Woman denied tubal ligation at Catholic Hospital

[ttt]

Yet again, why medical facilities should not be religiously associated. Why does religion trump someone's right to medical care??

[penguingrrl]

Ugh, that makes me so angry! Especially since I've heard of women getting permission to have tubal ligations done at Catholic hospitals, so it's not unheard of to allow it. She's got an asshole deciding her case and rules aren't even applied evenly across the board.

Religion needs to get the fuck out of government, healthcare and education (except for private religious schools). Nobody should be forced to adhere to someone else's religion in their life choices.

[bears]

Why should anyone have to decide if she's worthy of getting the care she needs?

[aurora]

Sept 14, 2015 19:39:39 GMT -5 @bunnybean said:

www.washingtonpost.com/national/a-pregnant-woman-wanted-her-tubes-tied-her-catholic-hospital-said-no/2015/09/13/bd2038ca-57ef-11e5-8bb1-b488d231bba2_story.html

...
Hospital administrators have suggested that she go through with the birth at Genesys and then get the tubal ligation at a later date at a different hospital. But another surgery weeks after a Caesarean could be just as harmful to her health as another pregnancy, her doctor has said.

...

Aargh. I know we've heard this argument before but it's still so infuriating. Sure, have a second SURGERY that is contradictory to best medical practice because the hospital doesn't think women should have the right to make permanent reproductive decisions for themselves.

[katietornado]

I mean I'm all for hating this hospital, and I think it's total crap that they're pulling this, but is there no other hospital she could go to? Why can't economics play a role here? If people don't go to Catholic hospitals, they can't keep doing this to people.

[taratru]

The only hospital where my sister lives is a Catholic hospital, so she couldn't get one either. So stupid.

[ttt]

The comments...oh the comments. My favorite is the person suggesting she just never have sex again and her husband should still love her anyway because "nobody ever died from not having sex."

[ttt]

Sept 14, 2015 21:51:02 GMT -5 katietornado said:

I mean I'm all for hating this hospital, and I think it's total crap that they're pulling this, but is there no other hospital she could go to? Why can't economics play a role here? If people don't go to Catholic hospitals, they can't keep doing this to people.

There may not be another hospital. Or no other hospital in her insurance network. 

Thanks to the generous tax breaks and subsidies given by the American taxpayer, these hospitals have a distinct economic advantage over others. 

[Deleted]

Sept 14, 2015 21:51:02 GMT -5 katietornado said:

I mean I'm all for hating this hospital, and I think it's total crap that they're pulling this, but is there no other hospital she could go to? Why can't economics play a role here? If people don't go to Catholic hospitals, they can't keep doing this to people.

Well I think it's beside the point if this woman COULD go to another hospital, but to answer your question...

She's clearly a high risk pregnancy and seeing maternal fetal medicine...not all hospitals offer that service. She has had other children at that hospital (according to the article), so it would make sense that she would feel most comfortable to have her last pregnancy there as well as I assume they know her medical history. 

[thejackpot]

I delivered at a Catholic hospital and it is funny how things come up that you never even think about-the prominently displayed crosses in the rooms, the religion channel, no tubal ligation etc.
As for the woman in the article, her health should trump any other concerns. This is bull.

[NewOrleans]

Sept 14, 2015 21:51:02 GMT -5 katietornado said:

I mean I'm all for hating this hospital, and I think it's total crap that they're pulling this, but is there no other hospital she could go to? Why can't economics play a role here? If people don't go to Catholic hospitals, they can't keep doing this to people.

 This is the equivalent of saying the gay couples whose wedding baker, photographer, etc wouldn't serve them should just go to another baker.  No.  What should be happening is not economic but a standard of care from which Catholic healthcare cannot deviate.  The same way that Catholic Charities decided to close up shop with adoptions in states forbidding gay discrimination because they didn't want gay people with babies, so should the standard of care be uniform and sacrosanct such that the hospitals should close up shop if they will not adhere to it.

