By Mike Appleton, Weekend Contributor
“In this case, a young woman in a crisis situation was put at risk because religious directives were allowed to interfere with her medical care. Patients should not be forced to suffer because of a hospital’s religious affiliation.”
-Kary Moss, executive director, ACLU of Michigan (quoted in the Detroit Free Press, December 2, 2013)
“The Church holds that all human life, both before and after birth, has inherent dignity, and that health care providers have the corresponding duty to respect the dignity of all their patients. This lawsuit argues that it is legally ‘negligent’ for the Catholic bishops to proclaim this core teaching of our faith. Thus, the suit urges the government to punish that proclamation with civil liability, a clear violation of the First Amendment.”
–Archbishop Joseph Kurtz, president, U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (quoted in the National Catholic Register, December 7, 2013)
Tamesha Means was only 18 weeks pregnant when her water broke. A friend rushed her to the emergency room at Mercy Health Partners in Muskegon, Michigan. She was examined and sent home with instructions to follow up with her regular doctor at her next scheduled appointment. The following morning she returned to the hospital, bleeding and having painful contractions. She was given pain medication and again sent home. That very night she returned for the third time, in great pain and with an elevated temperature, suggestive of an infection. As the hospital was preparing paperwork to send her home yet again, Ms. Means went into labor and delivered a baby who survived fewer than three hours. She was then informed that she would need to make funeral arrangements.
Those are a few of the allegations contained in a new lawsuit that has outraged conservatives and the Catholic hierarchy by advancing traditional negligence principles as a basis for imposing liability against a surprising group of defendants.
The suit alleges negligence, but the targets are not the hospital, the treating physicians or the medical staff. Instead, the named defendants are the current and two former chairpersons of Catholic Health Ministries, an unincorporated association formed pursuant to Catholic canon law, and the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, a non-profit corporation whose members include all Catholic bishops in the United States and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
Ms. Means claims that Catholic Health Ministries and the USCCB effectively prevented her from learning the truth about her medical condition, the consequent risks to her health and to the development of the fetus, and the treatment options lawfully available to her. More specifically, she asserts that she was not informed that the premature rupture of her membranes had made it virtually certain that the fetus would not survive, that continuing her pregnancy increased the risk of serious bacterial infection, possibly resulting in infertility or even death, or that inducing labor and terminating the pregnancy is a medically acceptable treatment under such circumstances. Lab tests performed following the miscarriage in fact confirmed that Ms. Means had developed acute chorioamnionitis and acute funisitis prior to going into labor.
The complaint reads much like a standard claim of medical malpractice. So why did Ms. Means elect not to sue the medical providers? And how can she link her unnecessary suffering and mental anguish to Catholic Health Ministries and the USCCB? In response to the first question, it has been suggested that the relevant statute of limitations barred a malpractice suit. But that explanation does not address the second question. And the critics have been harsh. The editors of National Review Online labeled the case “a gross violation of the First Amendment and a despicable political gambit” by the ACLU “to force Catholic organizations not only to subsidize abortions but to perform them as well.” Writing in the Washington Times, Robert Knight made the same accusation, but added, “Since only the Catholic Church bothered to build a hospital within 30 minutes of Ms. Means’ home, the ACLU contends that the facility should operate without religious principles guiding it or simply switch to the ACLU’s brand of moral relativism, where unborn children are merely options.” And in an opinion piece in the New York Post, Seth Lipsky declared, “Welcome to the next front in the war against religion.” He also suggested that perhaps the ACLU should sue the pope.
Either the critics have not taken the time to thoroughly review the lawsuit or they are merely repeating the frequently heard but nonsensical accusation that disagreement with the actions or policies of a religious organization is an assault on religious freedom. Or perhaps it’s both. In any event, the critics are wrong.
In order to understand the case, it is necessary to understand the relationships among the defendants and the impact of a document entitled Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services, a set of written directives published by the USCCB and revised from time to time. Catholic Health Services is the Catholic sponsor of Trinity Health, a Catholic healthcare system that assumed the operations of Mercy Health Partners in Muskegon following a merger in 2008. Trinity’s corporate governing documents provide that it will conduct its business in accordance with Catholic teaching, including the USCCB directives.
