# ACLU files suit against Catholic hospital for refual to perform



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

abortions. Liberals never stop. A similar suit has already been dismissed and this one obviously has no merit either. It is merely an attempt by the left to force their ideals on others. No hospital is forced to do any specific surgery for whatever reason, period. There is a large hospital not many miles from us that doesn't do many surgeries. You can't get open heart surgery there, for example, no matter how bad you need it. They will stabilize you best they can and send you somewhere else by ambulance or helicopter.

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article...ic-hospital-system-refusing-perform-abortions


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

I have to think about this a bit. I can see them refusing to do elective abortions. I do think it is a problem if it is medically needed and an emergency. I would think that any pregnant women should be informed that they won't do them before going into the hospital for any medical services.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Your title is a little misleading since it's not one hospital as implied:



> The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and its Michigan affiliate are once again suing one of the nation&#8217;s largest Catholic hospital systems for refusing to perform abortions.
> 
> Trinity Health Corporation requires the *86 hospitals it owns and operates in 21 states* to abide by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops&#8217; Ethical Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services.





> It accuses Trinity of "refusing to providce pregnant women suffering emergency medical conditions with abortions necessary to stabilize them" on at least five occasions..


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Your title is a little misleading since it's not one hospital as implied:


Doesn't matter how many. They are Catholic hospitals.

Quote:
It accuses Trinity of "refusing to providce pregnant women suffering emergency medical conditions with abortions necessary to stabilize them" on at least five occasions..



That is an opinion of those filing the suit. Was an immediate abortion really necessary to stabilize them? There are many ways to stabilize someone for many conditions. Did any of those women die before they got to another hospital to get the abortion? If not, they were not really immediately needed to stabilize them.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

This aclu carp has got to stop. They should just go home and hang their heads sin SHAME for what they are doing to this country. And more importantly to Private businesses.


----------



## BlackFeather (Jun 17, 2014)

poppy said:


> Doesn't matter how many. They are Catholic hospitals.


Agreed. Since it is run by a church they can do what they please. I was in Sister's hospital and they were a fine hospital, and since they were run by a church, it was charity and I never got a bill. So as I see it, as a charity run organization, they are free to make what ever rules they want.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

It shouldn't surprise anyone, that's what the ACLU does. It doesn't automatically mean that catholic hospitals are going to be forced to perform abortions. It means the ACLU found reason to question why they wouldn't stabilize multiple women.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> It shouldn't surprise anyone, that's what the ACLU does. It doesn't automatically mean that catholic hospitals are going to be forced to perform abortions. It means the ACLU found reason to question why they wouldn't stabilize multiple women.


Forcing the institution to spend millions defending the lawsuit goes beyond "found reason to question". Seems like they could have opened an investigation with the health boards who oversee licensing of their facilities if they just wanted it looked into. Filing a lawsuit, that's attempting to smack them for their beliefs.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

Irish Pixie said:


> It shouldn't surprise anyone, that's what the ACLU does. It doesn't automatically mean that catholic hospitals are going to be forced to perform abortions.* It means the ACLU found reason to question why they wouldn't stabilize multiple women.[*/QUOTE]
> 
> 
> No, it does not say the hospitals refused to stabilize them. It just means the hospitals did not stabilize them in the way the ACLU would have liked. If any of those women had died, it would have been mentioned in the suit. This is just the ACLU trying wildly to find a crack in the law to ultimately force them to perform abortions.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

poppy said:


> Irish Pixie said:
> 
> 
> > It shouldn't surprise anyone, that's what the ACLU does. It doesn't automatically mean that catholic hospitals are going to be forced to perform abortions.* It means the ACLU found reason to question why they wouldn't stabilize multiple women.[*/QUOTE]
> ...


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

The lawsuit is over medical situations where the hospitals refused to perform even in cases where it was arguably safer for the patient. And I'm betting that the Catholic hospitals are the only game in town, or the only game these particular women could use based on their insurance. 

You can talk about liberals all you want. Catholic hospitals and Christian based insurance is nothing more than a strategy used by one group of people to leverage their religious authority over the rest of us...through healthcare. It's probably one of the most despicable things taking place in this country, even if you eliminate the abortion issue from the conversation.

And to tell you the truth, it's why many people side with pro-choice even when they don't like abortion. They hate the authoritarian nature of religious folks worldwide even more. Mind your own soul. Mind your own business. And by the way? If they're going to be partially subsidized by medicare and medicaid, they need to follow the current law of the land. Otherwise....they can go bankrupt and defunct for all I care. Or put their money where their mouths are.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

wiscto said:


> The lawsuit is over medical situations where the hospitals refused to perform even in cases where it was arguably safer for the patient. And I'm betting that the Catholic hospitals are the only game in town, or the only game these particular women could use based on their insurance.
> 
> You can talk about liberals all you want. Catholic hospitals and Christian based insurance is nothing more than a strategy used by one group of people to leverage their religious authority over the rest of us...through healthcare. It's probably one of the most despicable things taking place in this country, even if you eliminate the abortion issue from the conversation.
> 
> And to tell you the truth, it's why many people side with pro-choice even when they don't like abortion. They hate the authoritarian nature of religious folks worldwide even more. Mind your own soul. Mind your own business. And by the way? If they're going to be partially subsidized by medicare and medicaid, they need to follow the current law of the land. Otherwise....they can go bankrupt and defunct for all I care. Or put their money where their mouths are.




There is nothing stopping you from opening up your own hospital next door to the Catholic hospitals. Well, at least nothing more than the "Progressive" authoritarian regulations that you would have to wade through to do everything from buy the land to getting the OK to build, to opening the doors, to .....well everything.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Farmerga said:


> There is nothing stopping you from opening up your own hospital next door to the Catholic hospitals. Well, at least nothing more than the "Progressive" authoritarian regulations that you would have to wade through to do everything from buy the land to getting the OK to build, to opening the doors, to .....well everything.


That post illustrated very well why that lawsuit is happening. Good job.


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

This lawsuit sucks. It reminds me of being in the same vein as refusing other business services because if your faith.

Aclu isn't dumb. Scotus and feds are backing changing things like this, and aclu gets lots of press over hot button issues.

Ticks me off.

They aren't providing some services because if faith. Oh well. They aren't banning others from providing it.

Our local hospital won't put on casts. So when my kid broke his arm, we took the xrays to the doctor and got it there. So what.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

wiscto said:


> The lawsuit is over medical situations where the hospitals refused to perform even in cases where it was arguably safer for the patient. And I'm betting that the Catholic hospitals are the only game in town, or the only game these particular women could use based on their insurance.
> 
> You can talk about liberals all you want. Catholic hospitals and Christian based insurance is nothing more than a strategy used by one group of people to leverage their religious authority over the rest of us...through healthcare. It's probably one of the most despicable things taking place in this country, even if you eliminate the abortion issue from the conversation.
> 
> And to tell you the truth, it's why many people side with pro-choice even when they don't like abortion. They hate the authoritarian nature of religious folks worldwide even more. Mind your own soul. Mind your own business. And by the way? If they're going to be partially subsidized by medicare and medicaid, they need to follow the current law of the land. Otherwise....they can go bankrupt and defunct for all I care. Or put their money where their mouths are.


Oh come on now. Those "despicable" Catholics, huh? Like those evil 'little sisters of the poor'? And Catholic charities handing out aid regardless of religion? The only "Christian" health insurance I have seen are discount plans and health care pools or co-ops. 

Think of all the thousands of people who have been treated at all those different hospitals and clinics, without checking their soul at the door, and have no complaints about their care. If these 5 women in the lawsuit were somehow harmed by lack of an abortion, seems like there would have been a personal injury suit filed, a complaint with the medical board, etc. 

I think ACLU is over-achieving here. They do that a lot.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

painterswife said:


> That post illustrated very well why that lawsuit is happening. Good job.


 Because Progressives have so screwed up the country that the only way left that they can get things done is to bully people into submission. The evidence would seem to support that, yes.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Farmerga said:


> There is nothing stopping you from opening up your own hospital next door to the Catholic hospitals. Well, at least nothing more than the "Progressive" authoritarian regulations that you would have to wade through to do everything from buy the land to getting the OK to build, to opening the doors, to .....well everything.


Yea there is actually. For one thing there are only so many paying customers in any particular area. It is incredibly difficult to just open a hospital and out compete with another one in a small area, sharing consumers until you knock them out. Particularly because you'd better get the right insurance deals... Think about it.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

MO_cows said:


> Oh come on now. Those "despicable" Catholics, huh? Like those evil 'little sisters of the poor'? And Catholic charities handing out aid regardless of religion?


Their goal is to monopolize care because they believe they are the only ones providing it the right way. They exist to provide care and leverage that care over those whose values do not line up with their own. And they aren't just handing out THEIR money, they hand out OUR money as well. Look into it.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

wiscto said:


> Yea there is actually. For one thing there are only so many paying customers in any particular area. It is incredibly difficult to just open a hospital and out compete with another one in a small area, sharing consumers until you knock them out. Particularly because you'd better get the right insurance deals... Think about it.


 
Do without insurance and concentrate on services that are not covered by insurance. Surely between that and donations from the pro-abortion crowd, there will be plenty of operating capital.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

We have a public hospital and a Catholic hospital, in my town. I wouldn't step foot in the public hospital unless I couldn't survive the trip to the Catholic one.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Farmerga said:


> Do without insurance and concentrate on services that are not covered by insurance. Surely between that and donations from the pro-abortion crowd, there will be plenty of operating capital.





Farmerga said:


> We have a public hospital and a Catholic hospital, in my town. I wouldn't step foot in the public hospital unless I couldn't survive the trip to the Catholic one.


1. I'm not pro-abortion, I'm anti people controlling everyone else' decisions based on propaganda and religion. And that includes the Catholic hospitals policies of refusing to allow peoples lives to end when they are miserable, ready, and asking to be allowed to pass. Nor will they tie a woman's tubes or allow the practice of any other kind of contraception; which is absolutely asinine in this age of worldwide overpopulation.

2. Maybe the "public" hospital sucks because they don't get these imaginary "pro-abortion" funds for their operating capital that you came up with, and on top of that they have to compete with a Catholic hospital that sucks down medicare and medicaid like it's a lifetime supply...and otherwise fill in gaps using donations from their congregation who support their religious mission to take authority over everyone's lives.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

poppy said:


> Doesn't matter how many. They are Catholic hospitals.
> 
> Quote:
> It accuses Trinity of "refusing to providce pregnant women suffering emergency medical conditions with abortions necessary to stabilize them" on at least five occasions..
> ...


It does matter "how many" when you try to portray it as one hospital, even to the point of giving your home town example.

I suspect those filing the suit know more about "what was needed" to keep from putting them at further risk.

Rather than getting all excited, why not just let the suit proceed, since you claim it has no merit anyway?

It's not costing you anything, and the hospitals don't even have to spend a fortune to fight it if it's clearly frivolous as you say.

They certainly have a legal department just for these things


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

What Muslim hospitals?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

painterswife said:


> Sort of like those trying to shut down Planned Parenthood?


Yes. Exactly like that. I wonder if they will see it?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Farmerga said:


> Do without insurance and concentrate on services that are not covered by insurance. Surely between that and donations from the pro-abortion crowd, there will be plenty of operating capital.


No one here has ever said they were "pro abortion" and you know it. Why use the term to slur those of us that are pro choice?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Originally Posted by Farmerga View Post
> Do without insurance and concentrate on services that are not covered by insurance. Surely between that and donations from the pro-abortion crowd, there will be plenty of operating capital.


Can you list those services a hospital would provide that aren't covered by insurance?


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

I love how the right pretends that the collateral elimination of contraceptive and STD care isn't a juicy bit of CONTROL they've always wanted to exert over everyone else because of that place deep down inside where they would love to force everyone to be Christian and believe what they believe. 

Absolutely disgusting how they have no problem at all with the Catholic Church being fully committed to the hostile takeover of American healthcare just so they can stop abortions, stop contraception, refuse to execute LAWFUL wills and testaments written by people who said they don't want to be kept on life support.... 

Speaking of the Muslims. If they were doing this you'd all be frothing at the mouth. Your logic is broken the moment it stops being consistent.


----------



## Ozarks Tom (May 27, 2011)

Apparently, through some twist of logic, the progressives feel religious people are trying to intimidate and rule them by simply saying NO. So what do progressives do when they don't like the answer? They sue to intimidate and force religious people into doing their will, while the whole time claiming themselves to be the victims. A rather upside down way of thinking is seems.

And don't give me that "law of the land" BS. Capital punishment is the law of the land, and the ACLU in conjunction with other progressive organizations are constantly trying to negate it.

As much as many people would like to see PP shut down, the legislative argument is about funding them with public money. If, as progressives constantly claim, PP's main business lies in other services, and abortion is just a tiny bit of their offerings, it shouldn't bother them a bit to lose such minor support.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

MO_cows said:


> Forcing the institution to spend millions defending the lawsuit goes beyond "found reason to question". Seems like they could have opened an investigation with the health boards who oversee licensing of their facilities if they just wanted it looked into. Filing a lawsuit, that's attempting to smack them for their beliefs.


Loser Pays.

It really is that simple, and would stop a lot of this junk.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

> Absolutely disgusting how they have no problem at all with the Catholic Church being fully committed to the hostile takeover of American healthcare just so they can stop abortions, stop contraception, refuse to execute LAWFUL wills and testaments written by people who said they don't want to be kept on life support....


Where are you getting your information?

Over the years, I've worked with several Catholic run healthcare organizations and never have I seen the engaged in a hostile takeover of anything...


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> As much as many people would like to see PP shut down, the legislative argument is about funding them with public money. If, as progressives constantly claim, PP's main business lies in *other services*, and abortion is just a tiny bit of their offerings, it shouldn't bother them a bit to lose *such minor support*.


If it's so "minor" what difference does it make, when the money is mostly Medicare reimbursements and Title X funding, which pays for those "other services" with which you have no problem?


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

wiscto said:


> The lawsuit is over medical situations where the hospitals refused to perform even in cases where it was arguably safer for the patient. * And I'm betting that the Catholic hospitals are the only game in town, *or the only game these particular women could use based on their insurance.
> 
> You can talk about liberals all you want. Catholic hospitals and Christian based insurance is nothing more than a strategy used by one group of people to leverage their religious authority over the rest of us...through healthcare. It's probably one of the most despicable things taking place in this country, even if you eliminate the abortion issue from the conversation.
> 
> And to tell you the truth, it's why many people side with pro-choice even when they don't like abortion. They hate the authoritarian nature of religious folks worldwide even more. Mind your own soul. Mind your own business. And by the way? If they're going to be partially subsidized by medicare and medicaid, they need to follow the current law of the land. Otherwise....they can go bankrupt and defunct for all I care. Or put their money where their mouths are.



Here's a list of them. None of them appear to be in small towns or rural areas. The women would have had other choices and probably had several in most places. Their insurance shouldn't have anything to do with it. If they were looking for free care, it's pretty brash to file suit against someone for not providing you something they don't do for free. That's sort of like filing a suit against a food pantry because they won't give you prime cut ribeye steak.

http://www.trinity-health.org/hospitals-facilities


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Ozarks Tom said:


> Apparently, through some twist of logic, the progressives feel religious people are trying to intimidate and rule them by simply saying NO. So what do progressives do when they don't like the answer? They sue to intimidate and force religious people into doing their will, while the whole time claiming themselves to be the victims. A rather upside down way of thinking is seems.
> 
> And don't give me that "law of the land" BS. Capital punishment is the law of the land, and the ACLU in conjunction with other progressive organizations are constantly trying to negate it.
> 
> As much as many people would like to see PP shut down, the legislative argument is about funding them with public money. If, as progressives constantly claim, PP's main business lies in other services, and abortion is just a tiny bit of their offerings, it shouldn't bother them a bit to lose such minor support.


Wow. Where to start.

1. "By just saying no." Whatever. The right wants to make everyone say no. It's nothing more than a back and forth between the right and left. Both sides are trying to force their way on the rest of us. Furthermore, I don't have to love the ACLU or be on their side to have a problem with Catholic hospitals. I've had a problem with Catholic hospitals for most of my adult life. Mainly over end of life care. "The redemptive nature of suffering." %%$#%[email protected]#. I was born and raised Catholic, folks. They're trying to subvert our freedom of choice. In their minds, they think they're just trying to win by providing us with what thy think we will all eventually recognize as the "right kind of care." They imagine that when the dust settles and they're the only real healthcare standing, we'll all just understand that their way is the only way, and they'll hold our hands like the tiny little children they believe we all are. And that includes you protestants, just so you know. They're actively using their considerable clout to turn our healthcare system into _their_ healthcare system. "Just saying no." You have to be kidding.

2. I will give you that law of the land stuff. And I'll give the ACLU that law of the land stuff. You both get my law of the land medicine, how about that? You're welcome.

3. You're not making sense. If, as conservatives claim, abortions are the primary source of funds PP operates on, by defunding PP you're actually seeking to raise the cost of all PP functions, particularly abortion. Because you want to destroy PP.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

poppy said:


> Here's a list of them. None of them appear to be in small towns or rural areas. The women would have had other choices and probably had several in most places. *Their insurance shouldn't have anything to do with it.* If they were looking for free care, it's pretty brash to file suit against someone for not providing you something they don't do for free. That's sort of like filing a suit against a food pantry because they won't give you prime cut ribeye steak.
> 
> http://www.trinity-health.org/hospitals-facilities


The bold part has everything to do with it. Maybe you're all richy rich or maybe you just don't come from a place with more than one medical system around, but my insurance plan only covered one of the healthcare systems where I lived. Fortunately for me, it was the non-Catholic hospital system. Plans that allow you to go anywhere any time are usually pretty expensive. You don't just magically have a million choices because you live in a metro area. Usually you're still limited to one healthcare system by cost, or by the insurance provider your company uses. In emergencies you're usually limited by whichever hospital your EMT thinks you should go to....the one you're covered under or the one you're closest to.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

wiscto said:


> Wow. Where to start.
> 
> 1. "By just saying no." Whatever. The right wants to make everyone say no. It's nothing more than a back and forth between the right and left. Both sides are trying to force their way on the rest of us. Furthermore, I don't have to love the ACLU or be on their side to have a problem with Catholic hospitals. I've had a problem with Catholic hospitals for most of my adult life. Mainly over end of life care. "The redemptive nature of suffering." %%$#%[email protected]#. * I was born and raised Catholic, folks. They're trying to subvert our freedom of choice.* In their minds, they think they're just trying to win by providing us with what thy think we will all eventually recognize as the "right kind of care." They imagine that when the dust settles and they're the only real healthcare standing, we'll all just understand that their way is the only way, and they'll hold our hands like the tiny little children they believe we all are. And that includes you protestants, just so you know. They're actively using their considerable clout to turn our healthcare system into _their_ healthcare system. "Just saying no." You have to be kidding.
> 
> ...


