Ethical & Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services...

[hotgurl]

I can: R U Pregnut?

 

thanks for the clarification, Alpha. But I'll stick to my guns by saying (1) the Church's reputation precedes herself and (2) her bishops need to learn to dumb down the writing to a level where it's easily understood!

 

that said, I'm wondering that for someone who is of a like mind, this wouldn't be a good match because the decision to deal with issues of abortion and contraceptives is off their shoulders now?

 

last summer, Our Sunday Visitor did a story about Catholic hospitals providing abortion services – ten were in Texas, and two of those were in my diocese – and speculated that as more physicians were hired that had no idea that there was such a thing as an ethical directive that a Catholic hospital operates under, it was entirely possible that these procedures were taking place. Other thing was that some of these hospitals (like ours here) were merging with secular outfits and the Catholic standards are getting watered down as a result. Rubia's comments about seeing the nuns in full garb only reminds me that while they might be visible, they're sometimes the ONLY Catholic thing about the place, becuase it sure isn't evident is policy or practice!

 

If a catholic hospital merges with a secular one wouldn't they than have to provide abortions BC etc...?

 

Since the previous secular hospital did.

 

Also does not providing BC violate the Hippocratic Oath by putting the doctor's religion above the paients needs?

[alphamale]

Also does not providing BC violate the Hippocratic Oath by putting the doctor's religion above the paients needs?

thats a good question, i don't know

[quankanne]

If a catholic hospital merges with a secular one wouldn't they than have to provide abortions BC etc...?

 

I'll need to verify this, but if a secular entity seeks to merge with a religious one, then they have to hammer out what stays and what goes ... being a Catholic hospital, those administrators would pretty much insist on upholding ERDs if the secular outfit wants to be affiliated with them. Otherwise, the deal's out the door.

 

Also does not providing BC violate the Hippocratic Oath by putting the doctor's religion above the patients needs?

 

birth control pills are not a life or death necessity for a bulk of women, even though they're not just used to prevent contraception. However, an abortion is a direct violation of the Hippocratic Oath because it's endangering life that has already been identified as such through the medical field with procedures that help an unborn infant in the womb.

[hotgurl]

If a catholic hospital merges with a secular one wouldn't they than have to provide abortions BC etc...?

 

I'll need to verify this, but if a secular entity seeks to merge with a religious one, then they have to hammer out what stays and what goes ... being a Catholic hospital, those administrators would pretty much insist on upholding ERDs if the secular outfit wants to be affiliated with them. Otherwise, the deal's out the door.

 

Also does not providing BC violate the Hippocratic Oath by putting the doctor's religion above the patients needs?

 

birth control pills are not a life or death necessity for a bulk of women, even though they're not just used to prevent contraception. However, an abortion is a direct violation of the Hippocratic Oath because it's endangering life that has already been identified as such through the medical field with procedures that help an unborn infant in the womb.

 

 

I was addressing this part of the oath.

 

I WILL FOLLOW that method of treatment which according to my ability and judgment, I consider for the benefit of my patient and abstain from whatever is harmful or mischievous.

 

 

BC is not just used to prevent pregnancy. It is used to treat various illness. for instance the only reason I do not have migraines daily is because I am on the pill.

 

I just bothers me that a doctor wouldn't even consider the treatment due to religious beliefs.

[quankanne]

hopefully, said doctor would be upfront about why he/she doesn't prescribe BCPs so that a patient could seek out a second opinion.

 

have been on them for cysts, and have had to have a letter from my OB-GYN every year to present to the insurance company why he prescribed them and why my Catholic-sponsored insurance provider needed to pay for long-term supplies. However, that's insurance, not a hospital – different breeds altogether.

[curiousnycgirl]

 

A female who has been raped should be able to defend herself against a potential conception from the sexual assault. If, after appropriate testing, there is no evidence that conception has occurred already, she may be treated with medications that would prevent ovulation, sperm capacitation, or fertilization. It is not permissible, however, to initiate or to recommend treatments that have as their purpose or direct effect the removal, destruction, or interference with the implantation of a fertilized ovum."

 

 

 

 

I see this as an out, if handled in a discreet manner.

