Catholic Hospitals and abortions

[Stu Pidasso]

Should Catholic hospitals be forced to participate in abortions? Why or why not?

Stu

[wacki]

isn't this politics?

[Stu Pidasso]

Ethics

[bholdr]

ethich ans politics, as fat as these boards go...
tomato-tomaaato

my answer would be....

depends. under what conditions?

[tolbiny]

I think that they should be forced to be prepared to perform emergancy abortions when complications put the mother's health at risk. I se no reason for them to be forced into providing them as a surgical option to expecting mothers.

[wacki]

I don't think the gov should have anything to do with religion. Sep of church and state.....

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
my answer would be....

depends. under what conditions?

[/ QUOTE ]

That means you think they should.

Stu

[tolbiny]

This isn't about religion only though, its about medical care. Any hospital has to be certified by the government. I think if the hospital provides services for pregnant woment, then they have to have the ability to perform abortions in emergancy situations.

[Broken Glass Can]

Answer this:

A religious based hospital is asked to circumcise a newborn baby of a Jewish family. The religion that runs the hospital is opposed to the practice and it is against their policy. There are no other medical providers in the area that can perform the operation with the same high level of competence. Should the hospital be required to do so?

[tolbiny]

No. I don't think the parrellel applies, as the main stipulation in my post was that the woman's health had to be in danger.

[Broken Glass Can]

[ QUOTE ]
No. I don't think the parrellel applies, as the main stipulation in my post was that the woman's health had to be in danger.

[/ QUOTE ]

No concern about the health of the baby being in danger?

[RogerZBT]

The health of the baby isn't in danger, and circumcisions can be done whenever so there's no reason to "require" the hospital to do it.

The situations aren't remotely similar.

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think the gov should have anything to do with religion. Sep of church and state.....

[/ QUOTE ]

So if my religion requires a virgin sacrifice the state should keep its nose out of it?

Stu

[tolbiny]

Well that's the whole crux of the abortion debate, isn't it?
The question is about our governmetn's role in forcing hospitals to perform procedures that some deem moral wrong, or dubious. To practice medicine (or run a hospital) you have to be liscensed so the government is going to have some influence in the procedings.
When a woman comes to your hospital for medical attention and you determine that the best way to treat her (medically) is to perform a legal operation, i think you are obligated to inform the patient, and if they choose such a path and they don't have an option of moving you to a different facility, then you should perform the operation. Nice run on sentance, huh?

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
This isn't about religion only though, its about medical care. Any hospital has to be certified by the government. I think if the hospital provides services for pregnant woment, then they have to have the ability to perform abortions in emergancy situations.


[/ QUOTE ]

So what your saying is its ok for the the state to compel individuals or institutions to preform abortions?

Stu

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think the gov should have anything to do with religion. Sep of church and state.....

So if my religion requires a virgin sacrifice the state should keep its nose out of it?

Stu

[/ QUOTE ]

lol... I was wondering when that would come up. I just didn't think it would come from you. I was laying low until I could think of a better response. I'm going to bed now, so maybe tomorrow.

[Broken Glass Can]

[ QUOTE ]
The health of the baby isn't in danger

[/ QUOTE ]

I hope you understand I was refering to the baby about to be killed in the abortion, not the baby about to lose a bit of flesh. The health and very existence of the first baby is very much in danger.

The baby is about to be a "virgin sacrifice" to the whims of our current political climate.

[tolbiny]

in certain situations, yes. I beleive that when you enter the medical profession you have an obligation to your patients. I am not saying that if a woman you had treated previously ask you to perform an abortion that you have to do so, but if you are treating a patient, and the course of medical action they choose is an abortion- and they cannont safely be moved to another venue to have it performed, then you are obligated to perform it yourself (or in your hospital).

[Broken Glass Can]

[ QUOTE ]
if you are treating a patient, and the course of medical action they choose is an abortion..... then you are obligated to perform it yourself

[/ QUOTE ]

So if I choose to amputate my arm for vanity, my doctor has an obligation to perform it?

At what point does a doctor have the right to say, "this procedure is not in the best interests of all involved."?

The objection to abortion procedures is based upon just that principle, that the procedure is not the best course of action for all involved. The patient should not be able to override that conclusion. A real human being will die in the procedure, a hospital and a doctor has a right not to participate in that killing.

[RogerZBT]

[ QUOTE ]
I hope you understand I was refering to the baby about to be killed in the abortion

[/ QUOTE ]

That's what I get for posting this early in the morn.

[Hack]

It should be their choice.

If they're private hospitals then they shouldn't have to if they don't want to.

[Patrick del Poker Grande]

No.


End.

[jakethebake]

[ QUOTE ]
No.


End.

[/ QUOTE ]

[stabn]

Agree.

Tripple end?

[tolbiny]

"So if I choose to amputate my arm for vanity, my doctor has an obligation to perform it?"

Thanks fo continuing to make poor parrellels, and to take statements out of context. I have repeated several times that the doctor should only be required to do so when the woman's life is in danger, and had no option of another hospital providing treatment.