Merging Catholic and Non-Sectarian Hospitals: NYS Models for Addressing the Ethical Challenges (click here)
Lois Uttley, M.P.P., Sheila Reynertson, M.A., Ronnie Pawelko, J.D., Sylvia A. Law, J.D., Patricia Hasbrouck, M.B.A., and Kathryn Gottschalk, J.D.
In New York, as elsewhere in the nation, community hospitals are exploring the potential for mergers, affiliations and other forms of business partnerships. The goal is to improve their bottom lines and position themselves to best advantage in a changing health care marketplace. Negotiating such partnerships can be challenging, especially when one of the partners is a Catholic-affiliated hospital or health system that restricts the provision of medical care deemed to violate Catholic teaching....
Miscarriage of Medicine: The Growth of Catholic Hospitals and the Threat to Reproductive Health Care (click here)
Religious restrictions govern care at Catholic-sponsored facilities. At these hospitals, health professionals are prohibited from providing vital health services or honoring patients’ health care decisions when they conflict with Catholic teaching. Often at these facilities health professionals may not even provide their patients with counseling and referrals for services prohibited on religious grounds. As a result, when it comes to reproductive health care, hospitals operating under these religious rules can provide care that falls short of expected standards of care. Historically secular hospitals or hospitals founded by other religious faiths are often required to adopt some or all of the Catholic restrictions when they affiliate with or are acquired by Catholic hospitals....
The law of the land is the law of the land. Religion is a personal liberty, however, it ends when it endangers the lives of others and impinges on the liberty of other Americans. The US Constitution does not guarantee religious organizations exemption from laws. It provides for the freedom to practice religion.
When religious organizations occupy critical hospital space for patients that is where ethnical standards have to come to bear as well as any prosecution when people are put in a threat to their life due to the oppressive religious standards that offend the best outcomes of medical/surgical practice.
When a Hindu dies in an American hospital there are cultural issues facing the pastoral care minister and he administers the "Waters of the Ganges" to benefit the soul. When a cultural practice of Jehovah Witnesses endanger the life of a child, the ethics of medicine is upheld by the courts because it is life saving. It is not the place of the Catholic Church to impose their cultural standards on those that do not practice them willingly.
So, as the Catholic Church finds itself in the place of power over life in American hospitals it needs to realize they cannot minister their doctrinal demands to everyone that does not consent to that oppressive culture.
It is no different in health care. The Obama Administration is wrong on all counts to favor religious doctrine over any law passed in the USA as part of our US Constitutional law. A religious organization's demands are on the individual and not the entire country. They obviously want to opt for that power, but, it should never happen.
Those educated in the leadership of religion graduate with theological doctorates. They are not graduated with legal degrees to change the face of the US Constitution. I am sure there are lawyers within the practice of religion, but, the obvious divide of the practices of each are obvious. Lawyers that work within a religious organization is a specialty, not a general practitioner of the law.
When an individual seeks to satisfy their spiritual direction do they go to a lawyer? Of course, not. The division of the doctrinal authority is obvious. So, just because it is politically fashionable to bow to a religious demand on the laws of this country, doesn't mean it is constitutional. Just because the Robert's Court is an activist set of Justices doesn't mean they are correct. It only means they have power.
The USA demands a CLEAR division of church and state. Because a pure soul is demanded by an religious organization that does not mean it can bend the rules to their 'designer' doctrine regardless of their monetary size or number of members. If the Supreme Court caters to every religious organization in the country it will eliminate the USA's laws by allowing doctrine to supersede the authority of the US Constitution. This is ridiculous.
In practicing the Jewish faith there are a number of restrictions within the weekly time frame of their Sabbath/Shabat. If a Jewish person is a doctor and on call or a UPS driver, they have to carry out their jobs in order to survive in the USA. That means those individuals will be violating their religious demands to maintain their status in the society in a very necessary action that insures them employment or an income.
