As noted, the Victorian abortion law reform bill has sailed through the (lower) house, and Archbishop Dennis Hart is throwing a massive tanty about it:
CATHOLIC hospitals might close their maternity and emergency departments if a proposed new abortion law is passed in Victoria next month, Melbourne Archbishop Denis Hart has warned….”Catholic hospitals cannot be part of any abortion. That has to be respected in the community. Even providing a referral is a co-operation in evil, and that impacts very strongly on us as Catholics,” he said.
Lauredhel has summed up the Bishop’s position quite succinctly: he’s prepared to let women die for his anti-abortion beliefs. Charming, and, as she says, all the more reason for the bill to be passed.
What I’d like to know is what the actual medical practice in Catholic hospitals around Australia. Does the Archbishop’s hardline position (which, as I understand it, is in line with the Catholic Church’s official position) actually get followed in Australian hospitals?
Thank you for your incredibly mature contribution to this debate by using the word “tanty”.
As has probably been explained and ignored, many Catholics agree with the stance of the church that there is a moral difference between not doing everything to prevent death and killing someone, such as an abortion (in the eyes of the Catholic Church).
End Tanty.
Yes, I’d like to know exactly that same thing too Robert. I’m going to ask my gyn about it – she has a clinic at the Mercy. Do Catholic hospitals currently refuse treatment to women in need of abortions to save their lives, and if they do, why the hell haven’t we heard about it?
Howard: The archbishop is indulging in high-stakes, precisely timed blackmail to try to kill the abortion bill, not because he actually thinks it represents a threat to current practice in Catholic hospitals, but because of a broader objection to abortion.
I think a “tanty” is a fair description, if understating the calculation behind it.
Frankly, I think it’s an empty threat and one that reflects poorly on the archbishop.
As has probably been explained and ignored, many Catholics agree with the stance of the church that there is a moral difference between not doing everything to prevent death and killing someone, such as an abortion (in the eyes of the Catholic Church).
Howard, the Bill does not force doctors to perform abortions per se (as the opponents disingenuously allow you to think), but provides that doctors must perform one where the life of the mother is at risk / in an emergency situation.
Therefore, the stance of the Church as interpreted by Archbishop Hart is that doctors must allow women to die in front of them if they are pregnant. End of story.
For some reason, some of us wacky atheists have trouble understanding why that attitude can be “pro-life”.
Laura it’ll be interesting to hear your gynae’s response, do report back.
I am just reading the new book “The Racket” by Gideon Haigh and one doctor was quoted as saying “Catholics have the most need of abortions”.
I would be extremely surprised if any Catholic hospital had a management committee with an episcopal majority. If Archishops were able to pull funding so easily I wouldn’t be questioning that clergyman’s actions, I’d first question the viability of the hospital itself.
I’m going with empty threat; along the lines of Archbishop Pell’s quasi-threat to deny Communion to NSW MPs over the 2007 stem cell Bill. Note to senior clergy: talking the talk requires an ability to walk the walk.
Also though I personally disagree with the article—I don’t think “conscientous objection” means what he thinks it means—Frank Brennan is worth reading.
Not only is it an empty threat, it is likely to backfire. Victorian MPs are unlikely to be impressed by this attempt at blackmail – “if you pass the bill, we’ll send the Victorian hospital system into chaos”.
The Catholic hierarchy are now saying that would encourage, or not discourage, doctors in their hospitals to break the law and not refer women seeking abortions to other doctors. The problem from them if they did that would be not just prosecution but massive malpractice suits, so it’s a fair bet they won’t so that. More interesting will be what happens to doctors who do refer women to other doctors for abortions.
I bet there’s many doctors within the Catholic system who quietly refer women for abortions now.
Yes, it’s an empty threat. But it’s a particularly hideous one.
IIRC an IVF clinic in Canberra had to move out of a hospital when the Catholic church took it over. Personally I wouldn’t go to a Catholic hospital if I had a terminal disease either – have seen one case where I think they tried too hard to keep someone alive for just that little bit longer.
The referral clause is a bit odd though, would someone actually need a referral to go to another hospital? For non emergency cases I can understand why some doctors may object on ethical grounds and I’m a bit skeptical that they would actually prosecute a doctor who refused.
You don’t need a referral to go to another doctor or hospital. However, it may be difficult in some circumstances to locate an appropriate service yourself (ie rural or poor women may have difficulties).
I believe that with the ‘effective referral’ clause, the Government is putting the rights of women to effective and comprehensive medical care over the rights of a small group of people to subject others to their religious view-point.
This is not even really a Catholic Church vs. Victorian Government debate. The AMA wants the rights of conscientious objectors to be respected, too.
The Australian Medical Association has written to Premier John Brumby voicing similar concerns about the mandatory referral. “Respect for a conscientious objection is a fundamental principle in our democratic country, and doctors expect that their rights in this regard will be respected, as for any other citizen,” the letter said.
Seems the Archbishop’s petulant bit of grandstanding has merely distracted our attention from one of the main issues at hand – whether governments should be able to legislate against conscientious objectors.
Chris –
Personally I wouldn’t go to a Catholic hospital if I had a terminal disease either – have seen one case where I think they tried too hard to keep someone alive for just that little bit longer.
Interesting, perhaps extending a life through medical, artificial, or technological means is sometimes as morally questionable as ending a life pre-emptively through medical, artificial, or technological means.
I stand to be corrected, but my hunch is that the number of cases of a need for an emergency abortion to preserve the mother’s life are very rare. (If an abortion is an option available to deal with the mother’s illness, rather than a need, then it’s not logically an emergency – I would think.) The Catholic hospitals must have guidelines worked out already about how to deal with any difficult cases that do exist. One suspects that if there have been even occasional cases of women dying in Catholic hospitals in circumstances where another hospital would have aborted and preserved the mother’s life, we would have heard of it over the last 50 years through the litigation or media attention of disgruntled fathers or other relatives (many of whom would not be Catholic). Yes, there is a need for knowledgeable doctors who have worked in the Catholic system to put this matter in context.
My thoughts are this would be like the Church threatening to get out of schooling.
….
Knock yourselves out. Shall we fix a timeline?
It really is a tanty- and I actually respect the beliefs of doctors to the extent that they should not have to perform a non-essential (ie non life saving abortion). HOWEVER to then say they won’t even REFER the woman on is childish and recalcitrant. And in respect of life saving situations well that’s been neatly summarised already.
I think in cases of terminal disease where its contrary to a patient’s wishes then it is morally questionable and I’m concerned that in a Catholic hospital you would not get that choice.
Well perhaps removing a foetus to save the mother knowing the foetus is going to die is seen as morally different and not abortion compared to deliberately killing the foetus before removal. I do agree with you – the situation must have occurred before in Catholic hospitals and they have found a solution which is morally acceptable to them that doesn’t involve just letting the woman die.
Now we know how the phrase “bully pulpit” originated.
Here is another example of these self-defined Christians fighting dirty – subjecting a Catholic parliamentarian to ostracism from a faith-based association because he understands the distinction between private convictions and public policy.
People will remember during the RU486 debate that Peter Costello talked in Parliament about Tanya Costello needing to either have an abortion or die. I don’t think figures are kept on the reasons for abortions but emergency abortions certainly are sometimes necessary, and of much wanted babies.
They are selling life after death.
The Wikipedia suggests that while the official line is “no abortion under any circumstances whatsoever”, that many Catholic institutions do a bit of lily-gilding and argue that, for instance, removing an ectopic pregnancy is not an abortion, and therefore permissible, even though it results in the death of the fetus.
As far as the AMA is concerned, doctors have all manner of professional obligations, despite what the doctor’s personal conscience may say. Requiring doctors to refer patients to another doctor if they have an objection to performing terminations is not a particularly harsh burden on one’s conscience. If a doctor can’t cope with that, well, tough.
OK, if ectopic pregnancies are not the issue, I wonder what the other reasons for emergency abortion can be?
Agreed Robert, especially as most women will find their way to another doctor anyway.
Helen @ 4, I don’t think that’s right. The bill – as I understood what the woman from the Victorian Civil Liberties Council was saying on Lateline last night – doesn’t require any doctor to perform an abortion under any circumstances – but compels them to make a referral to a doctor who will under serious circumstances.
Liam @ 6 – spot on. The Catholic Church is a more decentralised institution than people think, and hospitals have their own governance structure. I suspect Hart has several agendas in play here – including impressing the Vatican and increasing his power within the Church.
“If a doctor can’t cope with that, well, tough.”
I agree, Robert. Taxi drivers must take assistance dogs in their cars whther they object to dogs or not. When two desiderata in terms of freedoms clash, a call has to be made, and the Victorian parliament has done it.
Also agree with Robert; there’s a distinction to be made between conscientious objection and “conscientious” obstruction, and the women who aren’t amongst the “most women” referred to by Fine will usually be in disadvantaged circumstances of one sort or another.
As with the maternity leave debate, what is at stake is whether less well-off women should have the right to something that more well-off, well-connected and information-rich women have the private means and the personal good fortune to access routinely.
Yep. If they need to let women die to salve their consciences, that’s too bad. And it’s outrageous.
Mark, that’s what the Austlii excerpt Lauredhel published said. Doctors would have have no obligation to perform abortions under the legislation except where an emergency situation exists.
Ok, Helen. That seems to contradict what people like Hulls were saying on tv last night.
Dennis Hart is indeed throwing a tanty when he says Catholic Hospitals will get out of maternity and A&E – St Vs has one of the bigger A&Es in Melbourne and Mercy Werribee has a big maternity section as does Mercy at Austin.
If these hospitals were to get out of maternity and A&E for a start they may not be viable as operating units without the income.
Hospitals are not funded as a series of discrete treatment units but as anoperating whole. It is unlikely that the state funder would continue to fund a St Vs that didn’t do A&E or maternity.
If they were to get out they would need to negotiate an orderly transfer which woudl take at least a year and they would also need to hand back buildings paid for by the state. In effect the catholics are only the managers / operators of these services paid for by taxpayers. Its not as if there are armies of postulants and novitiates working 14 hours a day for a piece of bread and a blessing propping up the services.
It would be a fairly simple matter (as much as anything in health is simple) to install another secular entity as the manager of the staff and facilities should the catholics withdraw.(no jokes about catholics and withdrawal please)
St Vs and most other catholic mobs have always handled the whole termination issue sensibly enough. Lets say northern suburbs Italian girl goes to St Vs A&E distressed and looking for options including termination. In most cases – there may be exceptions- they will be assisted / referred to say the Womens and told “they have a wider range of services and are better set up to help you”
At the Austin, the Mercy for Women, catholic, no terminations, shares the same site and many staff, with the Austin, where terminations are available.
” many Catholic institutions do a bit of lily-gilding and argue that, for instance, removing an ectopic pregnancy is not an abortion, and therefore permissible, even though it results in the death of the fetus.”
For this they rely on the doctrine of double effect. They’ll remove the entire tube with the embryo in it, because they are fooling themselves that they didn’t really _mean_ to kill the embryo, it just _happened_ because they were taking the tube out. But they will refuse to do minimally invasive surgery, fertility-preserving surgery, or fertility-preserving medical treatment of ectopic pregnancies.