The USCCB directives, now in their fifth edition, describe the role of the Catholic Church in its “ecclesial mission of health care” and set out 72 directives in 6 sections for making spiritual, pastoral and medical decisions in the provision of health care services. And, as one would expect, the directives are intended to be binding on Catholic hospitals. The preamble calls the directives “prescriptive.” Directive 5 should eliminate any confusion in that regard. It reads, “Catholic health care services must adopt these Directives as policy, require adherence to them within the institution as a condition for medical privileges and employment, and provide appropriate instruction regarding the Directives for administration, medical and nursing staff, and other personnel.” Directive 9 states in part, “Employees of a Catholic health care institution must respect and uphold the religious mission of the institution and adhere to these directives.” There are no exceptions for non-Catholic employees.
In sum, the USCCB has promulgated a set of rules intended to be binding on all Catholic health care facilities and all of their employees. Physicians who fail to comply risk the loss of admitting privileges. Employees who fail to comply risk the loss of employment. And the penalties have been enforced. Several years ago Sister Margaret McBride, the administrator at St. Joseph’s Hospital and Medical Center in Phoenix, was declared excommunicated by her bishop for approving an ethics committee recommendation to terminate the pregnancy of a 27-year-old mother of three diagnosed with pulmonary hypertension. She was 11 weeks pregnant when she was admitted and her death was deemed a virtual certainty should her pregnancy continue. A cardiologist at a Catholic hospital in Durango, Colorado was disciplined last year for merely discussing the possibility of an abortion with a pregnant patient who had a serious cardiovascular condition known as Marfan syndrome, a disorder which can cause an aorta to rupture.
Of special significance in the Means case are Directives 27 and 45. Directive 27 appears in a section devoted to the professional-patient relationship. That section acknowledges the critical importance of “mutual respect, trust, honesty, and appropriate confidentiality” as elements of that relationship. Directive 26 stresses the necessity of “free and informed consent” to all medical procedures. Directive 27 provides, “Free and informed consent requires that the person or the person’s surrogate receive all reasonable information about the essential nature of the proposed treatment and its benefits; its risks, side-effects, consequences, and cost; and any reasonable and morally legitimate alternatives, including no treatment at all.” The operative phrase here is “morally legitimate.”
Directive 45 is a restatement of the Catholic position on abortion. “Abortion (that is, the directly intended termination of pregnancy before viability or the directly intended destruction of a viable fetus) is never permitted. Every procedure whose sole immediate effect is the termination of pregnancy before viability is an abortion, which, in its moral context, includes the interval between conception and implantation of the embryo.” It is when Directives 27 and 45 are read together that the conflict at the heart of the Means case becomes clear. It was not the refusal of Mercy Health Partners to provide abortion services that constituted the breach of duty alleged in the complaint, but the failure to inform Ms. Means of the option of abortion. Although responsive pleadings have not been filed to date (a motion for change of venue is pending), the bishops will undoubtedly argue that the duty alleged by Ms. Means does not exist because a Catholic hospital may not be compelled to provide information to patients regarding treatment or procedures which are not “morally legitimate” or which would violate the moral principle of “material cooperation.”
Directive 27 turns the notion of freedom of religion on its ears because it means that a patient in a Catholic hospital is required to abandon his or her own religious views on the floor of the admissions office. But don’t non-Catholic patients in Catholic hospitals understand this? I doubt that the subtleties of “informed consent” are explained in the emergency room. So why not go to a different hospital? In its retort to the audacity of the ACLU, National Review Online made that point. “But it does not seem to have occurred to them that if they don’t like Catholic hospitals, they should go somewhere else.”
That observation is long on snark and impertinence, but short on reality. There are two hospitals in Muskegon County, Michigan providing acute care and emergency room services: Mercy Health Partners-Mercy Campus and Mercy Health Partners-Hackley Campus. Following its merger last year with Catholic Health East in Pennsylvania, the Trinity Health system is one of the largest in the country, with a presence in 21 states. According to the 2011 American Hospital Association Annual Survey, there were 630 Catholic hospitals in the United States. Catholic hospitals care for one out of every six patients in the United States, and account for 16.5% of Medicare discharges and 13.7% of Medicaid discharges. Moreover, perhaps as a consequence of the traditional commitment of the Church to the poor and the uninsured, 32% of Catholic hospitals are located in rural counties. For these patients, as for Ms. Means, the invitation to “go somewhere else” is meaningless.