Also, the free market doesn't really work with healthcare because patients are at the mercy of their employer-provided benefits and plans.

andplusalso the church keeps buying up goddamned hospitals everywhere.  It's been happening for at least 4 years.

[zelda25]

Sept 14, 2015 21:51:02 GMT -5 katietornado said:

I mean I'm all for hating this hospital, and I think it's total crap that they're pulling this, but is there no other hospital she could go to? Why can't economics play a role here? If people don't go to Catholic hospitals, they can't keep doing this to people.

Lots don't have the option of going to a non-Catholic hospital without traveling hundreds of miles.

Sent from my SPH-L720T using proboards

[aurora]

Sept 14, 2015 21:51:02 GMT -5 katietornado said:

I mean I'm all for hating this hospital, and I think it's total crap that they're pulling this, but is there no other hospital she could go to? Why can't economics play a role here? If people don't go to Catholic hospitals, they can't keep doing this to people.

The third to last paragraph says she is in the process of finding a new hospital and a new doctor.

But, she shouldn't have to, and many women can't due to reasons others have pointed out.

[ttt]

It's bullshit that she should have to leave her doctors, go through the hassle and expense and inconvenience of finding new ones and then getting records sent over there, hoping that the new ones are as good as the old ones, all because the CELIBATE MEN who run the organization that purchased this hospital think she should just continue having children or at least risk it, her health be damned. THAT IS BULLSHIT.

[downtoearth]

Sept 14, 2015 23:26:20 GMT -5 aurora said:

Sept 14, 2015 21:51:02 GMT -5 katietornado said:

I mean I'm all for hating this hospital, and I think it's total crap that they're pulling this, but is there no other hospital she could go to? Why can't economics play a role here? If people don't go to Catholic hospitals, they can't keep doing this to people.

The third to last paragraph says she is in the process of finding a new hospital and a new doctor.

But, she shouldn't have to, and many women can't due to reasons others have pointed out.

This. The patient should freely get to decide their medical care decisions after being informed by their doctor. It shouldn't be up to a doctor to decide the level of care when the patient is competent.

I also want to know if they do vasectomies there!

[aurora]

Sept 14, 2015 23:33:29 GMT -5 downtoearth said:

Sept 14, 2015 23:26:20 GMT -5 aurora said:

The third to last paragraph says she is in the process of finding a new hospital and a new doctor.

But, she shouldn't have to, and many women can't due to reasons others have pointed out.

This. The patient should freely get to decide their medical care decisions after being informed by their doctor. It shouldn't be up to a doctor to decide the level of care when the patient is competent.

I also want to know if they do vasectomies there!

I doubt it; they oppose surgical sterilization for both sexes.


I went Googling since this made my blood boil and found
america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2014/2/dangers-of-a-catholichospitaluntold.html
(bolding mine)

Catholic dominance over hospitals endangers women
Church dogma is trumping the health and rights of female patients
February 3, 2014 7:00AM ET
by Jill Filipovic @jillfilipovic
Hospital mergers
In Washington state, the percentage of beds in religiously affiliated hospitals has risen from 26 percent in April 2010 to nearly half today, according to the ACLU.Jupiterimages

When Denise was in her mid-30s and pregnant with her daughter, the nurse practitioner working with her OB-GYN informed her that after giving birth, she would not be permitted to have a tubal ligation — commonly known as getting one’s tubes tied. If she wanted one, she would need to have a separate procedure at a different hospital, even though tubal ligations are commonly and safely performed either immediately after a cesarean section when the abdomen is still open or 24 to 36 hours after childbirth, when the fallopian tubes are sitting higher in the abdomen, making for easy below-the-navel incisions. Getting the procedure done at a later time after childbirth means an additional surgery and recovery, with a small child at home and with the attendant monetary, physical and time costs of a second surgery. That was enough to deter Denise.