The ectopic pregnancy situation is not an example of good healthcare despite Catholicy policy, it’s a sterling example of Catholic policy enforcing bad care for women.
What everyone is forgetting in this debate – I haven’t seen it addressed in the MSM yet – is the Archbishop being a giant and transparent hypocrite. He talks a line about respecting doctors’ consciences. The Church doesn’t respect the conscience of doctors at all. They enforce Catholic medicine via their accreditation contracts and leases. They kick out fertility clinics; they issue edicts banning staff from referring women to rape crisis centres. Doctors aren’t allowed to follow their consciences if their consciences tells them to offer comprehensive medical care to women who need it. The doctors who do just keep on offering referrals/emergency contraception/etc are doing so at their own risk.
Mark: the wording of the bill (also quoted in Lauredhel’s piece linked in the body of the post) states, in clause 8, section 3:
“Despite any conscientious objection to abortion, a registered medical practitioner is under a duty to perform an abortion in an emergency where the abortion is necessary to preserve the life of the pregnant woman.”
This also applies to registered nurses. Therefore, as Helen says in 4, a doctor would be compelled to perform an abortion to save a woman’s life.
I didn’t hear what Hulls had to say about it, but I know he voted against the bill.
Can you paraphrase (or point to a transcript) his comments?
By the same site I mean the buildings are side by side and linked. Turn the trolley to the left corridor and you are in the Maternity section run by Mercy, turn right and you’ll be in the Austin. [It's just a jump to the left..and then a step to the right..]
The Austin also runs the Northern Suburbs Centre Against Sexual Assault.
Andos @ 30, it’s summarised in my comment @ 22 – I might be wrong that Hulls was saying that too – I was pretty tired last night – but that was definitely the impression that I was left with from hearing the Civil Liberties woman.
By the way, if there hasn’t been litigation or other complaints through relevant bodies about women not getting emergency abortions when they needed them, why does the government feel a need to cover this at all? Is it just a case of unnecessary legislative over-reach?
Steve from Brisbane:
Steve, consult Dr Google about eclampsia — sudden onset, delivery of foetus is the only treatment that works, can onset at any time from 20 weeks. Lifesaving terminations of pregnancy are usually emergencies, and transfer to some other hospital is impossible. My sister nearly died of it, luckily her baby was nearly full term and survived. Doctors who refuse to deliver the foetus in an early onset case of eclampsia will watch both mother and baby die in front of them. Fast. It is one of the most common complications of pregnancy, and research into it is difficult.
Of course, the Archbishop, by definition, doesn’t have a wife or daughters it could happen to, so what does he care?
Emma
All these reasons and moral morasses (?) are good arguments for why the Catholic Church should probably just get out of health care. Sell ‘em up to someone who will not be torn by organisational and moral quandaries.
That’s a brilliant point about the hypocrisy of Hart saying it’s about preserving doctors’ liberties, Lauredhel.
I looked at the Lateline transcript, and it seems that Hulls doesn’t know what the Bill contains?!?
FX, what’s the distinction between Mercy Public and Mercy Private? Are they different billing arrangements for the same physical treatment services?
Seconded. I was just heading down here to say so but Laura is ahead of me.
Yep, Hulls’ comments in that Lateline report are flat-out wrong, in that a doctor will be forced to perform an abortion in an emergency when the mother’s life is in danger.
laura – You can elect to be a private patient in a public hospital if you have insurance or want to self insure. You can elect top be a public patient in a public hospital even if you have insurance or don’t have insurance and are say a squillionaire, a la Rudd/Turnbull.
You can’t elect to be a public patient in a private hospital. StVs private, at least in the Victoria Pde campus, is in a separate building and operates as a private hospital. iirc St Vs Private doesn’t run its own ICU so if you were in StVs private and needed say ICU, you would be transferred to St Vs Public ICU and receive the same care as a public patient. Epworth does have its own ICU.
The main advantage of private is bypassing public waiting lists and the standard of hotel services in the private facility. If you are private in the public facility you will bypass public waiting lists (depending on the hospital and procedure it isn’t always shorter wait times) but you will have essentially the same hotel services.
If you go private in the public system you and or your insurance will be billed and depending on hospital and procedures you may have a gap to pay or not. If you go private in a private hospital you and or you rinsurance will be billed and there may be a gap depending on any “no gap” agreement between your fund and your hospital. It will tend to be a higher bill from a private hospital but not always.
Emma: I am not sure why you used the term “deliver” instead of abort. (I guess once it is 24 or so weeks old, they would try caesarean anyway?) But in the 20 to 24 week period, is it done as an abortion?. And more to the point, does anyone know if Catholic hospitals “are letting mothers die” in such circumstances? I have my suspicions that much of this discussion might be of the straw man variety: “The Catholics want to let women die!” when in practice this must be being handled for years in a way that attracts no media or legal attention.
Steve, Denis Hart voluntarily brought up his Catholic desire to let women die. I don’t know how that can be viewed as strawman construction.
Steve, the legislation provides that no-one’s obliged to do an abortion – except in an emergency life-threatening situation.
Archbishop Hart says: No way, not nohow, not ever will we do an abortion under any circumstances.
Ergo, he is arguing for women to be allowed to die under such circumstances. (Considering referring on is out of the ballpark – and even then, what about rural and remote areas where bad happenings are more likely?)
In addition to which he is prepared to shut down a sizeable chunk of the city’s obstetric services at a time when obstetric services are under immense pressure. That could quite possibly lead to more adverse outcomes as they so euphemistically call them – including maternal or child deaths. But don’t let that stop ‘em.
Helen – is this just a misunderstanding over what they consider to be abortion? They must have had to prematurely deliver babies who would have had a high probability of dying in Catholic hospitals for pre-eclampsia reasons – surely there would have been a lot of news reports if they have simply been allowing pregnant women to die.
Yes, having a quick look at a Catholic forum, it would seem that the Church allows for inducing the baby if preeclampsia threatens the mother’s life. It is not considered abortion because it is not done with the intention of terminating the baby’s life, even though clearly at under 20 weeks it has no chance of surviving. (Pretty much the same argument as allowing for morphine to be given at life threatening levels to relieve the pain of terminal cancer. Intention counts for a lot in Catholic morality.)
So, it’s looking increasingly likely that that Catholics are not letting mothers die for ectopic or preecamplsia. As Chris and I suspected, there seems to be little problem with what Catholic hospitals are doing in real life, and you’re getting your collective knickers knotted over a misunderstanding of what an Archbishop considers “abortion” to mean. (And incidentally, he was talking about the referral issue anyway, it was Laruedhel who brought up the emergency treatment provisions.) All rather straw man-ish to me.
Humbug Steve.
Of course doctors in Catholic hospitals haven’t been letting women die. Of course they’ve broadly been doing what the legislation will require them to. They’re not idiots, they’re often not Catholic and they’ve taken their oaths. They’ve just been doing it under cover of soothing nonsense like “the intention wasn’t to terminate” – soothing nonsense for the consumption of the Church types looking over their shoulder.
Putting it all in writing, in the same bill as other abortion provisions, just makes them feel too icky. So they threaten to pull the plug on their involvement in healthcare.
Now remind me… whose knickers are getting knotted?
Sorry, the ‘they’ in my 3rd para is the Church types, not the doctors.
I do wonder though (and don’t any doctors read this blog?) in public hospitals, do they offer a pre-eclampsia mother over 20 weeks a choice of either aborting the baby or inducing birth? Is one safer than the other? The Catholic hospitals would certainly see the legislation as complicating things, if some 20 week mothers start insisting on abortion instead of induction; but as I said, it may be that even in the public system inducing is preferred?
FDB, the title to this post, and most of the comments, indicate that it’s about an Archbishop prepared to let women die. I am pointing out that, presumably, the same Archbishop is satisfied with the current Catholic hospital policies which aren’t, in fact, allowing women to die. The outrage expressed here (about the matter of the Archbishop’s death desire for women) is based on a contrived argument in the first place.
Steve, the point is that the current policies must therefore be radically different to the stated policies of the Vatican (yes, I know, the Church is not a monolith), which is the line the Archbishop is running.
In which case he’s making hyperbolic and hypocritical threats to win a political argument.
Steve, Tanya Costello was unconscious with a brain abscess when her abortion became necessary. I’m unconvinced that you know much about emergency abortion. And as for who first brought up the requirement that doctors perform emergency surgery to save lives, take a look at the letter Hart sent to Victorian MPs. It’s quoted on the second page of the Age article Rob linked to in the post. You will Hart expressly brought up the emergency provision in his letter.
“The Catholic hospitals would certainly see the legislation as complicating things, if some 20 week mothers start insisting on abortion instead of induction;”
Steve, women who want to have babies are almost as keen as Catholic archbishops to avoid abortions where they can be avoided.
Robert, no, I don’t think there is evidence that the policies are in conflict. It seems to me more that you do not allow for nuance in Catholic morality and ethics.
Laura: I freely admitted I don’t know much about emergency abortion. I am open to listen to cases where people think that the way a Catholic hospital has dealt with a situation has in fact threatened a mother’s life, compared to what would have been done in a public hospital. I can’t see the reference to the letter in that article, either.
Inducing a second-trimester pregnancy can take days – literally, days, that a woman with eclampsia or HELLP may not have – and be extremely rough on the mother’s body. There is absolutely no reason why a critically ill woman should be put through that risk when a rapid D&X could be performed.
The doctrine of double effect is hypocritical and damaging to women. Ask a woman who has had her entire Fallopian tube removed for an ectopic pregnancy when tube-preserving microsurgery or medical treatment could have taken care of it and preserved her full fertility.
If, as some of you are claiming, this is all somehow a non-issue, how exactly do you explain the Archbishop’s hyperbolic threat over the matter?
If, as some of you say, this should all just get quietly “taken care of” behind the scenes while everyone pretends it doesn’t happen: why does the Church want doctors within their walls to be constantly operating in breach of their contracts if they wish to offer gold-standard medical care for their patients? (I’ve had up-close-and personal experience with this end of things – I’m not hand-waving here.)
The AMA is currently run by a Catholic woman who worked for a long time doing publicity and liaison for St John of God Hospital. Don’t for a second think that she’s independent, unbiased, or speaking for all doctors.
Funny, they never gave a shit about the ethics clause in their own Code which says that doctors must not sign contracts that compromise their professional independence.
Sorry, can’t edit. The professional independence clause is number 3 here.
See also:
“When a personal moral judgement or religious belief alone prevents you from recommending some form of therapy, inform your patient so that they may seek care elsewhere.[...]
# Recognise your professional limitations and be prepared to refer as appropriate.”
This is ambiguous, and Capolingua-Host’s interpretation is one of several possible ones. Either way, however, the obligation to save someone’s life in an emergency, where alternative care is not available in a safe and timely manner, should be absolute. If doctors are not willing to do that, they should put themselves in a situation where they will never be called on to do so, perhaps well away from actual live patients.
I just spoke to a GP friend who thought that pre-eclampsia would virtually never have to be treated by termination these days. They can control the mother’s blood pressure well, usually, and they simply wait it out until the baby’s lungs are developed enough to have good prospects after delivery.
He found it hard to think of other reasons which would be deemed to be an emergency termination which Catholic doctrine would have a problem with.