And this brings us to the issue of proximate cause. Assuming the truth of the allegations in the complaint, it is clear that Mercy Health Partners failed in its obligation to furnish Ms. Means all of the information to which she was lawfully entitled in order to make an informed decision concerning her own medical treatment. But what duty, if any, did the USCCB owe to her? Prof. Cathleen Kaveny, an acknowledged expert in law, moral theology and medical ethics, contends that there is no causal relationship whatsoever between the USCCB’s adoption of the directives and the injuries suffered by Ms. Means because they are enforceable only to the extent a health care facility contractually undertakes to comply with them. Under this view, the USCCB occupies a position similar to, say, the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws. It makes proposals, but lacks the legal authority to impose them.
I disagree with Prof. Kaveny because her opinion on the issue of proximate cause ignores the compelling moral force of the directives for any health care facility that wishes to declare itself Catholic. Moral theology is not an abstract academic enterprise; it is intended to inform real life decisions about real life problems. Furthermore, it cannot be seriously disputed that the directives have been promulgated with the expectation that they will be accepted and followed as the authoritative teaching of the American Catholic hierarchy. In issuing the directives, the bishops certainly knew that they would be formally adopted by Catholic hospitals and that the patients in those hospitals would be subjected to their requirements. Having determined to draft and publish the directives, the USCCB assumed a duty of care toward those who would forseeably be directly affected by their implementation. That duty extended to Ms. Means. (Prof. Kaveny also believes that the hospital misinterpreted the directives in the Means case, but that is a separate topic for another time).
Regardless of the outcome of the Means case, it properly focuses attention once again on taxpayer support of religious institutions in the performance of ostensibly secular functions. In Bradfield v. Roberts, 175 U.S. 291 (1899), Congress appropriated $30,000.00 for the construction of two isolation wings at Providence Hospital, a Catholic facility operated by the Sisters of Charity. The units were intended for the care of indigent patients under a contract between the hospital and the District of Columbia. The issue was whether the appropriation violated the Establishment Clause. It did not, declared the court, because the hospital was a secular corporation rather than a religious body. “It is simply a case of a secular corporation being managed by people who hold to the doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church, but who nevertheless are managing the corporation according to the law under which it exists.” 175 U.S. 298-99. The decision was unanimous.
We have come a long way since the Bradfield decision, the first case to test the constitutionality of public funding of a sectarian hospital. And the issues are now far more complicated. The Means case questions the extent to which religious doctrine may permissibly govern the performance of a secular function by a health care facility supported in part by public funds before the Establishment Clause is implicated. But perhaps we should be asking a different question. If the Catholic Church defines the operation of hospitals as “the ecclesial mission of health care,” can any public funding of those facilities satisfy the tests in Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971)? Perhaps there is truth in the observation of Dr. Marie T. Hilliard of the National Catholic Bioethics Center that ” there is a need to correct the misperception that the delivery of health care is a secular endeavor.” If that is the case, the Means case could be significant indeed.
Planned Parenthood does nor “push” abortion. If a woman comes o a PP clinic seeking one they are given the required information. PP clinics also provide birth control and other services. Women go to PP clinics with the knowelege of what PP offers. Women who go to a Catholic hospital do not go there with the knowlege that their care is contingent upon the teachings of the Catholic Church, which may be not in harmony with how they want their care directed.
DavidM:
I dont know if it is immoral but my wife has shown me a couple of videos that lead me to believe [by a female doctor who does not appear to be conservative and is a self proclaimed feminist if I remember correctly] birth control and promiscuous sex are deleterious to a woman’s health.
The commercials for Yaz alone are enough to open your eyes. Harmones are very powerful and you mess with them to your detriment.
I’ll have to find the video and post it for you.
RTC:
I am reasonable.
AY:
Planned Parenthood gets government funding. I dont care if they are secular. They push abortion and I resent my tax dollars going to that particular end.
To clarify, I am resistant to abortion on demand unless the mothers life is at risk. They do provide some good works and I would think Catholic hospitals do good works as well and you would not be opposed to funding those programs which promote human life and well being as I am not.
With Obamacare, I am wondering why Planned Parenthood should even receive government funding, it now seems like a duplication of effort and should be cut from federal support.
davdm,
You said: “I consider artificial birth control to be immoral in that it operates contrary to natural law.”