“If it was an option to have my tubes tied at the hospital post-birth, I very well could have done it,” said Denise, now 43, in an email from Massachusetts. (She asked that only her first name be used for privacy reasons.) “I did not do it because I actually couldn’t fathom having the separate surgery (cost, etc.) done with a newborn or toddler.”

Why was Denise not permitted to have a safe, legal procedure at a medically indicated time? Because she gave birth at a Catholic hospital.
A public-health giant

Catholic hospitals provide care for 1 in 6 patients in the United States; they are, collectively, the largest not-for-profit health care provider in the country. As secular hospitals merge with Catholic ones, many health care organizations and the communities they serve are on edge. In Washington state, for example, mergers mean that nearly half of hospital beds are in facilities controlled or influenced by the church, and in many regions a Catholic hospital is the sole provider. Nationwide, Catholic health care providers grew by 16 percent from 2001 to 2011. The number of secular nonprofit hospitals dropped by 12 percent in that period; the number of public hospitals fell by 31 percent.

Catholic health care providers are bound by the Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services, a document issued by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops that governs how health care providers should deal with reproductive issues, end-of-life care, the “spiritual responsibility” of Catholic health care and a variety of other concerns. The range of women’s health care options that Catholic facilities offer is limited — sometimes, like when a pregnancy goes wrong, to a deadly degree. And while most doctors have an ethical obligation to inform patients of all their options, Catholic facilities routinely refuse to offer even abortions necessary to save a pregnant woman’s life; their doctors are also barred from telling a patient with a nonviable pregnancy that there are other, often safer options available elsewhere, lest the patient seek care at another facility. (LGBT patients may also run into problems, whether it is with hormone therapy for transgender patients or simply the right of married same-sex partners to be treated as next of kin in making health care decisions).

Denise was lucky, in some ways. After the birth of her daughter, two subsequent pregnancies ended in miscarriage, making a tubal ligation — the procedure she desired and was denied — unnecessary. And her miscarriages did not require the kind of hospital intervention that, at a Catholic facility, could have put her life at risk.

Tamesha Means, a Michigan woman, had a different, more terrifying experience. Her water broke at 18 weeks, too early for the fetus to be likely to survive. A friend drove her to the closest hospital, a Catholic facility where medical providers told Means the baby would probably not live, but they refused to terminate her pregnancy. She went back a second time and was sent home, despite being at risk of infection and in excruciating pain. The third time she went back, this time bleeding, in pain, running a fever and suffering from an infection from a miscarriage in progress, she was again directed to go home. She went into labor while filling out hospital discharge paperwork. Only then did hospital employees begin to attend to her. She delivered, and the very premature infant died shortly thereafter.

The ACLU is now suing on Means’ behalf. But most stories like hers are not told. And the smaller, non-life-threatening decisions — the refusals to provide contraception, in vitro fertilization or sterilization — fly even further below the radar, tinged with the humiliation of someone seeking medical care and receiving moral judgment.
Follow the money

Proponents of Catholic health care say that which services religious hospitals offer is a First Amendment issue and that the separation of church and state requires the government to remain hands off. Catholic hospitals provide necessary care to the sick and in need, through a well-funded religious institution with many devotees and volunteers who do excellent, important work.
Catholic hospitals should have a duty to serve the actual health needs of their patients and the ethical obligations of their staffs over church dogma. Instead, they put the dogma first.

But Catholic hospitals receive enormous amounts of state and federal funding, in the form of large tax exemptions, Medicare and Medicaid dollars and specific grants for certain types of care. In 2011, Catholic hospitals received $27 billion in public funding, not including tax breaks — nearly half their revenue. Catholic hospitals employ and serve populations that are not predominantly Catholic. One-fifth (PDF) of physicians at religious hospitals reported facing a “clinical ethical conflict” in which their medical judgment was at odds with the hospital’s religious policy. Because Catholic hospitals receive public funds and care for a diverse population, they should have a duty to serve the actual health needs of their patients and the ethical obligations of their staffs over church dogma.