Now it comes out. Your personal prejudice from your own experience, which obviously was negative, is slanting your perspective. 

The Catholic hospitals have plenty o' competition it looks like. None of them seem to be located in little out of the way, low population places. And don't be so paranoid about their "takeover" plans either. Every health network tries to saturate an area, it's more efficient for them. I remember when HCA first moved in to this area, now they are everywhere. St. Luke's used to be just one hospital, now they have facilities all over town. It's a multi-billion dollar pie and growing, everyone wants their piece.

Again, out of all the many thousands of patients, 5 reported incidents where they declined to do abortion, apparently nobody died, and yet let's drag it thru the courts instead of taking it to the medical regulatory bodies who exist just to sort out crap like that. 

Welcome to Mount Molehill.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

MO_cows said:


> N*ow it comes out. Your personal prejudice from your own experience, which obviously was negative, is slanting your perspective.
> *


Stopped reading right here. Surprise surprise a conspiracy theory, and someone who doesn't know me telling me all about me. I've said very little about my overall experience with the Catholic church. Father Ray was great. I liked being around all of the families I knew every Sunday. But yes, at the organizational level I absolutely dislike their methods, their message, and their personal views. Everyone who has experience with something will have personal views about it. The difference is...they have actual experiences with those things. 

Just like you have a personal slant toward finding anything, anything at all, to discredit my point of view, so you'll latch onto the first theory you come across. You have no information regarding me or my experiences with the Catholic Church, or how I feel overall. I question whether or not you have much knowledge of the Catholic Church or the Catholic organizations who operate these hospitals. I would imagine that you know very little about it. You seem to not realize just how many rules they have regarding care, and how little say patients have when it comes to things like end of life care. 

But you think that you have the authority to decide whether or not my information is slanted.

I would call that.... SLANTED. And also uninformed. 

The irony around here is thick.

And please, god, tell me you don't think healthcare companies are trying to saturate areas just because it's "easier" for them. Tell me you understand that companies want to eliminate competition. And please tell me you read my other post about living in areas with multiple healthcare systems. It doesn't mean you have so many happy choices to make. It all depends on your provider, which depends on who you work for; and ultimately how much money you make.


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

Just to add for any readers who aren't sure. You can check out (even against medical advice) and move to another facility (even by ambulance if needed or desired) to seek care from other providers.

I fully understand that's not always obvious to people, but it is allowed.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

gibbsgirl said:


> Just to add for any readers who aren't sure. You can check out (even against medical advice) and move to another facility (even by ambulance if needed or desired) to seek care from other providers.
> 
> I fully understand that's not always obvious to people, but it is allowed.


Just to add for any readers who don't have insurance and use healthcare in a town with multiple healthcare systems. 

You are often still limited by your finances, and the insurance provider your company has chosen to go with. You can make that decision.... If you aren't limited by the ailment you are suffering from. Or if you don't mind racking up 60 grand in debt over night because you chose to be moved out of your coverage zone.


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

wiscto said:


> Just to add for any readers who don't have insurance and use healthcare in a town with multiple healthcare systems.
> 
> You are often still limited by your finances, and the insurance provider your company has chosen to go with. You can make that decision.... If you aren't limited by the ailment you are suffering from. Or if you don't mind racking up 60 grand in debt over night because you chose to be moved out of your coverage zone.


OK. That was not me trying to be snarky. I actually had to learn this at a point. Was actually sharing it for people whether it has to do with the issue specifically being debated or not.

No need to jump in and pronounce it would be irrelevent, unfeasible, or automatically cost $60k IMO.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

wiscto said:


> Stopped reading right here. Surprise surprise a conspiracy theory, and someone who doesn't know me telling me all about me. I've said very little about my overall experience with the Catholic church. Father Ray was great. I liked being around all of the families I knew every Sunday. But yes, at the organizational level I absolutely dislike their methods, their message, and their personal views. Everyone who has experience with something will have personal views about it. The difference is...they have actual experiences with those things.
> 
> Just like you have a personal slant toward finding anything, anything at all, to discredit my point of view, so you'll latch onto the first theory you come across. You have no information regarding me or my experiences with the Catholic Church, or how I feel overall. I question whether or not you have much knowledge of the Catholic Church or the Catholic organizations who operate these hospitals. I would imagine that you know very little about it. You seem to not realize just how many rules they have regarding care, and how little say patients have when it comes to things like end of life care.
> 
> ...


No, I don't have anything personal against you. I made an observation based on the information you freely shared. But I do think you are over-reacting, along with the ACLU. 

Sometimes people can't see the forest for the trees, especially when it's their own trees. Your tone is a lot closer to hysteria on this topic than I have ever noticed coming from you before, obviously it's an emotionally charged issue for you. And I'm truly sorry if it's painful. 

Having access to a plethora of choices for health care, not to mention health care itself, is a privilege, not a right. And the Catholic health care system isn't any more of a 900 pound bully gorilla than the other networks. And again, we are talking about 5 women out of many thousands of patients, and nobody has yet presented any information how lack of an abortion supposedly harmed them. 

So nothing presented here so far changes my opinion that the ACLU is over reacting by filing the lawsuit. Lawsuits should be the last resort, not SOP.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

poppy said:


> Here's a list of them. None of them appear to be in small towns or rural areas. The women would have had other choices and probably had several in most places. Their insurance shouldn't have anything to do with it. *If they were looking for free care, it's pretty brash to file suit against someone for not providing you something they don't do for free. * That's sort of like filing a suit against a food pantry because they won't give you prime cut ribeye steak.
> http://www.trinity-health.org/hospitals-facilities


Who said anything about "free care"?
The article said "medical emergency" which implies that's where they were taken in an *emergency*


----------



## gapeach (Dec 23, 2011)

I like the Catholic hospitals too and have better treatment and kindness in them. Now my DH and I only go to biggest hospital in town because it is a 4 yr Medical school with most of the best doctors in the area and plus it is closer.
If we were younger, we would probably still be going to the Catholic hospital. It is smaller with a very family type atmosphere.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

gibbsgirl said:


> OK. That was not me trying to be snarky. I actually had to learn this at a point. Was actually sharing it for people whether it has to do with the issue specifically being debated or not.
> 
> No need to jump in and pronounce it would be irrelevent, unfeasible, or automatically cost $60k IMO.


I'm not trying to be snarky either. I'm just trying to make sure that one truth doesn't cloud another. The fact that people have a choice, technically, doesn't mean that people realistically have one.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

MO_cows said:


> No, I don't have anything personal against you. I made an observation based on the information you freely shared.


I think you were overreacting to a very limited amount of information. I dislike the policies the church pursues through healthcare. Passionately. And I have somewhat of an insider's view, due to people I know who work with the books (locally I guess) and know where the money goes and why. That does not automatically mean I have an agenda because of some personal history. Give me a break.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

poppy said:


> Here's a list of them. None of them appear to be in small towns or rural areas. The women would have had other choices and probably had several in most places. Their insurance shouldn't have anything to do with it. If they were looking for free care, it's pretty brash to file suit against someone for not providing you something they don't do for free. That's sort of like filing a suit against a food pantry because they won't give you prime cut ribeye steak.
> 
> http://www.trinity-health.org/hospitals-facilities


I'm not sure how things work in the US but if I'm picked up by ambulance because I am in severe condition, I don't have any choice of hospitals. 

Can someone tell me what the Catholic doctrine is no abortion to save a mother's life or in relation to pregnancy resulting from rape?


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

gapeach said:


> I like the Catholic hospitals too and have *better treatment and kindness in them.* Now my DH and I only go to biggest hospital in town because it is a 4 yr Medical school with most of the best doctors in the area and plus it is closer.
> If we were younger, we would probably still be going to the Catholic hospital. It is smaller with a very family type atmosphere.


I won't doubt that at all. I will admit that one of their motives is to bring compassionate care. And I know that's important to the Catholics I know.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

wiscto said:


> The lawsuit is over medical situations where the hospitals refused to perform even in cases where it was arguably safer for the patient. And I'm betting that the Catholic hospitals are the only game in town, or the only game these particular women could use based on their insurance.
> 
> You can talk about liberals all you want. Catholic hospitals and Christian based insurance is nothing more than a strategy used by one group of people to leverage their religious authority over the rest of us...through healthcare. It's probably one of the most despicable things taking place in this country, even if you eliminate the abortion issue from the conversation.
> 
> And to tell you the truth, it's why many people side with pro-choice even when they don't like abortion. They hate the authoritarian nature of religious folks worldwide even more. Mind your own soul. Mind your own business. And by the way? If they're going to be partially subsidized by medicare and medicaid, they need to follow the current law of the land. Otherwise....they can go bankrupt and defunct for all I care. Or put their money where their mouths are.


And when the hospitals close down and there's no other hospital within 100 miles, then what? how about the patient who needs immediate medical attention? Gee too bad, they die. That's the results of your Liberal hijinx


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

mnn2501 said:


> And when the hospitals close down and there's no other hospital within 100 miles, then what? how about the patient who needs immediate medical attention? Gee too bad, they die. That's the results of your Liberal hijinx


Yea. Uh huh. Because no hospital could possibly exist in the Catholic hospital's place.


----------



## gapeach (Dec 23, 2011)

wr said:


> I'm not sure how things work in the US but if I'm picked up by ambulance because I am in severe condition, I don't have any choice of hospitals.
> 
> Can someone tell me what the Catholic doctrine is no abortion to save a mother's life or in relation to pregnancy resulting from rape?


Here, the EMS people always ask what hospital that you prefer before they put you in the ambulance. We have 3 large hospitals in town.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

gapeach said:


> Here, the EMS people always ask what hospital that you prefer before they put you in the ambulance. We have 3 large hospitals in town.


That really didn't answer my question because I assume there are times when the closest hospital would be the safest option and a patient may not always be alert enough to speak and someone in an ambulance may not know prior to being admitted what procedure they may need.

I'd prefer to know the Catholic church's position on abortion if it is needed to save the mother's live. 

Are Catholic hospitals completely privately owned or do they receive public funding?


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

wr said:


> That really didn't answer my question because I assume there are times when the closest hospital would be the safest option and a patient may not always be alert enough to speak and someone in an ambulance may not know prior to being admitted what procedure they may need.
> 
> I'd prefer to know the Catholic church's position on abortion if it is needed to save the mother's live.
> 
> Are Catholic hospitals completely privately owned or do they receive public funding?


Hope this answers what you're asking. 

If options are limited, sometimes they take you to the closest one, and they will sometimes transport by ambulance or air somewhere else. Ex. After you've been triaged and are somewhat stable. Not all hospitals can do the same things.

Ex. Burns, children sometimes go to children's hospitals, etc.

If there's more than one in the area, the ambulances will see which hospital has more and appropriate equipment and your preference. Usually you have to bring up your preference. But, they call the Ers and get their deliveries coordinated before arriving. I've seen ambulances have to call 4-5 places before they find a bed for a patient in an er.

Yes if you're unconscious someone else has to do it for you. So that's not perfect. But, if anyone with you knows where you want to go, they can tell the ems on your behalf.

When I was pregnant I did go by ambulance once and told 911 to tell ems where to take me, because I wanted to end up at a hospital my ob had privileges at. They even bypassed the er and rolled my straight up to labor and delivery.

You can also call private ambulance services and be transported to a far distance if you want and there's time, and you can manage getting it covered. Some, insurance pays part but not all.

We did that once to get my mom to a better hospital than she was at after she came home and we realized she had to go back but needed different drs. They thought she had crohns and several other things. The ambulance ride to a bigger hospital in another valley got her immediately admitted and that night they found stage four cancer.

I've lived in three states and seen the same options. Just not everybody knows about it. It sometimes does cost extra, but honestly its better than staying where you're at and paying for the care you're unhappy with. That costs plenty too.

I have family in a few other states and they say it's been similar for them. Hope that fills in what you were asking about.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

wr said:


> That really didn't answer my question because I assume there are times when the closest hospital would be the safest option and a patient may not always be alert enough to speak and someone in an ambulance may not know prior to being admitted what procedure they may need.
> 
> I'd prefer to know the Catholic church's position on abortion if it is needed to save the mother's live.
> 
> Are Catholic hospitals completely privately owned or do they receive public funding?


They are all non profit and do get federal funds in the form of reimbursement for treating Medicare patients and some of them have research facilities that receive federal funding for research. They obey all laws pertinent to receiving government funds. Performing abortion is not a requirement and I think spending government money to do abortions is against the law. Even though PP receives government money but they are not supposed to use it to pay for abortions. Some suspect they skirt the law on that which is the cause of controversy.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

gibbsgirl said:


> Hope this answers what you're asking.
> 
> If options are limited, sometimes they take you to the closest one, and they will sometimes transport by ambulance or air somewhere else. Ex. After you've been triaged and are somewhat stable. Not all hospitals can do the same things.
> 
> ...


About the only thing you forgot is when EDs cannot accept any more patients and go on "divert". Sometimes things just get so stacked up, you have to go to the nearest place that has a bed.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

And about hospital networks becoming larger and saturating an area...

Blame part of that on Obamacare. Because of current financial dynamics, the little, rural hospitals are taking it on the chin and if the trend continues, we'll probably lose about a third of them in the next decade or so.

It's get big, or go broke.

Case in point....for years, Ochsner in New Orleans had no further aspirations than just being a center of excellence in New Orleans. Now, they are spreading into South Louisiana and Mississippi, trying hard to be a regional player. They are doing so in order to survive, not because they wanted the extra business.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

It seems nobody is prepared to answer my question on Catholic doctrine on abortion to save a mother's life. 

If the hospital has a firm policy on these matters and I would wonder if all maternity patients are clearly warned of their policy before they are admitted. I believe lack of clear and concise medical information has been discussed on previous threads. 

From a legal perspective, I would think the decision will be based on the actual wording of the admitting forms and if patients were warned that the emergency treatment they may require was not available and if a doctor on staff actually recommended a late term abortion or if this was something simply not discussed that patients felt was a better option.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

For anyone interested here's the ACLU's side of the story. https://www.aclu.org/news/aclu-anno...system-failing-provide-emergency-medical-care. It includes a link to the actual lawsuit which lists the church's policy on abortion. (Point 38 in the complaint). In essence no abortion under any circumstance. 

This lawsuit revolves around five women who were having miscarriages. Rather than allowing an abortion hospital policy was to provide palliative care and allow nature to take its course. The result for the fetus was the same. The results for the women, not so much.

I'm sympathetic to the hospital's and church's stance. Religious organizations shouldn't be forced to act against their will. I have some issue with these cases as the outcome doesn't change based on the action or inaction of the hospital. What does change is the life of the woman involved. Compassion would seem be doing whatever can be done for the woman involved to have the process of losing a baby done as painlessly and risk free as possible. If this includes doing a medical procedure to remove a dying or nonviable fetus some exemption should be made for the mother's well being. Medical neccessity is quite different than elective. Church hospitals shouldn't be required to provide elective abortions. These cases didn't seem to be elective, but medically called for procedures.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

mmoetc said:


> For anyone interested here's the ACLU's side of the story. https://www.aclu.org/news/aclu-anno...system-failing-provide-emergency-medical-care. It includes a link to the actual lawsuit which lists the church's policy on abortion. (Point 38 in the complaint). In essence no abortion under any circumstance.
> 
> This lawsuit revolves around five women who were having miscarriages. Rather than allowing an abortion hospital policy was to provide palliative care and allow nature to take its course. The result for the fetus was the same. The results for the women, not so much.
> 
> I'm sympathetic to the hospital's and church's stance. Religious organizations shouldn't be forced to act against their will. I have some issue with these cases as the outcome doesn't change based on the action or inaction of the hospital. What does change is the life of the woman involved. Compassion would seem be doing whatever can be done for the woman involved to have the process of losing a baby done as painlessly and risk free as possible. If this includes doing a medical procedure to remove a dying or nonviable fetus some exemption should be made for the mother's well being. Medical neccessity is quite different than elective. Church hospitals shouldn't be required to provide elective abortions. These cases didn't seem to be elective, but medically called for procedures.


I read the article.

It's hogwash. The ACLU is trying to use EMTALA for something it was never intended for. Clever lawyers pushing their own agenda. I noticed that the article does not specify what permanent damage was done to any of the women.

It's widely known that a Catholic Hospital will not provide abortions. None. Zippola. Nada. It's not only in their paperwork and policy manuals, it's well known on the street.

Don't like it, don't go there.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

wiscto said:


> 1. I'm not pro-abortion, I'm anti people controlling everyone else' decisions based on propaganda and religion. And that includes the Catholic hospitals policies of refusing to allow peoples lives to end when they are miserable, ready, and asking to be allowed to pass. Nor will they tie a woman's tubes or allow the practice of any other kind of contraception; which is absolutely asinine in this age of worldwide overpopulation.
> 
> 2. Maybe the "public" hospital sucks because they don't get these imaginary "pro-abortion" funds for their operating capital that you came up with, and on top of that they have to compete with a Catholic hospital that sucks down medicare and medicaid like it's a lifetime supply...and otherwise fill in gaps using donations from their congregation who support their religious mission to take authority over everyone's lives.


 
Or, perhaps the Catholic hospitals choose NOT to take authority over ANYONE'S life?


