Years
  • The Hippocratic Oath states "I will never do harm to anyone." If you believe a fetus to qualify as "anyone," I think it's reasonable to say that performing the operation would conflict with your oath.

    That said, I don't see why they couldn't just bring in doctors who don't believe a fetus to qualify as "anyone" (of which I am sure there is no shortage) to perform the operation.
     
    Back
    Top