What is your defintion of “natural law?” Why is birth control “immoral?”
Elaine M wrote: “What is your defintion of “natural law?” Why is birth control “immoral?””
There are whole philosophies concerning natural law that can hardly be summarized here, and any effort I make to offer a brief summary for you will likely be harshly criticized through a different understanding or different familiarity with the subject. Nevertheless, I will give you a gist of what is meant.
Natural law is a system of understanding whereby we understand first that we are rational creatures, and secondly, that nature works by natural laws operating according to logic. We talk here not just about laws concerning the material, physical world, but civil relations and social interactions. By using our rational minds, we can deduce laws of how things work in relation to each other toward what we might generically call “the good.” When we align ourselves with those laws through rational discernment, we will effect the best good in that we put ourselves in harmony with good and the purpose of natural law.
In regards to sex and reproduction, it is rational to understand that reproduction is meant to be accomplished through the joining together of the opposite sexes in coitus. The purpose foremost being the sharing of genetic material from the male into the female, that it might fertilize the egg of the woman and form a new creature, the product of genetic material from both the male and female. Secondarily is a purpose of unity between opposite sexes, a unity not of sameness, but of complementarity toward each other.
Various perversions of this operation of reproduction have been put forward. Usually these are founded on the purpose of pleasure or hedonism rather than the obvious function of reproduction. Such variations act contrary to natural law, seeking to pervert the natural use of reproductive functions for which quite a bit of biological investment has been put forward. One of those perversions is to block the purpose and aim of reproduction in the sexual act. Condoms, hormone pills, etc. block a natural reproductive law from operating as it appears to have been designed to operate. This resulting disconnection is harmful to that law in the same way as it might be considered harmful for someone to beat their head against the wall. Therefore, it should be considered immoral.
Now when I say it is immoral, I do not mean to say that the law ought to prescribe punishment for it. I do not say that the law ought to impose fines or imprisonment to all those who use contraception. Rather, it is something each person must determine for themselves.
My concept of a highly evolved and progressive society is one that continually decreases its laws until ultimately in a utopia, there would be no need for laws. We need laws for the lawless, but when people mature and know how to operate themselves in harmony with natural law, when they can walk in a love toward everyone else, there really is no longer a need for our civil laws with the prescribed punishments for various actions.
DavidM and Bron back in the saddle again.
Birth control immoral? I consider it to be a moral way to prevent an unwanted pregnancy and an abortion. I think that if modern women do no want to be forced to undergo the ideology of people like David, we need to make sure people like him never ever get any serious power. He can do as he chooses in his own home.
Ok so Davidm,
You’re familiar with how the body functions…. You taught classes…. How does your superior medical knowledge translate to others being able to understand what they don’t?
Not all are as gifted, intellectually or financially, you are aware of this fact, yes or no?
My understanding is that you can’t intertwine secular and non secular priorities and still get government funding…. Is that your understanding as well David?
AY wrote: “My understanding is that you can’t intertwine secular and non secular priorities and still get government funding…. Is that your understanding as well David?”
I understand that some common law decisions have moved this direction, but I do not agree with them. Secular interests often overlap with religious interests, and it is ridiculous to think we must keep them separated. Consider this case regarding hospital care. A government which has no interest in religious matters wants to assist the elderly and poor people with medical care, so they create funding programs like medicare and medicaid but they don’t provide funding to establish hospitals and fund doctors. The religious sector cares also with this same goal and establishes hospitals and staffs it with doctors and nurses. Must the government withhold its ability to help by not allowing funding for the person who goes to this particular religious hospital? I don’t think so. If the government hopes to remain neutral towards religious establishments, it simply makes rules that funds are distributed without regard to the religious establishment of the hospital. The same principle can be applied in education.
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=195892
“I’m having some scruples about a “miscarriage” I had 5 years ago. My water broke at 19 weeks gestation – the baby was not viable and could not live outside the womb. The physician said labor would begin on its own eventually, but that the risk of infection in the meantime was very great. The doctor recommended inducing labor with pitocin – I was in the hospital on meds for 3 days before labor finally began. The baby was alive during this period. She died at some point during labor, because she was just too small and immature to survive the birth process. She was born at 19 weeks, 6 days gestation. We named her Abigail and she is buried at a local Catholic cemetery.