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

MO_cows said:


> Forcing the institution to spend millions defending the lawsuit goes beyond "found reason to question". Seems like they could have opened an investigation with the health boards who oversee licensing of their facilities if they just wanted it looked into. Filing a lawsuit, that's attempting to smack them for their beliefs.


This will go the way of Hobby Lobby. Anyone remember?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Jolly said:


> I read the article.
> 
> It's hogwash. The ACLU is trying to use EMTALA for something it was never intended for. Clever lawyers pushing their own agenda. I noticed that the article does not specify what permanent damage was done to any of the women.
> 
> ...


Read the actual complaint. Sepsis, hemoraging, and life threatening infection are mentioned. I'm sure expert doctors will argue both sides. I understand your opposition to abortion but these women were losing those fetuses a&#322;ready. What difference would be made other than alleviating possible pain, suffering, and life threatening complications. Depending on the stage of pregnancy a doctor could do an emergency c-section and remove a dead or dying fetus. Same result and allowed by the hospital. What is the real ethical difference?


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

MO_cows said:


> Oh come on now. Those "despicable" Catholics, huh? Like those evil 'little sisters of the poor'? And Catholic charities handing out aid regardless of religion? The only "Christian" health insurance I have seen are discount plans and health care pools or co-ops.
> 
> Think of all the thousands of people who have been treated at all those different hospitals and clinics, without checking their soul at the door, and have no complaints about their care. If these 5 women in the lawsuit were somehow harmed by lack of an abortion, seems like there would have been a personal injury suit filed, a complaint with the medical board, etc.
> 
> I think ACLU is over-achieving here. They do that a lot.


Post of the decade award.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

wiscto said:


> Stopped reading right here. Surprise surprise


Stopped reading right here.

Go read the amendments. Particularly the one about NO law concerning religion. Go look up how NOT doing something against your beliefs is NOT forcing that belief on another. Quite the contrary. FORCING someone to DO something against their belief IS FORCING a belief on that entity.

And while you're looking stuff up, look up the history of the catholic church & hospitals. And charity work. 

And tell us what law is being broken by not doing abortions...


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

mmoetc said:


> Read the actual complaint. Sepsis, hemoraging, and life threatening infection are mentioned. I'm sure expert doctors will argue both sides. I understand your opposition to abortion but these women were losing those fetuses a&#322;ready. What difference would be made other than alleviating possible pain, suffering, and life threatening complications. Depending on the stage of pregnancy a doctor could do an emergency c-section and remove a dead or dying fetus. Same result and allowed by the hospital. What is the real ethical difference?


 While it is true that the Catholics go beyond even what I believe, when it comes to abortion, they must not be forced to do things that go against their beliefs. You say it is the same result, so why does it matter? (I actually agree) Think about this: Should they be forced to euthanize terminal cancer patients? The result is the same, is it not?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

This is not about forcing catholic hospitals to perform abortion. It's about the complications that arose from miscarrying women because the hospitals refused to perform a D&C to remove dead fetal tissue. 

Think malpractice rather than abortion.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Farmerga said:


> While it is true that the Catholics go beyond even what I believe, when it comes to abortion, they must not be forced to do things that go against their beliefs. You say it is the same result, so why does it matter? (I actually agree) Think about this: Should they be forced to euthanize terminal cancer patients? The result is the same, is it not?


So their religious dogma trumps a woman's health? The result was the same as in a terminated pregnancy but there were complications with the women because of it.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Farmerga said:


> While it is true that the Catholics go beyond even what I believe, when it comes to abortion, they must not be forced to do things that go against their beliefs. You say it is the same result, so why does it matter? (I actually agree) Think about this: Should they be forced to euthanize terminal cancer patients? The result is the same, is it not?


No one should be forced to euthanize anyone but if a terminal cancer patient chooses to suspend treatment they should be allowed to. Should the hospital be able to continue treatment and even operate because they don't believe the patient can choose the time and place of their death? My feeling is that terminal patients should be allowed access to drugs which will give them such choice. Another thread, another time.

I'm not sure there is a good answer to the question brought by this case. My err would be on compassion for the woman involved. It's why I dislike absolutes, especially religous based ones.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Irish Pixie said:


> This is not about forcing catholic hospitals to perform abortion. It's about the complications that arose from miscarrying women because the hospitals refused to perform a D&C to remove dead fetal tissue.
> 
> Think malpractice rather than abortion.


Without knowing the exact circumstance in each case it's probably not that cut and dried. A dying fetus isn't a dead fetus. But when is that death inevitable and an abortion to hasten the process in the best interest of the woman?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

mmoetc said:


> Without knowing the exact circumstance in each case it's probably not that cut and dried. A dying fetus isn't a dead fetus. But when is that death inevitable and an abortion to hasten the process in the best interest of the woman?


To me it's when it impacts the woman's health.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Farmerga said:


> Or, perhaps the Catholic hospitals choose NOT to take authority over ANYONE'S life?


Perhaps they should stick to doctoring souls rather than bodies if they want to pick and choose medical procedures based on religious bias


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

mmoetc said:


> Read the actual complaint. Sepsis, hemoraging, and life threatening infection are mentioned. I'm sure expert doctors will argue both sides. I understand your opposition to abortion but these women were losing those fetuses a&#322;ready. What difference would be made other than alleviating possible pain, suffering, and life threatening complications. Depending on the stage of pregnancy a doctor could do an emergency c-section and remove a dead or dying fetus. Same result and allowed by the hospital. What is the real ethical difference?


The thing I will say is that the treatments suggested here and in other posts, 1. Are not a guarantee of care being better faster and tc, and 2. The y all come to ith risks including complications after.

I'm sure they will have drs on both sides that go into this more if it goes to trial.

There's a lot of things that are not "standard" depending on where you get treated fit something. Regardless of religion. And on/l&d is different in lots of places for lots of people.

Some care is more common in some places, but this lawsuit is a stretch for sure.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Perhaps they should stick to doctoring souls rather than bodies if they want to pick and choose medical procedures based on religious bias


 It is not like it is a great shock that a Catholic hospital would react in such a way. Catholic hospitals are wonderful places with excellent care. 

My wife and I wanted to have her tubes tied when our child was born. We chose to bring our child into the world in our local Catholic Hospital. We knew, going in, that the hospital wouldn't allow such a procedure. Did we throw a fit and insist on the ACLU file suit on our behalf? No. We respected the beliefs of the hospital and made other arrangements.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Farmerga said:


> Or, perhaps the Catholic hospitals choose NOT to take authority over ANYONE'S life?


Do a little more research into their end of life policies and contraception. Are you assuming that everyone in this country revolves around the abortion debate and the abortion debate alone.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Irish Pixie said:


> To me it's when it impacts the woman's health.


And while I agree with that sentiment the law likely stands with the church and hospital. That doesn't mean that I think the hospital is right or even acting particulary morally in these cases. If, as many believe, the fetus is human shouldn't compassion and morality seek to alleviate the suffering of that individual also? How can it be more compassionate to prolong the pain and suffering of the fetus, along with putting the woman's life in greater danger, by not performing a rather simple procedure that wouldn't change the outcome only hasten it? Many of you wouldn't hesitate to take a dying pet to the vet to alleviate its pain and suffering with a simple injection. Doesn't a human, if you consider a fetus that, deserve the same dignity?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Farmerga said:


> It is not like it is a great shock that a Catholic hospital would react in such a way. Catholic hospitals are wonderful places with excellent care.
> 
> My wife and I wanted to have her tubes tied when our child was born. We chose to bring our child into the world in our local Catholic Hospital. We knew, going in, that the hospital wouldn't allow such a procedure. Did we throw a fit and insist on the ACLU file suit on our behalf? No. We respected the beliefs of the hospital and made other arrangements.


That's not an emergency situation so it really has no bearing on the OP topic.
If the care were truly "excellent" they would put the needs of the patients first.

These women didn't come in healthy, asking for an elective abortion


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> That's not an emergency situation so it really has no bearing on the OP topic.
> If the care were truly "excellent" they would put the needs of the patiend first.
> 
> These women didn't come in healthy, asking for an elective abortion


 
Still, akin to going to Taco Bell and asking for a Whopper, or, going to a dermatologist with a broken arm. 

It would seem that those who do not agree with your view, of what is right or wrong, should be forced to snap to, or, face the consequences.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Those hospitals have Catholic Bishops set their medical standards?

_Trinity Health Corporation requires the 86 hospitals it owns and operates in 21 states to abide by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishopsâ Ethical Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services._
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article...ic-hospital-system-refusing-perform-abortions

Strange way to run a hospital...


----------



## gapeach (Dec 23, 2011)

Farmerga said:


> It is not like it is a great shock that a Catholic hospital would react in such a way. Catholic hospitals are wonderful places with excellent care.
> 
> My wife and I wanted to have her tubes tied when our child was born. We chose to bring our child into the world in our local Catholic Hospital. We knew, going in, that the hospital wouldn't allow such a procedure. Did we throw a fit and insist on the ACLU file suit on our behalf? No. We respected the beliefs of the hospital and made other arrangements.


My sister had her tubes tied in a Catholic hospital 55 years ago in Greenville,SC. I wonder if different Catholic hospitals had different rules.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

gapeach said:


> My sister had her tubes tied in a Catholic hospital 55 years ago in Greenville,SC. I wonder if different Catholic hospitals had different rules.


 Some are a little more lax than others, when it comes to that sort of thing.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Nevada said:


> Those hospitals have Catholic Bishops set their medical standards?
> 
> _Trinity Health Corporation requires the 86 hospitals it owns and operates in 21 states to abide by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishopsâ Ethical Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services._
> http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article...ic-hospital-system-refusing-perform-abortions
> ...


 Seems to work. Public hospitals often have "ethics boards"


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Irish Pixie said:


> So their religious dogma trumps a woman's health? The result was the same as in a terminated pregnancy but there were complications with the women because of it.


While nobody would directly answer my question, I believe their belief is that in either case, both lives are in god's hands and only he can make that decision. 

If that is the case, perhaps these cases should have been transferred to another hospital but they may have felt that also defied their beliefs. 

I'm still not sure how I feel about asking a Catholic hospital to defy the tennets of their faith but I would also be curious how admitting forms are specifically worded as well.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Farmerga said:


> Seems to work. Public hospitals often have "ethics boards"


Sure, but they have medical professionals in the ethics boards.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Nevada said:


> Sure, but they have medical professionals in the ethics boards.


 Not entirely. Most ethics boards include members of society other than medical professionals. Catholic boards also include medical professionals, the policies are just enforced by the Bishops.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

How can the ACLU force someone to murder a baby?
That's how Catholics see it.
This is the progressives on the left trying to pull others down to their level


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Farmerga said:


> Still, akin to going to Taco Bell and asking for a Whopper, or, going to a dermatologist with a broken arm.
> 
> It would seem that those who do not agree with your view, of what is right or wrong, should be forced to snap to, or, face the consequences.


Again your examples aren't like the OP, since it was stated the hospitals do in fact perform all the same procedures used for an abortion to treat other ailments.
Dilation or a D&C takes the same skills, resources and equipment whether a fetus is present or not.

If you want a more accurate analogy, it would be like going to a carwash that denied you service because they didn't like the color of your car.

They have the equipment, and they wash identical cars, but they arbitrarily choose not to wash yours


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Again your examples aren't like the OP, since it was stated the hospitals do in fact perform all the same procedures used for an abortion to treat other ailments.
> Dilation or a D&C takes the same skills, resources and equipment whether a fetus is present or not.
> 
> If you want a more accurate analogy, it would be like going to a carwash that denied you service because they didn't like the color of your car.
> ...


No, My analogy is correct. They may have the equipment to perform the service, but, they don't offer that particular service. It is more like getting ones knickers in a twist because the carwash refused to vacuum out the car, when they don't offer that service. There is nothing arbitrary about it. 

I own the equipment and have the skills to build a building, but, I don't hire out for such a service. If someone wanted me to build them a building, should I be forced to comply? 

Why is it ok, in this instance, to force a provider, that is known not to historically provide such a service, to provide said service?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Farmerga said:


> No, My analogy is correct. They may have the equipment to perform the service, but, *they don't offer that particular service. *It is more like getting ones knickers in a twist because the carwash refused to vacuum out the car, when *they don't offer that service*. There is nothing arbitrary about it.
> 
> I own the equipment and have the skills to build a building, but, I don't hire out for such a service. If someone wanted me to build them a building, should I be forced to comply?
> 
> Why is it ok, in this instance, to force a provider, that is known not to historically provide such a service, to provide said service?


A D&C is a D&C. 
They do offer those
That is "the service"

The cases in the suit were miscarriages with severe complications, not elective abortions, and the decision was arbitrary since it wasn't based purely on medical necessity.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> A D&C is a D&C.
> They do offer those
> That is "the service"
> 
> The cases in the suit were miscarriages with severe complications, not elective abortions, and the decision was arbitrary since it wasn't based purely on medical necessity.


 And their ethics only let that service be performed when there is not a child living in the uterus. Even if it appears as if the child is dying, in their view, it is immoral to "help it along". 

Again, why does the ACLU want to force its view of morality on this Catholic hospital?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Ok how many of these five women died? If the answer is none then there's a problem with the basic premise of the lawsuit because they were clearly stabilized enough to seek medical care else where.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Cornhusker said:


> How can the ACLU force someone to murder a baby?
> That's how Catholics see it.
> This is the progressives on the left trying to pull others down to their level


The complaint extends beyond abortions and in one case, they also refused to perform a tubal ligation at the time of c-section on a woman suffering from fairly advanced brain cancer. Doctors do seem to agree that any further pregnancies will put her life at risk and she's not asking to abort the child she's carrying, just the right to prevent conception.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

wr said:


> The complaint extends beyond abortions and in one case, they also refused to perform a tubal ligation at the time of c-section on a woman suffering from fairly advanced brain cancer. Doctors do seem to agree that any further pregnancies will put her life at risk and she's not asking to abort the child she's carrying, just the right to prevent conception.


Control.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

wiscto said:


> Control.


I'm not sure it's that simple and there is certainly a conflict between church doctrine and public opinion, my only reason for mentioning this is because people assume the suit relates only to abortion. 

One of my concerns would be if the same hospital would willingly transfer a patient that to a hospital that may conflict with their own doctrine and if the admitting papers were fully clear on services that they would not allow. 

In once case cited in the article, the Catholic hospital was the only available hospital in the county so moving a patient may have been complicated. 

Does Catholic hospitals only employ Catholic medical staff?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Farmerga said:


> And their ethics only let that service be performed when there is not a child living in the uterus. Even if it appears as if the child is dying, in their view, it is immoral to "help it along".
> 
> Again, why does the ACLU want to force its view of morality on this Catholic hospital?


They were all having miscarriages.
The fetus was going to die, and the treatment is to help save the mothers
It's not about "morality" it's about treating a patient in an emergency


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

watcher said:


> Ok how many of these five women died? If the answer is none then there's a problem with the basic premise of the lawsuit because they were clearly stabilized enough to seek medical care else where.


It's not about whether or not they died


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Seems to me that free enterprise will take care of this. If someone dies who could have reasonably been saved then the family will sue the hospital & church back to the stone age. That should make them rethink their policies.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Does Catholic hospitals only employ Catholic medical staff?


It would be illegal to screen potential employees based on religion, and I'm not sure if Dr's are considered "employees" of the hospital at all.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

wr said:


> I'm not sure it's that simple and there is certainly a conflict between church doctrine and public opinion, my only reason for mentioning this is because people assume the suit relates only to abortion.
> 
> One of my concerns would be if the same hospital would willingly transfer a patient that to a hospital that may conflict with their own doctrine and if the admitting papers were fully clear on services that they would not allow.
> 
> ...


No, I worked at a catholic hospital. I can attest that at that one at least, the "ethics" board was a joke. 

There are many areas where the only hospital is catholic.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Bearfootfarm said:


> They were all having miscarriages.
> The fetus was going to die, and the treatment is to help save the mothers
> It's not about "morality" it's about treating a patient in an emergency


Exactly. In a situation where a person's health is at stake, treatment should trump dogma.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

MO_cows said:


> Now it comes out. Your personal prejudice from your own experience, which obviously was negative, is slanting your perspective.
> 
> The Catholic hospitals have plenty o' competition it looks like. None of them seem to be located in little out of the way, low population places. And don't be so paranoid about their "takeover" plans either. Every health network tries to saturate an area, it's more efficient for them. I remember when HCA first moved in to this area, now they are everywhere. St. Luke's used to be just one hospital, now they have facilities all over town. It's a multi-billion dollar pie and growing, everyone wants their piece.
> 
> ...


Because every single poster here isn't biased? Are you reading the same posts I am? OP was an anti-abortion screed from a Pro-lifer site. Everyone posting thereafter fell into their usual positions. 

Just out of curiosity did anyone look any deeper into the story? Because debating the facts from an incredibly BIASED website seems a bit pointless.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Obviously, most people have pretty strong opinions on the subject, I would remind you to keep discussion civil.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

Irregardless of how one feels about abortion or the Catholic church, isn't there anyone else who feels like if the women were not treated correctly according to their medical status, then a complaint should have been filed immediately after the fact by those women? Reported thru the proper channels which exist for that kind of thing? Review boards, state officials, even the AMA. Instead, the ACLU has filed a civil lawsuit, which says to me they are just using the women's cases to poke the bear. Adding insult to injury for these women. And if they should win the suit and are awarded damages, how much will the women get versus the ACLU? My guess is, not much, and that's just slimy.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

wiscto said:


> Control.


How is sticking to your beliefs controlling others?
Now using a corrupt racist organization to sue and force you to do what you don't believe in, that's control.
The left is always trying to control others, to lower them to the level of the bigots and nasty progressive villains.
Do you see the difference?


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Jolly said:


> And about hospital networks becoming larger and saturating an area...
> 
> Blame part of that on Obamacare. Because of current financial dynamics, the little, rural hospitals are taking it on the chin and if the trend continues, we'll probably lose about a third of them in the next decade or so.
> 
> ...


