|
Post by cindy on Jun 15, 2010 18:11:57 GMT -5
I took the liberty of posting Cindy's blog post on statistics on my FB page and garnered the following: spot.colorado.edu/~heathwoo/Phil160,Fall02/thomson.htm Also, the Catholic moral philosophical doctrine of Double Effect was raised: "If you're faced with a situation where you have 2 and only two options (so you HAVE to do one or the other), and both action brings about some kind of evil, you are morally justified to do the one that brings about the least amount of evil JUST SO LONG as you don't intend to bring about that evil, but actually intend for some other good. The evil that you bring about is an unintended byproduct. So in the ectopic pregnancy case, you try to move the embryo into the uterus, intending to bring about a normal pregnancy, knowing that the embryo is likely to die. You don't intend the death, but you foresee it as a likely consequence of bringing about a greater good--a healthy, normal pregnancy where mom and baby can flourish." Thank you Cherylannhanna! The way these stats have been manipulated is just ridiculous, almost so much so that even if you know about these things, it is so odd that you just stop and say "I know there's something wrong with this, but I don't know what it is." Manipulative groups use emotion and confusion from ambiguity to suspend your critical thought processes, and it is difficult for nearly anyone but a statistician to spot. It's easier to trust a doctor (or your needs sharing ministry) to think it through for you. I mentioned the Doctrine of Double Effect in a post last week but haven't written about it yet. For anyone interested in more, I really like this little description of it as it applies to tubal pregnancy from a physician that I found online (the post not the physician! ;D). gerardnadal.com/2010/05/26/2743/Thomas Aquinas was one who really expanded upon the developing concept. Maybe that's why Phillips throws away natural law as a concept in terms of ectopic pregnancy, too? (a statement in his posts on the topic in June of 2008) It might be too Catholic for this strain of the Reformed Protestant.
|
|
autumn
Junior Member
Posts: 56
|
Post by autumn on Jun 15, 2010 19:00:05 GMT -5
I'm so BLOWN away and angry!
Whatever happened to the knowledge that ectopic pregnancies are not viable, the very meaning of ectopic??
Why should any woman be condemned to die if she hasn't won a lottery with 1:60 million odds of delivering a live baby??
What ever happened to the rabbinical teaching that if it was to come down to choosing the mother or the baby that one should always save the mother who could then go on to have more babies as opposed to saving the baby who might, or might not live to create children?
While I am at it whatever happened to basic compassion and humanity?
I'll hush now because I'm enraged and I'll only go on to insult someone if I don't quit while I'm ahead!
|
|
|
Post by nikita on Jun 15, 2010 19:30:53 GMT -5
Thanks Cindy for the link to Dr Nadal's site. It's so wonderful to read something calm on this subject. There's a place for the sturm and drang, but sometimes it's just good to have a place to read and/or participate in a calmer discussion of fact and theology in a reasonable fashion. Of course I'm Catholic so the underlying theology is both familiar and not a problem for me. Those very active in the pro-life movement are used to - as a general rule anyway - working with Catholics on this issue so it might not freak them out as much as it would were some other subject at issue. But I liked it, anyway.
|
|
|
Post by jemand on Jun 15, 2010 19:51:14 GMT -5
The doctrine of double effect may be all well and good as a personal ethic-- but it does mean that some of the easiest and most effective remedies are sometimes passed over for more invasive and damaging procedures.
i.e., a quick and effective abortion pill that could flush the fetus out of the fallopian tube in some cases is not allowed, instead, a procedure to cut out the entire fallopian tube and permanently reduce the woman's fertility and all the concordant risks of surgery is required, because in that case the 'primary purpose is the removal of the tube, the death of the fetus is a secondary unintended effect.'
that is all fine and good as a personal ethic, I *don't care.*
But most (maybe all??) catholic hospitals force that ethic on all of their patients, no matter their personal beliefs. The simple and safer option is just *not available.*
And sure, maybe it's contraindicated in a few cases, but that decision should be up to the *patient* with expert medical advice-- not medical advice that hides safe and effective possibilities from the patient.