More doctor input here would be welcome.
The issue which the Archbishop seemed to mainly be talking about (compulsory referral) is not a matter relevant to his alleged death wish for women.
Steve, for a real life example of pre-eclampsia requiring a life saving abortion, see this blog – http://zia.blogs.com/wastedbirthcontrol/. She was pregnant after IVF with much wanted twins, and was forced to have an abortion due to pre-eclampsia that would have killed her without it at 21 weeks (one of the twins was dead already by that stage).
For her pains (and for blogging about it) she has been subject to rampant anti-abortion trolling – many of whom have the hide to tell her that her twins could have lived and she should have just ridden it out, even if it resulted in her own death.
Some pre-eclampsia can be controlled with drugs until delivery. Some, sadly, can’t. It is a serious medical emergency that will kill a woman without treatment, or in some cases, delivery, and is one of the biggest killers of pregnant women in the third world.
Lurk around enough infertility blogs, and you will find many tragic stories from the US of women with much wanted babies, which have either died in utero, or for various reasons have required second term abortions. Not only have they had to lose a much wanted baby. They have had to navigate a nightmarish healthcare system determined not to give them treatment at a time when they are grieving.
I’m sure that current catholic hospitals have been quietly treating. If, however, the Catholic church is not willing for it to happen publicly, then it may not continue to happen quietly.
Steve,
There’s a difference between pre-eclampsia and eclampsia. See that ‘pre’ in there? Eclampsia is what you get when they fail to control the blood pressure. It happens, very fast and threatens lives. Look it up.
Maybe here:
Perhaps your GP friend should do more reading. Including Cecily’s blog, cited by Jennifer above. The pain of losing a much wanted baby in life-threatening circumstances with serious long term health risks and then having to justify the fact that you lived and your baby died, can only be imagined by those of us who haven’t experienced it. The callousness of those who imagine any women would blithely ‘choose’ such a thing is unfortunately all too evident. Abortions to save the mother’s life are always tragic situations, and not some doctor’s or Archbishop’s ethics puzzle.
Emma
Steve, the only abortions Catholic doctors will be required to perform are those needed to save the mother’s life. If this is a situation that’s so incredibly rare, then why is the Archbishop freaking out and threatening the existence of Catholic hospitals?
If it’s an over-reaction then it’s his, not ours.
Hart’s trying to do a Pell. I suspect it will have as little impact on the Upper House as Pell’s heavy handed intimidation on the stem cell bill in NSW.
Anna @ 59 – perhaps its not over the abortions due to emergencies but over the issue of referrals (which is what I heard him on the radio complaining about).
I’m not Catholic, but did a bit of quick googling and found this here:
So whilst there might be quibbling over the methods of abortion (eg they wouldn’t be able to kill the foetus inside the mother and would have to attempt to keep it alive), contrary to what has been claimed at least the US branch of the Catholic church seems to have no problems with abortions required when the mother’s life is significantly threatened. If the US and Australian churches are consistent then there would be no need for the Catholic hospitals to do abortions on the quiet when there is a clear medical need to save the mother.
Chris: when it’s your body and health at stake, it’s not “quibbling”. Why the repeated attempts at trivialisation and dismissal in this thread? The problems with the doctrine of double effect are perfectly clear, and I’ve talked about them more than once in this thread, as have others.
lauredhel: just because you come from a feminist perspective doesn’t mean that every challenge to how or what you’ve argued is “trivialising or dismissing”. Basically, if you can’t come up with cases where Catholic hospitals are “letting women die”, then your characterisation here and at your blog of them being “pro-death hospitals” was, to put it mildly, an over-reach. And probably offensive to lots of people who work in the Catholic system.
Everyone here is entitled to argue that the Archbishop over-reacted against the issue of compulsory referral. I wouldn’t have bothered commenting if that was all you were complaining about. But you’re the one who tried to turn it into “catholics want to let women die”.
No, Archbishop Hart, not Catholics.
And Steve, what part of Lauredhel’s explanation of Catholic hospitals removing an entire fallopian tube rather than just an ectopic pregnancy did you not understand?
Helen: what part of “that does not cause mothers to die” don’t you understand?
But steve from brisbane, if your argument is that a Catholic hospital wouldn’t let a mother die, then what’s wrong with enshrining that in legislation?
Why is Hart kicking up such a fuss? And why are you not addressing the issue of a fallopian tube being unnecessarily removed?
If ‘coming from a feminist perspective’ means that one has basic objections to a powerful senior cleric whining on the radio about the possibility of having to close the hospitals if Catholic doctors and nurses are not at least given the option of, yes, letting women die (Lauredhel’s whole point is that this, minus the spin, is what is really being said) — if that’s ‘coming from a feminist perspective’ then one would hope that 100% of the population was coming from a feminist perspective. Naturally some of us wish that anyway, as an ideal state. But in the meantime, Steve, don’t trivialise ‘a feminist perspective’ by constructing it as some small extremist anomaly. Unless of course you really don’t know what ‘feminist’ means; goodness knows there’s a lot of that about.
P Z Myers blogs on the Bush administration’s “Provider conscience rights” legislation, which may have been the inspiration for this particular ambit claim by the Catholic church here. Note the Five Key Principles for protecting patients’ rights mentioned in the post. The Victorian situation gets a mention, too.
And O/T, just because I can’t resist linking to it, Dr Seuss versus ID. (H/T to PZ a few posts up fromthe one I linked to.)
I agree based on the quote from Hart in the post that he appears to be saying that any abortion is wrong – which seems to be contrary to Catholic doctrine which seems to be much more nuanced than that. I would be very interested to hear if Hart’s views are as blanked as he has been quoted in the media or if in practice they are also more complicated than “any abortion is bad”. Its not hard to find examples of people’s views in the media being portrayed as absolute when in practice they’re not.
The characterisations of “Hospitals of death” seem to me to be more about intentionally being provocative and grabbing hits than based on evidence around what actually happens in Catholic hospitals. Incidentally you’d have no argument from me about the inappropriateness of removal of fallopian tubes – and I think you could certainly claim that the Catholic church with its ethical gymnastics causes increases infertility in women but that doesn’t sound as cool as “Pro-death Archbishops” or “Hospitals of Death” or claims that women are being left to die in Catholic Hospitals.
I don’t have any objection to that part of the legislation but is there any evidence that this is a problem? Eg any cases of nurses or doctors intentionally letting a pregnant woman die in a Catholic hospital because they refused to do an abortion?
On the issue of referrals I’m rather undecided though – I can understand why some doctors would not want to, but at the same time can see that there may be some uneducated women who would not be aware that they can just go somewhere else. As an example although I support voluntary euthanasia in the cases of terminal illness I’d have similar concerns about forcing doctors to refer to other doctors who have no objections to it (if it was legal).
Fine: The issue of how Catholic hospitals deal with ectopic pregnancies seems to be that Catholic hospitals may be constrained by their ethics committees from doing the procedure in a way that some (most?) women would prefer. (I’ll take you’re word for that, not having time to look into it now.) That’s an interesting issue, but it has nothing to do with lauredhel’s original post, and its endorsement here by Robert and many other commenters, which has plainly been the target of my criticism.
Steve (BTW): it’s not entirely clear that you know what’s involved in an ectopic pregnancy, but ‘the way that some (most?) women would prefer’ is the way that doesn’t (statistically) halve one’s chances of conceiving, as the removal of an entire Fallopian tube would do. Of course, if there’s anything wrong with the other Fallopian tube or the other ovary, the odds get worse again.
Steve at #44 and at #52 can’t see where, in the Age article Robert linked to, Hart specifically raises his objections to the requirement that doctors perform abortions in life-threatening emergencies, so I’ll quote the relevant bit with the kep para bolded:
And yeah, (most?) women would rather not have a fallopian tube removed in order to treat an ectopic pregnancy. That is equivalent to having a hysterectomy when you need a curette.
Sorry Laura, I really looked a couple of times for it and missed it. Just the way the eyes scan across the page.
Anyhow, it’s clear that his interpretation of the effect of emergency termination section is debatable. (He is raising the issue of who – and by what criteria – determines an emergency, I suppose.) But as far as I can ascertain, the fact remains that Catholic hospitals are not allowing women to die, and to suggest that this Archbishop, and his Church’s hospitals, are going to start doing that out of spite for the Victorian legislation, is not a sound argument. (OK, if you want to say that closing hospitals would do that because services would not be available, you can, but that’s not what lauredhel was suggesting.)
Yes yes yes, you may have grievances about how they do some procedures, but that was never the point of my objection.
But in that case Steve, why didn’t he state (for instance) that they would object to referring a woman to doctor who would perform an abortion, but of course they would perform an emergency abortion to save a woman’s life. No, he specifically states the opposite and that he also object to this: “It also requires health professionals with a conscientious objection to abortion to perform an abortion in whatever is deemed an emergency.”
Thus, he is really stating he’d perfer to see a woman die than abort her foetus.
I’m sure the huge majority of Catholics would find this idea hideous as well. It’s not about having a go at Catholics, just this guy.
If you look at the article in the Age you will see that what Fine has included is a direct quote from the Archbishop. I’d be happy to hear your explanation of how that can be anything but “I’d rather see a woman die than abort a foetus”.
“Anyhow, it’s clear that his interpretation of the effect of emergency termination section is debatable.”
Is it just me, or does anyone else have a problem understanding exactly what this means?
“Yes yes yes, you may have grievances about how they do some procedures, but that was never the point of my objection.”
What is the point of your objection, and exactly what is it you’re objecting to?
Aren’t you completely misrepresenting the views of those above who disagree with you when your characterise their views as ‘grievances about how they do some procedures”?
Aren’t you so completely missing the point by quite a margin?
Sorry about the typos above. Doing three things at once… None of them well.
Fine: when I read it I get the distinct impression his concern is summed up in the phrase “in whatever is deemed an emergency”. As I said before, his concern seems to be over who is going to call the shots on what is an emergency. Given that the current law in many States has already diluted the concept of threat to the health of the mother to a large degree, I can see that he may have grounds to be concerned that a generous interpretation of “emergency” by a court might lead to Catholic hospitals being told they have to do abortion in a situation where they would not have without the legislation. (This is just speculation on my part – I haven’t read the legislation or the LRC report, and his concern might be unfounded.)
As for his saying “we would perform an abortion to save a woman’s life”: as discussed above, what Catholic hospitals do is not abortion in Catholic terms. He doesn’t want to confuse you by saying Catholics do abortion, when everyone knows they don’t!
Yes, more trivialising. Having your chances of conception halved (at best) by unnecessary surgery is just a ‘grievance’. Who knew.
It’s a sideline if not a parenthesis to the main issue, but this conversation is reminding me of one of the most amazing things I’ve ever seen. Anyone who’s been to the Vienna Museum of Pathological Anatomy (it may not still be there) might remember it’s full of grotesque and haunting specimens in formalin from the 19th and early 20th centuries. Since all labels are or were in tiny handwritten German, it took me several minutes, standing in front of one such specimen, to work out what I was actually looking at: as far as I could tell, it was a ruptured ectopic pregnancy, complete with uterus, ovaries and Fallopian tubes. One of the tubes had exploded, and was trailing ancient, bloodless rags of flesh; above this carnage, like an angel in a painting, floated an object like a tiny white seahorse, barely recognisable as a foetus and still attached to the ruptured tube by a thread of umbilical cord.
