RiverJordan
Inactive
Pregnant Woman Suffers. You Won't Believe Who's to Blame.
So what trumps what here? Does the Catholic Hospital's religious freedom trump the personal health of individuals? Is it moral to withhold vital medical information from a patient? At the very least, should the hospital inform the patient that she should seek other medical advice because they feel no obligation to provide her with the facts of her situation? If the woman had gone home and died or had something serious happen, is that medical negligence?
I'm having a hard time understanding how a religious institution can consider this an act of morality.
Tamesha was only 18 weeks pregnant when her water broke prematurely. She rushed to Mercy Health—the only hospital within half an hour of where she lived. The hospital did not tell her then that she had little chance of a successful pregnancy, that she was at risk if she tried to continue the pregnancy, and that the safest course of care in her case was to end it. The hospital simply sent her home.
She came back the next day, bleeding and in pain, and again was turned away. Again, she was not told of the risks of trying to continue the pregnancy, or what her treatment options were. Tamesha returned yet a third time—by now suffering a significant infection. The hospital was prepared to send her away once more, when she started to deliver.
Tamesha's baby died within hours of being born—at 18 weeks, it never had a chance.
How could something like this happen? Because Mercy Health is Catholic-sponsored, it is required to adhere to the "Ethical and Religious Directives," a set of rules created by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) to govern the provision of medical care at Catholic-run hospitals. At hospitals like Mercy Health, the Directives are put above medical standards of care.
The Directives prohibit Catholic-sponsored facilities from providing vital health services and the information patients need to make informed decisions about their health care, and from honoring patients' wishes when they conflict with Catholic directives. This is true even if as in Tamesha's case, compliance with the Directives pose a direct threat to patient health.
So what trumps what here? Does the Catholic Hospital's religious freedom trump the personal health of individuals? Is it moral to withhold vital medical information from a patient? At the very least, should the hospital inform the patient that she should seek other medical advice because they feel no obligation to provide her with the facts of her situation? If the woman had gone home and died or had something serious happen, is that medical negligence?
I'm having a hard time understanding how a religious institution can consider this an act of morality.