 

 

So do I - doesn't the morning after pill prevent implantation? Seems the quote above allows that.

[Scottdmw]

You don't have to agree with the church's position on this, but if you want to understand it consider this. Would you believe it acceptable for a woman who had been raped and actually given birth to a child to kill the child since it was a product of rape? I don't think you would, because nearly everyone in our society accepts that born children are people and deserve protection themselves, no matter what their parents may have done. For that matter, in general, nearly everyone would say that it's not okay to kill any born person because they may be a burden on other people or because their existence make someone else's life difficult. We all accept that in these cases the evil of killing the person outweighs the good it does to relieve the other person of a burden.

 

Now, understand that the church believes that the fertillized ovum, unlikely as it may seem to you, has an immortal soul created by God and is every bit as much of a person as any born child or adult for that matter. The church teaches that it is this immortal soul that gives a person value in themselves rather than how old, developed, intelligent, able to produce wealth, or whatever they are. Maybe you can see that if that was true, it would be wrong to kill the child, product of rape or not.

 

If you want to disagree with the Catholic position I really think you have to disagree with the premise, the idea that the fertilized ovum is a full person. That's where the argument really is. If a person is atheist I can easily see how they do this. If however a person believes they themselves have an immortal soul and hopes to experience an afterlife, it's hard for me to see how such a person can be sure when that soul arrives. Is it really so likely it arrives just as a baby leaves his/her mother’s body?

 

For the believer you end up with a difficult question of when the soul arrives. Consider also that all of us when trying to answer this question have a big potential conflict of interests. We have a lot to gain so to speak by deciding that the fertillized ovum is not a person, or by deciding even that a 6 month fetus is not a person and can’t possibly have an immortal soul. Coming to that decision “frees” us to have sex when we want and not worry about the consequences if birth control fails. It frees us to “help” a raped woman who gets pregnant do the thing that seems like the easy solution. Do we normally trust people to make a good decision when they have such a strong conflict of interests, especially when the question is difficult?

 

Scott

[caramel c]

Scott, that was very well said. I have never read anywhere this view put into words so beautifully. I think you covered everything. Not everyone will agree, but hopefully some will now understand.

[FleshNBones]

 

Fourth Edition, Section 36, page 21

 

"Compassionate and understading care should be given to a person who is the victim of sexual assault. Health care providers should cooperate with law enforcement officials and offer the person psychological and spiritual support as well as accurate medical information. A female who has been raped should be able to defend herself against a potential conception from the sexual assault. If, after appropriate testing, there is no evidence that conception has occurred already, she may be treated with medications that would prevent ovulation, sperm capacitation, or fertilization. It is not permissible, however, to initiate or to recommend treatments that have as their purpose or direct effect the removal, destruction, or interference with the implantation of a fertilized ovum."

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/psrh/full/3711005.pdf

In both surveys, 1% indicated that they had been victims of rape, and less than half a percent said they became pregnant as a result of incest.

A 1.5% proportion should not have trouble finding a willing abortion doctor.

It is a violation of the Hippocratic Oath if you ask me.

[FleshNBones]

we're trying to get my brother on the physicians staff at this catholic hospital in chicago and there are all these catholic policies and procedures that have to be agreed to before they'll let him on.

 

he wouldn't be involved in ob/gyn but its interesting to note, thats all

They were just closing the legal loopholes.

[FleshNBones]

I'm curious how quickly, right down to the minute. Say a rape victim comes in, who was just raped in the past 12 - 24 hours. How would the hospital 100% know whether there's conception or not? With this in mind, how would they "cleanse" her, for prevention of conception?

 

I see this as an out, if handled in a discreet manner.

There is no loophole or cheating with pregnancy.

 

If this is a rape victim, the doctors would need to document as much as possible. I know there is doctor patient confidentiality, but I don't think it would apply in the case of rape. I wouldn't rule out the possibility that the girl was exaggerating or fudging the story a bit.

 

This scenario is very rare (<1%) so I wouldn't blow it out of proportion.

[NoIDidn't]

Now, understand that the church believes that the fertillized ovum, unlikely as it may seem to you, has an immortal soul created by God and is every bit as much of a person as any born child or adult for that matter.