Once I’d realised what this specimen was, it took me another few minutes to register that what I was looking at was an historical moment of extreme and bloody violence, pain and death. And I am not talking about the death of the foetus.
I think there is an almost perverse unwillingness here to accept that, as the original post was nothing to do with whether or not Catholic hospitals should try to preserve a fallopian tube, it’s more than reasonable for me to say I don’t have anything to say about that, it’s a completely different topic!
Surely that is the job of the consulting Obstetrician to determine? Has there been any suggestion that it would be ordered by a court? Presumably if there is time for a court order there is time for transfer to another, non-Catholic hospital?
Steve, what I’m seeing is a perverse unwillingness to actually listen to what all of these people are saying to you.
The original posts were pointing out, quite accurately, that the Archbishop doesn’t support a law that would prevent Catholic doctors from putting their own beliefs ahead of the rights and needs of pregnant women. In some cases, this could mean that women would die unnecessarily. Whether it may happen once, or hundreds of times, or whether it would never happen at all because good Catholic doctors would ignore what the Archbishop says, does not alter the intent of what he has said.
The cleverness of this tactic is abundantly clear in this thread. He knows he’s in the minority, so that when his opponents quite accurately point out the potential results of what he wants, “reasonable” people would then point out that it’s never going to happen, quit over-reacting, and the argument becomes about that. Yeah, it’s not likely to happen right now. But that doesn’t mean it wouldn’t if more doctors started thinking the same way.
Steve, I take it that you mean Hart is worried about some sort of ’slippery slope’ concerning what will be defined as a life threatening emergency. But surely this has to be te call of the doctor who’s attending, as it is in any other medical situation? If Hart can’t countenance doctors doing their job, then he needs to get out of running hospitals.
Fine – given that its legislated and presumably a criminal offence for a doctor not to act in an emergency, wouldn’t it be up to a court to decide the definition of an emergency with input from the medical profession rather than the doctor on the scene deciding? Perhaps thats one reason why the AMA may be nervous about it. Am kind of surprised its not covered by existing laws requiring doctors to treat patients though.
Chris, by definition doctors have to decide what an emergency is every day. The courts rarely come into it. Why should abortion be any different?
Chris, other emergencies don’t tend to involve a conscience-clause for doctors opposed to heart surgery or whatever. All the bill is saying is that there will be no conscience-clause for doctors opposed to abortion, when it comes to an emergency situation. Surely this is not difficult to understand.
I do think the Archbishop is over the top in his rhetoric; and it doesn’t seem to accord with the reality of what happens in Catholic hospitals. If we accept that he is being hypocritical, and that the doctors and management of these hospitals do take a different approach to medical procedures than the Archbishop, I wonder, what is the legalistic/political significance of the Archbishop’s stance?
For instance, does he have in mind not routine medical emergencies, such as ectopic pregnancies, but also cases where a mentally unstable mother threatens to kill herself if an abortion is not carried out immediately. Although this does seem rather unlikely.
…the Archbishop doesn’t support a law that would prevent Catholic doctors from putting their own beliefs ahead of the rights and needs of pregnant women.
Oh, bravo Anna. There’s always the lady-as-victim card to play when all else fails, right? Let’s re-write that with an eye for the truth, shall we? “… the government doesn’t support a human right that would prevent it from putting its own beliefs ahead of the rights and the needs of thousands of health care workers.”
It interests me that abortion defenders always end up relying on incest, rape, children with two heads and the imminent death of the mother in “emergencies” to justify the vast death camp that is the abortion industry. It’s as though they’ve now abandoned their old “clump of cells” argument. Understandable too given that only uneducated yokels deny that life begins at conception. But hard cases make bad law and even worse propaganda.
The Church teaches that doctors working to save a pregnant woman may NOT kill the child but that if the child should die as a result of their interventions (inadvertently), no culpability or wrongdoing exists. So a pregnant woman in an emergency would always be treated but her child won’t be intentionally killed. Expecting Catholic doctors to take a life to save one (maybe) is, self-evidently, a stupid argument. Catholics know that life begins at conception so they’re not going to authorise the killing of children in any circumstances. If you don’t like that, tough.
Hey, why don’t you feminists emulate the great women’s religious orders and start your own hospitals throughout the country? I mean, get off your backsides and put your
moneylives where your mouths are. While you’re at it, expand overseas and save the lives of millions of women through self-sacrificial work in the worst slums and hellholes of the world. Salary package: nothing. Oh, that’s right, you couldn’t be bothered. Hypocritical layabouts.“It interests me that abortion defenders always end up relying on incest, rape, children with two heads and the imminent death of the mother in “emergencies” to justify the vast death camp that is the abortion industry”
CL – this thread is about emergency abortions to save the mother’s life. Nobody is asking nor expecting a Catholic hospital to perform any other kind. Would it kill you to stay on topic?
“So a pregnant woman in an emergency would always be treated but her child won’t be intentionally killed.”
The foetus dies either way, and if the woman’s health and well-being is improved by doing it quickly and safely, why should a doctor’s personal beliefs prevent them doing what is best for the patient? Answer – ummm… because!
It’s the vibe of the thing…
Yes, C.L., it’s well-documented throughout history that women have had easy access to plenty of money. All those well-paid senior jobs, generous inheritances, laws favouring women owning property in their own right and total lack of social and economic pressure to stay at home procreating. We are rolling in it and always have been.
As for feminists starting their own hospitals, it’s been done; her name was Florence Nightingale. If you and those like you had your way and women spent their lives at home popping out infants like peas, of course, then no women could do public work of any kind and a good thing too, eh? And if by the self-sacrificing worker in the hellhole you’re referring to Mother Teresa, then why yes, the encouragement to expand the population of the slums and hellholes ASAP so that more people could die of malnutrition and disease was certainly a big help to everyone.
I think you’ll find that I for one very rarely point to the extreme cases as support for abortion rights. I’m in the “women should be able to get one whenever she bloody well wants” category. But as FDB and Dr Cat have pointed out, it’s the Archbishop whose words we’re discussing-he’s the one who brought up emergencies. So that’s what we’re talking about. Try reading my words again, and tell me how you managed to read them to mean “death camps for all, so as to prevent the occasional justified abortion from being denied”.
Did someone say the word ‘tanty’?
Feminists founding hospitals?
Look no further than Melbourne’s Royal Hospital for Women, established by a committee of prominent women, led by the wife of an Archbishop.
And if by the self-sacrificing worker in the hellhole you’re referring to Mother Teresa, then why yes, the encouragement to expand the population of the slums and hellholes ASAP so that more people could die of malnutrition and disease was certainly a big help to everyone.
Pavlov’s Cat
Bigoted, racist nonsense. The starving and dying Mother Theresa found on the streets of Calcutta were not preached at or encouraged to do anything. Most were not Christians. They were given comfort and help without question. No doubt you’d have given them a lecture and a box of condoms and left them to it. She didn’t.
Is there currently a legislated conscience-clause for doctors wrt to not doing emergency abortions? If not, why is it necessary to have legislation wrt to abortion? Why can’t the mechanisms in place that handles say a doctor refusing to perform emergency treatment on a patient because, for example, the patient is a criminal, handle the abortion cases as well?
Chris, it’s a new bill decriminalising abortion but allowing doctors who oppose it to opt out. But in granting this right, it’s making it clear that in cases of medical emergency the right to opt out goes away.
I’m sure when they get around to writing a bill granting doctors the right to not treat criminals according to their consciences that it, too, will have a “this right goes away when it’s an emergency” clause. But since that bill isn’t likely to be written any time soon, I think it’s a little beyond the point of this debate.
Not a Catholic Archbishop I hope, Liam.
Whatever you say, Hitch. Let’s face it, I just can’t take you as seriously as I used to.
Anna – ah, so what you’re saying is doctors are normally criminally responsible if they refuse to treat someone based on their ethical beliefs (I didn’t realise that). But this legislation makes an exception for them when it comes to abortion, except in the case of emergencies. That makes sense to me then.
Catholics know that life begins at conception so they’re not going to authorise the killing of children in any circumstances.
Until they’re grown up and our enemies in a just war, right?
Always an escape clause for the Catholic man, always.
The foetus dies either way…
The child does not necessarily die “either way” when a woman’s endangering symptoms – being treated by a Catholic doctor in this scenario – are treated. Nice to know FDB is so emotionally cut up about the exquisite difficulties of these situations. ‘Kill the child, what the hell.’
…it’s the Archbishop whose words we’re discussing-he’s the one who brought up emergencies.
No, you’re spin-doctoring Anna, as you do on this subject. The human rights of Catholic health care workers are being overridden precisely with respect to referrals and compulsion in “emergency” situations. Defenders of the bill have abandoned defending the former because it’s so obviously ridiculous: ‘No, I won’t do it but Dr Alfie T. Shonkmeister down the road will.’ So now they’ve fixed on the emergency clause as a more saleable propaganda figleaf for their cause. That makes no difference to Catholic medical workers as they won’t be killing any children in those situations either. Which is not to say the women won’t be treated.
Zoe, I didn’t know the bill was a war on “the Catholic man” you hate so much but thanks for dropping the facade. To paraphrase your motto: Don’t want a Catholic doctor? Don’t go to one.
“Bigoted, racist nonsense.”
So who here is having a go at Mother Theresa on the basis of her race? The same small but proud country that also brought you John Belushi.
…
Mother Theresa????
…
John Belushi???
…
State of the art CGI???
…
Hold the muthafocking phone sweetcheeks! I feel a seriously high concept pitch coming on.
Which I’m not gonna share with you blog canaille.
Suffice to say that if you see a movie with Jim Belsuhi wearing an linen origami Sydney Opera House on his head, holding a photogenic elf of a brown baby in one hand and a nerf gun in the other,with the Maidan QV memorial in long-shot, you’ll know where to sleet home the blame.
And imagine if all the anti-abortion atavists (I meant to type ‘activists’ but I think I’ll let that typo stand) thought that giving birth was an everyday carnal yet sometimes complex miracle and not just another head count for some temporal constituency with its head in the clouds.
The world is notoriously full of babies neglected by parents that haven’t grown up themselves.
Only archaic bureaucracies where the CEO never ever responds to board memos, run by professional male celibates, could think our reproductive systems are basically some kinda of recruiting and drafting operation.
Not like there’s any shortage of easy pickings anyway for all the breed pt die sects, cuts and reglions. After all, there’s one born every minute.
“Not like there’s any shortage of easy pickings anyway for all the breed pt die sects, cuts and reglions. After all, there’s one born every minute.”
Should read…
“Not like there’s any shortage of easy pickings anyway for all the breeders egged on by a myriad of skygod sects, cults and reglions. After all, there’s one born every minute.
On a completely unrelated note, do not attempt to comment on these kinda topics as you try to open a bottle of XO calvados with your teeth while sucking and puffing on a cigarillo at the same time. It’ll ujust lede to hore yptoes.
I don’t know what my doctor’s religion is, CL, or if he has a faith at all.
It shouldn’t be the patient’s job to research it; they should be able to access appropriate care or referral whoever they see.