It makes me very angry. Like if Jehovah's witnesses ran 20% of the nation's hospitals, and not only did they elect to avoid blood transfusion, but they refused it to every single patient, including up to not even mentioning it as a possible medically preferred technique. Sure, many blood substitutes are very effective today, and low-blood-loss surgeries are quite good these days, but the decision should be up to the patient!!
*Any* increased risk is unethical if it is imposed on a patient without their ability to consent to that external ethic which prefers the more dangerous course for their personal health care.
|
|
|
Post by cherylannhannah on Jun 15, 2010 20:23:18 GMT -5
The doctrine of double effect may be all well and good as a personal ethic-- but it does mean that some of the easiest and most effective remedies are sometimes passed over for more invasive and damaging procedures. i.e., a quick and effective abortion pill that could flush the fetus out of the fallopian tube in some cases is not allowed, instead, a procedure to cut out the entire fallopian tube and permanently reduce the woman's fertility and all the concordant risks of surgery is required, because in that case the 'primary purpose is the removal of the tube, the death of the fetus is a secondary unintended effect.' that is all fine and good as a personal ethic, I *don't care.* But most (maybe all??) catholic hospitals force that ethic on all of their patients, no matter their personal beliefs. The simple and safer option is just *not available.* Here's the thing though, ethics are not merely personal; they can also be corporate. Philosopher Cornelius Van Til said that there is no such things as "just a fact." All facts in the universe are interpreted facts and they are interpreted according to the worldview that one holds either as an individual or corporately as an institution. Therefore it is not unreasonable to expect a Roman Catholic institution, or a Jehovah Witness institution for that matter, to act corporately in accordance with their worldview when deciding how to deal with a particular circumstance. If you don't want Roman Catholic based ethics as applied to medical care, then avoid their hospitals.
|
|
maicde
Junior Member
Posts: 69
|
Post by maicde on Jun 15, 2010 20:27:50 GMT -5
First off, EXCELLENT follow-up article, Cynthia! Secondly, flys, frogs, cabbage patch dolls, sin visiting children to the forth generation (ONLY 4th generation? How merciful of them to stop at four), Haiti selling their souls to the Devil and thus the reason for the devestation (Pat Robertson) - and I begin to wonder if these people are (a) sane (b) why they are allowed to roam about in free society poisoning this country with their delusions and hate. I am going to forward this article to a few people I know who are willing to listen. Thank you again.
|
|
|
Post by jemand on Jun 15, 2010 20:29:27 GMT -5
The doctrine of double effect may be all well and good as a personal ethic-- but it does mean that some of the easiest and most effective remedies are sometimes passed over for more invasive and damaging procedures. i.e., a quick and effective abortion pill that could flush the fetus out of the fallopian tube in some cases is not allowed, instead, a procedure to cut out the entire fallopian tube and permanently reduce the woman's fertility and all the concordant risks of surgery is required, because in that case the 'primary purpose is the removal of the tube, the death of the fetus is a secondary unintended effect.' that is all fine and good as a personal ethic, I *don't care.* But most (maybe all??) catholic hospitals force that ethic on all of their patients, no matter their personal beliefs. The simple and safer option is just *not available.* Here's the thing though, ethics are not merely personal; they can also be corporate. Philosopher Cornelius Van Til said that there is no such things as "just a fact." All facts in the universe are interpreted facts and they are interpreted according to the worldview that one holds either as an individual or corporately as an institution. Therefore it is not unreasonable to expect a Roman Catholic institution, or a Jehovah Witness institution for that matter, to act corporately in accordance with their worldview when deciding how to deal with a particular circumstance. If you don't want Roman Catholic based ethics as applied to medical care, then avoid their hospitals. yes, but it should be WIDELY advertised that this is the fact. If it was, these corporate ethics would never have come to