owen O'Neill First of all, my Lil Catholic friend, you need to cite a source for that...second, if by "type" you mean " keen to see women have their lives protected over dogma " then yes; I am very much that type..
ChristianMission Not the decision of one doctor, its the hospitals owners' policy. I am all for religious groups being in the medical business, so long as no policies are based on religious dogma. Hospitals should be forced to serve all people, provide all services. Don't like providing abortion, don't go into the medical system.
Pictish Pete I misread it. Thought he said that was already happening. His statement is still complete nonsense though. That science was done 100 years ago in the universities.
ChristianMission It's a policy across that hospital group that they adopt Catholic "principles".. And if that's your best? I'd hate to see your worst...I'm assuming it's an Argentine cattle market with nurses...
That hospital should be shut down. They have the right to their religious views, but when it prevents them from from doing their jobs, they need to find a new job and that hospital is a farce.
I agree. They can not give people contraception all they want. But they have to help people as a HOSPITAL regardless if the problem is with said contraception or not. Honestly this woman should sue for undue pain and suffering.
I agree with you the problem lies in the fact that that Catholic church pays to keep the hospital in questions doors open, break there rules they pull there money out and the doors close, not saying i agree with this that is just the way it is
...anyone else freaked out that there are hospitals out there that follow the guidelines of a 2000 year old book and that some medical insurance companies use these?
No, the sin of Onan was refusing to father a child with his brother's widow, no doubt because he would not then inherit his brother's property. The means he used was coitus interruptus. There is no way you can get a general condemnation of contraception out of that text. I hardly need you to inform me that the church condemns sex outside of marriage, but that is irrelevant here. Actually, abstinence works very well, if practiced, but most people do not. A policy of abstinence does not work because most people do not follow it. The Church thinks that if you have sex, using contraception is better than spreading AIDS. You are not up to date on tis.
If you are having sex, and either you or your partner(s) have HIV, then it is better to use contraception, even if not completely effective. There are degrees of right and wrong and there is also the matter of making moral progress. The history of the Catholic Church's attitudes toward contraception are more complicated than that.
Georgetown University....my sister had her youngest there. she wanted to get her tubes tied after the baby was born bc she has a serious medical issue when she gets pregnant. She and her husband requested it to her Dr, and her Dr said no, bc of the religious beliefs of the hospital wont allow the procedure to be done.
Because people are people. And always will be who they are. Or you can look at it like this. Religion is just a tool to meet an individual demand. It's very flexible and versatile. And can be applied to anything social. So until the majority consensus finds the practice of religion useless it shall exsist. Imo it's kind of like how people used to view myths and legends many years ago. But the majority of society doesn't take that seriously anymore. There is nothing inherently wrong with religion in theory but in practice it doesn't always work out. . . . like communism =^). (Lol, you probably saw that coming)
WHY? why is this a thing in america? why on earth would you have people in a position to care for people that have their own agenda to push. in my opinion medical staff in all forms should be totally unbiased no matter what. this disgusts me. i mean religious people always talk about morality. if this is their morality then its really dodgy morality.
Actually i don't even know how they were legally allowed to do this. I took several medical classes in school for my medical billing and coding certificate. And from what i recall and is common knowledge to everyone is that doctors must never further harm with a patient. Denying her the RIGHT to treatment was an act of furthering harm and they should have their license revoked. The medical field is TRAINED to be unbiased, most of my lessons were lessons of how to be unbiased in situations of someone wanting an abortion or inquiring for one and how we shouldn't put our personal believes before a patient. I don't know how this was even legal at all it breaks the oath in all forms. I hope this situation gets resolved because someone shouldn't have to change their medical provider just because of a bunch of religious oath breaking un-christian zealots.
Because the Christian religion is a mental disease that warps a believer's concept of morality. Religious morality is not the same as a sane person's morality. For example, the Christian God's idea of morality is to punish an innocent (Jesus) for the crimes of the guilty (sinners) ...while at the same time lighting on fire and eternally torturing everyone who doesn't believe in this scapegoating, immoral and unjust stupidity.
and the last time 'Christians' actually observed the Sabbath? It starts on fri at sunset, and ends on sat at sunset. it's one of those BIG laws which are written in stone.
I thought the same thing, I know hospitals can't turn you away, I don't understand how it took her a damn WEEK to see someone, sounds fishy to me... If I'm bleeding out of my vagina you better know I'm seeing SOMEONE the first day it happens.
The hospital is responsible for "stabilizing" a patient. Apparently the woman was in no danger of bleeding to death so not treating was an option. I wonder what they would have done if her uterus had been perforated. There is no way you could get around not treating that.
If by thing you mean the oath? Yes, I have read it. Yes, the health services provided have been dehumanize, forgetting about the human response, and sensitivity of people.
"Health care" in the US is big business, and it is first about profit, then about social clout, and only marginally about providing health care. The first article sworn to, even in the original oath: "To hold my teacher in this art equal to my own parents; to make him partner in my livelihood; when he is in need of money to share mine with him; to consider his family as my own brothers, and to teach them this art, if they want to learn it, without fee or indenture; to impart precept, oral instruction, and all other instruction to my own sons, the sons of my teacher, and to indentured pupils who have taken the physician’s oath, but to nobody else." So the primary concern was to preserve the profitable monopoly, and that has not changed in thousands of years.