I don't know what branch of healthcare you are in but I have to call hooey on the ACA hurting rural hospitals. Most rural hospitals would close tomorrow without Federal dollars from Medicare, Medicaid and now the ACA. You won't find anyone in Administration or finance who says otherwise. 

And Ochsner just doing it to survive. ound:


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Bearfootfarm said:


> It's not about whether or not they died


Sure it is. If the abortions were a medical emergency and necessary to save the woman's life and they failed to do it she would have died and the a lawsuit would be in order. Otherwise the hospital seems to have provided adequate medical care to stabilize them and allow them to go to a hospital which could provide the services needed. 

What gives you the right and power to demand a person or organization do something which is counter to their morals?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Bearfootfarm said:


> It would be illegal to screen potential employees based on religion, and I'm not sure if Dr's are considered "employees" of the hospital at all.


But its not illegal to require employees to follow company rules. For example if you are caught with a cell phone or camera in specific areas where I work you will be fired. No ifs, ands, buts or excuses allowed. Don't like the rules you need to find another company.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

watcher said:


> Sure it is. If the abortions were a medical emergency and necessary to save the woman's life and they failed to do it she would have died and the a lawsuit would be in order. Otherwise the hospital seems to have provided adequate medical care to stabilize them and allow them to go to a hospital which could provide the services needed.
> 
> What gives you the right and power to demand a person or organization do something which is counter to their morals?


There were no "abortions" in the lawsuit.
They were having miscarriages

The fact they didn't "die" isn't proof they weren't mistreated


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> Exactly. In a situation where a person's health is at stake, treatment should trump dogma.


That's your view and you are free to have it and I even support it to a point. But I don't think the government should have the power to force a religious organization to do something against its moral standards.

I wonder what people would do if the hospital said it would close if they lost the court case because they could not let government edicts override their teachings.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Bearfootfarm said:


> There were no "abortions" in the lawsuit.
> They were having miscarriages
> 
> The fact they didn't "die" isn't proof they weren't mistreated


I believe the ACLU will lie to force others to do their bidding
Don't be gullible, you know how (some) lie, look at Obama.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

mmoetc said:


> For anyone interested here's the ACLU's side of the story. https://www.aclu.org/news/aclu-anno...system-failing-provide-emergency-medical-care. It includes a link to the actual lawsuit which lists the church's policy on abortion. (Point 38 in the complaint). In essence no abortion under any circumstance.
> 
> This lawsuit revolves around five women who were having miscarriages. Rather than allowing an abortion hospital policy was to provide palliative care and allow nature to take its course. The result for the fetus was the same. The results for the women, not so much.
> 
> I'm sympathetic to the hospital's and church's stance. Religious organizations shouldn't be forced to act against their will. I have some issue with these cases as the outcome doesn't change based on the action or inaction of the hospital. What does change is the life of the woman involved. Compassion would seem be doing whatever can be done for the woman involved to have the process of losing a baby done as painlessly and risk free as possible. If this includes doing a medical procedure to remove a dying or nonviable fetus some exemption should be made for the mother's well being. Medical neccessity is quite different than elective. Church hospitals shouldn't be required to provide elective abortions. These cases didn't seem to be elective, but medically called for procedures.


Thank you! I was just getting ready to go look for this. 

It's always better to get in there and remove the dead fetus and do a D&C to clean things up. It reduces the chances of infection for the mother. The mother can opt not to do it and wait for the abortion to happen naturally but it isn't recommended. The hospital should not be able to refuse to remove a dead fetus just because it doesn't like it. 

From your link:


> Earlier this month, the ACLU of Michigan sent a demand letter to Genesys Hospital run by Ascension Health in Grand Blanc, Michigan,  on behalf of Jessica Mann, a pregnant woman with a life-threatening brain tumor who was denied a request for a tubal ligation at the time of her scheduled cesarean section delivery next month. Ms. Mannâs doctors have advised her to have the tubal ligation at the time of her delivery because another pregnancy would increase the risks to her posed by her tumors, as would forcing her to undergo an additional procedure after the delivery. The hospital has continued to refuse to provide the medically necessary treatment. Instead, Ms. Mann has been forced to switch hospitals to a new doctor -- one who has no relationship with her and no experience treating her serious medical condition -- with less than a month left in her pregnancy.


This particular problem is also a very serious one because it is not the hospital's right to decide if permanent or any birth control is right for you either. They would have forced the woman to undergo a second surgery at another hospital when it was unnecessary all because they think Jesus is against BC. Having a tubal done at delivery is very common. Why risk 2 hospital visits and deal with the additional costs just because it hurts the hospital's conscience?


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Cornhusker said:


> How is sticking to your beliefs controlling others?
> Now using a corrupt racist organization to sue and force you to do what you don't believe in, that's control.
> The left is always trying to control others, to lower them to the level of the bigots and nasty progressive villains.
> Do you see the difference?


By becoming a major, or THEE major healthcare provider in their area by using federal aid and religious donations to compete with privatized healthcare systems who rely entirely on profit. By seeking contracts with insurance companies where THEY are the sole care provider covered. And then refusing to offer care that even many of their doctors would like to perform, including women having their tubes tied when they are choosing to be done bearing children......

They are attempting to control. That is a fact. I know that it is a fact. They play it off as a mere side effect of trying to do good. But it is a fact.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Bearfootfarm said:


> There were no "abortions" in the lawsuit.
> They were having miscarriages
> 
> The fact they didn't "die" isn't proof they weren't mistreated


Now the lawsuit makes no sense at all. If they were having miscarriages then how can they be sued for not doing an abortion?

According to what I read:

_It accuses Trinity of "refusing to providce pregnant women suffering emergency medical conditions with abortions necessary to stabilize them" on at least five occasions.._

If it were a true emergency were an abortion was necessary to stabilize them then failing to provide the abortion would have cause them to die. Seeing as how they didn't die it is clear that the abortions were not medically necessary to stabilize them.

If they feel they were medically mistreated they should be filing malpractice suits not civil right suits.


----------



## keenataz (Feb 17, 2009)

Just a quick idea. Where does the Hippocratic Oath fit in here? Maybe it doesn't, I don'y know. But wouldn't that trump religious belief?


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

keenataz said:


> Just a quick idea. Where does the Hippocratic Oath fit in here? Maybe it doesn't, I don'y know. But wouldn't that trump religious belief?


The hippocratic oath of the Catholic Church is, "Suffering is redemptive."


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

Bearfootfarm said:


> They were all having miscarriages.
> The fetus was going to die, and the treatment is to help save the mothers
> It's not about "morality" it's about treating a patient in an emergency


Tubes tied is not an emergency. It's also not the only method of birth control.


----------



## Tabitha (Apr 10, 2006)

painterswife said:


> I have to think about this a bit. I can see them refusing to do elective abortions. I do think it is a problem if it is medically needed and an emergency. I would think that any pregnant women should be informed that they won't do them before going into the hospital for any medical services.


Something is foul. Who in their right mind will go to a Catholic facility for an abortion.


----------



## Tabitha (Apr 10, 2006)

wiscto said:


> By becoming a major, or THEE major healthcare provider in their area by using federal aid and religious donations to compete with privatized healthcare systems who rely entirely on profit. By seeking contracts with insurance companies where THEY are the sole care provider covered. And then refusing to offer care that even many of their doctors would like to perform, including women having their tubes tied when they are choosing to be done bearing children......
> 
> They are attempting to control. That is a fact. I know that it is a fact. They play it off as a mere side effect of trying to do good. But it is a fact.


Catholic hospitals have NEVER done anything the like. No tube tying, no abortions. The only birth control method endorsed is the rythm method. 
I took my temperature for years. 
In this day and age people are just so acrimonious. Leave the catholics alone. You can go anywhere you like and get what you want. This belly aching why you want someone, that you ought to know full well does not agree with any of these practices, to do it the way you want it done is pretty asinine. 
Go in a Jewish Deli and demand ham.


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

Patchouli said:


> Thank you! I was just getting ready to go look for this.
> 
> It's always better to get in there and remove the dead fetus and do a D&C to clean things up. It reduces the chances of infection for the mother. The mother can opt not to do it and wait for the abortion to happen naturally but it isn't recommended. The hospital should not be able to refuse to remove a dead fetus just because it doesn't like it.
> 
> ...


My two cents. D & c is not the be all end all. Nor it is standard and necessary according to all doctors. It also has risks for the mothers and future children.

Second, how is a surgery the most advisable option for an at risk patient anyway. They'll have experts and attys all over that. Why wouldn't a less invasive BC method be advisable? Why didn't daddy just get a vasectomy? Was her tumor terminal?


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

You know what blows my mind here are all of the women who are obviously completely unaware of basic women's healthcare needs. If you go to the hospital because you are having a miscarriage (proper term spontaneous abortion) you may be suffering major complications. Excessive bleeding, a placental tear, the fetus died and has not been expelled leading to infection, etc. 

Do you people not at least have animals? Never seen the horrific side effects of a retained placenta or a dead fetus? Sometimes an intervention is necessary. A D&C is not technically an abortion if the fetus is already dead or dying. It may very well be necessary to save the mother's life though. 

Stop knee jerking because you saw the word abortion and read what is actually happening here and think about it.


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

keenataz said:


> Just a quick idea. Where does the Hippocratic Oath fit in here? Maybe it doesn't, I don'y know. But wouldn't that trump religious belief?


Some people believe they are to do no harm to their patients, and they feel there are multiple patients when treating a pregnant woman.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

gibbsgirl said:


> My two cents. D & c is not the be all end all. Nor it is standard and necessary according to all doctors. It also has risks for the mothers and future children.
> 
> Second, how is a surgery the most advisable option for an at risk patient anyway. They'll have experts and attys all over that. Why wouldn't a less invasive BC method be advisable? Why didn't daddy just get a vasectomy? Was her tumor terminal?


Playing doctor on the internets? Her doctor recommended that as the best option. I am going to assume her Doctor knows what they are doing. We know zip about the situation so trying to figure out why something different could have or should have been done is kind of moot isn't it?


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

Patchouli said:


> You know what blows my mind here are all of the women who are obviously completely unaware of basic women's healthcare needs. If you go to the hospital because you are having a miscarriage (proper term spontaneous abortion) you may be suffering major complications. Excessive bleeding, a placental tear, the fetus died and has not been expelled leading to infection, etc.
> 
> Do you people not at least have animals? Never seen the horrific side effects of a retained placenta or a dead fetus? Sometimes an intervention is necessary. A D&C is not technically an abortion if the fetus is already dead or dying. It may very well be necessary to save the mother's life though.
> 
> Stop knee jerking because you saw the word abortion and read what is actually happening here and think about it.


Yes, some may have serious complications. But not all, and even in most serious complications, patients wait for drs, nurses, ors etc to be treated. Even some ectopic pregnancies are scheduled days after they are discovered.

The medical establishment here and globally disagrees on many things. If we look at what was done in the past, sometimes it's very weird to consider it being done now.

A lot of people disagree, but that doesn't mean they're ignorant because they disagree. People can be very reasonably informed and come to different conclusions.


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

Patchouli said:


> Playing doctor on the internets? Her doctor recommended that as the best option. I am going to assume her Doctor knows what they are doing. We know zip about the situation so trying to figure out why something different could have or should have been done is kind of moot isn't it?


No I'm not playing Dr on the internet. Her Dr was giving their recommendations, which might be right or wrong. It's called practicing medicine, not perfect medicine.

I was typing questions I was imagining attys asking since this is a lawsuit. If it doesn't get dismissed, questions will be asked like this likely and lots of others by both sides.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

wiscto said:


> By becoming a major, or THEE major healthcare provider in their area by using federal aid and religious donations to compete with privatized healthcare systems who rely entirely on profit. By seeking contracts with insurance companies where THEY are the sole care provider covered. And then refusing to offer care that even many of their doctors would like to perform, including women having their tubes tied when they are choosing to be done bearing children......
> 
> They are attempting to control. That is a fact. I know that it is a fact. They play it off as a mere side effect of trying to do good. But it is a fact.


I disagree
The ACLU is the ones trying to control someone else


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Cornhusker said:


> I believe the ACLU will lie to force others to do their bidding
> Don't be gullible, you know how liberal racists lie, look at Obama.


I see as many, if not more lies from the other side, and you bashing BO in nearly every post is about like Nevada blaming Bush for everything. 
It just gets to be pointless


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

watcher said:


> That's your view and you are free to have it and I even support it to a point. But I don't think the government should have the power to force a religious organization to do something against its moral standards.
> 
> I wonder what people would do if the hospital said it would close if they lost the court case because they could not let government edicts override their teachings.


They would go somewhere else, since so many insist that's an option.
I suspect someone else would open a hospital if there was a demand for one.
The people out of work would likely be happy to have the jobs


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

gibbsgirl said:


> Tubes tied is not an emergency. It's also not the only method of birth control.


That's a different lawsuit, and for that case it's what her Dr said she needed.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

Hmm

Go figure.



> And perhaps more troubling for the church, for every one Catholic convert, more than six Catholics leave the church. Taken a step further, Catholicism loses more members than it gains at a higher rate than any other denomination, with nearly 13 percent of all Americans describing themselves as âformer Catholics.


http://www.cruxnow.com/church/2015/...-losing-members-faster-than-any-denomination/

Molest an alter boy - _oh well_, terminate a pregnancy, to help save the mother's life - _no can do!_


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Tabitha said:


> Something is foul. Who in their right mind will go to a Catholic facility for an abortion.


They went in having miscarriages.
The woman in the tubal ligation case went in for a C-section


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

gibbsgirl said:


> My two cents. D & c is not the be all end all. Nor it is standard and necessary according to all doctors. It also has risks for the mothers and future children.
> 
> Second, how is a surgery the most advisable option for an at risk patient anyway. They'll have experts and attys all over that. *Why wouldn't a less invasive BC method be advisable?* Why didn't daddy just get a vasectomy? Was her tumor terminal?


Did you not read she was already having a C-section?
They were going to open her up anyway


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

watcher said:


> Now the lawsuit makes no sense at all. If they were having miscarriages then how can they be sued for not doing an abortion?
> 
> According to what I read:
> 
> ...








Patchouli said:


> You know what blows my mind here are all of the women who are obviously completely unaware of basic women's healthcare needs. If you go to the hospital because you are having a miscarriage (proper term spontaneous abortion) you may be suffering major complications. Excessive bleeding, a placental tear, the fetus died and has not been expelled leading to infection, etc.
> 
> Do you people not at least have animals? Never seen the horrific side effects of a retained placenta or a dead fetus? Sometimes an intervention is necessary. A D&C is not technically an abortion if the fetus is already dead or dying. It may very well be necessary to save the mother's life though.
> 
> Stop knee jerking because you saw the word abortion and read what is actually happening here and think about it.







Bearfootfarm said:


> There were no "abortions" in the lawsuit.
> They were having miscarriages
> 
> The fact they didn't "die" isn't proof they weren't mistreated




According to the lawsuit sepsis and infection did occur in at least one of the 5, and that sure as heck can kill you.
If that's true that IS malpractice and a malpractice suit should have indeed been filed. Dying from malpractice is NOT a requirement to sue.

I think the reason the ACLU is taking this case is for a class action to prevent further incidents on behalf of other women in the future, since the hospitals have said they won't change their policy.
One malpractice case wouldn't have that effect on such a large organization.

I have to wonder if there isn't more to the story though. Were there other circumstances involved, was there some other treatment offered and refused that led to the infection?
I have no idea, the lawsuit doesn't say and there was no document of the respondents, which should come soon.

On the surface, it doesn't look good and today's political climate doesn't lend itself to amicable outcomes, just more animosity.
I hope the hospital didn't intentionally harm anyone out of ignorance or stubbornness and I hope the ACLU isn't intentionally misrepresenting what happened.
We'll see.


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Did you not read she was already having a C-section?
> They were going to open her up anyway


A csection with an added tube tying is more complicated and involved and has more risks than just a csection.

I have no guaranteed answers about what was the best choice for her, neither do doctors, just recommendations.

So, was is her tumor doctor or ob or both saying she needed her tubes tied? Or maybe it was the option she wanted to choose from choices and recommendations?

I guess if the lawsuit gets passed dismissal, both sides will present more details about it all.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

gibbsgirl said:


> A csection with an added tube tying is *more complicated and involved and has more risks than just a csection.*
> 
> I have no guaranteed answers about what was the best choice for her, neither do doctors, just recommendations.
> 
> ...


It has fewer risks and less expense than 2 separate surgeries
It doesn't matter which Dr made the recommendation.
It shouldn't be overridden by anyone for religious reasons
They think it's sinful even to use a condom


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

gibbsgirl said:


> A csection with an added tube tying is more complicated and involved and has more risks than just a csection.
> 
> I have no guaranteed answers about what was the best choice for her, neither do doctors, just recommendations.
> 
> ...


I'm certainly not a doctor but it is harder on the human body to have two surgeries than one slightly more major surgery.


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

OK, so I was just googling stuff.

It looks like the tube tying lady was 34 weeks pregnant at some point in september.

She/a doctor applied at some point for a waiver to gave her tubes tied. Hospital said no.

Looks like there are 8-10 other hospitals within minutes of this hospital too.

This is picking a fight to be a martyr IMO.

I find it hard to believe that especially considering her knowledge for sometime that the hospitals policy was no, that she was unable to find insurance coverage for her delivery at another hospital that would accommodate her choice to want both done at once.

It will be interesting to see what "the govt" decides is legal.


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

wr said:


> I'm certainly not a doctor but it is harder on the human body to have two surgeries than one slightly more major surgery.


I agree with that. But, there are other methods of birth control that are also less invasive/ risky than tube tying.


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

Apparently, the lady's doctor only has privileges at the Catholic hospital.

That is not the hospitals problem.

How experienced is this tube tying doctor anyway, if the hospital he practices at has never allowed him to do one?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

One main question pops into my mind: How much power do you want the government to have?

Then others come up.

Do you really want the government making moral decisions for you? The pro-abortion side gets all upset when they think the government is trying to make the moral decision that the mass of tissue is actually a child and therefore removing it is murder not just a medical procedure. 

