Video
Twitter
Facebook
RSS Feed
Having the right vs. the right thing to do
In Texas, a Catholic bishop made two hospitals cease doing tube-tying operations for women who are not going to have more babies. In Arizona, a nun was excommunicated and the hospital where she works was expelled from the church after 116 years for allowing doctors to terminate a pregnancy to save a woman's life. At the same time, some doctors and other health professionals have faced disciplinary action for refusing to perform procedures or provide medications that go against their religious beliefs.
Should Catholic hospitals be able to restrict doctors from performing common and legal medical practices? Do such restrictions unfairly impinge on the rights of non-Catholic patients and doctors, particularly those in rural or underserved areas where alternative hospitals are not readily available?
As much as I hate it, the apparent law of the land allows private organizations and institutions to do exactly as they want, including Catholic hospitals which choose not to do certain procedures.
In my own mind, there is a twisting and disrespect of ethics if any hospital, private or public, refuses to terminate a pregnancy in order to save a woman's life. Such a decision, to me, involves a skewed understanding of morality as I understand it; the decision to excommunicate the in Arizona for allowing such a procedure escapes my understanding.
And the bishop in Texas who made two hospitals stop tying tubes of women who did not want more babies seems, again to me, arrogant beyond comprehension, but supported in that arrogance by religion.
But Catholic hospitals are private institutions, and, as most private institutions, they have specific mission statements that forbid any procedure which might impede the birth of a child, no matter the circumstances, apparently.
If I understand the difference between private and public institutions, one venue is "private" as long as it does not accept public money. In that case, such institution or organization can decide what it will and will not do. Private schools decide who can attend and who cannot; private clubs have been known to exclude people on the basis of race, color or any other qualification they choose.
Because these institutions are private, they have the right to do this, but having "the right" doesn't necessarily mean that an action taken by an institution or organization is right, i.e., how can it be "the right thing to do" to let a woman die in order to save a child, even though an institution has "the right" to do it?
When I was a child, I lived on a street where there were lots of Roman Catholics, and I can remember, one day, a woman sitting in our living room, crying. Children back then were not allowed to be around when grown folks were talking, so I made my presence scarce, but I did manage to hear this woman saying that she couldn't afford another child.
All I could think was, "wow." This woman was Roman Catholic and she already had seven children. Their house wasn't that big.
Now, I didn't understand a whole lot, and didn't expect to get any help from my mother, who would have punished me big time had she known I had eavesdropped, but later that day, I can remember her saying that it didn't seem right, "the church" making that lady have another baby.
My 9-year-old mind did not understand. How could a church make someone have baby? My mother explained that it was church doctrine, and that Catholics couldn't practice birth control. She said the Pope made the decision.
I can remember being angry, because our neighbor had been so sad. "Well, what about God? What does God say?"
I don't remember my mother's answer, but I have carried this sense of indignation about how church doctrine can so oppress people. Church doctrine is the foundation of the mission statement of Catholic institutions, however, giving them "the right" to do things which in my mind, are not so right.
Ironically, this institution which has been so keen on watching and monitoring women and what they can do has seemingly turned a blind eye to its priests, too many of whom have behaved reprehensibly. How can a church, any church, have been so silent on the immoral behavior of many of its spiritual leaders while making innocent women, deep believers in God and in the church, feel wretched about even thinking about birth control?
How can a church have been so quick to have excommunicated a nun for allowing her hospital to do a procedure which destroyed a fetus yet ultimately saved a woman's life, yet have been so slow, or even interested in, getting rid of priests who molested innocent children for years?
Is it really the case that the unborn fetus is more important that the delivered fetus, grown into a child? Does the Catholic Church really want this to be its message?
The Catholic hospitals did what they have a right to do, according to their church doctrine and their mission statements; they are private institutions, but that doesn't mean they have done "the right thing."
In fact, I think they have done horribly wrong.
By
Susan K. Smith
|
January 25, 2011; 5:39 AM ET
Save & Share:
Previous: Maternal health and reproductive rights are global concerns |
Next: Patients' rights must trump dogma
Posted by: wiki-truth | January 30, 2011 11:54 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Let's not get too focused on one aspect of the Church teachings. The esteemed Susan Smith states that the mission statement of Catholic hospitals forbid procedues that impede the birth of a child. This is not accurate, and it is a shame that a published author would make a statment such as this without doing her homework. In actuality, the teaching of the church is that life is sacred. All life is sacred. This includes the unwanted offspring of rape, the convicted rapist himself. I think a larger issue worth discussion is this: Can we, who are not the authors of life, really determine who is deserving to live or to die?