dominate about 20% of the market (or whatever substantial subset it is)-- including almost all of the hospitals serving particular groups or regions, or getting as much governmental support as they do. Our nation has corporate ethics as well-- and one of them should be not encouraging or supporting groups which do not serve the entire population but only a subset, and only with inferior care. That can be done *entirely* privately. With no encouragements or breaks. We would NEVER stand for the Jehovah's witnesses to run that many hospitals under their ethics-- as long as we knew about it, and I think if more people knew about the fact that legal end of life documents could be completely thrown out the window of a catholic hospital-- ignored completely, that the range of care for women is limited and inferior unless you are following a particular personal ethic, these hospitals would NEVER have gotten the following or popularity that they enjoy today. It is not the ethic itself I have a problem with, but what I see as a sort of subversive way of promoting it, which leaves others with little choice but to fall in line. This kind of coercive force I believe is wrong. Once again, I have *nothing* against the personal catholic ethic, or even that it goes to a corporate structure, but I am *very* troubled when there are situations where people in a given area have no other choices-- a monopoly situation as it were, and the fact that they are limited isn't even obvious or well known. I'm also troubled when all emergency care requiring immediate work and when a person is in no state to be safely moved isn't available. And I'm also troubled when a hospital *won't even refer* or even admit the *existence* of other options or other care centers which can do procedures they don't wish to do. Those things I think any corporation should do, regardless of it's own corporate ethics. Otherwise, it is behaving coercively and abusively.
|
|
maicde
Junior Member
Posts: 69
|
Post by maicde on Jun 15, 2010 20:33:29 GMT -5
I'm so BLOWN away and angry! Whatever happened to the knowledge that ectopic pregnancies are not viable, the very meaning of ectopic?? Why should any woman be condemned to die if she hasn't won a lottery with 1:60 million odds of delivering a live baby?? What ever happened to the rabbinical teaching that if it was to come down to choosing the mother or the baby that one should always save the mother who could then go on to have more babies as opposed to saving the baby who might, or might not live to create children? While I am at it whatever happened to basic compassion and humanity? I'll hush now because I'm enraged and I'll only go on to insult someone if I don't quit while I'm ahead! I share your outrage 100%!! I can't believe that there is one woman in this country who would go along with this absolute madness and insanity! What woman would subject herself to this lunacy and/or her daughters, nieces, or other loved females? Is this insane or what? Truly, women need to use their "kia" (their voice (in Korean) and SHOUT OUT for this madness to stop). Of course, these patriarchs are working 24/7 to diminish the voice of women because they know darn well that if women would actually use their brains AND voice they would get their butts kicked from here to kingdom come. I literally cannot believe that this lunacy is being touted as protocol for ectopic pregnancies. Absolutely and utterly unbelievable!
|
|
|
Post by cherylannhannah on Jun 15, 2010 21:31:03 GMT -5
yes, but it should be WIDELY advertised that this is the fact. If it was, these corporate ethics would never have come to dominate about 20% of the market (or whatever substantial subset it is)-- including almost all of the hospitals serving particular groups or regions, or getting as much governmental support as they do. Our nation has corporate ethics as well-- and one of them should be not encouraging or supporting groups which do not serve the entire population but only a subset, and only with inferior care. Most people are not self aware of either their own or others worldview presuppositons. When you live in a nation that allows for a multiplicity of worldviews within its borders and the freedom to live them out to a large degree, then you just have to expect that this sort of thing is going to occur. There is no perfect answer that fits every situation and ethics can often be very convoluted. Perhaps much of our frustration comes from the fact that the results we get don't match the expectations we have of "the way things oughta be."