Why not let each side decide its own morals and if you don't like the ones they pick you can just not interact with them.

If the people running your local hospital want to refuse to do abortions and a lot of people want abortions maybe you should open your own hospital not force others to bend to your desires.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

gibbsgirl said:


> OK, so I was just googling stuff.
> 
> It looks like the tube tying lady was 34 weeks pregnant at some point in september.
> 
> ...


Don't you think that if you're going to say that, you should find out if the woman has insurance that would cover a visit to those places? Do you know how expensive that stuff is out of pocket? Why pay for insurance if you have to go somewhere else to get what you need? And again... Usually people don't really have a choice in their carrier, it's about who their employer chooses, unless they want to spend 2,000 grand a month on blue cross blue shield...


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

wiscto said:


> Don't you think that if you're going to say that, you should find out if the woman has insurance that would cover a visit to those places? Do you know how expensive that stuff is out of pocket? Why pay for insurance if you have to go somewhere else to get what you need? And again... Usually people don't really have a choice in their carrier, it's about who their employer chooses, unless they want to spend 2,000 grand a month on blue cross blue shield...


Honestly, no not really. Being a grownup means accepting that you have to deal with the problems you face in life.

I really don't like our healthcare system. Hasn't worked well for my family and we can't change it. It's David and Goliath. Most of us are in that same boat IMO.

But, we've made sure we got what we need handled as its cone up in our life, despite it being a struggle. Lots of people do.

Been reading comments on their local news to see more info. Article said this is her third kid. And, folks think it's crazy that her obgyn hasn't referred her to a high risk on and then have her deliver at Hurley hospital for high risk delivery/surgery.

Looks like Hurley us minutes from genesys on the map.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

gibbsgirl said:


> I agree with that. But, there are other methods of birth control that are also less invasive/ risky than tube tying.


I'm not sure that it's up someone else to decide what someone and their doctor decides is a suitable form of birth control and certainly not someone who is not fully informed about the patient's records. 

Could there some chance that this woman and her doctor felt that there is a strong chance she will die and her husband may want to remarry and have children at some point in his life?


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

gibbsgirl said:


> Honestly, no not really. Being a grownup means accepting that you have to deal with the problems you face in life.
> 
> I really don't like our healthcare system. Hasn't worked well for my family and we can't change it. It's David and Goliath. Most of us are in that same boat IMO.
> 
> ...


I know someone who took a 10 minute ambulance right to switch hospitals for OBGYN stuff. Had to cover it out of pocket because it wasn't in her network. Now granted there were complications... 60k. 

Everyone's in the same boat?


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

wiscto said:


> I know someone who took a 10 minute ambulance right to switch hospitals for OBGYN stuff. Had to cover it out of pocket because it wasn't in her network. Now granted there were complications... 60k.
> 
> Everyone's in the same boat?


I can believe that. Many providers and services and such also offer ability to pay programs where people can receive reductions in the amount owed after any available insurance us checked for coverage.

It sucks when that happens.

Our family has had more years than not when our healthcare costs have exceeded $10k out of pocket. We're not rich either. Many years those costs have been higher for us than any other "category". So, we go without expenditures in many other areas.

It sucks. We're not that unusual though.

Still doesn't sway me when considering what's going on with what I've read so far. Be interesting to see how this plays out with the courts.

I don't lack empathy for folks in tough situations. I don't know if that's what your thinking?


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

gibbsgirl said:


> I can believe that. Many providers and services and such also offer ability to pay programs where people can receive reductions in the amount owed after any available insurance us checked for coverage.
> 
> It sucks when that happens.
> 
> ...


I don't think anyone here lacks empathy. But when people talk policy, they try to be objective. I'm not like a few others here who will claim you just don't have empathy for the other side. I'm really just trying to point out that sometimes choices may exist technically even when people don't really feel like they have a choice.


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

wiscto said:


> I don't think anyone here lacks empathy. But when people talk policy, they try to be objective. I'm not like a few others here who will claim you just don't have empathy for the other side. I'm really just trying to point out that sometimes choices may exist technically even when people don't really feel like they have a choice.


There's a lot "to be desired" IMO with our healthcare systems cost and delivery operations.

This lawsuit stuff we're talking about here doesn't fit that "needs to change" IMO.

I don't doubt it's a choice this particular lady doesn't like. But, there still are choices available to her. I don't doubt that physically, emotionally and financially they may be genuinely overwhelmingly stressful. That's what lots of folks face.

This story, from what limited, incomplete, and probably flawed details I've gathered thus far doesn't seem to me like it's a battle that needs to be waged to resolve her issue or effect sweeping improvements or corrections to the system.

My thoughts anyway.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

gibbsgirl said:


> OK, so I was just googling stuff.
> 
> It looks like the tube tying lady was 34 weeks pregnant at some point in september.
> 
> ...


No this was her regular hospital and where she was being treated long before she found out about the need for the tubal ligation. She was forced to change hospitals and doctors because of the Catholic hospital's refusal to do a tubal. The hospital doesn't give a crap abuot their patient's health or well being if they are putting their personal beliefs on contraception about her welfare. Somewhere along the way they lost their compassion and went all in for the letter of the Church's Law. Jesus would not have kind words for them. 




> Ms. Mann has been forced to switch hospitals to a new doctor -- one who has no relationship with her and no experience treating her serious medical condition -- with less than a month left in her pregnancy.


Oh and read the letter, this hospital must have been bought out by a Catholic system because not doing tubals is a new thing there just instituted in the last year. It's quite likely Ms. Mann had no idea things had changed. She had 2 other children there before they went Catholic. She has a long history and relationship there. 

https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/...esponse_to_denial_letter_for_jessica_mann.pdf


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

A little more info on the 5 women in this case:



> The story of Tamesha Means and her miscarriage three years ago, if it happened the way her lawyers claim it did, is truly awful: Means was 18 weeks pregnant when her water broke and she was rushed to a hospital in Muskegon, Mich. The fetus wasn&#8217;t viable, and the pregnancy &#8212; Means&#8217; third &#8212; was doomed.
> But doctors at the hospital, part of the Catholic healthcare network known as Mercy Health Partners, didn&#8217;t tell her that, Means&#8217; lawyers say. Instead of the normal course of treatment &#8212; inducing labor and terminating the pregnancy to stave off potentially risky complications &#8212; Means was allegedly kept in the dark about her condition, given painkillers, and sent home.
> 
> Bleeding and wracked with pain, she returned to Mercy twice over the next day or so and received more or less the same response, her lawyers claim. Just as she was about to be sent home a third time, by now feverish from a severe infection, she began to deliver. The baby died.





> According to the suit, Means&#8217; alleged mistreatment came to light in late 2012 or early 2013 when an unidentified researcher working on a federally funded project at Mercy uncovered what she said were not one, but _five_ instances in which doctors there failed to terminate the pregnancies of women who were clearly miscarrying.
> When the researcher asked hospital officials to explain, they allegedly told her that they were following the Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care, or ERDs &#8212; guidelines that govern medical treatment at every Catholic hospital and health system in the United States.
> The ERDS &#8212; which are issued and regularly updated by the bishops council &#8212; ban abortion and limit many other medical options, including sterilization and birth control, and apply to patients and medical staff no matter what their religion.
> Their impact, the advocates say, is greatest in places like Muskegon, where the only hospitals in the county are Catholic. Doctors who fail to comply with the ERDs risk losing their admitting privileges; other employees who similarly fail to abide by the ERDs face losing their jobs. (In Colorado recently, a cardiologist at a Catholic facility was reprimanded for merely mentioning abortion as a treatment option for a woman for whom pregnancy could have been deadly.)


In the cases of all 5 women in this lawsuit their water had broken. The babies had no chance of survival and the chance of infection was incredibly high. And yet they were all sent home to wait things out. It's amazing there were no deaths.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

gibbsgirl said:


> There's a lot "to be desired" IMO with our healthcare systems cost and delivery operations.
> 
> This lawsuit stuff we're talking about here doesn't fit that "needs to change" IMO.
> 
> ...


If Trump gets his way we'll have more choices with our insurance providers, and Catholic care providers and people will have real choice. Sounds good to me.


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

wiscto said:


> If Trump gets his way we'll have more choices with our insurance providers, and Catholic care providers and people will have real choice. Sounds good to me.


Does anyone ever really, get their way, when relying on others or politics?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Originally Posted by gibbsgirl View Post
> OK, so I was just googling stuff.
> 
> It looks like the tube tying lady was 34 weeks pregnant at some point in september.
> ...


It wouldn't matter if there were 100 other hospitals if *her Dr* didn't use them


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

I would be interested in knowing what the federal worker was researching when they came across these records, and then talked to hospital officials. We're privacy laws followed?


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

Would also be interested in why she went to the hospital three times and where her primary Dr/ob was in being involved in this.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

gibbsgirl said:


> Would also be interested in why she went to the hospital three times and where her primary Dr/ob was in being involved in this.


Tubes tied lady with brain cancer? She could have gone to hospital for any number of reasons, especially if she was receiving treatment for cancer which may have caused concerns for her or her baby's safety or maybe a high risk pregnancy. 

I can't speak directly to her situation but in Canada, very few OB/GYN's specialize in brain tumor's so someone in her situation would require the services of more than one doctor. I don't think it would be unreasonable to believe this woman did as well and perhaps her admissions rap sheet relate to that. 

Given that patient records are considered confidential, I would think that if the hospital or her doctors are releasing this information publicly, they may be on the receiving end of a lawsuit.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

A school with a zero tolerance policy will, almost always, gather the ire of many here. A church based hospital with one will be praised and blindly followed. In most cases people follow the advice of their doctors. If the doctors don't advise a different treatment how many women are going to seek out a second opinion with another, presumably non-religous, provider especially given the time restraints involved.

I really don't want the law changed to force these institutions to provide that which they don't agree with. It would be best if they came to the conclusuon that all "abortions" aren't created equal themselves. Maybe those lawmakers who have pushed for statutes requiring abortion providers to provide information and counseling on alternatives could seek to require religous hospitals to provide information on all options for treatments, even those that go against their religous beliefs, and let the patients decide.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

Patchouli said:


> I don't know what branch of healthcare you are in but I have to call hooey on the ACA hurting rural hospitals. Most rural hospitals would close tomorrow without Federal dollars from Medicare, Medicaid and now the ACA. You won't find anyone in Administration or finance who says otherwise.
> 
> And Ochsner just doing it to survive. ound:


Don't confuse Medicare and Medicaid with the requirements of the ACA - you do know there are reporting and filing requirements associated with Obamacare that didn't exist before?

While you are laughing, go talk to a few small hospital administrators and see what they say...


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

wr said:


> I'm not sure that it's up someone else to decide what someone and their doctor decides is a suitable form of birth control and certainly not someone who is not fully informed about the patient's records.
> 
> Could there some chance that this woman and her doctor felt that there is a strong chance she will die and her husband may want to remarry and have children at some point in his life?


But it is up to the owner of the business to set rules for its employees. If the employees don't like the rules then they can either deal with it, find a new place to work or violate the rules and face the possibility of being fired.

If someone needs BC then she should go to somewhere that sells BC.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

MO_cows said:


> Irregardless of how one feels about abortion or the Catholic church, isn't there anyone else who feels like if the women were not treated correctly according to their medical status, then a complaint should have been filed immediately after the fact by those women? Reported thru the proper channels which exist for that kind of thing? Review boards, state officials, even the AMA. Instead, the ACLU has filed a civil lawsuit, which says to me they are just using the women's cases to poke the bear. Adding insult to injury for these women. And if they should win the suit and are awarded damages, how much will the women get versus the ACLU? My guess is, not much, and that's just slimy.


How do you know complaints weren't filed? The hospital and medical boards will keep them under wraps at least while litigation is pending. If the article is correct, and there were multiple complications, there were complaints filed.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Patchouli said:


> You know what blows my mind here are all of the women who are obviously completely unaware of basic women's healthcare needs. If you go to the hospital because you are having a miscarriage (proper term spontaneous abortion) you may be suffering major complications. Excessive bleeding, a placental tear, the fetus died and has not been expelled leading to infection, etc.
> 
> Do you people not at least have animals? Never seen the horrific side effects of a retained placenta or a dead fetus? Sometimes an intervention is necessary. A D&C is not technically an abortion if the fetus is already dead or dying. It may very well be necessary to save the mother's life though.
> 
> Stop knee jerking because you saw the word abortion and read what is actually happening here and think about it.


It's because of the words "christian" and "abortion"- it's all they see. Sad, but true. 

The health of the mother isn't a priority--- dying or necrotic tissue is.


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

wr said:


> Tubes tied lady with brain cancer? She could have gone to hospital for any number of reasons, especially if she was receiving treatment for cancer which may have caused concerns for her or her baby's safety or maybe a high risk pregnancy.
> 
> I can't speak directly to her situation but in Canada, very few OB/GYN's specialize in brain tumor's so someone in her situation would require the services of more than one doctor. I don't think it would be unreasonable to believe this woman did as well and perhaps her admissions rap sheet relate to that.
> 
> Given that patient records are considered confidential, I would think that if the hospital or her doctors are releasing this information publicly, they may be on the receiving end of a lawsuit.


Those posts and questions were about the other lawsuit that patchouli was talking about.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I see as many, if not more lies from the other side, and you bashing BO in nearly every post is about like Nevada blaming Bush for everything.
> It just gets to be pointless


I wasn't bashing him, I was using him as an example of a chronic liar.


----------



## Kellkell (Nov 19, 2004)

I don't usually get into the mix here, but from the Ethical Religious Directives:
47. Operations, treatments, and medications that
have as their direct purpose the cure of a 
proportionately
serious pathological condition of a
pregnant woman are permitted when they 
cannot
be safely postponed until the unborn child
is
viable, even if they will result in the death of
the unborn child

So, it seems to me that if the women in question were in immediate danger, and were not offered the appropriate services, it was actually not in line with the directives. In which case the ACLU does not have a case, instead it was individuals not acting in accordance with the directive. Also, without individual details, miscarriages are usually handled in such a way, unless further complications emerge. http://www.aafp.org/afp/2005/1001/p1243.html Miscarriages are not routinely referred for d&c. In the case of the one woman mentioned, it sounds more like blatant malpractice and a lack of recognition of an incomplete miscarriage.

And for people who may be misinformed, the Catholic church and their hospitals do not forbid the termination of extraordinary measures for the purpose to keep someone alive. I speak as an RN who has worked in Catholic institutions and has participated in termination of treatment. Euthanasia is not endorsed. It can be a very fine line to walk at times, but primarily comes down to the intent of the family and healthcare team.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

For those in areas with many hospitals, it might not be an issue but here the Catholic hospital exists because it tends to accept at it will have a financial loss in more years than not. If pushed to the wall on matters of deep religious faith, then they will choose to sell. 
There is only one other hospital within a 100 miles and people in ambulances have been known to refuse to stop there in preference to another 20 minute drive because of its abysmal reputation.
It might be bought up by a for profit group but they would not continue to offer a full range of services that lose them money. 
If they find themselves constantly spending big bucks on lawsuits, they will sell.


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

Kellkell said:


> I don't usually get into the mix here, but from the Ethical Religious Directives:
> 47. Operations, treatments, and medications that
> have as their direct purpose the cure of a
> proportionately
> ...


Good post. Thank you for sharing.

I'm really interested in seeing who treated her at the hospital for those visits. Er, urgent care, labor and delivery, combination? I'm also interested in where her regular obgyn care doctor fit into this timeline.

Could be malpractice. Don't know.

But, I do know that I've seen ers, etc be very limited on treatment when a person shows up for care that us being treated regularly by another Dr for a condition. Could be pregnancy, post op, cancer, etc.

Some are only willing to ensure a pt is stable enough to be released and they refer pts to follow up with the doctor handling ongoing treatment.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

watcher said:


> But it is up to the owner of the business to set rules for its employees. If the employees don't like the rules then they can either deal with it, find a new place to work or violate the rules and face the possibility of being fired.
> 
> If someone needs BC then she should go to somewhere that sells BC.


In the situation being discussed, it wasn't just a simple issue of birth control choices, her doctors seemed to feel another pregnancy would cause her harm.

I'm not trying to split hairs but I interpret this as being somewhat different than a personal choice of birth control methods.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Jolly said:


> Don't confuse Medicare and Medicaid with the requirements of the ACA - you do know there are reporting and filing requirements associated with Obamacare that didn't exist before?
> 
> While you are laughing, go talk to a few small hospital administrators and see what they say...


I have. I know about hospital administration from the inside of both large and smaller regional ones. You are right the ACA does have one serious flaw (re-admission issue) and it is a disproportionate burden on rural hospitals. 

I have to admit I misread your original post. That's what I get for skimming. Sorry.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

where I want to said:


> For those in areas with many hospitals, it might not be an issue but here the Catholic hospital exists because it tends to accept at it will have a financial loss in more years than not. If pushed to the wall on matters of deep religious faith, then they will choose to sell.
> There is only one other hospital within a 100 miles and people in ambulances have been known to refuse to stop there in preference to another 20 minute drive because of its abysmal reputation.
> It might be bought up by a for profit group but they would not continue to offer a full range of services that lose them money.
> If they find themselves constantly spending big bucks on lawsuits, they will sell.


If its sold to a for profit company it will probably shut its ER within months.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

wr said:


> In the situation being discussed, it wasn't just a simple issue of birth control choices, her doctors seemed to feel another pregnancy would cause her harm.
> 
> I'm not trying to split hairs but I interpret this as being somewhat different than a personal choice of birth control methods.


I can't think of a single way that needing BC would be an emergency medical issue which would have to be done immediately or it would result in death or grievous bodily harm. That means that someone wanting BC has plenty of time to find a medical provider if the one they are dealing with is not willing to provide it.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

watcher said:


> I can't think of a single way that needing BC would be an emergency medical issue which would have to be done immediately or it would result in death or grievous bodily harm. That means that someone wanting BC has plenty of time to find a medical provider if the one they are dealing with is not willing to provide it.