 

 

I am a Christian and don't believe that a fertilized ovum is a person or has a soul. It is only one cell. Sure, its living, just as the two cells that created it are living. My skin cells are living too, but they don't have their own soul.

 

It is one thing, to me, to defend an actual fetus, but a fertilized ovum? A fertilized ovum, a blastocyst, isn't a pregnancy. A pregnancy is more than just a blastocyst floating around in a woman's uterus. Women frequently have fertilized eggs and never even know it when they don't take and are flushed out by their monthly cycle.

 

I know that some are going to argue in abstract spiritual-speak, but its not going to change the fact that a blastocyst isn't a pregnancy until it implants and "takes". The blastocyst releases hormones to help make it implant, but it hasn't established a pregnancy until it implants and sustains itself. And those hormones can be picked up on specialized tests before implantation and even a few days into a menstrual cycle, but it is nothing more than a "chemical" pregnancy - not one that will have a birth at the end unless it implants. There is no changing the fact that having a blastocyst is not equivalent to pregnant until implantation. And before even trying to make that argument that it is, consider in vitro fertilization.

 

Doctors fertilize several eggs with sperm in a laboratory setting, in a petri dish, basically. So is the petri dish pregnant? And what about the woman that has that "pregnancy" implanted into her uterus, only for it not to "take"? She was never pregnant, and yet there was an ovum. There are usually several.

 

As a Christian, I get all the "I formed you" and "knew you" in the womb arguments - heck, He knew us even before then is my personal belief. I am of the firm belief that He that calls the end at the beginning already knows which cells (blastocysts) to give souls to.

[Scottdmw]

I am a Christian and don't believe that a fertilized ovum is a person or has a soul. It is only one cell. Sure, its living, just as the two cells that created it are living. My skin cells are living too, but they don't have their own soul.

 

It is one thing, to me, to defend an actual fetus, but a fertilized ovum? A fertilized ovum, a blastocyst, isn't a pregnancy. A pregnancy is more than just a blastocyst floating around in a woman's uterus. Women frequently have fertilized eggs and never even know it when they don't take and are flushed out by their monthly cycle.

 

I know that some are going to argue in abstract spiritual-speak, but its not going to change the fact that a blastocyst isn't a pregnancy until it implants and "takes". The blastocyst releases hormones to help make it implant, but it hasn't established a pregnancy until it implants and sustains itself. And those hormones can be picked up on specialized tests before implantation and even a few days into a menstrual cycle, but it is nothing more than a "chemical" pregnancy - not one that will have a birth at the end unless it implants. There is no changing the fact that having a blastocyst is not equivalent to pregnant until implantation. And before even trying to make that argument that it is, consider in vitro fertilization.

 

Doctors fertilize several eggs with sperm in a laboratory setting, in a petri dish, basically. So is the petri dish pregnant? And what about the woman that has that "pregnancy" implanted into her uterus, only for it not to "take"? She was never pregnant, and yet there was an ovum. There are usually several.

 

As a Christian, I get all the "I formed you" and "knew you" in the womb arguments - heck, He knew us even before then is my personal belief. I am of the firm belief that He that calls the end at the beginning already knows which cells (blastocysts) to give souls to.

 

 

 

So it sounds like you believe that the soul enters at some point after implantation. The real issue though is, how can you be sure? You look at a fertilized ovum that is not implanted and say to yourself “this can't possibly have a soul, it's not even implanted yet. There is no pregnancy.” Are you sure though that you see things the same way that God does, that you understand His design? Is God unable to put a soul into something until it's implanted, or until it has a certain number of cells, or until pregnancy hormones exist?

 

You mentioned in vitro. Do you believe that during in vitro, you have a soulless blastocyte that acquires a soul when the doctor puts it into the womb and it implants? What if the doctor waited another week and then implanted it later (assuming technology so allows), would the soul enter a week later than normal, or a month? What if advanced technology enabled us to raise an embryo completely outside the womb all the way to maturity, would it never get a soul? Is the embryo soulless when it has 999,999 cells and then acquires a soul when it reaches 1,000,000? These are the kinds of problems you run into when you start talking about the soul entering later than conception, any other point seems like it is arbitrary.