|
|
|
Post by jemand on Jun 15, 2010 22:19:20 GMT -5
yes, but it should be WIDELY advertised that this is the fact. If it was, these corporate ethics would never have come to dominate about 20% of the market (or whatever substantial subset it is)-- including almost all of the hospitals serving particular groups or regions, or getting as much governmental support as they do. Our nation has corporate ethics as well-- and one of them should be not encouraging or supporting groups which do not serve the entire population but only a subset, and only with inferior care. Most people are not self aware of either their own or others worldview presuppositons. When you live in a nation that allows for a multiplicity of worldviews within its borders and the freedom to live them out to a large degree, then you just have to expect that this sort of thing is going to occur. There is no perfect answer that fits every situation and ethics can often be very convoluted. Perhaps much of our frustration comes from the fact that the results we get don't match the expectations we have of "the way things oughta be." Perhaps so, my frustrations rise from the fact that a group that advertises as a *hospital,* a place to heal the body, to fix PHYSICAL bodies up as much as possible, advertises itself as that, but then promotes care that increases scarring, increases side effects, ignores patient choice, etc, for SPIRITUAL reasons. For that, you go to a church. For physical things, you go to a hospital. I don't mind that there are people who view spiritual things as important, I DO mind that they don't make it clear to the community and the world at large that care for physical ailments will always play second fiddle to interpretations of spiritual maladies-- to the detriment of physical outcomes, and clearly point people to other sources of care if necessary. How are people SUPPOSED to become self aware when such things are never talked about, not freely divulged to patients and the community at large, as important things people need to know before they elect to go there? Where it becomes a revenue generating stream as well-- and getting patients there becomes more important than telling them they might be better served elsewhere. It took me a lot of digging and paying attention to specific blogs watching these sorts of issues figure this out, why? Why *should* an organization which limits physical care but advertises itself as an organization to heal the physical body retreat behind "well, most people don't know their own world views anyway, so no big deal they don't know how ours will affect their prognosis." I dunno... we are all justifiably horrified at Samaritan ministries. How do those of you who are Catholic (and view the hierarchy's pronouncements as authoritative) reconcile that horror with what's happening in your hospitals? Your institutions are doing pretty much the same thing, more negative outcomes than the alternatives, simply to a more mild degree, with exactly the same outcome to the fetus and more risk to the mother. Wouldn't you be upset if, due to hidden marketing, Samaritan managed to eat up a very large portion of the insurance market, to the extent that some patients literally had no choice of another provider? In fact, it is perhaps worse to me than Samaritan ministries. It is the nature of insurance that you can buy it under less duress. If I am wheeled unconscious into a Catholic hospital with severe HELLP in some hypothetical future requiring immediate abortion, I could DIE due to these policies. And I did not even voluntarily sign up for the service or even remotely share the ethical world view!
|
|
|
Post by cherylannhannah on Jun 15, 2010 23:04:50 GMT -5
[quote Perhaps so, my frustrations rise from the fact that a group that advertises as a *hospital,* a place to heal the body, to fix PHYSICAL bodies up as much as possible, advertises itself as that, but then promotes care that increases scarring, increases side effects, ignores patient choice, etc, for SPIRITUAL reasons. I could be wrong on this because it's been a while since I lived in the US, but I think there is more to it than worldview presuppositions behind the kind of care you may receive at any one hospital. I live in Canada, the land of socialized medicine, and I remember being horrified when travelling in the States by stories of people being turned away from hospitals for treatment for things like a ruptured appendix because of not having health insurance. And correct me if I'm wrong, but don't the HMO's also have a lot to say about what kind of treatment you may or may not receive? Then there is the whole standard of care thing to deal with. I worked as a doula and was part of some childbirth professional discussion boards and know from my participation there that SOC would often limit legitimate choice of legitimate options on how to give birth. All this is to say that the problem is multi-faceted and can't be laid to rest at the door of just one cause as far as I can see.