Their religious demands are understood to be respected in the face of the demand on their lives. That is no different for any religious organization. If the laws of the land conflict with their doctrine, the understanding they had no choice is 'a matter of fact.' When my Father was required to work a double shift for his employer and missed Sunday mass, it was understood he did not have control over that and it was not viewed as a sinful act to remain at work to provide an income that supports his wife and children.
This trend in catering to religious doctrine and/or dogma is not constitutional regardless of the Robert's Court entertaining it.
I would love to have the Hyde Amendment challenged again as to it's constitutionality in oppressing the rights of women. The Robert's Court would no doubt uphold it, but, as far as I am concerned it is wrongly decided. Once a citizen pays their taxes they lose control of those monies. The budget of the USA is decided by the legislature and it is there the power lies to distribute monies. If women's health organizations need funding to maintain the health of women that is all the legislature needs to know. It does not need to know if a religious practice is in practice of the clinics. The government has a responsibility to the 'good practice' of any health clinic so it does not endanger lives, but, as to apply religious doctrine to any US law or distribution of monies is outrageous.
A woman walking into an abortion clinic isn't asked if she is violating her religious practices. She is asked if she has allergies. The separation of doctrine is obvious.
So, this entire religious catering is out of hand. It is dominating the laws of the USA that is unhelpful to people and serves to dilute the laws of this nation. There is no Personal Liberty impinged upon by any laws in the USA. We are a civil country that realizes diversity is a reality. It is completely wrong to move against that understanding and it removes the sovereign authority of the USA in it's governance.
Do Bishops Run Your Hospital? (click here)
Lois Uttley, M.P.P., Sheila Reynertson, M.A., Ronnie Pawelko, J.D., Sylvia A. Law, J.D., Patricia Hasbrouck, M.B.A., and Kathryn Gottschalk, J.D.
In New York, as elsewhere in the nation, community hospitals are exploring the potential for mergers, affiliations and other forms of business partnerships. The goal is to improve their bottom lines and position themselves to best advantage in a changing health care marketplace. Negotiating such partnerships can be challenging, especially when one of the partners is a Catholic-affiliated hospital or health system that restricts the provision of medical care deemed to violate Catholic teaching....
Miscarriage of Medicine: The Growth of Catholic Hospitals and the Threat to Reproductive Health Care (click here)
Religious restrictions govern care at Catholic-sponsored facilities. At these hospitals, health professionals are prohibited from providing vital health services or honoring patients’ health care decisions when they conflict with Catholic teaching. Often at these facilities health professionals may not even provide their patients with counseling and referrals for services prohibited on religious grounds. As a result, when it comes to reproductive health care, hospitals operating under these religious rules can provide care that falls short of expected standards of care. Historically secular hospitals or hospitals founded by other religious faiths are often required to adopt some or all of the Catholic restrictions when they affiliate with or are acquired by Catholic hospitals....
The law of the land is the law of the land. Religion is a personal liberty, however, it ends when it endangers the lives of others and impinges on the liberty of other Americans. The US Constitution does not guarantee religious organizations exemption from laws. It provides for the freedom to practice religion.
When religious organizations occupy critical hospital space for patients that is where ethnical standards have to come to bear as well as any prosecution when people are put in a threat to their life due to the oppressive religious standards that offend the best outcomes of medical/surgical practice.
When a Hindu dies in an American hospital there are cultural issues facing the pastoral care minister and he administers the "Waters of the Ganges" to benefit the soul. When a cultural practice of Jehovah Witnesses endanger the life of a child, the ethics of medicine is upheld by the courts because it is life saving. It is not the place of the Catholic Church to impose their cultural standards on those that do not practice them willingly.
So, as the Catholic Church finds itself in the place of power over life in American hospitals it needs to realize they cannot minister their doctrinal demands to everyone that does not consent to that oppressive culture.
It is no different in health care. The Obama Administration is wrong on all counts to favor religious doctrine over any law passed in the USA as part of our US Constitutional law. A religious organization's demands are on the individual and not the entire country. They obviously want to opt for that power, but, it should never happen.