 

You also mentioned the possibility that God knows which blastocytes to give souls to, that He only put souls into the ones that will implant and develop. Again, how can you be sure? It’s not like the Bible says this. If this was true, couldn't someone else argue that if they kill an infant that was already born, surely God would've known they were going to do that and not put a soul into that one? Miscarriages occur at all stages of pregnancy, and infants die too. Does that mean they didn't have souls?

 

Like I said, this is inherently a difficult intellectual question, and it is extremely tangled up with politics and practical considerations. It is very difficult for our human intuition to look at a single cell and think that that is a person with a soul the same as us, because it looks so different. I can see someone being unsure of the answer. What I have trouble understanding is how someone who believes in a soul can say they are sure there is no soul at conception, how they can be sure enough that they’re willing to kill something that might have a soul that they themselves may have to one day meet in the next life. It seems like when you're dealing with the possibility of killing a full human being in God's eyes, you really have to be 100% sure. Are you?

 

Scott

[NoIDidn't]

I don't see where my certainty makes a difference if I truly believe that God is all-knowing. A *person* that hasn't been born yet is still free to be someone else, in my view. Basically, no, I don't believe that I have to be 100% sure.

 

The problem I have with the view you present is that it is contradicting the very meat of our belief system. This view seems to be that a "soul" can be killed. That terminating a pregnancy actually terminates a "soul". It doesn't. Souls and spirits can't be killed according to the Bible, and it makes the argument for saving an unborn soul moot, IMO.

 

The human body is a shell for the soul and spirit. Killing a body, releases the soul and spirit that were in it. The death of a blastocyst is the death of the start of that "shell", IMO. I don't claim to know when a soul or spirit is imparted to that shell, but I am inclined to believe that it doesn't happen until that first breath is taken. Just like Adam's body was likely lifeless until God breathed into it. But this is just my view. Like you said, we can't know for sure. Only God really knows that.

 

Don't assume that I am making a case for terminating pregnancies at any point, because I don't believe that at all. All preterm babies are different. Some can survive with some technological support, so they are still breathing and living. Some aren't strong enough to live even with support - but I certainly believe that they had a spirit and a soul when they were born. I think that there is a reason that the Bible says that "man became a living soul" AFTER that first breath. Maybe that first breath was man's actual "birth".

 

 

I see that you were talking about killing a baby after it is born. I think that's a moot point too. A person that is born has become a 'living soul' and this conversation ceases to philosophical about when life begins when you can see it and hold it. God was against the killing of babies in ritual sacrifices to benefit the parents. Killing a born baby in any fashion is obviously wrong. So while I see the point you are trying to make, it doesn't apply IMO because I am not making a case for after the child is born - whether it be premature or otherwise. We were talking about the claim that a blastocyst is somehow a person. Its a huge leap from that to an actually fully formed baby that's born full term or part of the term. The operative word being "born".

 

Interesting conversation, Scott. Thanks. All this because of the Catholic hospitals policies. Which we have no choice but to respect because there are other hospitals that will provide the services that a Catholic hospital won't.

[FleshNBones]

We were talking about the claim that a blastocyst is somehow a person. Its a huge leap from that to an actually fully formed baby that's born full term or part of the term. The operative word being "born".

It is not a huge leap.

 

I do have a problem with the idea of "personhood" being something that can be gained or lost. Who decides when that occurs, and by what authority? What should we do with retarded, disfigured, or crippled people in general? When does survival of the fittest give way to human mercy?

I do wonder what lunatic we will put into that position of power.

[Scottdmw]

I don't see where my certainty makes a difference if I truly believe that God is all-knowing. A *person* that hasn't been born yet is still free to be someone else, in my view. Basically, no, I don't believe that I have to be 100% sure.

 

The problem I have with the view you present is that it is contradicting the very meat of our belief system. This view seems to be that a "soul" can be killed. That terminating a pregnancy actually terminates a "soul". It doesn't. Souls and spirits can't be killed according to the Bible, and it makes the argument for saving an unborn soul moot, IMO.