Is that “hitch” in favour of mother Teresa? I thought Hitch published against the missionary.
(And here’s some related reading).
Catholics don’t know anything of the sort, they just have an opinion to this effect. Further, the Catholic Church and Catholic theologians have held a variety of opinions on this question over the years. The curent Church teaching was proclaimed in 1869 by Pope Pius IX as a political favour to the French dictator Louise Bonaparte, who was concerned that the German population (and thus military capability) was growing faster than the French.
The shorter C.L. – Franco’s Spain, Vichy France and contemporary Islamist regimes got it right on abortion and women’s place; most of the democracies of Europe have got it wrong.
The Archbishop wants women to die!
Mother Teresa evil!
Franco!
Vichy!
Islamists!
Don’t forget Pius XII was a Nazi!
Yep, not the slightest hint of desperation here!
And looks like my second comment has been secretly deleted!
The LP ladies can’t carry and win a debate without one of the blokes protecting them. That has to be humiliating.
Thanks to Paul, though, for reminding us of what sort of governments squash human rights as the Brumby government is trying to do.
This is just a note to the editor, I guess, as it too will be probably be secretly deleted.
Re Hitchens — yes, Liam, exactly, and an excellent book it is. So who knows what that was all about. But one does not expect coherence from those running these kinds of lines. I think where Hitchens confuses people is that he does not subscribe, and never has, to any one-size-fits-all ideological package, neither before nor after his Turn.
Nabs — insofar as it was comprehensible at all, I understood the ‘racist’ slur to refer to the Calcuttans, but again, who can say for sure? The thing about this joint that keeps me coming back is that it’s 95% clear, logical argument even when people are cross*, so one comes to expect that, and is therefore shocked by chopped logic, bad faith, lame personal insults and unrelenting spin even while accusing other people of same.
*Percentage probably higher since the disappearance of Cut’n'Paste
Sanctimonious twaddle CL. Combined with the Vatican’s indefensible contraception policy, Catholics tend to be over-represented or equally represented in abortion statistics which would lead any sane person to think that the Vatican is doing it wrong. Catholics might ‘know life begins at conception’ but that certainly doesn’t stop them from obtaining abortions at the same rate as the rest of the community. (Don’t conflate ‘Catholics’ with the Vatican or the ‘Catholic Church’ and I won’t have to point this stuff out.)
The Vatican’s policies on both contraception and abortion are not only ignored by the overwhelmingly vast majority of Catholics (all surveys for decades) but apparently, 70% of the rest of the Australian population are supposed to sit back and watch as state trained medical professionals be directed to ignore laws made by an elected parliament and to do so within the nation’s own infrastructure. And by whom again – a particular hospital operator whose own followers in the main, ignore.
Maybe it is time for the Catholic Church to remove itself from the business of public health. With the Catholic Church’s increasingly strident positions on a range of issues which are irreconcilably at odds with views of the majority of Australian citizens, it is probably time to draw a line in the sand – and before we get other religious health operators imposing their own brands of godliness onto the wider population.
As to the ‘killing of children in any circumstances’ – excepting the circumstance of refusing to sanction, or provide information about condoms for people with HIV-Aids in developing countries particularly. This policy condemns HIV infected people’s partners and any offspring of these unions to certain misery and early death. It took a global sexually transmitted pandemic to expose that the bedrock policy of the Vatican is that – ‘life begins in the testes’.
Sorry peoples – back OT:
“Archbishop closes maternity wing and re-names site – The No Mercy Hospital”.
“Sanctimonious twaddle CL”
In other news, the Pope is Catholic.
Just to clear up a topic which is rather close to my heart: Pre-eclampsia is not invariably a forerunner of eclampsia, nor is eclampsia the only bad result. Eclampsia is just one symptom — it’s a seizure, usually associated with other symptoms. Severe pre-eclampsia without eclampsia can be as serious; it’s a multi-organ disease that can affect mother, baby or both. PE is not defined as occurring before 20 weeks, so Steve @44’s point is moot. When PE can no longer be controlled, a speedy delivery is imperative — that is, it will be by emergency Caesarean. Normal delivery simply takes too long. I haven’t yet read the story of the woman whose PE was so bad that termination was necessary at 21 weeks, but would be surprised if she were allowed to labour. FTR: I had eclampsia a few minutes after my first child was born (with no warning signs at all) and my second was induced when PE began to appear (at term). An epidural got my blood pressure down the second time. After seven years I have finally recovered from the anaemia induced by the eclampsia and two post-partum haemorrhages. PE isn’t well-understood and I wanted to clear up any misapprehensions people might get from a casual reading of this thread.
Chookie – At 20-25 weeks even if a foetus survived, there would be a very high probability of severe disabilities. So rather than delivering the foetus alive, it wouldn’t be surprising if some women would prefer for the foetus to be killed before delivery – after its born its a lot more difficult no matter the level of disability. Perhaps this is the difference between what some Catholics believe is an ok abortion and one that is not?
Hyena FDB chimes in! As usual, with nothing to say.
Catholics tend to be over-represented or equally represented in abortion statistics which would lead any sane person to think that the Vatican is doing it wrong.
No jo, that would lead any sane person to conclude that Catholics are just as prone to the sins and negligences of life as everyone else. We acknowledge this every Sunday at Mass. If you had the slightest clue what you were talking about, you’d know that. Life begins at conception. That’s not a faith issue but a scientific fact. Catholics believe it and the Church proclaims it. Just as it also proclaims the irrationality of creationism. People who don’t acknowledge that life begins at conception are comparable to creationists, vis-a-vis modern science. And that’s sad.
Don’t conflate ‘Catholics’ with the Vatican or the ‘Catholic Church’ and I won’t have to point this stuff out.
I haven’t mentioned “the Vatican.” You did. The Church teaches – and has always taught – that abortion is gravely sinful. It still does. It also teaches that stealing, adultery and calumniation are sinful. Catholics also commit these sins. It teaches that murder, false testimony and gluttony are sinful. Catholics also commit these sins. You may not accept one or all of these things as being ’sins’ and that’s your right. Catholics do believe abortion is gravely wrong and will not facilitate that wrongdoing by fascistic compulsion or carry out that wrongdoing in their hospitals pursuant to fascistic diktat.
…apparently, 70% of the rest of the Australian population are supposed to sit back and watch as state trained medical professionals be directed to ignore laws made by an elected parliament and to do so within the nation’s own infrastructure.
This must be the New Left: Obey The Man. What you really mean is that a minority of influential lobbyists working for the multi-billion dollar abortion industry – coupled with intra-party feminist zealots – forced an issue on a State Labor government and forced provisions of compulsion that override laws that were – to use your words – “made by an elected parliament.” The Church won’t sit back and watch these lobbyists and zealots ignore the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities.
Conscription, the White Australia Policy, blackbirding, slavery and censorship of literature were all terribly popular and democratically mandated by elected Parliaments too. So what? These are Catholic hospitals and Catholics decide what ethical and professional standards apply within them. Don’t like Catholic hospitals? Then don’t use them.
Maybe it is time for the Catholic Church to remove itself from the business of public health.
If the government doesn’t like these hospitals, let them try to compulsorily acquire them by legislation. Good luck with that. They won’t do it, of course, on legal grounds and, politically, if they try they’ll be destroyed. As I suggested above, modern feminists are free to found their own hospitals in Australia and abroad imbued with their own ethos. They’re free to expend their lives helping the poor and destitute and educating hundreds of thousands into a better life. Curiously, they never have. They haven’t got the balls.
As to the ‘killing of children in any circumstances’ – excepting the circumstance of refusing to sanction, or provide information about condoms for people with HIV-Aids in developing countries particularly.
The Catholic Church does more to save lives in the countries you pretend to care about than all of the Emily’s List heroes put together and multiplied by 100. And we’re going to keep doing that work, abroad and at home, and there’s nothing you can do to stop us. You can’t win so don’t bother trying.
Well it might be, if (a) one had a clue what you were referring to, and/or (b) it were true. I have always understood ‘carrying and winning a debate’ to be a matter of making demonstrably true points, arguing logically, not using wilfully emotive language, not confusing faith with facts, not expressing open but irrelevant contempt for the opposition, and not shifting the goal posts, so whoever may have ‘carried and won’ this one, it’s pretty clear who’s dropped and lost it.
CL, the ‘life begins at conception’ stuff is such a red herring, except for Catholics obsessed with their own doctrinal reasoning. It’s accepted by everyone (except Paul Norton it seems). Everyone therefore also accepts that abortion is killing a living person. So what? Life isn’t sacred. Not for most people in this country anyway. The equation is simply this: the preferences of a pregnant woman are more important and are to be giving precedence over the life of an unborn child, who we are willing to let be killed. Sounds fine to me. Argue the morality of that by all means, but don’t get bogged down in pointless (and irrelevant) debates about When Life Begins.
BBB
Wow, too many G&Ts, not enough thinking… but the gist is right.
So anyone wanting to take me up on the specifics of the ‘life begins [here]‘ and ‘all unborn children have personhood’ issues, please don’t. I am just going to behave as if they are Completely and Utterly Settled Points and everyone agrees with me to the letter.
BBB
Why doesn’t the Catholic Church encourage baptism at the point of conception?
As I understand it, any baptised person is entitled to perform a baptism.
Such a change in policy would remove much ambiguity from the official position of the Catholic Church.
I take it that the retrospective abolition of Limbo is a tentative step in this direction as well.
Doctrinal question: whatever happened to the souls that were evicted from the non-existent location of Limbo?
Don’t encourage him Katz.
Good points BBB. I’ve never given a rat’s arse about the life begins at conception or not. For me, it’s simply irrelevant.
Hmm, so, what about a litter of unborn kittens then? Even those who don’t believe animals have souls (thereby indicating they have never spent any time with an animal and don’t know what ‘anima’ means) must admit that animals are alive, and if human life begins at conception then so does animal life. Are some animals more equal than others?
I find the word ‘unborn’ conceptually gruesome and ontologically problematic, BTW. Is it some kind of corollary of the Undead?
Assume whatever you like, BBB, but as far as I’m concerned s/he becomes a ‘child’ at birth, which makes the expression ‘unborn child’ an oxymoron. Before its born, it’s a foetus.
*scuttles out of the way*
Well it might be, if (a) one had a clue what you were referring to, and/or (b) it were true.
a) It has to do with the fact that after making one comment here I was placed immediately in moderation by the LP thread policeman who obviously decided to McCain his Palins. b) This is true.
I have always understood ‘carrying and winning a debate’ to be a matter of making demonstrably true points, arguing logically, not using wilfully emotive language, not confusing faith with facts, not expressing open but irrelevant contempt for the opposition, and not shifting the goal posts.
You mean like the “pro death Archbishop” who wants women to die!
Mother Teresa evil! Franco! Vichy! Islamists! The pope killing Africans! Shut down Catholic hosiptals! Zoe’s “Catholic man” who is a lying liar!
Obviously, the proponents of trashing the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities have lost, applying your criteria.
Everyone therefore also accepts that abortion is killing a living person. So what? Life isn’t sacred.
Says it all.
As I understand it, any baptised person is entitled to perform a baptism.