Those educated in the leadership of religion graduate with theological doctorates. They are not graduated with legal degrees to change the face of the US Constitution. I am sure there are lawyers within the practice of religion, but, the obvious divide of the practices of each are obvious. Lawyers that work within a religious organization is a specialty, not a general practitioner of the law.
When an individual seeks to satisfy their spiritual direction do they go to a lawyer? Of course, not. The division of the doctrinal authority is obvious. So, just because it is politically fashionable to bow to a religious demand on the laws of this country, doesn't mean it is constitutional. Just because the Robert's Court is an activist set of Justices doesn't mean they are correct. It only means they have power.
The USA demands a CLEAR division of church and state. Because a pure soul is demanded by an religious organization that does not mean it can bend the rules to their 'designer' doctrine regardless of their monetary size or number of members. If the Supreme Court caters to every religious organization in the country it will eliminate the USA's laws by allowing doctrine to supersede the authority of the US Constitution. This is ridiculous.
In practicing the Jewish faith there are a number of restrictions within the weekly time frame of their Sabbath/Shabat. If a Jewish person is a doctor and on call or a UPS driver, they have to carry out their jobs in order to survive in the USA. That means those individuals will be violating their religious demands to maintain their status in the society in a very necessary action that insures them employment or an income.
Their religious demands are understood to be respected in the face of the demand on their lives. That is no different for any religious organization. If the laws of the land conflict with their doctrine, the understanding they had no choice is 'a matter of fact.' When my Father was required to work a double shift for his employer and missed Sunday mass, it was understood he did not have control over that and it was not viewed as a sinful act to remain at work to provide an income that supports his wife and children.
This trend in catering to religious doctrine and/or dogma is not constitutional regardless of the Robert's Court entertaining it.
I would love to have the Hyde Amendment challenged again as to it's constitutionality in oppressing the rights of women. The Robert's Court would no doubt uphold it, but, as far as I am concerned it is wrongly decided. Once a citizen pays their taxes they lose control of those monies. The budget of the USA is decided by the legislature and it is there the power lies to distribute monies. If women's health organizations need funding to maintain the health of women that is all the legislature needs to know. It does not need to know if a religious practice is in practice of the clinics. The government has a responsibility to the 'good practice' of any health clinic so it does not endanger lives, but, as to apply religious doctrine to any US law or distribution of monies is outrageous.
A woman walking into an abortion clinic isn't asked if she is violating her religious practices. She is asked if she has allergies. The separation of doctrine is obvious.
So, this entire religious catering is out of hand. It is dominating the laws of the USA that is unhelpful to people and serves to dilute the laws of this nation. There is no Personal Liberty impinged upon by any laws in the USA. We are a civil country that realizes diversity is a reality. It is completely wrong to move against that understanding and it removes the sovereign authority of the USA in it's governance.
Do Bishops Run Your Hospital? (click here)
The Catholic Church is making health care decisions for more and more Americans—whether they know it or not.
One morning in November 2010, an ambulance brought a woman who was 15 weeks pregnant to the emergency room at Sierra Vista Regional Health Center, 70 miles outside Tucson, Arizona. She had been carrying twins and had miscarried one at home in the bathtub. The chances of the second fetus making it were "minuscule," Dr. Robert Holder, the OB-GYN on call that day, later recalled in an affidavit. He told the woman and her husband that trying to continue the pregnancy would put her at risk of severe bleeding and infection. In short, she needed an emergency abortion.
But there was a problem: Sierra Vista was in the midst of a trial merger with a Catholic hospital company, Carondelet Health Network, which required its doctors to abide by the church's ethical and religious directives. Hospital administrators told Holder that because the surviving fetus still had a heartbeat, he could not perform an abortion. Holder had to send the patient to a hospital in Tucson—a three-hour delay that he believed put her at risk for life-threatening complications.
The doctors at Sierra Vista aren't the only ones to struggle with submitting their medical decisions to a higher authority. A growing number of patients are finding their health care options governed by the church's guidelines as Catholic hospitals, long major players in the health care market, have been on a merger streak, acquiring everything from local hospital systems to medical practices, nursing homes, and health insurance plans....