|
|
|
Post by dangermom on Jun 15, 2010 23:34:43 GMT -5
If you don't want Roman Catholic based ethics as applied to medical care, then avoid their hospitals. That's not always so easy. In my home town, there was one hospital, and it was Catholic. It was a fine hospital, but if you didn't want to go to a Catholic one you'd have a good 40-minute drive ahead of you. Likewise, in the small city I live in now, there's one hospital and the next one is a 30-minute drive up the ridge. Hospitals aren't like grocery stores, it isn't always easy to just "avoid those hospitals."
|
|
|
Post by humbletigger on Jun 16, 2010 7:24:24 GMT -5
@ Cherylhannah,
I am certain that no emergency room is allowed to turn away a person with a life-threatening medical condition! They are required to treat first, see the billing specialist later.
I have worked with many poor and it is my understanding that billing must work with you (i.e. if all you can afford is to pay your debt $10 a week, they must accept that).
Hospitals, doctors, etc. do not have to treat non-life threatening illnesses, but then you shouldn't be in the ER for that. Many people who can't afford regular health care do go to the ER for health care though, because they will be seen and assessed. No one seeking emergency care can be turned away.
Watch Life in the ER on Discovery Medical channel. No one seeking emergency care is turned away. Homeless guys will complain of chest pains just so they can get a bed and a meal. The doctors must take every patient serious.
I have no idea where that ridiculous story of ruptured appendix came from, but there is no basis for that in fact.
|
|
|
Post by chbernat on Jun 16, 2010 7:29:05 GMT -5
Well, this topic has me angry. Angry enough to actually get off of my butt and do something!
Hey Vyckie and Under Much Grace~ Hope you're ready to talk!
I just contacted NPR radio b/c they did a story on Samaritan Ministries in March of this year. I'll keep you posted! Sent them the link to NLQ articles as well.
And my job for the rest of the day?
To contact every news station and Christian broadcast that I can think of until someone listens and reports this story!!!
|
|
|
Post by humbletigger on Jun 16, 2010 7:29:54 GMT -5
Sorry for the off-topic post, but that really needed to be cleared up. Is it true that Catholic hospitals won't even tell you that you would have other options that they don't offer if you sought care elsewhere? Are there any locations that a Catholic hospital would be your only option? And the biggie no one here can answer if they wanted to: why is a potential life more important than an actual life?!?!?! And another, why is the pro-life crowd so doctrine over person? My Catholic bff and I have always had the same beliefs, but in the end she votes pro-choice and I voted "pro"-life. I am voting pro-choice from now on, because it is plain that "pro-life" doesn't mean politically what it means to me. I have been so duped for so long. All that damning of feminism from the pulpit, plus my own goodwill, kept me from seeing the kind of viscous power plays the religious right was intent on making our country live under. Grrrr. I am not their patsy anymore.
|
|
|
Post by humbletigger on Jun 16, 2010 7:31:42 GMT -5
oh, cross-posted with the hospital location post above. So now I know.
|
|
|
Post by humbletigger on Jun 16, 2010 7:43:53 GMT -5
In the case of an early tubal pregnancy treated with methotrexate, none of the conditions of DE applies. I part with the pro-life movement on point one. A fetus developing in a fallopian tube had no chance at life. The death of the baby is a foregone conclusion. The only real choice appears to be if the mother is going to die with her baby, be spared by methotrexate and possible be able to conceive again, or undergo surgery and permanent impaired fertility. In all cases the baby dies. The only difference is what happens to the mother. Personally, I'd go for surgery, because I wouldn't want to risk another ectopic pregnancy in a scarred fallopian tube. But then I'm not QF! If QF was logical, then they would choose methotrexate because it would least impair the woman's fertility. But it's not really about bringing babies into the world, is it? It's really about devaluing and using women.
|
|
|
Post by dangermom on Jun 16, 2010 8:16:36 GMT -5
@ Cherylhannah, I am certain that no emergency room is allowed to turn away a person with a life-threatening medical condition! They are required to treat first, see the billing specialist later. This is correct. The common practice of claiming chest pains and so on by people who want food and a place to sleep, or by people hoping to get drugs, is a large part of why hospital care has become so staggeringly expensive--lots of people don't pay, and the costs have to be absorbed by the rest of us.