Did you learn that from the transcripts of the Council of Trieste, Katz? Baptised people are not “entitled” to perform baptisms. They may in emergencies or in extremis.
Limbo was a theologoumenon and never defined as a doctrine of the Catholic Church. It’s not a place that was “abolished.” But we can now add it to the list of distractions being run to avoid the uncomfortable reality that “progressives” believe the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities can and should be set aside by the State whenever it chooses.
I know further discussion of this topic is pointless and dissenting opinions aren’t welcome. So I’ll leave it that.
Well fine, PC. To me that’s essentially a terminological debate, which I find unhelpful and distracting. In my view, we who are pro-choice ought be willing to say: it doesn’t matter when you say life begins and it doesn’t matter whether you call the thing being done away with a ‘child’ or a ‘foetus’. The labels aren’t the real issue.
“I find the word ‘unborn’ conceptually gruesome…”
There isn’t much about this debate that isn’t gruesome, PC.
“Assume whatever you like, BBB…”
I plead gin.
“Even those who don’t believe animals have souls…”
Wait, who believes that animals have souls? I would have thought that the notion of a soul is more or less supernatural mumbo jumbo that is fine for Catholics, etc. but less so for for those who value science and reason. I say that as a lifelong cat person, BTW.
BBB
Obviously so. The tern that eats the mussel has evolved to do so. The right of the mussel to exist would be, on the basis of your reasoning, at the price of the tern’s extinction.
Obviously not. If you have problems with ontology then share them with us. We’ll try to be as helpful as we can. If you try hard you’ll find that it’s not such a difficult concept. To illustrate: Viruses exist. Quite a number live in our bodies. They exist in our bodies depenedent upon us for their existence. But, ontologically, they exist independent of being part of our bodies. Therefore they have being, which, after all, is all that ontology is about.
There is no right or wrong in this. It is just a description of the way the world is.
Same for a foetus as for a virus.
But I think your point is that all animals are equal and therefore should be accorded equal rights.
That argument comes out in favour of the foetus.
sorry peeps, can’t stop myself – sorry for the typos etc – running out the door to watch the Granny…
So CL, Catholics obtaining abortions from state hospitals…equates to “sins and negligence’s” – whereas everyone else is lining up for a jolly old day at the death factory.
As BBB stated – I don’t think people are actually unaware of what an abortion is, and which is why Catholics and other pro-life Christian and all faith followers make appointments to terminate their own unwanted foetuses/potential children/potential taxpayers, and by doing so make up the vast majority of abortion clients.
I think it was Audrey Apple who put up some fascinating first hand accounts of Abortion Clinic doctors and staff having to deal with the inevitable appointments and terminations for the teenage daughters of, and some of the anti-abortion women themselves, who picket their clinics in the US. They all had “special circumstances” unlike all the “slutty, uncaring women” in the clinic, and many were back on the picket lines the next day – a interesting insight into the psychology that drives extremists.
Again with the “Catholics believe” shtick – no CL – some Catholics believe this, many Catholics do not. And it seems that whatever many Catholic “believe”, it doesn’t actually stop them from obtaining abortions from the state and private clinics at higher or same rates as the rest of the community. And thankfully in this country, Catholics overwhelmingly ignore Church edicts on contraception and therefore don’t end up entirely overwhelming abortion services.
And now the Parliament of Victoria is now a ‘fascist’ dictatorship for wanting to direct state trained medical staff working in public hospitals operated by a third party organisation to save citizen’s lives in a medical emergency firstly, and refer a person who may require an abortion to another provider who will do so, reflecting the will of the vast majority of citizens who are in favour of abortion on demand.
They are not ‘Catholic’ Hospitals btw – they are public hospitals run by Catholics. As FXH pointed out @ 28 it’s not a biggie to hand back the licenses. Bring it on as far as I’m concerned if the Catholic Church can’t operate a public hospital. And the assumption that the workforce in these hospitals are all Catholics first, and then all in agreement with the Vatican secondly – where exactly do they breed these health workers separate to the rest of the population?
OTOH, it is probably the case that given the choice many doctors and nurses who are ‘pro-choice’ would actually prefer to work for a non-religious public hospital if that choice was available in their specialty etc. My local public hospital run by Mater Health – St Vincent’s at Darlinghurst – has a world class transplant team for many decades amongst it’s other specialties – the top specialists who work in that hospital hail from a wide range of ethnic and religious backgrounds – they work at St Vincent’s because of it’s opportunities as part of the public health system, and it’s links with universities and research facilities etc – not because it is a Catholic Hospital. Like durr.
A very influential committee in this overall process – but what did CL’s fevered imagination come up with – “a minority of influential lobbyists working for the multi-billion dollar abortion industry – coupled with intra-party feminist zealots – forced an issue on a State Labor government….
Next……
Oh yes, the big lie about do-nothing lazy feminists – I could link to thousands of women’s groups in the first world and the developing world doing all sorts of work in their communities – health, education and women’s development programs and importantly working towards getting their own Govts’ to provide quality healthcare for all, and of course all the important work done by women and women’s groups who’ve set up significant health services in this country including many Catholic feminists – but I won’t take up anymore of your valuable time CL……. because you’re obviously too busy ‘personally’ saving lives in HIV Aids effected African communities by telling people not to use the ‘evil condom’.
Don’t let the door hit you on the way out CL.
And go Cats!
Hi all. Why are some of those here defending the Archbishops comments unable to do this without turning the topic to abortion in general?
Is it because the comments in question are simply indefensible?
It is clear to me as well that his position is that abortion would be withheld despite the fact the mother will die. Unbelievable.
Steve of Brisbane: Your position seems to be that obviously the Catholic hospitals have not being letting women die, otherwise we would have heard about it in the media.
But who would be to know if this had an/or was ocurring? The patients would be dead, so not them. I can’t quite see the doctor saying to the husband/family, “Well basically we could save her but I would have to abort the child and am morally opposed to it, so sorry she won’t make it. Let’s pray.” Usually the patient and family believe whatever the medical staff say so they would never know.
The fact remains the Archbishop has by his own words and actions made it perfectly clear where he stands.
He expects doctors to let women die, rather than doing what is necessary to save their patients – which I was under the understanding they were morally obliged to do.
It is also perfectly clear that the legislation only expects Catholic doctors (and nursing staff) to perform abortions in EMERGENCY situations to save life.
That the Archbishop has made the comments he has made are very worrying indeed and I would like to know what our politicians think.
Refusing to refer patients in non emergency situations is childish, and (one would think) against the ethics of the AMA – So what is Capolingua on about?
Personally I think the Govt (fed and state) should stop funding them until they get their priorities right. And if they can’t put the responsiblities of their chosen profession before their beliefs then perhaps yes, they should get out of medicine. Or at least any branch that will cause them moral dilemma.
“the multi-billion dollar abortion industry”
Where can I get a cut of this juicy juicy action to sap the consequences of Tellurian bodily fluids? As we say in the High Council of Boskone, it’s a fin-fin solution.
Can any of you warm-blooded meatbags cut me in on a little arbitrage action here? Lehman Fanny Sacks no longer reply to my sphere of transmission beams. How can someone be in a meeting for 22 days?
Huh?
If the person baptised pulls through the emergency, is he/she unbaptised? Of course not! The baptism sticks even if the baptisee lives another 100 years. Consider the alternative.
Spotto stain of original sin!
Hocus pocus. Stain of original sin gone!
Uh oh. Stain of original sin back!. This looks like a job for a professional baptiser!
Don’t be silly C.L. You appear to adhere to a quibbling, equivocal definition of “entitled”.
As a matter of Christian faith and teaching you have got that one totally wrong C.L.
On the other hand no doubt you have got Catholic doctrine nailed down to a tee.
But the Catholic Church, as you have so ably demonstrated here, has long separated itself from the message of Christ and from Christ as our Saviour and the Son of God.
Do you really think that whatever came out of the Council of Trieste, mere mortals, can stand against the word of God as expressed in His Gospels?
Sadly I think you do. And that makes you an idolator.
You might try, for some excecise, to read the Gospels instead of arcane texts from various Catholic church councils which seem to be the sole source of your religious knowledge.
Then you might know something about the living and eternal foundation of the Faith of which you speak so authoritively but about which you seem to know nothing.
“Then you might know something about the living and eternal foundation of the Faith of which you speak so authoritively but about which you seem to know nothing.”
Not to mention whose tenets you routinely trample.
So CL – I’m ever so sorry my #112 was too low on substance for you. Perhaps you could answer my earlier question instead.
“why should a doctor’s personal beliefs prevent them doing what is best for the patient?”
Or hey, pick some three or four word phrase out of this comment, attack it with some glib bullshit and weasel out of making a coherent argument. Whatever floats your boat.
Not an Obstetrician but have a few thoughts.
Yes. Pre-eclampsia is a medical cause for emergency abortion. The blood pressure is a marker, it is the catastrophic, autoimmune multi-organ failure that scares us. Other causes are overwhelming sepsis, autoimmune disease, uncontrollable hemorrhage and malignancy requiring urgent chemotherapy. These situations are, even collectively, rare. Catholic hospitals usually transfer such people but, to my knowledge, not always.
In terms of conscience I have one word; nope. Medicine is an ethical profession, much in the same way Law is. Your personal morals don’t get a look in. If something is reasonably expected of a professional you can refuse to do it but it is unethical not to refer. If you can’t square that with your conscience, go get another job. In the same way that if you can’t stand the thought of defending criminals you should go into corporate law rather than deliberately sabotaging a defendant; a situation I feel to be analogous to not performing a termination and concealing other practitioners by a refusal to refer.
I personally feel one should have a door sign; “No terminations within”, while rural public centres should be required to provide terminations. Bendigo, for instance, does not.
“In terms of conscience I have one word; nope. Medicine is an ethical profession, much in the same way Law is. Your personal morals don’t get a look in. If something is reasonably expected of a professional you can refuse to do it but it is unethical not to refer. If you can’t square that with your conscience, go get another job. In the same way that if you can’t stand the thought of defending criminals you should go into corporate law rather than deliberately sabotaging a defendant; a situation I feel to be analogous to not performing a termination and concealing other practitioners by a refusal to refer.”
Word up Dr. S
Its good when questions are asked.
Read the proposed law, read the churches catechism, and then ask medical practitioner / nurses of differing opinions. If we accept that Catholic hospitals do not perform abortions you might be interested that they do conduct life saving ‘procedures’ when the woman’s life is in danger(with the exception of suicide as its indirect at least in a physical sense and ‘treatable’ on a psychological sense)
There is no excuse ignorance of some people making judgments is astounding given how readily available the facts are available. You’d swear that medical professionals in Catholic hospitals haven’t already dealt with the moral v.s medical question. They understand that abortions are not permitted in Catholic hospitals but on other matters such as the morning after pill, referrals etc., those caught between a rock & a hard place stand aside when their conscience restricts them and ensure the patient benefits from alternative opinion and advice. People wouldn’t work with them if the hindered proper medical attention and they would most likely be reported and struck off. Catholic hospitals do not provide the so called “family planning” and you’d be bloody stupid if you didn’t know that in the first instance. It would be little different that going to a vet for medical treatment.