We did not have a direct abortion – that is, nothing was done to definitively kill the child, rather an early labor was induced knowing there was virtually no chance she would survive.
At that time, I had no idea of Church teaching in a circumstance like this, and we were heartbroken over the loss of our baby.
Does this constitute an abortion, or is it acceptable in a case like this to induce an early labor?
I did confess this, though I felt like I should have provided more details since we did not intend to have an abortion in the direct sense. Part of the penance was to have a mass said for the baby AND to attend said mass. However, the roads were iced over on the day the mass was said, and I was not able to make it to the Church for the mass said in her honor, so I am concerned about whether I ought to “re” confess this, or whether this is considered a sin at all.
Thanks in advance.”
Perhaps the ACLU doesn’t like the idea of tax payer monies going to private hospitals who impose their religious beliefs onto their patients. Cut off all taxpayer money and let them do as they please and inform patients that get admitted there or use their ER that the care they recieve will be contingent upon the religious beliefs of the owners. Perhaps the ACLU thinks that the rights of the already born trump those of the unborn. Labor should’ve been induced and the pregnancy ended. Should we force miscarrying women to retain the contents of the pregnancy until they become septic and die? At the very least she should’ve remained in the hospital to monitor her condition and for signs of infection.
Bron: You almost come across as sounding reasonable. I’m fairly certain that it’s exceptionally rare for a woman to have an abortion in order to fit into a dress for an upcoming party. It may have happened somewhere at some point in human history, but nearly every woman considering an abortion goes through some agonizing deliberation before making that decision, whether you and DavidM want to admit it or not.
And if a woman were shallow and uncaring enough to abort a fetus for the sake of fashion, what would she be like as a mother, and does anybody really want her raising children (here’s your fricking question mark, davidM)?
My one objection to abortion is that I wouldn’t want to see it used as a form of birth control of the last resort. That’s providing contraception is essential in a sane and healthy society.
davidM strikes me as a an abstinence only kind of a guy, a policy which is not only horribly repressive, but completely unrealistic.
As to what he would do if his daughter were in this dire predicament, remember he insisted on personally delivering his daughter’s babies at home. Funny, he never mentioned how their husbands felt about that,assuming they had husbands, but I’m sure they’re one big happy cult. Anyways, he’d probably tell them to take some aspirin and pray, and let God’s plan work itself out.
Because life is fun like that.
DavidM,
You’re more evasive in your answers than an old woman trying to beat dust out of a rug with a thatch…. In plain English, so you’ll understand….. You answer no ones question and then when you get pinned down on your answer you avoid the direct question and then ad lib as you’ve never said that…..
What would you do if you found yourself in the same situation as this woman….. Not as a test case or target suit for the ACLU….. You know…the klan never really had any use for the ACLU until they represented them….. The ACLU is pretty big on basic rights….. You probably wouldn’t have got away with your stunt in Florida if you’d been a person of color or not for the ACLU….. It’s kinda ironic when you read that the NRA and the ACLU have the same interest in the NSA and the gun cases …. Odd partnership don’t you think…. And I think they are both correct in these issues…..
Now, what would you do f this was your wife or daughter…..????????? Enough question marks for you to understand this is a question…..and what cryptic about what I post, except to make one pause to think…..
AY wrote: “Now, what would you do f this was your wife or daughter…..?”
Seriously, that is your question? I would tell her that she deserves whatever she gets when she decides to put her trust in a particular doctor or hospital. The hospital did not cause your membranes to rupture, and they did what they could to protect both your life and the life of your baby. That’s exactly how I read this situation, and exactly what I would tell her.
The thing you may not realize, however, is that I inherently do not trust the medical community. Many people look at doctors like a god. Not me. My perspective is that they are fallible people like the rest of us, and believe me, I have taught enough pre-med students vertebrate anatomy that I think twice about trusting them. I believe that I have a choice of whether to trust a doctor or hospital or not. I consider artificial birth control to be immoral in that it operates contrary to natural law. When my wife becomes pregnant, I don’t hire anybody. I deliver my children at home. Nobody is going to care for my wife and child like I will. If there was an emergency situation where I believed that the knowledge of the doctors might help save the life of either my wife or my unborn child, I might go to the hospital like Tamesha did, but I would never sue them if they failed to be able to help me. If doctors fail, my recourse is to not go to them next time, the same way I do not return to an auto mechanic or retail store that has violated my trust.
