Posted on 09/20/2019 5:44:45 AM PDT by karpov
I wrote the other day about the intention within bioethics to destroy Catholic healthcare. Today, a court ruling from California proves my point.
A Catholic hospital known as Dignity Health refused to perform a hysterectomy on a transgendered male, as against Catholic moral teaching. The patient sued for discrimination, but the case was dismissed on the basis that the hospital was legally following its faith principles. Alas, a Court of Appeals reversed, reinstating the case to the active docket. Why am I not surprised?
Dignity Health’s faith-based policies require that the institution “protect and preserve the bodily and functional integrity” of patients and that the “functional integrity” of the patient “may only be sacrificed to maintain the health or life of the person when no other morally permissible means is available.”
Dignity Health also forbids any sterilization procedure, as against Catholic moral teaching. Surgeries that would have that effect are permissible only to cure or alleviate “a present and serious pathology.” Obviously, the hysterectomy would render the transgendered patient sterile.
But the Court of Appeals ruled that under California law, this can constitute illegal discrimination. From Minton v. Dignity Health:
The pleading alleges that Mercy allows doctors to perform hysterectomies as treatment for other conditions but refused to allow Dr. Dawson to perform the same procedure as treatment for Minton’s gender dysphoria, a condition that is unique to transgender individuals. Denying a procedure as treatment for a condition that affects only transgender persons supports an inference that Dignity Health discriminated against Minton based on his gender identity. This is true even if the denial was pursuant to a facially neutral policy.
In other words, a Catholic hospital can potentially be held to account for refusing to violate Catholic dogma by removing a biologically healthy organ — thereby, sterilizing the patient
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
bizarre, but that is california for you...
:-(
Why don’t they just pass legislation to outlaw Christianity? That’s their goal anyway!
They would never outlaw *slam.
This would be a tough pill to swallow, but if Dignity Health had any balls and true character, they would CLOSE THE HOSPITAL. reorganize as a Private Member Only Facility, allow residents of the community to apply for Membership and REFUSE to Enroll ALL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE’s, Let hem DIE IN THE STREET!
And this is the only place this tranny could go to for a hysterectomy? Rhetorical question.
Democrats had better start getting their pronouns straight. World is getting fed up.
More lawyers on the CW2 target list.
Which, I would wager, was the whole point.
first, do no harm.
i remember hearing that somewhere... but i guess it is because of religious beliefs and not some medical oath...
when will the psychiatric community put an end to this madness, or are they proving themselves to not be a real medical discipline.
Basically “discrimination” has been the fo to bait of the left to avoid forcing blacks and gays into hell and instead make them want to finish themselves off.
Imagine that...
A hospital and surgical staff who refused to mutilate a human being.
From the Hippocratic Oath:
“I will abstain from all intentional wrong-doing and harm, especially from abusing the bodies of man or woman...”
State court. Bump it up to the federal level and even the 9th Circuit might reverse.
The 9th is currently 16D and 12R with one vacancy.
If truth doesn't win the first time, keep appealing.
And this is the only place this tranny could go to for a hysterectomy? Rhetorical question.
= = =
Where’s the back-alley when you need it?
They should have operated and taken out several pounds of whatever they could find.
Since this is an elective surgery not a life saving emergency surgery his can the law justify forcing the hospital to do a risky operation with possibility of death?
To make a political statement? YES!
Really? .....yuk
They want to outlaw God.
Then they can dump, "... Unalienable Rights endowed by our Creator …".
No Creator, no unalienable Rights.
Transgender insanity endorsed by the APA today reminds me of sluggish schizophrenia in the Soviet Union. Both were weaponizations of science and psychology for political purposes.
In this case, LBGT and especially transgenderism is used to promote “what you think is reality” and as a weapon against Christians. That’s why support for sexual activism is correlated to hatred of Christians, not necessarily support for the sexual minorities ...
Can Hatred of Christians Lead to Support of Sexual Minorities?
https://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2019/03/50399/
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.