This statement of yours might have some relevance if the law applied to pregnant women who are actually seeking an abortion per se. It actually applies to pregnant women who want to have that pregnancy continue and who have developed severe medical complications that mean that the pregnancy is going to end in one of only two ways: either with the mother’s death or with an abortion.
These desperately ill women and their partners would have no idea that an abortion is what would save their lives unless someone in the hospital tells them so. So, amongst medical staff who are adamantly anti-abortion, just how likely do you think it is that they actually inform the pregnant patient that this would be her only chance to survive? The status quo that the Archbishop’s statements clearly implies that he wishes to see is that women in these situations are not even told that abortion is an option to save their lives, to protect them from the temptation of what he sees as the wrong choice.
If all that people are being told is that “there are severe problems, and we’re doing what we can” before a young mother tragically dies in pregnancy, then the surviving partner would have no knowledge that an abortion could have saved her life, probably to try again for another child when she had recovered from the trauma of this pregnancy, and certainly to continue being a mother to any children she already had.
The continued misrepresentation of these tragic pregnancy complications as if the women involved just have a whim one day to ask for an abortion because she feels like one disgusts me.
You people have to understand that the Catholic church has a set of priorities. Yes miserable sex lives are very high on the list. As we all know only a loving God would make us all such horny monkeys and then prevent us from having some of the best fun ever. It’s because He loves us. But the Catholics will never opt out of the health system because of an even higher priority. The highest one of all…
.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
.
I opted out of the Church at age 12 by refusing Confirmation. Lots of my relatives are still in. Many think abortion’s wrong. But they do not advocate making it illegal. Personal choice. Caeser/God and all that.
.
George Pell should just come out of the closet, put on some glitter short-shorts, drop E and go to a dance party. Find the man of his dreams.
.
Well maybe not the shorts.
…the women involved just have a whim one day to ask for an abortion because she feels like one disgusts me.
.
Yes. After all having an abortion is heaps of fun.
Nanuestalker – you wrote, among other things
“There is no excuse ignorance of some people making judgments is astounding given how readily available the facts are available. You’d swear that medical professionals in Catholic hospitals haven’t already dealt with the moral v.s medical question. They understand that abortions are not permitted in Catholic hospitals but on other matters such as the morning after pill, referrals etc., those caught between a rock & a hard place stand aside when their conscience restricts them and ensure the patient benefits from alternative opinion and advice.”
I would contrast this with the quote above –
“Even providing a referral is a co-operation in evil, and that impacts very strongly on us as Catholics”
The Archbishop opposes referral and opposes the kind of consultation that leads to a referral. That some doctors defy the Archbishop in practice does not mean the position taken is consistent with ethical practice.
Dr S.
Where? The proposed law is clear, if you do not do as the law & rely on conscience, you are at peril. Keep in mind, the legislators WILL VOTE ON CONSCIENCE, it will not be party lines.
More to the point have you ever been in that situation? I speak from experience.
Nanuestalker – Scroll up to the original post. The quote is from the Archbishop and is the point of this discussion.
Dr S -
I know where the quote comes from. I guess I suggesting that you’ve got yourself lost in an Age report & Lauredhel’s inaccurate summary of the Catholic churches position.
The Catholic ethos that permeates though these hospitals does not oppose or prevent people acting according to their own conscience. They simply do not as Catholic institutions perform abortions nor do they promote abortions. If you consider the many Catholic Medical Schools & Hospitals throughout the world, the physicians cannot be said to be lacking because of the local bishops.
[Curiously science has been on of the biggest influences on the Catholic position. During Medivial times it was not not abortion but contraception in the first 1-2 months because under Aristotle's biological theories it hadn't come to be. As science changed, so did Canon law.]
hmmm… Medieval
”Catholic hospitals cannot be part of any abortion. That has to be respected in the community. Even providing a referral is a co-operation in evil, and that impacts very strongly on us as Catholics,”
This is not ambiguous in any way. The instruction is to not refer. That the Catholic hospital system ignores the Archbishop is unsurprising; everyone I know working in the there is Jewish, for a start. However, this is an explicit statement that puts the moral in conflict with the ethical. I can see no other reading.
The Catholic hospital system may allow unfettered conscience. I, on the other hand, feel that ethical professionalism is essentially amoral.
Is the Catholic church’s position on genetic engineering and manipulation in conflict with the Story of Adam & Eve, after all Eve was made from Adam’s rib.
“The Catholic ethos that permeates though these hospitals does not oppose or prevent people acting according to their own conscience.”
Nanuestalker, this is incorrect. I lost a job with an independent business simply leasing premises from a Catholic hospital because I refused to sign the lease clause that would restrict my practice to Catholic medicine only, no emergency contraception, no counselling on contraception, etc. This issue went right up to the CEO, and it was non-negotiable.
There were media reports all over the place when it came to light that Catholic hospitals banned their staff from referring raped women to rape crisis centres.
Unless what you mean by “does not prevent staff acting according to their conscience” is “They could always just quit”, you are just, plain, wrong.
Lauredhel-
Sorry you lost your job, but the lessor was within its rights to have particular clauses, I need to see the lease or contract to properly answer. They’d have a similar clause in relation to not operating a brothel.
“Catholic hospitals banned their staff from referring raped women to rape crisis centres.”
The policy of non referral is to distinguish from what may be done as an agent of the Catholic hospital and what would be done independently. The story is a Its a media beat up.
Seriously, do people need to be told that certain procedures & counseling aren’t available in Catholic hospitals? The reality is that certain procedures are definitely a no go area but the rest is dealt without problem. [My sister when working in a Catholic Hospital in Ireland once witnessed a nun (who was a nurse) discreetly leave beside a young patient the yellow pages open at certain pages and walk off as if nothing had taken place]
Nanuestalker -Your argument appears to be that the opinions of the church are irrelevant as everyone ignores them anyway. I think immediate confession is in order.
“Nanuestalker, this is incorrect. I lost a job with an independent business simply leasing premises from a Catholic hospital because I refused to sign the lease clause that would restrict my practice to Catholic medicine only, no emergency contraception, no counselling on contraception, etc. This issue went right up to the CEO, and it was non-negotiable.”
Another thing that really grates me about religion. They can do whatever they like contrary to our laws (dicrimination, sex abuse and now apparently killing for conscience), while being protected under our law.
What a sick joke.
Nanuestalker: “The Catholic ethos that permeates though these hospitals does not oppose or prevent people acting according to their own conscience. They simply do not as Catholic institutions perform abortions nor do they promote abortions.”
But this is the point. The new law will remove the stupidity that allows that Catholic church and moralistic staff to impose their ideology in the situation where a patients life is dependant on the termination of her pregnancy. It will also force them to basically follow the stated ethic of the AMA, that is to refer a patient when they are unwilling/unable for whatever reason to treat the patient in a non emergency situation.
That you are some others here are so stridently opposed speaks volumes in my view, and does not reassure me in regards to your ‘Catholic ethos’ arguement.
I am not sympathetic to the idea that the church allows doctors to conscientiously let a patient die to preserve the doctors moral integrity.
Which is what you are supporting, and arguing for.
Meanwhile, US archbishop Raymond L. Burke has denounced the Democrats as the party of death after Sheryl Crow performed at their convention. Sheryl Crow is pro-choice, pro-embryonic stem cell research, and does fundraising gigs for Catholic children’s hospitals – obviously a very wicked woman.
Kat -
“the church allows doctors to conscientiously let a patient die to preserve the doctors moral integrity”
Have you being paying attention, that’s the lie used to sell these draconian laws.
Catholic hospitals do not perform abortions because they’re Catholic. They do however conduct life saving procedures when medical opinion not religious opinion dictates when the woman’s life is in danger. Such action is permitted under Canon law.
Dr S [@#147] -
Perhaps, but what I’m trying to convey is that the Catholic Institution is one thing, they individual another. How individuals behave might be in line with the church or not. I’m sure you can got to any hospital and find a physician will not perform or promote abortions and that might be in contrast to the hospital policy.
I went to a Catholic school, sex education was one thing & the churches catechism another, everything was openly debated. The churches position was clearly stated, but where their was conflict we were told to follow our own consciences.That didn’t mean that the church wouldn’t continue to try and convince us that their way was the correct way.
It should be obvious that you don’t go to a Catholic Hospital for advice on abortions.
Paul -
That Archbishop is always doing that crap. He continuously issues ‘canonical notifications’ evoking Canon Law 915. He’s off his head, a complete fanatic.
Yes wonderful thing the protestant reformation wasn’t it?
“Yes wonderful thing the protestant reformation wasn’t it?”
Believe it or not I’m an anticlericalist Adrien
. I just don’t partake in Catholic bashing, as its mostly unfounded. The Catholic church gets a lot of flak because its so active in society. The negative just gets all the attention albeit deserving attention. What would happen if the Catholic church pulled out of schools & hospitals & charities? A bishop suggests that they’d close down maternity wards and some have the audacity to say they can’t. Do they want their cake & to eat it too?
I hate when I habitually mess up that expression…
Do they want to eat their cake & have it too?
Stalker – If ye dinnae bash the Church ye’re neither an anticleric nor a real Cath’lic.
.
.
The proddies were batshit lunatics most of ‘em. But once they did their thing the Church no longer had monopoly on thought. So they had to persuade as opposed to tie you to a stake and set you on fire. We owe democracy and modern plurality to a bunch of theocratic eschatalogical loony-tunes. Funny old world innit?
.
And yeah the Church does do a lot of good shit and doesn’t get much credit.
.
I have confidence that the Church will eventually enter the 21st century. Sometime around 2182.
“Sometime around 2182″…you’re dreaming, its still trying to get of the dark ages!
It’s hardly surprising to learn that you think Catholic “bashing” is unfounded Nanuestalker. Here on this thread you’ve failed spectacularly to acknowledge one very clear example of very clear and well-delimited criticism.
So clear they said it twice!
What would that be FDB?
The Catholic church, Catholic Health Australia & the Australian Medical Association object to s.8 of the Abortion Law Reform Bill as currently drafted, so what criticism am I missing? Would it be that the Catholic church is Catholic?
The Catholic church addresses health care from the perspective that human life is sacred, and that life begins at conception.
What we are dealing with is the cuckoo-parasitism of those who believe that hospitals that are owned & operated by the Catholic church must abandon their Catholic ethos. You are well within your rights to disagree with the tenets of the Catholic church, if its something you can’t live with, get off your arse and build and operate your own ideal hospital.
Which would be fine if the Catholic church were not receiving public money. Perhaps the Catholic church should ‘get of its arse’ and set up a hospital system that doesn’t rely on public funds if it not prepared to follow public policy.
Simple really Nanuwahtever. Hopefully you can follow it.
Adrian -
That is an absolute strawman, if you can show where an allocation of public funds for the purposes of providing abortions has been in effect stolen by the Catholic church I’d love to see it. The Catholic hospitals provide certain medical services to the public at the expense of the public purse, abortion is not one of them, so your tax dollar isn’t being misappropriated.
Really pathetic argument Adrian.
I should point out to Adrian the rights & freedoms of self-determination, thought, conscience and religion etc are public policy, as is the right to be free from coercion. Unfortunately these rights are not enshrined in the Constitution, but maybe you should contact you local Members of Parliament and remind them of this particular public policy.