 

The human body is a shell for the soul and spirit. Killing a body, releases the soul and spirit that were in it. The death of a blastocyst is the death of the start of that "shell", IMO. I don't claim to know when a soul or spirit is imparted to that shell, but I am inclined to believe that it doesn't happen until that first breath is taken. Just like Adam's body was likely lifeless until God breathed into it. But this is just my view. Like you said, we can't know for sure. Only God really knows that.

 

 

It sounds like you're not really for terminating pregnancies, which is my main concern here. But, just to finish up the discussion:

 

I'm not saying the soul can be killed. I'm saying that I believe that a soul enters at the moment of conception. If you kill the developing body after that, even when it’s just an unimplanted blastocyte, the same thing happens that would happen if you killed an adult human being, the body dies and the soul goes to heaven. I would hate to go to heaven one day and have to meet this person who was killed only a day after being conceived, and have to explain to them why I did that or allowed it to be done. I wouldn't want to have to tell that person, “I wasn't sure you were really there yet, I thought the soul enters later”.

 

Scott

[NoIDidn't]

It sounds like you're not really for terminating pregnancies, which is my main concern here. But, just to finish up the discussion:

 

I'm not saying the soul can be killed. I'm saying that I believe that a soul enters at the moment of conception. If you kill the developing body after that, even when it’s just an unimplanted blastocyte, the same thing happens that would happen if you killed an adult human being, the body dies and the soul goes to heaven. I would hate to go to heaven one day and have to meet this person who was killed only a day after being conceived, and have to explain to them why I did that or allowed it to be done. I wouldn't want to have to tell that person, “I wasn't sure you were really there yet, I thought the soul enters later”.

 

Scott

 

But that's just it, I don't believe that the soul goes to heaven until it has actually been born - breathed.

 

And regarding your last "conversation". I really doubt anyone in heaven is really going to be worried about asking how they got there, considering the alternative. LOL.

 

Interesting conversation, maybe we should have started our own thread.

[NoIDidn't]

It is not a huge leap.

 

I do have a problem with the idea of "personhood" being something that can be gained or lost. Who decides when that occurs, and by what authority? What should we do with retarded, disfigured, or crippled people in general? When does survival of the fittest give way to human mercy?

I do wonder what lunatic we will put into that position of power.

 

What does a blastocyst have in common with retarded, disfigured or crippled people? Nothing. Because it hasn't been born yet. It hasn't even been fully formed yet for us to know if it could turn out to be one of those people.

 

That is why it is a leap.

 

I'm interested, though, is knowing why you have a problem with "personhood" being something that can be gained or lost. Can you explain more than just with people with disabilities?

[FleshNBones]

What does a blastocyst have in common with retarded, disfigured or crippled people? Nothing. Because it hasn't been born yet. It hasn't even been fully formed yet for us to know if it could turn out to be one of those people.

 

That is why it is a leap.

 

I'm interested, though, is knowing why you have a problem with "personhood" being something that can be gained or lost. Can you explain more than just with people with disabilities?

Valuing and devaluing people always seems to lead to abuse. When people are considered less than human (say 3/5 of a man) they can be subjected to a lot. There have been forced sterilizations of mentally ill people. People have been killed because they weren't considered a benefit to society.

 

What do they have in common? They are human beings. Being at a different stage in the life cycle should not make you less human. What a blastocyst lacks is political power.

You can argue that they are funny looking, but that won't sway me.

[Scottdmw]

But that's just it, I don't believe that the soul goes to heaven until it has actually been born - breathed.

 

And regarding your last "conversation". I really doubt anyone in heaven is really going to be worried about asking how they got there, considering the alternative. LOL.

 

Interesting conversation, maybe we should have started our own thread.

 

So I've been thinking about your line of thought that a soul enters a person upon taking their first breath. It sounds like you base that on Genesis-- the creation of Adam.

 

Have you considered Luke 1 41? “When Elizabeth heard Mary's greeting, the baby leaped in her womb”

 

Why would the baby leap if both it and the one in Mary's womb were just hunks of flesh, if they require breath before gaining a soul? It doesn't make any sense unless the baby in Mary's womb was already Jesus, infused with the Spirit of God, and a special particular person, nor does it make sense unless the baby in Elizabeth's womb is also already a person capable of recognizing God. How could a soulless material creature recognize God?