Every one of your points was answered back in this thread.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

watcher said:


> I can't think of a single way that needing BC would be an emergency medical issue which would have to be done immediately or it would result in death or grievous bodily harm. That means that someone wanting BC has plenty of time to find a medical provider if the one they are dealing with is not willing to provide it.


I don't feel it would or should be classified as an emergency but I can also understand that it would would be better for a human to have one surgery instead of two.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Patchouli said:


> Every one of your points was answered back in this thread.


Not that I saw. Its gone from abortion to birth control. I can think of times when an abortion is called for as a medical emergency but I can't think of a single time when someone could walk into an ER and a doctor would say "Quick, she needs birth control in 10 minutes or she's going to DIE!". Can you give me an example of how this could happen?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

wr said:


> I don't feel it would or should be classified as an emergency but I can also understand that it would would be better for a human to have one surgery instead of two.


Ok so it would be "better" but would it "better" to the point that we should allow the government to the force of law to make someone to violate their moral and religious beliefs?


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

watcher said:


> Ok so it would be "better" but would it "better" to the point that we should allow the government to the force of law to make someone to violate their moral and religious beliefs?


I can't respond to that because I don't know the details of her medical condition. This seems to have been a decision made between her, her specialist and her OB/GYN so I have no way to know if a second surgery would be dangerous or not. 

I'm not sure if it is factual or not but I did read that the patient indicated that the procedure had been done in the hospital in the past for similar reasons and the hospital had reversed it's policy.


----------



## Old Vet (Oct 15, 2006)

wiscto said:


> Just to add for any readers who don't have insurance and use healthcare in a town with multiple healthcare systems.
> 
> You are often still limited by your finances, and the insurance provider your company has chosen to go with. You can make that decision.... If you aren't limited by the ailment you are suffering from. Or if you don't mind racking up 60 grand in debt over night because you chose to be moved out of your coverage zone.


No matter how good of a insurance policy you will be constrained by finances. If you don't have insurance you may have to go to the free clinics. So they have nothing to do with the subject. How many straw men are you willing to build?


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Old Vet said:


> No matter how good of a insurance policy you will be constrained by finances. If you don't have insurance you may have to go to the free clinics. So they have nothing to do with the subject. How many straw men are you willing to build?


Ironic post makes a straw man accusation that a poster is using a straw man argument, and does so using straw man logic. Generally if your coverage works anywhere in your town, you aren't really suffering financial constraints. People who have cheaper coverage are generally very financially constrained. 

Free clinics... LMAO


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

wr said:


> I can't respond to that because I don't know the details of her medical condition. This seems to have been a decision made between her, her specialist and her OB/GYN so I have no way to know if a second surgery would be dangerous or not.


Do you admit you also have no idea if taking the time to perform two procedures instead of one might or might placed her in more danger than finishing the first ASAP? After all isn't the point here the fact these women were facing medical emergencies in if that's the case you don't have time to be doing elective procedures.




wr said:


> I'm not sure if it is factual or not but I did read that the patient indicated that the procedure had been done in the hospital in the past for similar reasons and the hospital had reversed it's policy.


And McDees used to sell the McRib but they reversed their policy on that. Should the government step in and force them to revert to their old policy and sell McRibs?

IOW, the hospital has every right to change its policies for any reason they wish.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

watcher said:


> I can't think of a single way that needing BC would be an emergency medical issue which would have to be done immediately or it would result in death or grievous bodily harm. That means that someone wanting BC has plenty of time to find a medical provider if the one they are dealing with is not willing to provide it.





> Do you admit you also have no idea if taking the time to perform two procedures instead of one might or might placed her in more danger than finishing the first ASAP? After all isn't the point here the fact these women were facing medical emergencies in if that's the case you don't have time to be doing elective procedures.


It takes very little time to do a tubal ligation.

She was scheduled for a C-section, so would be sedated, prepped, and opened up already. 

To put it off would mean repeating many of those steps at additional risk and expense.

This has already been explained at least one time on the thread.

You're also confusing two different lawsuits, one of which has nothing to do with "emergencies"

It really helps if you read the posts and linked materials


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Old Vet said:


> No matter how good of a insurance policy you will be constrained by finances. If you don't have insurance you may have to go to the free clinics. So they have nothing to do with the subject. How many straw men are you willing to build?


Many insurance policies list a group of Drs one can use.

If your Dr only has admitting privileges at one hospital, that's where you go if you want your policy to cover the services.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

Patchouli said:


> I have. I know about hospital administration from the inside of both large and smaller regional ones. You are right the ACA does have one serious flaw (re-admission issue) and it is a disproportionate burden on rural hospitals.
> 
> I have to admit I misread your original post. That's what I get for skimming. Sorry.


No problem, we all misread stuff now and then.


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Many insurance policies list a group of Drs one can use.
> 
> If your Dr only has admitting privileges at one hospital, that's where you go if you want your policy to cover the services.


Drs can get privileges at other hospitals, even temporarily.


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

I would be less skeptical I think if it was not a big lobbyist org like aclu fronting the costs to pursue all this. They have money and resources to burn on making high profile cases. Sometimes the goal with such groups is to get the publicity at the front end to advance their ideals. The nitty gritty details of what ends up happening ultimately are covered far less widely than the initial announcements. And, they can afford to lose.

If it were a small firm taking these cases, it would on the surface appear more likely that they felt it was a slam dunk case.

For what it's worth, I do think that most folks realize a catholic hospital will be different than other hospitals in some treatment availability. But, lots of hospitals are like that. I'm sure there is some level of that communicated to many patients too.

But, I do absolutely support the idea that all hospitals, Catholic or not, regarding all care, pregnancy or otherwise, should have better communications with the public and patients regarding those differences.

It would improve care a lot IMO if more people were informed or reminded that different providers may offer different treatment options, and that second opinions can be very valuable, especially when done at different facilities.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Kellkell said:


> I don't usually get into the mix here, but from the Ethical Religious Directives:
> 47. Operations, treatments, and medications that
> have as their direct purpose the cure of a
> proportionately
> ...


There are official directives and policies and then there are policies known and followed. They aren't always the same. By simply delaying and not doing some procedures the need to do them at some point becomes moot because that procedure is no longer neccessary. A de facto ban on such procedures thus exists with no official ban. That's sort of what feels like in these cases. Patients should have access to all information about treatment and procedures, especially in time sensitive situations.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

watcher said:


> Do you admit you also have no idea if taking the time to perform two procedures instead of one might or might placed her in more danger than finishing the first ASAP? After all isn't the point here the fact these women were facing medical emergencies in if that's the case you don't have time to be doing elective procedures.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Also could be that some here do not know the simplicity of the 'bandaid surgery' tying tubes. Its a simple procedure, done as outpatient in very little time. Many chose this instead of having it done at the time of delivery. Especially if delivery has any sort of complication.


----------



## Jokarva (Jan 17, 2010)

My first nursing job was in a Catholic hospital in Louisiana in the mid 80s, I worked there for 4 years. I will just say that not all Catholic hospitals (at the time anyway) refuse to do abortions....and there are multiple ways to code the term 'abortion'. Although medical coding and insurance are an entirely different animal these days.

ETA - sorry if I've drifted the thread, didn't read the previous TEN PAGES of posts....


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Tricky Grama said:


> Also could be that some here do not know the simplicity of the 'bandaid surgery' tying tubes. Its a simple procedure, done as outpatient in very little time. Many chose this instead of having it done at the time of delivery. Especially if delivery has any sort of complication.


Since when has "band aid" surgery required large amounts general anesthesia? There's also the CO2 that is injected necessitating stronger sedatives and pain relief. 

I guess some here don't understand that tubal ligation is out patient surgery requiring an operating room. Two surgeries doubles the chance of complications...


----------



## gapeach (Dec 23, 2011)

I had the band aid surgery to remove my gall bladder and stones and was out grocery shopping the very next day. Of course, I was about 15 yrs younger then but still 60 yrs old.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

gapeach said:


> I had the band aid surgery to remove my gall bladder and stones and was out grocery shopping the very next day. Of course, I was about 15 yrs younger then but still 60 yrs old.


That's nice. How many incisions? How much Co2 did they use? Did they use ketamine? Local anesthesia as well? Did they really just use bandaids? 

You do realize that not all laparoscopic surgeries are the same for every person, right?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

gapeach said:


> I had the band aid surgery to remove my gall bladder and stones and was out grocery shopping the very next day. Of course, I was about 15 yrs younger then but still 60 yrs old.





> Originally Posted by Tricky Grama View Post
> Also could be that some here do not know the simplicity of the 'bandaid surgery' tying tubes. Its a simple procedure, done as outpatient in very little time. Many chose this instead of having it done at the time of delivery. Especially if delivery has any sort of complication.


The woman was already scheduled for surgery.

Once a patient is prepped and sedated for a C-section, doing a tubal ligation while she's open already is pretty much a matter of putting on a couple of clamps before closing, as opposed to waiting for a near complete recovery and then having another operation which still takes an entire day of the patient's time, even if you call it "band-aid surgery"


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Bearfootfarm said:


> It takes very little time to do a tubal ligation.
> 
> She was scheduled for a C-section, so would be sedated, prepped, and opened up already.
> 
> ...


Oh, so it was a planned ELECTIVE surgery. Which means she knew, or should have known seeing how it is a CATHOLIC hospital, in advance that the hospital did not do sterilizations. Isn't that like going into a Jewish deli and suing them when you can't get a ham and swiss on rye to go with your bagel and lox?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Tricky Grama said:


> Also could be that some here do not know the simplicity of the 'bandaid surgery' tying tubes. Its a simple procedure, done as outpatient in very little time. Many chose this instead of having it done at the time of delivery. Especially if delivery has any sort of complication.


I wasn't going to bring up laparoscopic tubals until later.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

wiscto said:


> Ironic post makes a straw man accusation that a poster is using a straw man argument, and does so using straw man logic. Generally if your coverage works anywhere in your town, you aren't really suffering financial constraints. People who have cheaper coverage are generally very financially constrained.
> 
> Free clinics... LMAO


Perhaps free clinics mean something different in the US than in my part of the world.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Bearfootfarm said:


> The woman was already scheduled for surgery.
> 
> Once a patient is prepped and sedated for a C-section, doing a tubal ligation while she's open already is pretty much a matter of putting on a couple of clamps before closing, as opposed to waiting for a near complete recovery and then having another operation which still takes an entire day of the patient's time, even if you call it "band-aid surgery"


Your first sentence is all that is needed for the judge to toss the lawsuit before it even gets to the trial stage. It was a PLANNED surgery as such she should have known IN ADVANCE that the hospital did not preform sterilization. If she wished to be sterilized at the time of her C-section she should have found a hospital which would do it.

As I said in another post, this is like going into a Jewish deli for bagel and lox then suing them when they will not sell you a ham and swiss on rye as well.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

watcher said:


> Oh, so it was a planned ELECTIVE surgery. Which means she knew, or should have known seeing how it is a CATHOLIC hospital, in advance that the hospital did not do sterilizations. Isn't that like going into a Jewish deli and suing them when you can't get a ham and swiss on rye to go with your bagel and lox?


Yes, it was "planned" by *her regular Dr*, who had admitting privileges at the hospital, rather than someone she didn't know, although having a C-section isn't "elective" most of the time. It's generally done as a medical necessity.


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Yes, it was "planned" by *her regular Dr*, who had admitting privileges at the hospital, rather than someone she didn't know, although having a C-section isn't "elective" most of the time. It's generally done as a medical necessity.


Csection are done waaaayyy more often in the USA than in many other countries.

This woman may very well have needed to choose a csection as the less risky childbirthing option due to her brain tumor.

But, there's a whole swath of the csection done in the united States that are not generally necessary.

There's also a whole lot of inductions that are not medically necessary.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

gibbsgirl said:


> Csection are done waaaayyy more often in the USA than in many other countries.
> 
> This woman may very well have needed to choose a csection as the less risky childbirthing option due to her brain tumor.
> 
> ...


Are you saying that a woman can _choose_ to have a cesarean section?


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> Since when has "band aid" surgery required large amounts general anesthesia? There's also the CO2 that is injected necessitating stronger sedatives and pain relief.
> 
> I guess some here don't understand that tubal ligation is out patient surgery requiring an operating room. Two surgeries doubles the chance of complications...


This TL is dubbed "bandaid surgery"; not my term, not my coinage. The am't of anesthesia is not "a large am't". It doesn't require hospitalization. You're out & about w/in hrs.


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

Irish Pixie said:


> Are you saying that a woman can _choose_ to have a cesarean section?


Ive known many who at their own suggestion or at the drs prompting have ended up with csection. Some scheduled some during labor. Some have openly said they did it for not medical necessity. Some have legitimately questioned whether it was medical necessity.

I've also known more women who've had scheduled inductions without waiting to go into labor, than who've just waited for labor.

Known lots who were given pitocin routinely rather than out if medical necessity, some didn't care, some tried to decline it, but you can only argue so much when in labor.

Nationwide those statistics are pretty telling for whatever statistics are worth.

But, I will say I grew up in and had my babies in socal, and it may be a much more common area for that to happen in than in some cases. Although talking with others elsewhere and reading about trends had led me to believe, those practices may be catching on in more places.

It's not uncommon for drs to do "what's convenient" for them and/or there pts, with regard to scheduling such things, as long as it doesn't appear it would do any harm.

I don't agree with it at all, and feel bad for the parents who will constantly be juggling parenting with the rest if their life to have it be routine to try and even make childbirth " convenient". Imo we should be encouraging people to be free to take the time they need to attend to those events when itheur body says its time to give birth.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

watcher said:


> Oh, so it was a planned ELECTIVE surgery. Which means she knew, or should have known seeing how it is a CATHOLIC hospital, in advance that the hospital did not do sterilizations. Isn't that like going into a Jewish deli and suing them when you can't get a ham and swiss on rye to go with your bagel and lox?



Once again if you made any effort at all to read the previous posts you could save us all some time. Because once again you have no idea what you are on about here. 

The woman is having her third child. She had her first 2 children at this hospital and her Dr. for her cancer treatments and her OB/GYN are both at this hospital. She has a long history of treatment there. 

The hospital CHANGED their rules in the last year. She did not know that going in. So no she should not be expected at 7 months along to go find a new hospital and doctor because the HOSPITAL decided to go Catholic. 

And while I am at it no it is not a planned elective service. It is a NEEDED procedure recommended by both her Oncologist and her Obstetrician. She is under the care of BOTH of them coordinating together at this particular hospital. If she has to leave and go somewhere else it will be to a stranger who knows nothing about her current condition or the best way to deal with it.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Tricky Grama said:


> This TL is dubbed "bandaid surgery"; not my term, not my coinage. The am't of anesthesia is not "a large am't". It doesn't require hospitalization. You're out & about w/in hrs.



In and out in hours? Sure, 8-10 hours. 

Perhaps you were with Big Pharma for so long that you don't remember that a tubal ligation requires additional anesthesia because of the larger amount of CO2?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

gibbsgirl said:


> Ive known many who at their own suggestion or at the drs prompting have ended up with csection. Some scheduled some during labor. Some have openly said they did it for not medical necessity. Some have legitimately questioned whether it was medical necessity.
> 
> I've also known more women who've had scheduled inductions without waiting to go into labor, than who've just waited for labor.
> 
> ...


There is no way that a Dr will do a c-section simply because the patient wants it. There is monitoring in place so that unnecessary surgery isn't performed.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

wr said:


> Perhaps free clinics mean something different in the US than in my part of the world.


Well for one thing, not even Planned Parenthood offers free tubal ligations. I looked into that. They actually don't offer it at all from what I can tell. 

In the United States there are very few actually free clinics. They're usually in destitute areas and the doctors are all volunteers from other hospitals. They're busy. They don't offer everything a person might need. And usually procedures are copay, though they will try to help you get financial support. They might be okay with a woman who has cancer trying to have her tubes tied, but they aren't necessarily set up for it.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

wiscto said:


> Well for one thing, not even Planned Parenthood offers free tubal ligations. I looked into that. They actually don't offer it at all from what I can tell.
> 
> In the United States there are very few actually free clinics. They're usually in destitute areas and the doctors are all volunteers from other hospitals. They're busy. They don't offer everything a person might need. And usually procedures are copay, though they will try to help you get financial support. They might be okay with a woman who has cancer trying to have her tubes tied, but they aren't necessarily set up for it.


That's definitely not what we call a free clinic.


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

Irish Pixie said:


> There is no way that a Dr will do a c-section simply because the patient wants it. There is monitoring in place so that unnecessary surgery isn't performed.


Your mileage may vary. I am not saying your life experience is not legit. But, neither is mine not legit nor anybody else here.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

wr said:


> That's definitely not what we call a free clinic.


No I would imagine not. 

And then of course there's the Catholic Church. Who believe that if a woman has cancer and doesn't want to become pregnant, she should just abstain from having any intimate relations with her husband for the short remainder of her life. 

Canada is single payer, 100% free, paid for by taxes, right?


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

wiscto said:


> No I would imagine not.
> 
> And then of course there's the Catholics. Who believe that if a woman has cancer and doesn't want to become pregnant, she should just abstain from having any intimate relations with her husband for the short remainder of her life.
> 
> Canada is single payer, 100% free, paid for by taxes, right?


Sheesh, it feels like this thread should be subtitles "attack the Catholics week".

If no Catholic individuals believe in or partake in birth control, up to and including abortions, then it would have served no purpose for the pope to declare the year of mercy and allow women to speak freely of it in confession without fear of automatic excommunication.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

gibbsgirl said:


> Csection are done waaaayyy more often in the USA than in many other countries.
> 
> This woman may very well have needed to choose a csection as the less risky childbirthing option due to her brain tumor.
> 
> ...


Lots of things are done that "aren't necessary" in some opinions.
This Dr thought it was necessary in this case, for this patient.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

gibbsgirl said:


> Sheesh, it feels like this thread should be subtitles "attack the Catholics week".
> 
> If no Catholic individuals believe in or partake in birth control, up to and including abortions, then it would have served no purpose for the pope to declare the year of mercy and allow women to speak freely of it in confession without fear of automatic excommunication.