The Abortion Law Reform Bill is not public policy, nor is the removal of the right to conscientious objection by professional health practitioners.
the right to be free from coercion
That doesn’t seem to apply to the woman or her next of kin in this situation.
“the removal of the right to conscientious objection by professional health practitioners”
Like all rights, said right (to the extent that it exists) should carry with it one or more responsibilities. In this case, the responsibility to refer a patient to another doctor to perform whatever procedure raises the conscientious objection. How is it you’ve participated for as long as you have in this thread without this sinking in?
The archbishop has said that doctors in hospitals should be allowed to restrict a patient’s options to those the doctor is personally and morally comfortable with, rather than refer them to other doctors with a broader range of options. Here’s a straight question for you – and for the love of god give me a straight answer or just don’t respond – what do you think of that? Forget about abortion, emergency or otherwise, what do you think of the general principle that a doctor should be allowed to do that?
How so Helen?
I’m curious about what feminists who view abortion as a right, and anybody who’s somewhat militant in their opposition to Catholic doctrine in relation abortion, view of ‘female foeticide’ in the third world & developing countries.
FDB -
“The archbishop has said that doctors in hospitals should be allowed to restrict a patient’s options to those the doctor is personally and morally comfortable with, rather than refer them to other doctors with a broader range of options.”
Wrong! Read what he said, he didn’t say that.
Various hospitals provide different services/procedures, they don’t do everything. In essence, every patient’s options are restricted depending on the medical practice conducted by the individual or institution so that’s just a strawman argument. Catholic hospitals being Catholic institutions don’t do and can’t do abortions or referrals, they’re very clear about the fact that to do otherwise is contrary to Catholic doctrine. Other institutions do and they are available to patients. The bishop was specific in relation to Catholics, in that they shouldn’t be obligated by legislation to partake either directly or indirectly in abortions given Catholic doctrine.
Try asking an honest question, not one based on misinformation.
Nanuestalker: your comment 167 is getting awfully close to trolling. Please don’t do that.
Stalker – There’s a conflict between religious ethics and public policy here. Removing public funding from Catholic hospitals because they refuse to comply with public policy isn’t necessarily coercion. This is debatable of course. The ABC’s entanglements with John Howard are related. The question is to what extent are the provision of public funds a basis for allowing the government to compel organization to go against their conscience because of said allocation.
.
I don’t agree with the Church. And I think their position viz the sacredness of human life is a bit rich considering past events. It seems to be okay to burn or imprison individuals for pointing out that we go ’round the Sun and not the reverse for example. Helen’s got a point. I don’t believe that the Church does this in furtherance of protecting children but rather in maintaining the eroded order by which women are primarily a means of producing little Catholics.
.
Still I have to respect that many Catholics do sincerely believe abortion = murder. I’m related to many such – mostly women. The solution might be to not force Church hospitals to perform abortions (and have their funding amended accordingly) but to either inform women seeking abortions that they must go elsewhere.
.
The next question is of course: do they all have somewhere else to go?
.
Incidentally it’s worth remembering that 66% of conceptions do not result in a baby. God, it seems, aborts freely.
Robert #168 – No it’s not.
Sorry Robert, FDB’s snarkyness brings out the best in me . I just reacted to the way he asked me for a “straight” answer especially given the question wasn’t straight. I’ve been straight with my answers and endeavored to be as clear/unambiguous as possible. It was just a minor shot across the bow by me in response toa FDB’s signature cloaked ad hom’!
Adrien -
Public money is allocated according to the services/procedures provided. Adrian’s bare assertion about public funding is easily discredited. Catholic hospitals don’t receive funding for abortion/family planning clinics. The Catholic Church doesn’t rely on public funding, however the health care system is reliant on the Catholic Church in many respects because of the 15 or so hospitals it has in Victoria alone. I disagree with but understand why those who oppose the Catholic Church’s abortion policy are directing their anger/frustration at the Catholic Church. They should address such anger to Government that has failed to build secular hospitals. The health care system relying on Catholic hospitals is not the Catholic churches fault. The various religious institutions were building hospitals & schools long before the Government and now the Government wants to compulsory acquire the right from the various religious institutions to dictate their own doctrine and in this case the right to conscientious objection.
____________________
Like I’ve said on other blogs, I don’t believe that abortion should be illegal, I believe that legalisation ensures it can be regulated. That being said criticism of the Catholic Church for its right to independent doctrine is wrong, whereas criticism of its failure to adhere to that doctrine is fair enough. You are entitled to your beliefs but the Catholic Church isn’t conducting a catholic breeding program, it following it doctrine in relation to the sacredness of human life. Will the Catholic church fall on it own sword again like it did when it covered up abuse, I don’t know but given the size of the church you have to expect the actions of individuals will at times be contrary to its catechism.
_________________________
Currently there isn’t a shortage of Abortion/Family planning clinics, so yes people do have alternatives. They may have to travel but I don’t think we yet need Abortion/Family Planning Convenience Clinics. If we do the State should build/operate them and not expect or force Catholic Church to.
And finally, health practitioners will inform you if you must go elsewhere as they already do in Catholic hospitals. In actually fact the receptionist will likely inform you in the first instance. Obviously, a formal professional referral to a Abortion/Family planning clinic on a Catholic Hospital letterhead is out of the question. I suspect that Helen believes that Catholic hospitals will coerce a woman into not having an abortion, by what means they will do that I’m not sure.
Many women in developing countries are lacking in ob-gyn care and advice and proper contraception (and some are even dead) because the Bush Administration’s Global Gag rule which prohibits organisations supplying family planning services there if they so much as mention “foeticide”.
Nanuestalker, you’re talking about voluntary abortions. The topic Hart and everyone else is discussing is emergency abortions.
You have ignored every attempt to get you to focus on the issue of what Hart thinks should happen to a patient in a Catholic hospital who needs her pregnancy terminated to stay alive.
Are you doing this on purpose to be annoying or are you just incapable of understanding the difference between voluntary and emergency abortions?
Mrs Doyle that’s a distortion and over-long to boot. It should read:
The Bush administration of course is very concerned about the killing of the unborn in Africa. Nay! It’s outraged. It believes that the only people who have the right to kill Africans are the security service personelle of resource concerns they own large stakes in.
.
What people don’t understand is that if we want to alleviate third world poverty it is essential that we crush all dissent, subvert any attempt to provide them with an education or health service and of course pinch all their resources.
.
Have a nice day.
Reagan’s Global Gag rule applies to US Government Aid which is taxpayer money. If you don’t mind or wish your money goes to them its unfortunate that NGO’s don’t receive it, but some people do, clearly enough to lobby Government so that it was one of Bush’s platforms during his election campaign to reinstate Reagan’s Gag Rule that was rescinded by Clinton, so the the voters had an opportunity to decide the issue.
Stalker #172 – Good post, well said.
.
Are you serious however? The Catholic Church, you seem to imply, receives no Medicare rebate? The Church passing on money? Doesn’t sound like the Church
that fucked my headI know and love..
It may interest you to know that there are various instances of women seeking abortions from family planning clinics that’ve been infiltrated by fundamentalists. The ‘counselling’ they receive comes in the form of a combined brainwash/guilt trip: Hello dear I understand you’re stressed and afraid and even very upset but still how can you do this you murderous bitch! Lovely.
.
So the elsewhere referral doesn’t always go smoothly. But that’s fundamentalists. The Catholic Church hasn;t done anything that bad since the Magdalene bunch closed shop.
.
Laura’s point is apt. If a woman requires a termination to save her life she can’t just travel on down the road. It becomes a choice between lives. Someone who’s already breathing and someone who, to all functional purposes, isn’t even someone yet. If the Church refuses to grant this on the basis of ‘right to life’ they are effectively saying a woman is just a baby machine.
.
But yes – you’re right. The government has no business telling people what they should believe. Neither does the Church in my opinion but that’s another discussion.
Adrien & Laura – I did address this when I first posted @ 134
Read the proposed law, read the churches catechism, and then ask medical practitioner / nurses of differing opinions. If we accept that Catholic hospitals do not perform abortions you might be interested that they do conduct life saving ‘procedures’ when the woman’s life is in danger(with the exception of suicide as its indirect at least in a physical sense and ‘treatable’ on a psychological sense)
You should also note what Hart said, its relevance is as I’ve said before specifically Catholic.
You should also note that “abortion” is badly defined under the the Bill as if it is just a medical procedure that does not tax one’s conscience. Emergency is not defined at all leaving it open to poor interpretation, such as a pregnant woman being suicidal.
So Laura, the answer is yes, I’m quite capable of understanding the difference a clinical emergency and a voluntary abortion. Is your question just an attempt to undermine my argument against the proposed legislation?
And yes Adrien, Catholic hospitals receive funding / medicare payments, but not for abortions as they don’t do them.
They do however receive funding for their performance of obstetric care, and an emergency termination of pregnancy when a lifethreatening complication of pregnancy develops is part of standard obstetric care.
Dr Eamonn Mathieson, an obstetric anaesthetist and a member of the Doctors in Conscience Against Abortion Bill group writes a good article on the ABC website. Some passionate & interesting comments from both sides of the debate follows it.
Proposed abortion laws threaten doctors’ rights
The links to UK & Canadian articles are interesting as well.
Sorry Nanuestalker, I am just not convinced I have all that many rights. Ethical standards are not entirely set by doctors and nor should they be. They are certainly not set by individual doctors’ conscience. My moral stance determines whether I can accept acting as a doctor, it does not determine how I should act once I become one. That is, rightly or wrongly, for others to decide. That is what professional ethics means.
Now, who or what should decide those ethical standards? That is very slippery but the first and foremost arbiter of a minimal standard is the law. Frankly, most ethical principles are adjudicated by the civil law in Australia. The general medical council performs an equivalent role in the UK. Is this the only source of my ethics? No, of course not, but if you can’t manage law-abiding conduct in your chosen role then it probably isn’t the right one for you.
Amoral? Yup.
The article you link is a little naughty, talking about the act he says…
“It defines abortion as “intentionally causing the termination of a woman’s pregnancy”. This is incorrect. This would include inducing a live birth prematurely for serious health risks and the management of ectopic pregnancies. This flawed definition enables the creation of the clinical fiction of “emergency abortions”. And it is this misleading category that gives the apparent justification to the coercion of health professionals to participate in abortions.”
He objects to the term “emergency abortion” on the grounds of a sophistry of intent. Delivering a briefly live 20 weeker because mum is dying of autoimmune encephalopathy is an abortion to most eyes. Sure, delivering a 24 weeker is not necessarily so but not all fatal complications of pregnancy occur in the last trimester.
The doctors involved are well within their rights to argue their case. If the law is passed, however, they will be expected to comply as a condition of keeping their license, as will I be if a euthanasia bill is passed despite my (irreligious) objections.
How infuriating.
I give up.
Sorry FDB, I hope that wasn’t at me…
Sorry FDB: I was referring to @167, not 168.
No no, just infuriated at Nanobrain’s persistent unwillingness to discuss the actual issue of the thread and throw red herrings around. And his then accusing me of arguing in bad faith.
Robert -
Let’s be consistent shall we. #186 is trolling. Personally I can handle it, but I assume my response will be put in the sin-bin
In any case, I think this thread is done.