 

I guess you could argue that these were both one-of-a-kind cases and this is not usually how things happen, but it seems like an awfully big stretch to me, and one could more easily say Adam was the one of a kind case where he received his soul with breath.

 

Scott

[dunstable]

 

Fourth Edition, Section 36, page 21

 

"Compassionate and understading care should be given to a person who is the victim of sexual assault. Health care providers should cooperate with law enforcement officials and offer the person psychological and spiritual support as well as accurate medical information. A female who has been raped should be able to defend herself against a potential conception from the sexual assault. If, after appropriate testing, there is no evidence that conception has occurred already, she may be treated with medications that would prevent ovulation, sperm capacitation, or fertilization. It is not permissible, however, to initiate or to recommend treatments that have as their purpose or direct effect the removal, destruction, or interference with the implantation of a fertilized ovum."

So if conception has not occurred, it's OK to take medication to prevent conception. But if conception has occurred, it is wrong to take medication to destroy tne foetus. This is so arbitrary. Clearly, if the foetus is just a few cells, there is no cruelty involved in destroying it. Many foetuses don't make it full term anyway. I do have a personal revulsion against destroying an advanced foetus but I do think there is a grey area around the the time of conception where it really makes no difference. This looks like a case of the church not wanting to get into grey areas and so drawing a line on the most conservative side possible. My feeling is what cowards the church leaders are in taking this position and refusing to recognize the real life ethical dilemmas that people face. One would have hoped for something more inspired, or at least I would.

[FleshNBones]

So if conception has not occurred, it's OK to take medication to prevent conception. But if conception has occurred, it is wrong to take medication to destroy tne foetus. This is so arbitrary. Clearly, if the foetus is just a few cells, there is no cruelty involved in destroying it. Many foetuses don't make it full term anyway.

Not all children reach adulthood so would it be okay to destroy one?

I do have a personal revulsion against destroying an advanced foetus but I do think there is a grey area around the the time of conception where it really makes no difference. This looks like a case of the church not wanting to get into grey areas and so drawing a line on the most conservative side possible.

Convenience and emotion set aside, they are trying to err on the side of life.

They are trying to treat human life with the utmost dignity and respect.

My feeling is what cowards the church leaders are in taking this position and refusing to recognize the real life ethical dilemmas that people face. One would have hoped for something more inspired, or at least I would.

Nobody said life was easy. Suffering and sacrifice are a big part of christian teachings.

[dunstable]

Not all children reach adulthood so would it be okay to destroy one?

No, it would not. But that does not make it heinous to destroy a foetus when it consists of just two cells. My point was that there is a grey area where abortion may be the lesser evil of two bad options.

Convenience and emotion set aside, they are trying to err on the side of life.

That's the easy option for them isn't it? Because the churchmen don't have to deal with the devastation an unexpected child can bring to a young girl's life. They haven't tried to balance the good and bad involved in an abortion -- they have just gone for the easy option of saying all abortion is bad.

Nobody said life was easy. Suffering and sacrifice are a big part of christian teachings.

Suffering and sacrifice are good when adopted voluntarily by people as part of their growth process, but I don't think it should be forced on young women by celibate male church officials.

[FleshNBones]

No, it would not. But that does not make it heinous to destroy a foetus when it consists of just two cells. My point was that there is a grey area where abortion may be the lesser evil of two bad options.

So there are situations were destroying a human life would be preferrable. I get the impression that it is justifiable when a woman is inconvenienced, or feels sad.

That's the easy option for them isn't it? Because the churchmen don't have to deal with the devastation an unexpected child can bring to a young girl's life. They haven't tried to balance the good and bad involved in an abortion -- they have just gone for the easy option of saying all abortion is bad.

They have dedicated their lives to God's service so it is their responsibility to work against abortion.

Suffering and sacrifice are good when adopted voluntarily by people as part of their growth process, but I don't think it should be forced on young women by celibate male church officials.

They are doing it in God's service.

We also believe life is a gift from God.