hospitals that are NOT Catholic

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Good grief. Get a grip and quit looking for the worst POSSIBLE scenario to try to bolster a weak argument.

I bet you wouldn't make this comment if it was you, your significant other, your daughter or your sister this happened to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Good grief. Get a grip and quit looking for the worst POSSIBLE scenario to try to bolster a weak argument.[/quote

Yes, because if there's any time that talking about "worst case scenarios" is irrelevant, it's when talking about a FUCKING HOSPITAL.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This IS very concerning. At least in this area, we have som options. What about those that live in rural areas, have limited access to transportation and the closest hospital or health care center is Catholic.

This is a big deal, IMO.

I love this.

Because just how many abortions does one need in one's lifetime? The vast majority of people (and I mean VAST-- even them there rural folk without a car) go to the hospital for medical care not reproductive care. They can still get birth control, they can still have a D&C, they can still go to their doctor to get an IUD, etc....

A friend had 2 kids and was acheduling a c-section for her 3rd. Holy Cross Hospital refused to perform the tubal ligation she wanted to have done at the same time. It's about way more than just abortions.

[Anonymous]

If you go to a Catholic hospital and have an ectopic pregnancy, the "morally licit" course of action is to remove your fallopian tube rather than prescribe methotrexate, which can save your tube. So your infertility could be compromised (by losing a tube, rather than being able to take a medicine) if you end up at a Catholic hospital rather than a secular hospital. Just one of many reasons religiously dictated medical care may be a concern for non-Catholic women, or even Catholic women who want the best possible medical care, rather than the medical care the all male Catholic bishops decide is 'licit' for women.

Catholic Theologians typically discuss the morality of three common treatments for ectopic pregnancies according to the principle of double effect.[4] One approach utilizes the drug Methotrexate (MTX), which attacks the tissue cells that connect the embryo to its mother, causing miscarriage. A surgical procedure (salpingostomy) directly removes the embryo through an incision in the fallopian tube wall. Another surgical procedure, called a salpingectomy, removes all of the tube (full salpingectomy) or only the part to which the embryo is attached (partial salpingectomy), thereby ending the pregnancy.

The majority of Catholic moralists reject MTX and salpingostomy on the basis that these two amount to no less than a direct abortion. In both cases, the embryo is directly attacked, so the death of the embryo is not the unintended evil effect, but rather the very means used to bring about the intended good effect. Yet, for an act to be morally licit, not only must the intended effect be good, but also the act itself must be good. For this reason, most moralists agree that MTX and salpingostomy do not withstand the application of the principle of double effect.

[Anonymous]

Wow, thanks for posting guys. I had no idea I would actually get different (and substandard) medical care in a catholic hospital.

And 19.42 - I'm a lawyer, and I found that analysis unduly convoluted. Ah, canon law.