The Australian reports that:
Sexually assaulted women who seek help at Catholic-controlled hospitals cannot be referred to rape crisis centres that supply morning-after pills, under church policy.
The situation described in the article hardly needs further comment. However it once again highlights the problems inherent in having non-public agencies (such as a church) performing a public function (in this case, running a hospital) in a democratic, pluralistic society. In this case the rights and interests of rape survivors are subordinated to the Church dogma about how a woman in such a predicament ought to respond and what options she ought to have, rather than how she might wish to respond and the options she might wish to have given her own knowledge (which is superior to the Church’s) of her personal situation.
This is no surprise at all, and a further reminder about the inappropriateness of Centacare’s involvement in the national pregnancy counselling service.
Surprises me, nonetheless. Many people wouldn’t even know the hospital was Catholic when they fronted up. They should warn patients entering who they are.
The Mad Abbot should be sacked over this.
Well, there’s already wee traces of the Catholic family values everywhere in the health system. My partner and I had our child at an excellent public hospital, which also happened to be a Catholic run one. We went trough the whole process at that one place – except, notably, for the 12 week scan, which they wouldnt do.
Why? Because thats when you find out if the child has Down’s syndrome, and may have to make decisions uncontemplatable by the Vatican.
Great hospital though. Jeez, glad we didnt go private. Public means Anaesthetist right onhand, on duty, instead of off playing golf somewhere with a beeper.
And herein lies the danger of both State and Federal Governments giving cash incentives to church based organisations. The churches have been given grants and funding supposedly because they have the infra structure to provide services on a statewide and national basis where smaller community groups find this difficult.
Now that they have been given this taxpayer funded helpout for more than a decade suddenly the services are being reduced further on an ideological basis. It’s back to the fifties and the progress made in the meantime has been wiped away.
Reminds me a bit of the morality of the people who were doing the work of the Nazis in concentration camps during the week and taught sunday school on the weekends during WWII. The war crimes tribunals didn’t seem to take a kind view of these sort of people.
“Great hospital though. Jeez, glad we didnt go private. Public means Anaesthetist right onhand, on duty, instead of off playing golf somewhere with a beeper.”
Heh. Totally agree about birthing in the public system – I can’t see how private would have given us any better service.
Although there’s still a finite number of anesthetists to go around. We got stuck on the busiest night for ceasarians they’d ever had and ended up getting the Director of Anesthesiology from the private side of the hospital to perform an epidural.
d
Yep, best of both worlds, Daryl. Plus the public hospitals are the teaching hospitals, so you get the more senior, experienced ones onhand.
Ah, the joy of epidural. Boy, was that a turn for the better in the whole ordeal, or what? Even with non-Caesarian it was gold.
My partner afterwards was all “Gas? Meh.”
Lefty E – you learn me something everytime. We went thru the Mercy the first time. We had to go elsewhere for the 12 wk scan – we were lead to believe it was because it was an unfunded procedure that they couldnt do! Proves my point above that most people don’t know what they are or are not getting in these places.
But yes fantastic place to have a baby.
I love this ‘we’ shit from the men.
I hope you left enough in the epidural when you were finished, Lefty.
Yep, twas the Mercy Wbb. Top notch too.
Yes, TDD, “we” is rather gentlemanly of me: fact is Ms LE hogged the bloody lot.
Yes an organisation that runs hospitals, looks after the homeless, helps refugees, educates children from the wealthiest to the poorest across the world, is one of the worlds largest provider of health care and has a 2000 year tradition of discussing the meaning of life (and including a sense of self criticism) should crawl back into the dark ages where it came from?
Yes Catholic Church has a moral philosophy that puts a premium of life from conception to death and suprisingly actually acts on that philosophy. Is anyone really that suprised?
What you should understand is that Catholic hospitals will give women (and people facing other life and death issues) and provide them with options.
And then they leave the person to make up their own mind and do what they want.
The Catholic hositals are just clear about what procedures they will not do (and are honest about it)
And frighteningly Catholic hospital ethicists do contemplate on what others think are uncontemplatable situations and deal with real people everyday.