Instead, they put the dogma first. As a result, rape victims are routinely refused emergency contraception in Catholic hospitals. Women with life-threatening ectopic pregnancies, which are easily ended by a shot of methotrexate or a minor surgery, often find an entire fallopian tube unnecessarily removed — decreasing the odds of future pregnancy — if they seek care at a Catholic facility. And, as Means discovered, even in life-threatening emergencies, Catholic hospitals regularly refuse to terminate pregnancies and may face penalties, including removal of church-affiliated status, if they do so to save the life of the mother. In one case in Arizona, a pregnant mother of four went to a Catholic hospital’s emergency room with a condition so life-threatening that her chances of imminent death without an abortion were nearly certain. She was too ill to transfer to another facility, so the hospital’s administrator, a nun, approved an emergency termination. The woman lived. The nun was excommunicated. Her standing with the church was eventually restored, but the hospital lost its 116-year affiliation with the Catholic Church.

Refusing to provide female patients with a full range of reproductive care is discrimination. Intentionally providing substandard care when safer, better options are available is monstrous. It means women see their bodies damaged, their fertility impaired and their lives threatened. Low-income women and women in rural areas face the greatest hardships, since they may have no other option for care except a Catholic hospital. Rural living means there may not be another hospital for miles. Poverty means finding a provider that accepts Medicaid and is nearby; distance equals more gas money or more time on public transportation and off work. For many women, the closest abortion clinic is hundreds of miles away. Religion should not be an excuse for public health institutions to discriminate so broadly and do such harm.
Humane health care

Good luck changing the status quo, though. Religious interests in the United States are moneyed and powerful, and Americans have been browbeaten into accepting the idea that what happens to women’s bodies should be up for a national vote. It is difficult to imagine such widespread, federally funded discrimination going so unchallenged, but even the ACLU demands simply that when secular hospitals merge with Catholic ones, state departments of health “publicize which hospitals are constrained and specify what their restrictions are and provide practical, appropriate alternatives for patients who need access.” I can’t blame it; challenging the Catholic health care system is a loser of a case, with well-funded conservative legal organizations happy to go to bat for the church. It is nonetheless disheartening that we so widely accept second-rate care for women as long as there is a religious excuse.

To be more specific, we widely accept second-rate care for women when there is a Christian excuse. Daniel Pipes, a conservative commentator, has spent years frothing at the mere specter of Muslim doctors’ building gender-segregated facilities or demanding that patients dress modestly, neither of which has come to fruition in the U.S. But suggest that Catholic hospitals should have to abide by medical-treatment best practices — and not, say, remove a woman’s entire fallopian tube when a simple injection could do the same job — and prepare for a deluge of accusations that you are violating religious freedom. The Affordable Care Act alone has already faced 91 constitutional challenges, largely from Catholic organizations opposing its birth-control mandate. The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which is funded by right-wing groups, including the Koch brothers and the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, is behind many of the suits.

In reality, the so-called religious freedom of health care providers to accept massive federal and state funding while refusing to provide comprehensive health care violates women’s bodies and endangers their health. The grossness of this discrimination and the dangers it poses become transparent in neighborhoods affected by mergers, where women in need of emergency care may not have the option of seeking out a non-Catholic hospital. If the Catholic Church sees women as second-class citizens and wants to continue barring them from positions of power within the church while fruitlessly demanding they abstain from contraception use and premarital sex, that is the church’s prerogative. But if they are working in the health care space, they must provide the most appropriate, humane and effective health care. Even to women.

[aurora]

From a policy standpoint I actually don't care if the Catholic Church, which is funded by private donations, decides to discriminate (although the unequal treatment of women is one reason I left it a decade ago). The old men can run their religion however they see fit.

But I have a serious problem when a Catholic hospital, which is NOT A RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATION BUT RATHER A HEALTH CARE PROVIDER, can dictate my medical care to my detriment while receiving federal funding that comes out of my taxes. I have a serious problem with this.