|
|
|
Post by jemand on Jun 16, 2010 8:41:10 GMT -5
Sorry for the off-topic post, but that really needed to be cleared up. Is it true that Catholic hospitals won't even tell you that you would have other options that they don't offer if you sought care elsewhere? Are there any locations that a Catholic hospital would be your only option? And the biggie no one here can answer if they wanted to: why is a potential life more important than an actual life?!?!?! And another, why is the pro-life crowd so doctrine over person? My Catholic bff and I have always had the same beliefs, but in the end she votes pro-choice and I voted "pro"-life. I am voting pro-choice from now on, because it is plain that "pro-life" doesn't mean politically what it means to me. I have been so duped for so long. All that damning of feminism from the pulpit, plus my own goodwill, kept me from seeing the kind of viscous power plays the religious right was intent on making our country live under. Grrrr. I am not their patsy anymore. Look at the text of these conscience laws: www.consciencelaws.org/Conscience-Laws-USA/Conscience-Laws-USA.htmlNote especially the section that protects the "right" to refuse to refer for abortion services "For ANY Reason." That would, of course, include rape victims and plan B, women with ectopic pregnancies and methotrexate, etc. That is not just providing or doing them, but simply referring-- informing the patient of the option and giving them the name of a different hospital. There is also a section protecting the right not to counsel on any treatment the provider believes contradicts the provider's conscience. In Oklahoma the law is even crazier, www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=17&articleid=20100428_17_0_hrimgs790797"The law went into effect a day earlier, when the state Senate overrode Gov. Brad Henry's veto of that measure and one that prohibits pregnant women from seeking damages if physicians withhold information or provide inaccurate information about their pregnancy." also here: www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/04/28/carr.abortion.oklahoma/index.htmlDoctors can just out and out LIE to patients if they think the truth might prompt them to seek an abortion... So yes, some hospitals do behave like that, and their behavior is protected to the fullest extent of the law. Given these secular laws, and Catholic religious law, wouldn't the astonishing thing be if a Catholic hospital DIDN'T occasionally mislead patients?
|
|
|
Post by km on Jun 16, 2010 11:03:17 GMT -5
I wouldn't be so sure. While fanatical believers often don't "cheat", there's a lot of hypocrisy in the upper echelons of many "conservative" organizations, and often they feel exempt from the rules they make for themselves. A lot of wannabe libertarians accept federal aid under some bogus excuse or another, either out of simple, evil-minded hypocrisy, sometimes out of sheer cluelessness (kinda like the "keep government out of medicare" silliness, or vets railing against government-sponsored benefits) I was thinking this same thing.
|
|
|
Post by km on Jun 16, 2010 11:08:32 GMT -5
Cindy: Thanks so much for taking the time to answer all of our questions in such detail. This is all very helpful, and your knowledge/research is impressive.
|
|
|
Post by hopewell on Jun 16, 2010 11:29:48 GMT -5
You know, I am absolutely pro-life. But this ectopic pregnancy position makes no sense whatsoever to me. Almost no chance whatsoever of a viable pregnancy and almost a certain chance of infertility or death of the mother. This should not be that difficult a choice to make. This is not really an elective procedure.
Amen! I, too, am puzzled by this and by recurring themes from my very pro-feminist education in the late 70s and early 80s. Women ARE only valued in QF for their procreative ability and life span. I remember in watching "Return of the Daughters" my question was "Where are the wives" Burned-out, angry, shell shocked, or so sick with pregnancy number umpteen that they are of little or no use to their husbands as a "helpmeet." AND who would be under those conditions?? Intentionally lowering a woman's lifespan is stupid whether it's thru alcohol, crack cocain, prostitution or CONTINUAL PREGNANCY!