DavidM:
During World War II when Catholic pilots were asked to do missions that sounded like suicide missions, they were told to keep their canopies open so there was a possibility of escaping the plane. Then their intent was not to commit suicide.
So this double effect doctrine has been around for a long time.
However I recently read a article about an Indian woman in Ireland who died because she was not given an abortion.
The case here is rather strange because if the water breaks at 18 weeks there is a big problem with the pregnancy so it is rather confusing as to why they wouldnt have checked to see if the baby was alive. And why when it was apparent the baby was dead, they didnt perform surgery to remove the dead baby.
I am against abortion for trivial reasons but I would not sacrifice my wife to save an un-born child unless it was her desire to do so. It seems evil to me to force a woman to carry a child to term if it meant her death. But then it also seems evil to me to abort a child because you have a party to go to and the dress you bought isnt going to fit because of the pregnancy.
I think both intransigent sides of the issue are wrong, those who want no abortions and those who want abortion on demand for no reason at all other than they want one.
It seems there ought to be some “golden mean” which would support life, both the mother’s and the child’s. With the tie going to the existing and not the potential life.
I am just glad I have never had to be part of a decision to have an abortion.
Bron wrote: “It seems there ought to be some “golden mean” which would support life, both the mother’s and the child’s. With the tie going to the existing and not the potential life.”
Hi Bron. I see it pretty much the same way as you. I do not exactly agree with the Catholic view of “equal right to life” for the unborn, but I certainly can respect their right to have such a viewpoint. It seems to me that the Catholic system of ethics is closer to my view than the ACLU’s ethics (or lack of ethics), hence my defense of them in this forum. I definitely believe in a right to life of the unborn, which is something the ACLU and feminists seem to completely disregard.
In this case with Tamesha Means, they did check if the unborn baby was alive. It was. They could hear its heart beating. The path the physicians followed was inline with the guidelines published by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG). Their guidelines for patients say the following:
Patients with PROM before 32 weeks’ gestation should be cared for expectantly until they have completed 33 weeks of gestation, provided there are no maternal or fetal contraindications. Digital cervical examination should be avoided in patients with PROM unless they are in active labor or unless imminent delivery is anticipated.
Women with PROM [Premature Rupture of Membranes] before potential fetal viability should be counseled about the impact of immediate delivery and the risks and potential benefits of expectant management.
To prolong pregnancy and to reduce infectious and gestational age–dependent neonatal morbidity, a 48-hour course of intravenous ampicillin and erythromycin, followed by five days of amoxicillin and erythromycin, is recommended for expectant management of preterm PROM. All women with PROM and a viable fetus, including those who are known carriers of group B streptococcus (GBS) or who deliver before their GBS status can be determined, should receive intrapartum chemoprophylaxis to prevent vertical transmission of GBS. A single course of antenatal corticosteroids should be given to women with PROM at 24 to 31 weeks’ gestation to reduce the risk of perinatal mortality, respiratory distress syndrome, and other morbidities.
For patients less than 24 weeks, it says:
The combination of birth weight, gestational age, and sex provides the best estimate of chances of survival and should be considered in individual cases.
Patient counseling
Expectant management or induction of labor
GBS prophylaxis not recommended
Data incomplete on the use of antibiotics to prolong latency
Corticosteroids not recommended
Adapted with permission from American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Premature rupture of membranes. ACOG practice bulletin no. 80. Obstet Gynecol. 2007;109(4):1011.
Source: http://www.aafp.org/afp/2008/0115/p245a.html
From my perspective, this ACLU lawsuit is completely without merit and is filed only as a form of litigious religious persecution masked as concern for a poor woman whose baby died within hours after a premature birth.
What would you do is a fairly straight forward question David….
AY wrote: “What would you do is a fairly straight forward question David…”
Maybe you can work on your grammar. A question without a question mark suggests it is a rhetorical question, which is a question for which do not expect an answer. It is a literary device to make a point.
Nevertheless, I still answered you that the person is entitled to know about their condition. I have no doubt that Tamesha Means knew her pregnancy was in trouble.