Catholic hospitals DO NOT refuse medical services to those in need. If a woman is dying, the hospital will do all it can to save her life. What it WON'T do is blithely take the life of a child because a woman feels she has the right to make that choice. And no man made laws can force them to do this.
Please, everyone, let's quit looking at the issue through narrow lenses and concentrate on the actual issue at hand. When we have government sanctioned abortion, we have created laws that state that mere mortals may decide who will live and who will die. This is wrong. It was wrong thousands of years ago, and will always be wrong. It is against the laws of nature.
Posted by: stand4Him | January 29, 2011 4:14 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Really? Is this really the case?
Fri Jan. 28, 2011 3:00 AM PST
Rape is only really rape if it involves force. So says the new House Republican majority as it now moves to change abortion law.
For years, federal laws restricting the use of government funds to pay for abortions have included exemptions for pregnancies resulting from rape or incest. (Another exemption covers pregnancies that could endanger the life of the woman.) But the "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act," a bill with 173 mostly Republican co-sponsors that House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) has dubbed a top priority in the new Congress, contains a provision that would rewrite the rules to limit drastically the definition of rape and incest in these cases.
With this legislation, which was introduced last week by Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.), Republicans propose that the rape exemption be limited to "forcible rape." This would rule out federal assistance for abortions in many rape cases, including instances of statutory rape, many of which are non-forcible. For example: If a 13-year-old girl is impregnated by a 24-year-old adult, she would no longer qualify to have Medicaid pay for an abortion. (Smith's spokesman did not respond to a call and an email requesting comment.)
Given that the bill also would forbid the use of tax benefits to pay for abortions, that 13-year-old's parents wouldn't be allowed to use money from a tax-exempt health savings account (HSA) to pay for the procedure. They also wouldn't be able to deduct the cost of the abortion or the cost of any insurance that paid for it as a medical expense.
Posted by: Skowronek | January 28, 2011 2:10 PM
Report Offensive Comment
It is true that Catholic teaching on the sanctity of life indicates that contraception and abortion are murderous devices that harm children as well as their mothers & fathers.
However, Catholic dioceses around the country sponsor Natural Family Planning workshops that help married couples understand the tremendous gift they have in one another and in partnership with God -- that is the gift of creating life.
The Church's teachings on contraception and abortion date back to the early church fathers -- both in the eastern & western traditions of the Church. In addition to discuss the evils of contraception - the early Church fathers said that marriage helps promote a more chaste & modest life style.
So if married couples don't believe they are ready to accept the awesome responsibility of pro-creation...they simply need to refrain from having sex when they are most likely to conceive a child. I know this is radical - I am suggesting that...even within the context of marriage...it may at some time happen that it is more loving, more beautiful to refrain from sex than to have it. And the truth is -- there are good Catholics out there who live and practice this every day.
Restraint is a virtue...
So even though men and women may have the "right" to have sex whenever they want, that doesn't mean it's always the right time to have sex.
Posted by: RoundlyMocked | January 28, 2011 12:55 PM
Report Offensive Comment
I just want to mention that the Catholic Church does allow some methods of family planning. It does forbid the use of contraception, but many Catholic dioceses promote NFP programs that teach married couples about their bodies and how best to conceive (or not conceive) children.
This teaching promotes a loving marital relationship that is chaste & modest. Yes, this means even when married perhaps there are times when it is wiser to abstain from sex rather than to always act on one's sexual impulses...even within marriage. I know it's a radical, counter-cultural concept...but it's what the Catholic Church has been teaching for nearly 2000 years.
Shocking that the Catholic Church would be counter-cultural!!
Just because you have the "right" to have sex anytime you want...doesn't mean it's the "right" thing to do.
Posted by: RoundlyMocked | January 28, 2011 12:01 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Susan K Smith: You made the following excellent statement.
"The Catholic hospitals did what they have a right to do, according to their church doctrine and their mission statements; they are private institutions, but that doesn't mean they have done "the right thing."
I agree with you completely; however, it is a fact that the leaders of the Catholic Church and many, many church members disagree with you and with me. They will not change in the near future -- perhaps that church will never change. Too bad.