The idea of an ectopic pregnancy resulting in a live, functional baby is ludicrous! What next? I realize they usually see caesarians as "unnecessary," but will they also become forbidden?
Someone needs to get a law suit filed calling it practicing medicine without a license. [Of course, someone needs to shut down the Gothard "medical" programs, too]
This really leaves me angry beyond belief! Don't even get me started on the parents who were too self-centered and clueless to realize they were beating their kid to death.....
|
|
jtn
New Member
Posts: 11
|
Post by jtn on Jun 16, 2010 11:34:24 GMT -5
Hospitals have to treat you if you arrive with a true emergency regardless if you have insurance or not. It was part of an 1986 omnibus bill which went down to the states largely as an unfunded mandate (this is because medicaid doesn't have to absorb the cost if someone shows up and is treated without insurance). Here's the info on the legislation en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Medical_Treatment_and_Active_Labor_Act
|
|
|
Post by cherylannhannah on Jun 16, 2010 11:54:17 GMT -5
FWIW, I was travelling in the Southern States in the early 80's when I was told stories by people there about being turned away from hospitals. If things have changed since then, I am glad to hear of it.
You know, I can understand the rage some of you feel about a Catholic hospital refusing to do certain procedures. But do we really want the alternative? Freedom of conscience is a very important liberty, not to be given up lightly by individuals or institutions. While I might not agree with the restrictions that Seventh Day Adventists, or vegans or Roman Catholics have in their lives, I respect their right to make those choices, especially when alternatives to those choices exist.
Life is messy. There is no magic silver bullet that covers everyone. Freedom means that mistakes can and will be made. But the alternative is far far worse, if you ask me.
|
|
|
Post by nikita on Jun 16, 2010 12:16:13 GMT -5
Hospitals have to treat you enough to save your life, no more than that and some don't even do that. The law is one thing, practice is quite another. Private hospitals send people away all the time unless it is an absolute emergency (gun shot or bleeding or not breathing, etc). Heart attack? Ship 'em to county. Brain injury? Stabilize long enough to ship 'em to county. In LA people were being dumped on skid row in wheel chairs by hospitals who didn't want to treat them even though they required inpatient care. And that was both private and county hospital caught doing that.
Enacting laws doesn't make it so in the real world. This also would depend, I imagine, on where you live and what kinds of hospitals you have close by. If you don't have a county facility within driving distance then a private hospital might keep you longer and treat you for more things. And not all hospitals are of equal quality. Physicans and nurses were killing patients with such regularity at MLK/Drew Medical Center in Los Angeles that the county kept desperately trying to shut it down. It was a dangerous place to be a patient. But the community fought to keep it open due to it's location and heritage so it still operates. I would try really hard to stay out of it, though.[ Edited: they shut it down a couple of months after I left LA. It is no longer a full service hospital. Thank the Lord. ]
There's a lot of bad medicine being practiced out there folks. In my career I've seen the world's finest physicians and nurses but I've also seen some things that would make your skin crawl. And patients themselves don't always know how to distinguish between the two. It is very much a 'buyer beware' situation out there.
As for the ectopic pregnancy treatment and DE, I think it works fine until you get to the end of the reasoning. Dr Nadal, for instance, takes it one step too far down that road. Arguing that surgically removing the fallopian tube is a permitted emergent treatment but administering medication that would remove the implant without surgery would be a chemical abortion is ridiculous. Both actions have the same immediate result. The only difference is the effect on the mother. Common sense and reason would permit one to choose the emergency treatment that causes the least amount of harm to both patients, mother and child. If the child cannot survive, then the mother's well-being should be given priority. To argue anything else in that specific situation is splitting hairs to such a fine degree that the entire question ceases to have any practical meaning. My old pastor used to call it a case of being 'so heavenly minded that you are no earthly good'.
Again, I am absolutely pro-life. But the position they are taking is not a pro-life position. At all.
|
|