I guess David doesn’t like my responses….
AY wrote: “I guess David doesn’t like my responses….”
I’m not sure why you would say that. I’m usually pretty neutral about your responses. Most of the time I probably don’t see the relevance that your cryptic posts are trying to make.
davidm2575,
“. . . false lawyers . . .”
Would this be the same as “false prophets” in your view?
gbk:
LOL. Thanks. See, davidm? I TOLD you I was insightful.
davidm:
I did not read your trapped comment because I do not have access to it. I will say generally that I find your views on informed consent to be a virtual invitation to a malpractice action. You refuse to acknowledge that a patient’s right to information is not contingent upon a health care provider’s personal opinion on the relative morality of the available lawful choices. That opinion may certainly be expressed to the patient in the course of recommending a procedure or treatment, but it is not morally permissible to lie to a patient or otherwise interfere with a patient’s independent moral judgment. I am going to address this in a separate comment on Directive 27 and the principle of double effect.
Mike Appleton wrote: “I did not read your trapped comment because I do not have access to it.”
Something strange then because the trapped comment was the one where I brought up the principle of Double Effect. How would you know about my comments about Double Effect if you did not read it? Perhaps the comment awaiting moderation was delivered to you but not to me nor posted to the website?
Mike Appleton wrote: ” I will say generally that I find your views on informed consent to be a virtual invitation to a malpractice action. You refuse to acknowledge that a patient’s right to information is not contingent upon a health care provider’s personal opinion on the relative morality of the available lawful choices.”
I acknowledged the patient’s right to information in the following post to AY:
================
http://jonathanturley.org/2014/02/10/the-means-case-medical-ethics-and-the-usccb/?replytocom=792162#comment-789868
AY wrote: “Should the hospital be able to just discharge you without telling you what going on…”
No. The hospital should inform the patient of her situation, and as explained previously, the directives specifically require the hospital to do this.
HIPPA handicaps us from knowing exactly what she was told, but the complaint admits that she was told about a possible infection, and that she had instructions to see her doctor but to return to the hospital if she developed a fever.
Again, the complaint is not about informing the patient of her situation. It is about the directives of the hospital creating a climate where Tamesha Means is not being informed of her option to have an abortion, and also informing her that the hospital would not do the abortion. From the pro-life perspective, it is kind of like treating a battered wife for injuries sustained from her husband beating her, and then telling the patient of her option to have a hit man kill her husband to insure her health, but the hospital will not provide those kind of services for her.
================
The truth is that while patients have the right to their medical diagnosis and information, they do not often ask for it, and when they do, they are not led through all the knowledge that the medical doctor has. To do that they would have to sign up for medical school and spend years studying medicine. Rather, they are given a brief sketch of what the doctor believes is happening and a prognosis of what the patient can expect. Most of the time doctors are pretty reserved about information they volunteer in order to limit their legal liability because every case is a potential malpractice suit.
In this particular case, the complaint is not about the doctors not giving Tamesha Means this information. If it was, they would be suing the doctor and the hospitals, the ones actually responsible for giving her the information. Instead, they are suing religious officials associated with the hospital who publish ethical guidelines not just for this hospital but for a lot of hospitals. This makes the lawsuit a complaint against religion, not the hospital or medical professionals. Interestingly enough, the ethical directives are not even binding upon the hospital or doctors. The doctors and nurses could ignore the directives if they chose to do so. Adherence to the ethical directives is completely voluntary.
Tamesha Means is a pretext for what the ACLU is doing. The ACLU doesn’t care about what Tamesha was told or not told. They don’t like the fact that hospitals are being established and run by religious pro-life people who do not practice abortions. They don’t like the fact that the unborn are treated like patients. Such violates their own philosophy, dogma and doctrine of abortion on demand. It doesn’t even matter if they win this frivolous lawsuit because filing it creates a chilling effect on religious liberties and religious speech about abortions and medical care. Their goal is to stifle the freedom of people who think differently from them and do not tote their party line.
Mike A,
I know, I’ve read them; I was just being selfish in hoping to read more of your insight.
Thank you.
gbk:
I made follow-up comments at 11:30 p.m. on the 11th and at 1:25 a.m. on the 12th, the latter relating specifically to Sarah Weddington and the Roe case.