So lets get rid of the Church hospital and charitible services and the schools are a bit questionable, and quiet frankly what they say about options for the poor, death penalty, refugees, violence, families,morality is making everyone just a little bit uncomfortable and they have no idea really what they are talking about ….cant they just go back to church and quietly talk about God…..
Of cause in our society you can advocate not providing public funding to any of these services …but would that really be wise?
Suggest you contemplate on why did the state give the money to the Churches to run these services in the first place?
Yeah, but there’s not really any reason to assume large organisations other than church – government bureaucracies, for instance – wouldn’t bring their own biases to their management role. The example Lefty E raises regarding the 12 week scan is pertinent, but like most such examples, we’ve got no way of knowing whether it’s only relevant to one hospital, or all hospitals.
Because they wanted to buy political support from the population that supports the Church. Duh.
Because it was unwilling to spend it on state provided services.
Two answers for the price of one!
The point, TimT, is not that individuals working in public facilities mightn’t have their own biases and moral objections to certain procedures, but that the body of principles on which they are run would be organised around the idea that the best possible healthcare be provided, not on what someone or some group finds morally objectionable. The shift in Catholic hospitals is towards formal policies preventing these options being made available.
One’s enough for me, Tim. Any hospital that doesn’t inform patients of ALL their options in EVERY situation is failing in its duty. Sure, they can recommend a particular option over others, but then again they MUST be clear about the reasoning.
GongGuru – did you read the post and links? What do you think about rape victims not being given the option of a morning after pill? Does this fit your “regardless of their own beliefs, Catholic organisations give people all available choices” fantasy?
I suppose there is a legitimate answer as to why the Catholic Church was allowed to tender for this health service but pulled out of providing any Federal Government employment services. The dignity of labour (still predominantly male) doesn’t match a woman’s right to choose perhaps. Maybe Canberra should develop a ‘no cherry picking’ approach to farming out government services.
Pablo:
“I suppose there is a legitimate answer as to why the Catholic Church was allowed to tender for this health service but pulled out of providing any Federal Government employment services. ”
Nope, they’re still doing that too.
“Any hospital that doesn’t inform patients of ALL their options in EVERY situation is failing in its duty. Sure, they can recommend a particular option over others, but then again they MUST be clear about the reasoning.”
You’ve been spending too much time watching ER, and not enough in Cas wards in public hospitals. There’s very rarely any options presented for anything.
We’re not talking about casualty wards, we’re talking about situations where time is not a constraint. You’ve got them sitting in front of you, and choose to ignore some of the medical procedures available cos you don’t like ‘em.
Sure, the all-caps ALL and EVERY were too strong – expediancy is important etc etc. But we’re not talking about whether people are given the choice on how to swiftly save their lives/limbs, are we? That is really the doctor’s job.
Actually, it’s more likely because the Church-run organisation could run the hospital at a much cheaper price than the Government could, partially because most Church organisations have ingrained cultures of volunteerism amongst staff – and in the case of the Catholics, a bunch of nuns in nursing orders – as well as regular parishioners undertaking charity work in non-medical functions, thus meaning that labour costs are exceedingly low compared to public service rates. Also the Catholics have a population of people who donate to Church charities and hospitals yearly, dying people who gift a proportion of their life’s savings to their hospice in their will or through their grateful families, and people who won’t sue at the drop of a pin due to their commitment to the Church community if something goes a bit wrong.
Catholics Do It Cheaper!
Catholics Do It With Rhythm! (method)
Thanks for posting this, Paul. My attempt was incredibly NSFW!
Mark’s point sums it all up really: there’s a world of difference between an individual going against requirements to impose their own biases, and an organisation embedding those biases in their mission statement and operating guidelines. The first can be stopped through ordinary disciplinary action. The latter cannot.
It isn’t about being anti-religion. It’s about being pro-individual autonomy, and refusing to allow people in positions of great power and control, such as health workers, to impose their values on vulnerable people.
It is not unheard of to get the morning after pill precribed at Cath hospitals, tho this will be at the individual Dr’s discretion, and i imagine the hospial turns a blind eye to this. not exactly a great situation i fully agree.
Is the Intellegent Design issue in State school curriculums an example of this then?