You know I'm talking SPECIFICALLY about the Catholic hospitals and the church itself. I can reword that for you, but I would bet every dollar to my name that you knew exactly what I meant. And referring to it as an "attack" is absolutely ludicrous.


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

wiscto said:


> You know I'm talking SPECIFICALLY about the Catholic hospitals and the church itself. I can reword that for you, but I would bet every dollar to my name that you knew exactly what I meant. And referring to it as an "attack" is absolutely ludicrous.


Thanks for clarifying you meant the church leadership, not just Catholics in general. I did read it the way I was saying, not how you're saying you meant it.

My "attack the Catholics" comment was not me trying to single you out specifically. Just my general thoughts after reading many comments on so many pages.

I will say there is often differences in the church leadership stances in different places, and definitely in different times of history. So, even the official word from rome on issues is sometimes not how the faith is practiced in different dioceses.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

wiscto said:


> Well for one thing, not even Planned Parenthood offers free tubal ligations. I looked into that. *They actually don't offer it at all from what I can tell. *
> 
> In the United States there are very few actually free clinics. They're usually in destitute areas and the doctors are all volunteers from other hospitals. They're busy. They don't offer everything a person might need. And usually procedures are copay, though they will try to help you get financial support. They might be okay with a woman who has cancer trying to have her tubes tied, but they aren't necessarily set up for it.


No one ever claimed they were free, so I'm not sure of your point about that.

It appears the second portion of your statement is incorrect:

http://plannedparenthood.tumblr.com/post/33843606899/tubal-ligation-aka-female-sterilization



> > Some Planned Parenthood health centers provide tubal sterilization, and some donât, depending on staffing and facility capabilities and the availability of these services in the community. Contact your local Planned Parenthood health center to find out about what services they offer.


Some of their clinics don't even offer abortions


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

gibbsgirl said:


> Thanks for clarifying you meant the church leadership, not just Catholics in general. I did read it the way I was saying, not how you're saying you meant it.
> 
> My "attack the Catholics" comment was not me trying to single you out specifically. Just my general thoughts after reading many comments on so many pages.
> 
> I will say there is often differences in the church leadership stances in different places, and definitely in different times of history. So, even the official word from rome on issues is sometimes not how the faith is practiced in different dioceses.


Fair enough. Thanks. I just can't see my opinion as an attack. That is the reality of what the church and those in the congregation who follow the doctrine believe.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

wiscto said:


> No I would imagine not.
> 
> And then of course there's the Catholic Church. Who believe that if a woman has cancer and doesn't want to become pregnant, she should just abstain from having any intimate relations with her husband for the short remainder of her life.
> 
> Canada is single payer, 100% free, paid for by taxes, right?


That is correct although it is my understanding that some provinces pay premiums although mine doesn't. Those that do, adjust premiums according to income.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Bearfootfarm said:


> No one ever claimed they were free, so I'm not sure of your point about that.


Because someone brought up free clinics in the context of this particular news story....


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Yes, it was "planned" by *her regular Dr*, who had admitting privileges at the hospital, rather than someone she didn't know, although having a C-section isn't "elective" most of the time. It's generally done as a medical necessity.


Its elective because it can be and usually is scheduled. There are a lot of operations which are medical necessities which are elective because they are planned. If they, the woman and her doctor, had the time to plan out when she was going into the OR and to discuss the fact she'd like to be sterilized at the same time they had plenty of time to find a hospital which did not have a policy of forbidding sterilization to be done on its ground.

When its not then its an emergency C-section and the odds are the woman isn't going to suddenly decide to have her tubs tied and ask the doctor to do it while the doctor is frantically trying to save the life of her child. Oh, sorry, frantically trying to remove the mass of tissue from her, got to be PC its not a child until AFTER its out of the womb. 

Its my understanding she went to a place for something she should have known would not provide it and now is suing because they refused to provide the thing. Again its like suing a Jewish deli for refusing to provide you a ham and cheese sandwich.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> Are you saying that a woman can _choose_ to have a cesarean section?


I don't know if they are but I will.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Lots of things are done that "aren't necessary" in some opinions.
> This Dr thought it was necessary in this case, for this patient.


There _always_ has to be a medical reason for a c-section. A woman can't decide she wants major surgery like she'd decide she wants sushi for dinner. "Oh, Dr. Welby, I've decided that labor will be much too hard so I want a c-section. No problem, Ms. Hathaway, I'll have that scheduled for next Tuesday. Is 9 am OK?" It just doesn't happen in real life. 

Medical review doesn't look favorably on unneeded surgery, and neither do insurance companies.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Patchouli said:


> Once again if you made any effort at all to read the previous posts you could save us all some time. Because once again you have no idea what you are on about here.


It seems to me the story is changing. First it was about emergency operations abortions. Then emergency birth control, whatever that is. Then its about someone who had a planned, i.e. elective, surgery. Which is it?




Patchouli said:


> The hospital CHANGED their rules in the last year. She did not know that going in.


So if you go into a store and they have stopped providing a service you used to get there they have violated your civil rights and you should sue them? Sounds logical.

She should be suing her doctor rather than the hospital. Did he really only discover that the policy had changed once she was on the table? He had to know many weeks if not months in advance that the hospital was changing their rules. I'm sure the hospital didn't one day send out a memo saying as of *today* we will no longer allow sterilizations to take place on our property. Heck you even say that the rule was change a year ago. I'd think that should be long enough for a doctor to discover it even if there were no memo about it.




Patchouli said:


> So no she should not be expected at 7 months along to go find a new hospital and doctor because the HOSPITAL decided to go Catholic.


Why not? Why is her "right" more important than the owner's of the hospital's right? BTW, I don't remember seeing in the USC where the right to use what ever hospital you wish is spelled out. Can you point me to that section in the constitution?





Patchouli said:


> And while I am at it no it is not a planned elective service. It is a NEEDED procedure recommended by both her Oncologist and her Obstetrician. She is under the care of BOTH of them coordinating together at this particular hospital. If she has to leave and go somewhere else it will be to a stranger who knows nothing about her current condition or the best way to deal with it.


And they had HOW LONG to find and make arrangements another hospital to do the delivery and sterilization there?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> In and out in hours? Sure, 8-10 hours.
> 
> Perhaps you were with Big Pharma for so long that you don't remember that a tubal ligation requires additional anesthesia because of the larger amount of CO2?


You need to check your info. 

According to Mount Sinai Hospital you can have it done with a epidural. 

_Anesthesia
Spinal anesthesia ânumbs the area from the chest down to the legs; given as an injection in the back_


And it takes less than an hour.

_How Long Will It Take?
20-30 minutes_


Want more info? http://www.mountsinai.org/patient-care/health-library/treatments-and-procedures/tubal-ligation-laparoscopic-surgery


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> There is no way that a Dr will do a c-section simply because the patient wants it. There is monitoring in place so that unnecessary surgery isn't performed.


Yeah and a cop can't pull you over unless you violate the traffic laws. And of course neither would ever just make up a reason to justify his action if questioned about it.


----------



## keenataz (Feb 17, 2009)

wr said:


> That is correct although it is my understanding that some provinces pay premiums although mine doesn't. Those that do, adjust premiums according to income.


That we do. In BC we pay $720/yr for a family of 4. That is a bargain anyway you look at it. 

A year ago I had a stroke-7 days in hospital, more tests than you can imagine, several specialists. I walked out not paying a dollar.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

watcher said:


> You need to check your info.
> 
> According to Mount Sinai Hospital you can have it done with a epidural.
> 
> ...


Are you thinking that according to this you can be in and out in 30 minutes?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

basketti said:


> Are you thinking that according to this you can be on and out in 29 minutes?


There is also a big difference between an epidural and spinal anesthesia. Not all patients can have surgery with spinal anesthesia either. 

The "20-30 minutes" that were referenced is the actually surgery time. That doesn't take into consideration any pre op or recovery time.


----------



## gapeach (Dec 23, 2011)

Both my daughter and DIL had emergency C-sections.

Both had epidurals because they wanted to be awake.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

gapeach said:


> Both my daughter and DIL had emergency C-sections.
> 
> Both had epidurals because they wanted to be awake.


Nope, cesareans require spinal anesthesia. 

Argue with WebMD: http://www.webmd.com/a-to-z-guides/epidural-and-spinal-anesthesia-topic-overview


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Its elective because it can be and usually is scheduled.


Scheduling a surgery doesn't mean it's "elective" in the sense that it's only because a patient wants it.


----------



## gapeach (Dec 23, 2011)

I just called my daughter. She is in the medical profession herself. She is a RRA , registered records administrator. She laughed and said of course I had an epidural and who is arguing with you? I knew that because I was there myself with her and my daughter in law with they had the epidurals. My daughter had a terrible reaction and could not stop shaking but the doctors had talked to us and told us that they were doing epidurals in both cases. It did not take long to get the twins out or the single big baby.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

gapeach said:


> I just called my daughter. She is in the medical profession herself. She is a RRA , registered records administrator. She laughed and said of course I had an epidural and who is arguing with you? I knew that because I was there myself with her and my daughter in law with they had the epidurals. My daughter had a terrible reaction and could not stop shaking but the doctors had talked to us and told us that they were doing epidurals in both cases. It did not take long to get the twins out or the single big baby.


I know what an RRA is and it has nothing to do with hands on medical care. It involves medical records filing and retrieval. It's not even a degree program anymore, just a certificate. It's pretty much an outdated field now that most hospitals are paperless. 

Again, argue with WebMD: http://www.webmd.com/a-to-z-guides/e...topic-overview

ETA: I actually considered becoming an RRA but saw the writing on the wall with computers taking over the duties and becoming a glorified clerk.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Scheduling a surgery doesn't mean it's "elective" in the sense that it's only because a patient wants it.


True but that's not what elective means in this case.

_Elective surgery: Surgery that is subject to choice (election). The choice may be made by the patient or doctor.

For example, the time when a surgical procedure is performed may be elective. The procedure is beneficial to the patient but does not need be done at a particular time.

As opposed to urgent or emergency surgery._

A planned C-section with tubal ligation would be considered elective surgery.


----------



## gapeach (Dec 23, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> I know what an RRA is and it has nothing to do with hands on medical care. It involves medical records filing and retrieval. It's not even a degree program anymore, just a certificate. It's pretty much an outdated field now that most hospitals are paperless.
> 
> Again, argue with WebMD: http://www.webmd.com/a-to-z-guides/e...topic-overview
> 
> ETA: I actually considered becoming an RRA but saw the writing on the wall with computers taking over the duties and becoming a glorified clerk.


OMG, I cannot believe you. Do you have any idea what the starting salary is for an RRA? My daughter works from home now and she does extremely well as gets quarterly bonuses. She does charts from big hospitals and she really could work as many hours as she wanted to. She has never filed in her 27 year career. Obviously you are in the dark about a lot of things that you act like you have knowledge of.

*Medical Records Administrator Salaries*

View Medical Records Administrator Hourly Wages
Alternate Job Titles: Medical Records Administrator (RRA), Medical Records Administrator
What is the average annual salary for Medical Records Administrator?
The annual salary for someone with the job title Medical Records Administrator may vary depending on a number of factors including industry, company size, location, years of experience and level of education. Our team of Certified Compensation Professionals has analyzed survey data collected from thousands of HR departments at companies of all sizes and industries to present this range of annual salaries for people with the job title Medical Records Administrator in the United States.
This chart describes the expected percentage of people who perform the job of Medical Records Administrator in the United States that make less than that annual salary. For example the median expected annual pay for a typical Medical Records Administrator in the United States is $78,680 so 50% of the people who perform the job of Medical Records Administrator in the United States are expected to make less than $78,680.
Source: HR Reported data as of October 2015


Salary
Salary + Bonus
Benefits
Purchase Full Report
 
Median $78,680 

10%$54,144
25%$65,837
75%$91,452
90%$103,080
 

[*]This is NATIONAL SALARY DATA
[*]Get more specific data by entering your city, state or zip code here.
[/LIST]

http://www1.salary.com/Medical-Records-Administrator-salary.html
You are hilarious!:heh:


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Oh, your daughter is an at home transcriptionist. So she transcribes notes and orders. I see...

Most transcriptionists are (were) ARTs, RRAs (used to) run medical records departments.

ETA: "Are there medical transcriptionists who make $50,000 a year? Yes, but they&#8217;re few and far between. A quick trip to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) website reveals that the average annual salary for a full-time medical transcriptionist is closer to $34,000."

From: http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/ten-myths-about-medical-transcription.html


----------



## gapeach (Dec 23, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> Oh, your daughter is a transcriptionist. So she transcribes notes and orders. I see...
> 
> Most transcriptionists are (were) ARTs, RRAs (used to) run medical records departments.


My daughter has never been a transcriptionist. When she was in college she had to take transcription. The longer you ramble on the worse hole you dig for yourself. You don't even know what RRA's do and how much money that they make.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> In and out in hours? Sure, 8-10 hours.
> 
> Perhaps you were with Big Pharma for so long that you don't remember that a tubal ligation requires additional anesthesia because of the larger amount of CO2?


Could you define Big Pharma for me please? You've mentioned that I'm "big Pharma" several times & I've tried to ignore that. Please explain what you've talking about when you claim I've been w/big pharma.

And I'll ask you: do you have a bachelor's of science degree in nursing? Or another college degree in the medical field that makes you knowledgeable regarding bandaid surgery? 

I've had the procedure personally. I've also assisted at the procedure. 
No 8-10 hrs. Not even.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

I was gonna post this, already done but here is is again.

http://plannedparenthood.tumblr.com/post/33843606899/tubal-ligation-aka-female-sterilization

This is where a few gals I know got their TLs.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Tricky Grama said:


> Could you define Big Pharma for me please? You've mentioned that I'm "big Pharma" several times & I've tried to ignore that. Please explain what you've talking about when you claim I've been w/big pharma.
> 
> And I'll ask you: do you have a bachelor's of science degree in nursing? Or another college degree in the medical field that makes you knowledgeable regarding bandaid surgery?
> 
> ...


You've stated many times that you were a sales rep for a pharmaceutical company for 20 years, correct? Don't some people call pharmaceutical companies "Big Pharma"? Right? Especially those that lean right? I believe it's even been suggested that Big Pharma is "evil". I don't think it is but some do. 

It's none of your business what degrees I hold.

I've had laparoscopic outpatient surgery, and my husband has had it 4 times. No band aids. You are required to be at the hospital at 8-9 am for anything pre op, have the surgery, in recovery, back to your room, and discharged around 3-4 pm. How many hours is that? That's if there are no complications...


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Patchouli said:


> I don't know what branch of healthcare you are in but I have to call hooey on the ACA hurting rural hospitals. Most rural hospitals would close tomorrow without Federal dollars from Medicare, Medicaid and now the ACA. You won't find anyone in Administration or finance who says otherwise.
> 
> And Ochsner just doing it to survive. ound:


Of the three hospitals within a hundred miles of here, one has closed because the medicare/medicare reimbursements are too low to cover the mandates and there are not enough privately insured to absorb the cost. One other was going to close for the same reason but was taken over at the last minute by the local Catholic hospital to save access to services. 
So a 50 % loss, except for the hail mary from the Catholic hospital.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

where I want to said:


> Of the three hospitals within a hundred miles of here, one has closed because the medicare/medicare reimbursements are too low to cover the mandates and there are not enough privately insured to absorb the cost. One other was going to close for the same reason but was taken over at the last minute by the local Catholic hospital to save access to services.
> So a 50 % loss, except for the hail mary from the Catholic hospital.


We haven't had any hospitals close in Las Vegas.


----------



## gapeach (Dec 23, 2011)

Same thing happened here. One very large hospital now has a 4 year Medical School on campus, a part of Mercer University. The 2 other hospitals, a large private hospital and the Catholic Hospital had to merge in order for both of them to continue to stay open.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Nevada said:


> We haven't had any hospitals close in Las Vegas.


Been through this on another thread. At that time I said it would have to be repeated but not here or now. Las Vegas is not rural anything.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> We haven't had any hospitals close in Las Vegas.


Any hospitals close their ERs?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

watcher said:


> Any hospitals close their ERs?


No. In fact I just got a new urgent care clinic very close to my home. The availability of emergency care seems to be improving.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> No. In fact I just got a new urgent care clinic very close to my home. The availability of emergency care seems to be improving.


I don't think a urgent care clinic is equal to an ER. For one thing I don't know if they are legally required to treat anyone who walks in the door like an ER. I know the ones around here do not have the ability to hand major medical emergencies.


----------



## gapeach (Dec 23, 2011)

We've got 2 of them less than a mile from here. My husband had been stabilized there before when his blood count was high, and high fever but they would call the EMS and send him straight on to the ER.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

I spent 28 days in hospital and nearly died from complications from a 'band aid' surgery so it's a bit harder to convince me that they're really no big deal.

The law of averages says most go off as planned and it's great that a patient can go home quickly but the reality is that no surgery is without risk.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

watcher said:


> I don't think a urgent care clinic is equal to an ER. For one thing I don't know if they are legally required to treat anyone who walks in the door like an ER. I know the ones around here do not have the ability to hand major medical emergencies.


Probably not, but it shows that emergency treatment is still profitable around here. But no "real" ERs have closed.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> You've stated many times that you were a sales rep for a pharmaceutical company for 20 years, correct? Don't some people call pharmaceutical companies "Big Pharma"? Right? Especially those that lean right? I believe it's even been suggested that Big Pharma is "evil". I don't think it is but some do.
> 
> It's none of your business what degrees I hold.
> 
> I've had laparoscopic outpatient surgery, and my husband has had it 4 times. No band aids. You are required to be at the hospital at 8-9 am for anything pre op, have the surgery, in recovery, back to your room, and discharged around 3-4 pm. How many hours is that? That's if there are no complications...


I remember your 1st statement about big pharma, you asked if I had to give up my 'conservative card' so now you've found out they lean right. Strangely enuf I was a progressive then...
A lowly sales rep hardly makes one a part of "big Pharma" but if it makes you happy, swell. 
You've seemed a little sad lately.

And I didn't think you had any medical training let alone degrees.