The only thing that can be done at this time to protect people from what I consider acts of malpractice at Catholic hospitals is to warn and educate potential patients, and this we will never be able to do perfectly or completely.
Women with any kind of medical problem relating to reproduction should be fully informed of the codes and practices followed in Catholic hospitals. If they have concerns about the care they will receive, and if they have a choice, they should go elsewhere.
Public outcry has not eliminated the evil priests. Public outcry will not stop these practices which I consider evil.
Posted by: cecilg | January 28, 2011 9:11 AM
Report Offensive Comment
And to areyousaying: I am not defending the deplorable acts of a minority of Catholic clergy.
What I am saying is that if there was a Unitarian clergy person that committed acts of child sexual abuse (and there have), we don't need to bring this up in every column by Ms Smith, a unitarian clergy person.
The media's attempt to say that the Catholic Church is systemically flawed is a despicable lie and an affront to the millions of Catholics that provide the world with so much. So many in this world are cheapening the value of human life. To use the clergy abuse to diminish the Catholic Church's noble stand protecting the sanctity of life is hateful and wrong.
Posted by: GiveMeThat | January 28, 2011 5:08 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Anyone who thinks scientist or physicians act ethically need to remember the Nazi doctors were among the most advanced and enlightened at the time. Sanctity of life means little to most scientists and physicians.
Eezmamata writes, "And by the way, whoever told you those things are happening in Europe are lying to you. But you wouldn't know that either would you? Have you ever been to Europe?"
I said that they are creating animal/human hybrid embryos, something frought with moral hazards. Here is the story in NPR: http://onfaith.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/susan_k_smith/2011/01/the_right_vs_the_right_thing_to_do.html
Do I get an apology? I'll not hold my breath. And yes, I have been to Europe as well as all over the world.
Oh, how about infant "euthanasia" for infants that don't have sufficient quality of life? That can't be happening. See here where they are "euthanizing" babies with spina bifida: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2092440/?tool=pmcentrez
I have read reports of killing Down syndrome babies as well.
How about harvesting organs from euthanasia patients. Another practice that raises (or should raise) serious questions which is being practiced in Europe: http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/secondhandsmoke/2011/01/25/belgian-doctors-harvesting-organs-from-disabled-euthanasia-donors/
Posted by: GiveMeThat | January 28, 2011 4:52 AM
Report Offensive Comment
GIVEMETHAT, not everybody who disagrees with you is a liberal, in fact probably most people who disagree with you are not liberal.
I know, it makes it easy for a simple mind like yours to label everybody like that, so we shouldn't be surprised this is the best you can do.
And by the way, whoever told you those things are happening in Europe are lying to you. But you wouldn't know that either would you? Have you ever been to Europe?
I didn't think so.
Just saying those things doesn't make it so. What if I said to you something outrageous like 'priests in your church are molesting little boys' .... ok, bad example.
Posted by: eezmamata | January 27, 2011 7:02 PM
Report Offensive Comment
"The reality is that the abuses in the Catholic Church have been about the same as other churches. But if a clergy person in the Unitarian church is involved in abuse, it hardly makes a blip on the Catholic bashing liberal medias radar."
-----------------------------------
Others do it, too!
Others do it, too!
It's OK for "Christ's Church" 'cause
Others do it, too!
Except "others" don't claim to be "Brothers of Christ" and have a huge, organized, international criminal organization hiding them in violation of racketeering laws.
May you sorry apologists for your pervert priests and complicit Bishops and Cardinals be reincarnated as a lonely, awkward 14-year-old Protestant boy who is invited to CYO by a friend, befriended by a "kindly" priest, groomed and then brutally raped after which the Bishop looks the other way and transfers the predator to another parish to rape again. Then maybe you won't blindly defend felony child sexual abuse and felony racketeering by parroting your Fox News/Catholic League bashing of your liberal "demons".
Posted by: areyousaying | January 27, 2011 10:53 AM
Report Offensive Comment
The Catholic church shows too little regard for its female members in general. From the moment of conception their participation in the church is limited by their gender; yet the church feels comfortable in dictating their reproductive rights to them. I personally would not choose to receive medical services at any institution affiliated with the Catholic church. They may claim to be respectful of life, but they fail to respect the individual.