(n.b. I’m not a creationist, so don;t shoot the messenger)
The range of orgs in society that recieve gt funding is so ridiculously large and diverse that many are in direct ideological opposition to one another.
Me:
“Any hospital that doesn’t inform patients of ALL their options in EVERY situation is failing in its duty. Sure, they can recommend a particular option over others, but then again they MUST be clear about the reasoning.”
SC:
“Is the Intellegent Design issue in State school curriculums an example of this then?”
Well, the more obvious parallel would be a Catholic school not discussing evolutionary theory.
But I once more retract the strength of that statement, this time for a different reason. “….all their ACTUAL, MEDICAL options in every situation WHERE TIME AND RESOURCES PERMIT….”
There.
No. That’s not a good analogy at all. Obviously FDB meant all medical options, given he’s talking about medical institutions. He didn’t mean to imply that patients should be informed of their option of going home and praying for a cure, which would be analogous to raising intelligent design in a science class.
I’m sorry for putting words in FDB’s mouth, but I’m fairly confident that he’ll be fine with it in this case.
Cross-posted, sorry.
* …. chastised, the cowgirl slinks away to whippersnip the yard*
Lordy, it’s too hot for yard work today, sg!
Just by the by, and I agree it’s not the best analogy, but I doubt very much most Catholic schools would teach ID at all, let alone have a problem with teaching evolution.
Thank you, Goddess of reason.
Sorry if that sounded rude. It wasn’t meant to be
“Just by the by, and I agree it’s not the best analogy, but I doubt very much most Catholic schools would teach ID at all, let alone have a problem with teaching evolution.”
I’d concur. Catholics tend to reserve their reservations for the uses of science more than pointless denial of the theories and evidence.
the quote from Francis Sullivan, the head of Catholic Health Australia at the end of the piece, is confusing:
I guess its kinda hard to consider issues without knowing the actual, not percieved, policies…if anyone can post something concrete i would be so interested to see them/
RE Public hospitals and birth: one excellent experience, one appalling experience at Cairns Base.
And mark, I luurve the whippersnipper, its such a fun invention. Dont forget i was raised up north. ‘Hot’ is a very relative term. We have a pool anyway, not that i ever use it, as i like my water warm like a bath
Anna and FDB – you didnt sound rude whatsoever. I’m just being silly, as i dont have the mental energy to keep up with you brainiacs today. Spent all yesterday helping a friend move and clean and de-mouse her apartment. I think i fried my head with too much bleach.
bye!
sg, if you’re not putting your pool to proper use, I can help
As the Bishop said, if the Church views the morning after pill as the same as abortion, it’s a logical extension of that view.
reading that again – so the policy is that staff in catholic hospitals cannot provide a “referral”, but they are permitted to provide information……
so in practice, the doctor/specialist can say – these are you options…..x, y, z. But they can’t provide a written referral to a service…..(& does this include referrals to state public hospitals which also provide abortion, morning after, IVF etc??)
I suppose it is better than not providing the information. but not much.
I wonder if they will also go back to the practice of saving the child, ahead of the mother during difficult births. Alot of fathers used to walk out of catholic maternity hospitals with a new baby and no wife in the old days…..thankfully, giving birth doesn’t have the risks it used to…but i’d be checking if the obstetrician has a photo of his 7 kids on his desk, just in case.
It appears to be the same as the guidelines for the “pregnancy counselling contract” quoted in the features section of the Australian today (not sure if it’s online). You can basically say “look it up in the yellow pages”. Which of course gets us back where we started – there’s no requirement that service providers who have an objection to providing certain services advise potential clients of that in their advertising – including in the yellow pages.
It’s worse than that.
Catholic hospitals don’t just interfere with their employees, they also interfere in the private activities of professionals who just happen to lease real estate from them.
When I worked as part of a non-Catholic medical co-operative, the lease we were asked to sign to rent consulting premises from a Catholic hospital included a clause requiring the practice of Catholic medicine on the premises. This included absolutely no contraceptive advice of any kind unless the women’s life was unambiguously at risk.
