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.