Someone must've been a problem patient b/c I know of no one who's stayed that long after a TL. I was downtown shopping-running across the street-by 3 pm. Nothing like 8-10 hrs.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Tricky Grama said:


> I remember your 1st statement about big pharma, you asked if I had to give up my 'conservative card' so now you've found out they lean right. Strangely enuf I was a progressive then...
> A lowly sales rep hardly makes one a part of "big Pharma" but if it makes you happy, swell.
> You've seemed a little sad lately.
> 
> ...


Oh, I do have medical training and degrees- but since a member tried to find out what school my granddaughter attended I'm not releasing any additional personal information. 

Don't sales reps sell drugs for their company? I was under that impression. Am I wrong?

What time did you get to the hospital? Was it around 8-9 am? There about 6 hours? It's OK don't answer... I know how long it takes for outpatient surgery, no matter how hard someone tries to minimize it. Vastly different than the 30 minutes indicated in a prior post on this thread. 

I'm not going to answer your personal jab "You've seemed a little sad lately."


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Irish Pixie said:


> Oh, I do have medical training and degrees- but since a member tried to find out what school my granddaughter attended I'm not releasing any additional personal information.


It doesn't really matter. They won't respect your background anyway. I've been open about my oil business education & experience, but I've grown accustomed to being told that I don't know anything about oil.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Nevada said:


> It doesn't really matter. They won't respect your background anyway. I've been open about my oil business education & experience, but I've grown accustomed to being told that I don't know anything about oil.


Too true. The people here with actual healthcare experience get roundly shouted down by those with none.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Probably not, but it shows that emergency treatment is still profitable around here. But no "real" ERs have closed.


Your logic fails. Your urgent care clinics do not provide emergency care. If you are in a situation where life or limb is in danger going to a clinic could lead to loss of said life and limb. Most of them are walk in clinics where there maybe one doctor on site, but usually he's off site, where people who don't have a 'family doctor' go or they go there when their normal doc's office is closed to be treated for stuff a GP usually handles. I've used them twice. Each time treatment could have waited until my GP's office opened but because I had the option I chose not to wait.

And just because no ERs have closed that doesn't mean they are turning a profit. It only shows that they are not yet losing enough money that the hospital needs to close it.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

watcher said:


> Your logic fails. Your urgent care clinics do not provide emergency care. If you are in a situation where life or limb is in danger going to a clinic could lead to loss of said life and limb. Most of them are walk in clinics where there maybe one doctor on site, but usually he's off site, where people who don't have a 'family doctor' go or they go there when their normal doc's office is closed to be treated for stuff a GP usually handles. I've used them twice. Each time treatment could have waited until my GP's office opened but because I had the option I chose not to wait.
> 
> And just because no ERs have closed that doesn't mean they are turning a profit. It only shows that they are not yet losing enough money that the hospital needs to close it.


At least 90% of what ERs do is the same thing urgent care clinics do.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Nevada said:


> At least 90% of what ERs do is the same thing urgent care clinics do.


Yup, pretty much. Major trauma/serious illness go to an ER but more mundane things can, and should, be treated at an urgent care.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> At least 90% of what ERs do is the same thing urgent care clinics do.


True but its also true that my GP's office can do 90% of what ERs do. 

The main difference is probably 90+% of the people going to urgent clinics and my GP's office PAY for their service. The same can not be said for for ERs. 

Is been my experience when you walk into an UC the first thing they do is ask for ID and insurance card. I'm fairly sure if you tell them you don't don't have either they would ask you to pay the standard 'visit fee', the last time I was there that was $75, before you see an NP and any extra fees before you leave.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> Yup, pretty much. Major trauma/serious illness go to an ER but more mundane things can, and should, be treated at an urgent care.


The problem is UC are not view by some as free clinics whereas ER are.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> Oh, I do have medical training and degrees- but since a member tried to find out what school my granddaughter attended I'm not releasing any additional personal information.
> 
> Don't sales reps sell drugs for their company? I was under that impression. Am I wrong?
> 
> ...


Drug reps detail pharmaceuticals to doctors. Patient samples are provided most times but no drugs are sold. Depending of what you're 'pushing' patient programs are big, educating folks about their medicines.

Cannot remember what time I arrived to the app't but, too long ago, the procedure itself is less than an hr, prep & all. I believe that was what someone was referring to in a previous post.

Sorry, I noticed you have asked a number of folks if they're sad, no one else is allowed?


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Nevada said:


> It doesn't really matter. They won't respect your background anyway. I've been open about my oil business education & experience, but I've grown accustomed to being told that I don't know anything about oil.


I would never tell you that.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Tricky Grama said:


> Drug reps detail pharmaceuticals to doctors. Patient samples are provided most times but no drugs are sold. Depending of what you're 'pushing' patient programs are big, educating folks about their medicines.
> 
> Cannot remember what time I arrived to the app't but, too long ago, the procedure itself is less than an hr, prep & all. I believe that was what someone was referring to in a previous post.
> 
> Sorry, I noticed you have asked a number of folks if they're sad, no one else is allowed?


If you "detailed" drugs to doctors, why is the position called "sales" representative? Based on your "details" the doctor is supposed to _buy_ the drug or vaccine, correct? You can spin all you'd like.

If I thought you actually cared if I was sad there wouldn't be an issue, but you're using it to bait me. Buh bye.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> If you "detailed" drugs to doctors, why is the position called "sales" representative? Based on your "details" the doctor is supposed to _buy_ the drug or vaccine, correct? You can spin all you'd like.
> 
> If I thought you actually cared if I was sad there wouldn't be an issue, but you're using it to bait me. Buh bye.


Doc do not purchase medicines. They write scripts for their patients to go purchase medicines.

Baiting? Huh. Is that what you were doing when you asked so many of us if we were sad? Who questioned you then? Have to admit, I really doubted you were sincere but would never had called it "baiting". I don't get it...


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Nevada said:


> It doesn't really matter. They won't respect your background anyway. I've been open about my oil business education & experience, but I've grown accustomed to being told that I don't know anything about oil.


How dare people judge a person by the quality of their posts versus their own evaluation of their worth. How unPC. Uncool.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

Tricky Grama said:


> Doc do not purchase medicines. They write scripts for their patients to go purchase medicines.
> 
> Baiting? Huh. Is that what you were doing when you asked so many of us if we were sad? Who questioned you then? Have to admit, I really doubted you were sincere but would never had called it "baiting". I don't get it...


Back in the good ol' days, reps were detail men (or women). Today, they're TNA and Joe All-Americas who don't even know half of what the old guys knew. If a doc has a question, and they don't have a pre-canned response, they have to refer it to a manager.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

Nevada said:


> No. In fact I just got a new urgent care clinic very close to my home. The availability of emergency care seems to be improving.


Those are not subject to EMTALA, and should never, ever be compared to a true ER or ED.


----------



## Riverdale (Jan 20, 2008)

wiscto said:


> No I would imagine not.
> 
> And then of course there's the Catholic Church. Who believe that if a woman has cancer and doesn't want to become pregnant, she should just abstain from having any intimate relations with her husband for the short remainder of her life.
> 
> Canada is single payer, 100% free, paid for by taxes, right?



Last line is the most important.

Why should I be compelled (by the government) to to provide for the well-being of anyone, but me and mine. Charity is just that. If I choose too contribute, I can. If I don't, fine too.

Thanks for the entitlement mentality, FDR.........


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

Irish Pixie said:


> Oh, I do have medical training and degrees- but since a member tried to find out what school my granddaughter attended I'm not releasing any additional personal information.
> 
> Don't sales reps sell drugs for their company? I was under that impression. Am I wrong?
> 
> ...


I've seen nothing to indicate you have a medical degree, but that doesn't mean you don't have one.

My last job was running a 26 person lab with a $5M budget in a tertiary care facility. What did you do?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Jolly said:


> I've seen nothing to indicate you have a medical degree, but that doesn't mean you don't have one.
> 
> My last job was running a 26 person lab with a $5M budget in a tertiary care facility. What did you do?


Again, none of your business. Again, my last job may have been as an underwear model. 

I will say that I don't have delusions of grandeur.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

Irish Pixie said:


> Again, none of your business. Again, my last job may have been as an underwear model.
> 
> I will say that I don't have delusions of grandeur.


In other words your degree is possibly cursory, and assuredly non-terminal. Nothing wrong with that, but if you are going to use a voice of authority argument, just make sure you know what you are talking about.

I didn't have delusions of grandeur, either. If I did, I would have taken one of the jobs offered me when I retired from the medical lab, either teaching Allied health in a major university system or as a regional director over nine laboratories for a major healthcare corporation. Like Popeye, I yam what I yam, and that's a pretty darn good Clinical Lab Director. Or, at least I used to be...Nowadays I'm just a semi-intelligent retirement counselor.

But let's get back to out-patient surgery. Depending on what the procedure is, some are done with minimal anesthesia, are over very quickly and recovery time is minimal. Prep time for a cataract surgery is minimal, a good op can grip it and rip it in ten minutes and if you take much over 30 minutes to recover, yer doin' it wrong.

And IIRC, tubals are usually done as mini-laps after vaginal delivery, done through the incision in a C-section or done as a regular lap or mini-lap during an outpatient visit. Actual OR time should be about a half-hour. Recovery room time varies, as folks are different and different gas-passers use different techniques or drugs.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Jolly said:


> snip off topic rhetoric
> 
> But let's get back to out-patient surgery. Depending on what the procedure is, some are done with minimal anesthesia, are over very quickly and recovery time is minimal. Prep time for a cataract surgery is minimal, a good op can grip it and rip it in ten minutes and if you take much over 30 minutes to recover, yer doin' it wrong.
> 
> And IIRC, tubals are usually done as mini-laps after vaginal delivery, done through the incision in a C-section or done as a regular lap or mini-lap during an outpatient visit. Actual OR time should be about a half-hour. Recovery room time varies, as folks are different and different gas-passers use different techniques or drugs.


How is this vastly different from what I said? I'm not as grandiose in my posting, but then again, I'm not looking for validation. 

As you seem to be simply repeating what I've already said, I'll bow out and let you pontificate until your heart's content.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Jolly- you've just warmed the cockles of my heart..........


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

Irish Pixie said:


> How is this vastly different from what I said? I'm not as grandiose in my posting, but then again, I'm not looking for validation.
> 
> As you seem to be simply repeating what I've already said, I'll bow out and let you pontificate until your heart's content.


Sorry. As a former educator, I tend to educate sometimes, rather than just talk about something.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Jolly said:


> Sorry. As a former educator, I tend to educate sometimes, rather than just talk about something.


what exactly were/are you in the medical profession?

Because really, what it sounds like you're doing is dropping a lot of jargon in an effort to impress. Whenever some one does that, I get the distinct impression of someone being asked, "are you a doctor?" And answering "no, I but mop hospital floors"


Not saying I think you are a janitor or anything, just the impression one gets one someone tries so hard to impress with jargon dropping.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

basketti said:


> what exactly were/are you in the medical profession?


His "CV" post is now dramatically different than the original. I have no idea either... but then again I don't really care. After all, I may have been an underwear model.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

basketti said:


> what exactly were/are you in the medical profession?
> 
> Because really, what it sounds like you're doing is dropping a lot of jargon in an effort to impress. Whenever some one does that, I get the distinct impression of someone being asked, "are you a doctor?" And answering "no, I but mop hospital floors"
> 
> ...


Read the thread.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Irish Pixie said:


> His "CV" post is now dramatically different than the original. I have no idea either... but then again I don't really care. After all, I may have been an underwear model.


Indeed. And I am Hillary Clinton.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Jolly said:


> Read the thread.


Oh I read the lab part, was just wondering what kind of doctor you were purporting to be as well.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

basketti said:


> what exactly were/are you in the medical profession?
> 
> Because really, what it sounds like you're doing is dropping a lot of jargon in an effort to impress. Whenever some one does that, I get the distinct impression of someone being asked, "are you a doctor?" And answering "no, I but mop hospital floors"
> 
> ...


And, if you'd really, really like to get down in the weeds, let's have a discussion about In Vitro Diagnostic Multivariate assays (IVDMA), the PCR gene expression microarrays and reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction amplification tests which help make them possible, along with the current FDA positions on such testing (such as the Oncotype ) and the possible placing of such black box tests under CLIA. Or maybe, just how mass spectroscopy has affected microbiology testing, the edicts of Joint on antibiotic therapy and testing and the problems of less well-trained microbiology people who lean too hard on technology, rather than their eyes and their nose.

Now, drop that whole mess down into a churn of LEAN and Sigma 6, coupled with increasing robotics and automation lines, a nice dose of ACA and ICD-10 in my little corner (I'm no expert overall, but I'm ok in my small niche), with a smidgen of mostly common sense management and staffing topics, which all lead to how in the H-E-Double hockey sticks can I provide cutting edge technology to the current generation of physicians who want it, at a price I can break even or make money on, while simultaneously acquiring and training the staff I need. 

And no, I don't do anything that complicated any more. Nowadays, I just try to decipher the stock market, mostly mostly no-load and A funds with their lower 12b-1 fees along with with B funds and their CDSC and level-load C type mutual funds. I ain't smart enough or confident enough to go the day trade route.

Since I was raised on the rural route and some of that raising was the old-timey way, I can also discuss a mite about splitting rails and building fences, riving shingles, raising livestock, gardening and row cropping, commercial fishing, logging and sawmill work. I can build a house (if you keep it simple enough  )from start to finish, pour and finish a driveway, build a set of kitchen cabinets and I paint well enough to get paid for it. In my shop you can do most everything you'd want to around a country place except machinist and heavy fabrication work.

And yeah, I taught on the collegiate level for awhile, was in the firearms business for over twenty years and even did some consulting gigs. Along with some other stuff too trivial to mention.

So, nowadays, I just do my new job stuff, draw my pension and try to take care of two houses and thirty acres.

Oh, I did forget one thing...when I was working my way through college, I did have a job where I mopped floors. Stripped and waxed them, too. Just between me and you, I can run a mighty mean buffer...


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

basketti said:


> Oh I read the lab part, was just wondering what kind of doctor you were purporting to be as well.


I don't know, point that out to me.

And while we're at it, what are you purporting to be?


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

:hijacked::hijacked:



Jolly said:


> Back in the good ol' days, reps were detail men (or women). Today, they're TNA and Joe All-Americas who don't even know half of what the old guys knew. If a doc has a question, and they don't have a pre-canned response, they have to refer it to a manager.


Ya got that right. I worked for 2 small co.s but b/4 that was a 'rent-a-rep' for a co. that got us temp jobs w/various co.s
It was getting to be the 'canned response' which kinda made it difficult to establish relationships...which a lot of the time helped you get the doc to write for your product.
The restrictions were severe & some co.s did not follow them. Made if hard on us who did. F.i., we were allowed to give the doc studies that showed us in a good light but never could we give info on how our drug was a benefit to something it was NOT FDA approved for. If the doc asked 1st, then we could.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

basketti said:


> Because really, what it sounds like you're doing is *dropping a lot of jargon in an effort to impress*. Whenever some one does that, I get the distinct impression of someone being asked, "are you a doctor?" And answering "no, I but mop hospital floors".


Yup, I believe you're right.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

Jolly said:


> In other words your degree is possibly cursory, and assuredly non-terminal. Nothing wrong with that, but if you are going to use a voice of authority argument, just make sure you know what you are talking about.
> 
> I didn't have delusions of grandeur, either. If I did, I would have taken one of the jobs offered me when I retired from the medical lab, either teaching Allied health in a major university system or as a regional director over nine laboratories for a major healthcare corporation. Like Popeye, I yam what I yam, and that's a pretty darn good Clinical Lab Director. Or, at least I used to be...Nowadays I'm just a semi-intelligent retirement counselor.
> 
> ...


And another thing...I went back a re-read my post, searching for jargon. 

Jargon is defined as _*special words or expressions that are used by a particular profession or group and are difficult for others to understand.*_. I think almost all of us are familiar with the terms for laparoscopic surgery. There's almost no jargon whatsoever contained in those paragraphs. I think they are pretty clear.

So, what is the purpose of the protest?


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Jolly said:


> I don't know, point that out to me.
> 
> And while we're at it, what are you purporting to be?


Hillary Clinton...former First Lady, Secretary of State and democratic presidential contender.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Well,I emergency brain surgery can be an in an out deal.
I know that the patient can self check out right out of post op.
With out even seeing a doctor.

Some folks are catty with green eyes others are jolly.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

Irish Pixie said:


> Yup, I believe you're right.



âThe world dread nothing so much as being convinced of their errors.â 
&#8213; William Hazlitt


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Jolly said:


> In other words your degree is possibly cursory, and assuredly non-terminal. Nothing wrong with that, but if you are going to use a voice of authority argument, just make sure you know what you are talking about.
> 
> I didn't have delusions of grandeur, either. If I did, I would have taken one of the jobs offered me when I retired from the medical lab, either teaching Allied health in a major university system or as a regional director over nine laboratories for a major healthcare corporation. Like Popeye, I yam what I yam, and that's a pretty darn good Clinical Lab Director. Or, at least I used to be...Nowadays I'm just a semi-intelligent retirement counselor.
> 
> ...


Ah, Jolly, you should know that's SOP. You show me yours...then...hey, none of your beeswax about mine.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

basketti said:


> Hillary Clinton...former First Lady, Secretary of State and democratic presidential contender.


Congratulations on your imploding candidacy. It takes a special talent to drop ten points in a week to an avowed socialist and a guy who ain't even running.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

"Don't let anyone or anything discourage you from pursuing delusions of grandeur." -Don Kardong, US Olympic marathoner


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

_In America, even idiots can drool in public. _- Jolly.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

Well folks, it's been fun, but I have to finish cutting the pasture. And the LSU game is this afternoon.

*GEAUX TIGERS!*

Y'all carry on without me for awhile...


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Jolly said:


> Well folks, it's been fun, but I have to finish cutting the pasture. And the LSU game is this afternoon.
> 
> *GEAUX TIGERS!*
> 
> Y'all carry on without me for awhile...


Enjoy the game.


----------

