Posted on 08/27/2015 11:09:14 AM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum
“Here I stand . . . but I can also move, if you like.” Via SFGate:
Facing a possible sex-discrimination lawsuit, a Catholic hospital in Redding reversed its position Monday and agreed to let a woman’s doctor sterilize her after she gives birth next month.
Mercy Medical Center, owned by Dignity Health of San Francisco, the state’s largest private health care company, had previously refused to allow Rachel Miller to undergo a tubal ligation, citing Catholic hospitals’ Ethical and Religious Directives against sterilization.
After attorneys with the American Civil Liberties Union said they would file a discrimination suit if Miller was being denied pregnancy-based care” on religious grounds, the hospital notified her doctor that it was reconsidering based on additional information the physician had provided. On Monday, the deadline the lawyers had set for a response, the ACLU said Mercy Medical Center had agreed to the surgery.
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
Dear Rachel, you selfish tool. If you so desperately want those tubes ligated, are there no other hospitals in your vicinity to go for this procedure? Does your ob/gyn have privileges at only this hospital? Catholic Hospitals, this is one to fall on the Sword for, dontcha think?
Well, they are not a Catholic hospital anymore then.
That’s all
OK, somebody splain this to me:
I presume we're talking about a tubal ligation?
What "present and serious pathology" would justify a tubal ligation at the time of childbirth?
Anybody?
“Various medical conditions can affect a woman’s ability to carry a pregnancy, and at times even threaten her and her child’s life. Some of these conditions include pulmonary hypertension, Marfan’s syndrome and certain congenital problems with the aorta.”
http://www.ncbcenter.org/page.aspx?pid=315
True, all of these are very serious conditions. But none of the them are treated by fallopian tubal ligation. Excision of a fallopian tube is morally justified in the case of removal of a tubal pregnancy, since the tube itself has developed an abnormal condition and is threatening rupture, which might indeed kill the mother as well as her embryo.
However, tubal ligation is not a treatment or cure for pulmonary hypertension, Marfan's syndrome or congenital aortal malformaton. It does nothing whatsoever to heal these conditions.
No, it does not cure the diseases, but it does alleviate the risk of pregnancy when a future pregnancy could be life threatening.
No ‘splaining... The same case was made to have an abortion. If you are going to suffer extreme mental stress because you are going to miss the prom, or something serious like that, then that could result in horrible depression or some other pathology. “Inducing sterility” prevents the serious pathology of getting pregnant again.
Camel’s nose under the tent
“Procedures that induce sterility are permitted when their direct effect is the cure or alleviation of a present and serious pathology and a simpler treatment is not available.”
This would fail all three criteria: the tubal ligation would not cure anything; it would not alleviate a present pathology (the woman's present pregnancy is apparently not the problem); and there are other ways to avoid pregnancy other than intentionally destroying healthy reproductive organs.
However, the article says that "Miller’s case did clear the high bar for sterilization set by the Ethical Religious Directives." That can only mean that the tubal ligation is not directly intended for sterilization, but for some other purpose.
I'm just wondering what that could possibly be. The only thing I can think of would be a disorder of the fallopian tube itself. Cancer?
"Miller’s case did clear the high bar for sterilization set by the Ethical Religious Directives."
That can only mean that the tubal ligation is not directly intended for sterilization, but for some other purpose. I'm just wondering what that purpose could be.
Yes, it might have been cancer. Of course, I am just considering the medical reasons for a tubal ligation and not the Catholic teaching on the matter. One other event that can make a future pregnancy dangerous is when there have been several c-sections. In some women scar tissue can build up, and there can also be a danger of the uterus rupturing if there is a future pregnancy.
Of course, we are most likely not going to know details in this case, but there are indeed medical situations that would make a pregnancy dangerous.
She could have had a high risk pregnancy, diabetic maybe, cancer? A subsequent pregnancy could harm her physically. Devil is in the ddtails, and once agan I may have knee-jerked without all the facts.
There are certainly medical situations that would make a pregnancy dangerous, and would therefore make the avoidance of pregnancy a moral responsibility. However there are moral ways of avoiding pregnancy which do not involve self-mutilation (directly intended sterilization.)
My thought on this was that something had come up as she was set to deliver, and there was a realization that the woman could not sustain another pregnancy. If so, this is really a terrible thing to face at what should be a time of pure joy.
They don't have to disclose the medical details of this particular woman. They just need to address different hypothetical situations, and explain the ethical principles which are guiding their policies.
Something could have come up even before delivery, and waiting a few months after delivery for your fallopian tubes to settle down would make sense. Even when religion is not at issue, surgeons don’t generally like to do this surgery right after childbirth. At least that is how it used to be back in “ancient times.”
I agree that this is a “teachable” moment - what I took away from this was a Catholic hospital was trying to avoid being sued over refusing to allow sterilizations. Gotta be more to the story, but lousy reporting is the rule of the day for whatever reason.
I just re-read the article more closely, and the reporter, Ian Tuttle, sure does a full-body slam on Mercy’s capitulation - maybe if he knew more about the health of the mother, then he would reconsider his conclusion - Did he ever ask if that was a consideration?
“But, if this was a compromise on principle, who believes that? Mercy has shown that, when push comes to shove, it does not really believe what it says it believes. So it has not just betrayed the cause of religious liberty; it has betrayed its own mission.”
But if it wasn't strictly therapeutic, but rather was an intentional sterilization per se, then why would the Catholic hospital capitulate?
And if that were the case, why would they say "but it really kinda does follow our ethical guidelines"? It either does or it doesn't.
They're just succeeding in muddying up the ethics. "Our position is, if the ACLU's involved, go on ahead, do what you want."
I agree - if it was medically necessary, then why the ACLU? We smell a big RAT!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.