As we were an urgent-care group, I could see that this interfered with my practice of medicine unreasonably. Negotiations were unsuccessful, and I ended up resigning simply because I would not sign that document. I was not happy to be put in a position where virtually single shift I was quite clearly in breach of a contract I had signed. Of note, the negotiations included a not-so-veiled suggestion that I just ignore the clause, and odds are they’d turn a blind eye. This is a completely untenable situation for a professional person to be placed in.
In addition, signing the contract would have been a clear breach of the AMA Code of Ethics, which reads, in part:
“Refrain from entering into any contract with a colleague or organisation which may conflict with professional integrity, clinical independence or your primary obligation to the patient.”
What baffles me is that I’m the only one who did resign.
(posted anonymously, but the blog owner is welcome to contact me to verify my bona fides if desired.)
thanks noncatholicdr – i was wondering about all the doctors and other specialists meekly signing on the dotted line, if they are breaching their own code of ethics.
it’s back to the future, the family planning association’s public education campaigns of the 70’s and 80’s need to be dusted off, re-fashioned and sent out to schools/doctor’s surgeries/community health centres/universities.
k..there’s no petrol in the can so no whipper-snipping for me today, but mark, do come over for a swim and a drink soon – though i caution against the next day or two as there appears to be a rather serious child infestation at present.
(The majority of them will be humanely captured and re-homed shortly, i’ll keep the two cutest ones, and any left overs can go to Madonna or Angelina).
Noncatholicdr do stick around a bit more, we need more informed medical perspective esp around threads such as the Discussion Post one earlier this week (Ashley X).
Ok, let me know when the child infestation subsides, sg, though I wouldn’t wish Madonna on them, but if Angelina sees sense and gets divorced
Suggestion to Noncatholicdr seconded.
Yeah, I think the Galileo thing was such a monumental cock-up that they’ve stayed away from arguing about meat and veg of the scientific evidence since then.
Thanks for the welcome, Mark and jo. I’ve been reading here for a while, having been referred by my imaginary friend tigtog. I might join in more, but choose a new moniker (I don’t usually do the “dr” thing, it was just relevant in this particular case).
The Ashley thing? As a feminist and a person with a disability, and as a Dr? Ha. Every side of the debate that I’ve read has been problematic. The language, the victim-blaming, the appalling lack of support and aids, the blithe assumptions all round – gah. I wouldn’t know where to start.
This is whats wrong with appeasment – the Alternative Liberal Party gave it all up on state aid and now they’re over the fucking barrel. And with the present pious, preachy and more holier-than-thou Saint Kevin in charge youse better be prepared to take it up the rectory indefinitely.
noncatholicdr – most thanks to the gracious AND sublime cowgirl (her post @ 5.20pm)
but i’ll third the suggestion to hang around and provide a medico perspective (and all your non-medico perspectives..)
in respect of ashley x – i’d be interested to read what you have thought about the case – the thread in case you missed it:
http://larvatusprodeo.net/2007/01/05/discussion-post/
and also some more about this topic – i’m still getting my head around that catholic public hospitals wont be referring patients to state public hospitals….
You’re right, I missed cowgirl – my apologies to the sublime one.
I’ll be quite upfront, I just don’t want to comment on the “Ashley Treatment”. The whole thing would be one big rant against everyone, which is just angry and boring.
I didn’t even know there were Catholic public hospitals on t’other side. That sounds like a ripe opportunity for a bit of civil disobedience and some test cases, to me.
The Catholic Church is an immoral institution. I call on all Catholics to renounce their faith here as a sign of protest.
I’m afraid it’s a bit late to just declare the Catholic Church immoral Silkworm because all sorts of other churches and their offshoots have also been nobbled,quietened and corrupted by truckloads of money from various Governments over many years.
On the basis that the one who pays the piper calls the tune then by choosing to do the Government’s dirty work which either the Government itself could be doing or independent community groups, the Church groups show that Mammon is greater than their God.
Here in Brisbane there have been a series of thirty odd sexual assualts on the North side of Brisbane and not a single arrest, the anti PC brigade must be proud of what their rollback is producing. Immorality has spread way past the Catholic Church and society is seemingly unable to cope with the fallout.
Such is the nature of Catholic “morality” that it involves advocating the breaking of state and federal laws. This is treasonous.