Posted by: morattico | January 26, 2011 6:58 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Ah, let's bring up the Catholic abuse scandal. The Catholic church could be completely right or completely wrong about their position on the sanctity of life. It has nothing to do whether some clergy have acted terribly. The reality is that the abuses in the Catholic Church have been about the same as other churches. But if a clergy person in the Unitarian church is involved in abuse, it hardly makes a blip on the Catholic bashing liberal medias radar. The Unitarians actually come from the Puritans. Can we bring up shortcomings of the Puritans to attack Ms. Smith?
Liberals have their heads in the sands but horrific assaults on the sanctity of life that are on the way. Already in Great Britain, they are making animal-human fusion embryos. You don't think that isn't fraught with hazards? How about making anencephalic babies for organ farms? It's around the corner! How about consent free euthanasia? It's already here in Europe! So maybe in a few years, Susan Smith gets cancer and someone else gets to decide to euthanize her because her life isn't of enough value? She might want to go to a Catholic hospital.
Posted by: GiveMeThat | January 25, 2011 6:37 PM
Report Offensive Comment
I think this is a valid question. Any takers?
Posted by: gimpi | January 25, 2011 11:32 AM
Report Offensive Comment
.
.
.. ______________ . . . . _________
.. |HUFF IN G T O N| ..... |"Adrianna"|
.. |P O S T Sukks!!!!| ......| Is An AIR- |
.. |______________| ..... |HEAD Ya.!.|
............. \./ .................... |.________.|
. . . . . . . .|| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . \./. ...
. . . . . . . .|| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .|| . . . .
. . . . . . . .|| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .||. . . . . .
. . . . . . . .|| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .||. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . , . . .||. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . || . . . . . . . . . . . . . v..
.
.
.
Note: Dear Ms. Sally Q. & CO., Please excuse me for being a "Prodigal Blogger" (not only a son; or Daughter) But i[WE] just had to 'TEST" the HUFF HUFF and a PUFF PUFF Bullacrapa "R-E-L-G-i-O-N" section.
Example: When i tried blogging (Yesterday was me 1st day registering) and They DID NOt post me subject line on the Phony Xrstian Conspiracy for trying to Satanically Sneakin {Into our Public Schoools Systems} that superStupidStitious (un)iNTELLigent Schemea (opps Design). And (me tricked them; but ize learned somethn by Sneaking in me comment) ON: The Discovery Of one of Albert Einstein's {pbuh] Lost/Stolen Papers about him RECANTING his statement during ww-II about that BIG LIE: "Science w/out Religion lalala stuff was only about Saving JEWs and the hope that Germany Nazi (and Ishlami's) would go easier on their poor Victims. And WHY A.E. {pbuh} Really Refused being Israels 2nd President etc..
__
Note: What's good about "Huff Huff and a Puff," besides Recognizing some Ex-Moderator's (break aways) from here or whatever, that WE[i]'m impressed to see that all that Content (landing Page) , Large pics etc.. Loads Very Fast On 4 major Browsers. Otherwise ADRIANNA & Staff are Copy Cats & yes, Plagiarizers too. OYE...! Note: me thinks Their Anti-MORMON et al?
iMORTANTANTO: 'HUFF Huff in the PUFF' is being sued by an Insider (who Made Adrianna Famous; but Stole The Concept, not Only Credit). Please See: HUFFINGTON POST "STOLE WEBSITE IDEA" [And From This Site; And some of me Ideas from me ex web site).
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/45168.html
AND [See How Pigeons pooopoo on Arianna & Co.]
http://www.aboutyourbreakup.com/arianna.html
AND
http://www.cbc.ca/arts/media/story/2010/11/18/huffington-post-lawsuit.html
- PS: WE [i] will Start Recommending [THIS] Bless'th "ONFAITH" Neewsweek Blog and Patheo's sometimes. Please Start Buying Xtra SERVERS for the beginning of MARCH! Note: Me is Only Volunteering to do this. Free Will, Free Spirit & TRUTH (opposite MYTH)! Soo, LET THE BATTLE BEGIN! YAYA!
Praise The HOLYi NO MAN/WOM!
[THIS] WAPO's; "ONFAITH" site is the Greatest Blogg On Earth! Yea! Ya! SE! DA! CAN!!
HUGG's -n- KiSS's To ALL/Every/Any "O-N-F-A-i-T-H" Bloggers (New & Old and future)!