The answer is so obvious I'm tired of universal health care being on the losing side. Capitalists are choosing to exploit dying people and we're choosing to allow it.
Let's take some of that waste from overpaying for insurance and give it to scholarships and funds to help doctors and nurses get education more easily also. Or give it to public hospitals to give to doctors so they can hire the top graduates easier and get them experience. Healthcare education is ridiculously expensive. Most of the doctors I see are old but the young ones have way worse debt to income ratio than my barely minimum wage and paying student loans self.
First off, you'd think they wouldn't have a problem with removing the device they don't think she should have. Then she wouldn't have it anymore. Secondly, this is why religion has no place in medicine. Medicine is science, it's meant to help people. You can't pick and choose who you want to offer those services to. No hospital ever should have any kind of religious affiliation.
Absolutely. To suppose otherwise is idiocy. The hospital said there is no policy against it, but Cenk and Ana choose not to believe it. But the young woman could not afford to pay for a procedure not covered by her insurance. It's primarily an insurance issue.
I really think this is a bureaucracy failing in a rare nuanced case. Im all for the religious hospitals having rules not to give birth control and I believe some doctor feared for his job thinking this fell under that rule but it was more bureaucratic grey area in the rules so to keep things simple; the peons just turned her away.
Never mind that last couple minutes of the report, where it states that she was not covered at the hospital for the procedure as in network. They didn't say could not do it, they said that she would have to pay for it.
The title card appears to be of the logo of the mercy hospital system in Missouri not Chicago. These two are unrelated so you should look into that to remove any confusion. Upon further investigation, that sign can be found at the Mercy Hospital in Fort Scott, Kansas.
George Carlin will always have the last word on this...his classic piece, "Not Every Ejaculation Deserves a Name". Carlin skewers the "prolife" movement (calls it "antiwoman) in a most beautiful, yet vicious manner. Google it.
I was hoping they would touch on the fact that our healthcare system is so shitty. The whole idea of In/Out Networks for life saving healthcare is beyond horrible. Basic healthcare should NOT be a business.
So my mom (she has to go to a catholic hospital because they're the only ones in our health care network) was not allowed to have her tubes tied after giving birth by c-section to my sister at the age of 35 even though her doctor told her if she gets pregnant again it will be extremely dangerous due to other health problems she has, and so instead she got ablation therapy and can technically still get pregnant even though her chances are lowered, which wasn't a big problem because at the time my dad got a vasectomy at a hospital (that I hear has now also been converted a catholic hospital recently so now there's no secular hospitals within hours of my home) but now that my parents are divorced and her boyfriend is still fertile and they are using condoms she's at risk of becoming pregnant (even though she's 46) all because some old men in pointy hats decided that the right to life of a baby not even conceived in her womb yet was more important than the grown woman who has 2 chidren
Well there are people, mostly religious, that think contraceptives lead to immoral sexual conduct. They think that sex is only for marriage and is for making children. And want to control women's bodies and tell them when to have sex and children.
+Gman96 That's how my cousin "Lindsey" is. (She's Catholic, very religious, and very anti-choice). According to her, abortion and contraception are tools of hedonism, remedies that feminists turned to to cover their mistakes after trying to be equal to men and have casual relations with them.
TigerRose1329 She probably just taking out on others for lack of love coming from her husband (I'm assuming she's married). That's how it usually is anyways.
Yes masturbation is a grave sin. It does not matter if you finish or not, it is still a sin. People say that we oppress women sexually, even though men must follow the same rules.
Men With Aprons No religion enforces any rule except for Islam with Sharia law. Even if a Catholic gets a legal abortion, they will not get a punishment from the church.
I don't understand the doctors/hospital's thinking. They could have removed the misplaced IUD (which had probably perforated the wall of her uterus when she had a bad fall. ) stitched her up and let her go elsewhere to get a new one when she had healed. How would any of that have violated their ban on using contraception of any kind? They had to take the IUD OUT, not put one in!
The medical team at that Catholic hospital (if they had simply removed the IUD for her and then made a n examination of her uterus to make sure the uterus was still intact) would NOT have been taking part in the actual birth control efforts of that woman. All they had to do was code the insurance claim as a "removal of a foreign object from the uterus." That would have satisfied EVERYONE involved.
"America is the greatest country in the world!" ... where you have to pay $1000 or even more for an emergency. You can go into debt overnight, if you get sick or have an accident. That's just crazy. I can't even fathom how you can think your country is the best, when it's so messed up.
look I'm not a Catholic, but don't go to someone and ask them to do something against their beliefs. Sucks to be her but I don't think they did anything wrong here
So let me see if I get this...this CORPORATE entity has a belief, imposes it on its workers, and you think that is OK? You're happy to watch someone die because of a corporations beliefs?... you truly are an American..
+Pictish Pete no listen. its a catholic hospital. the doctors are ... surprise! catholic. if they don't want to work on someone with an IUD, then they shouldn't have to. you are not entitled to service, ever.
Travis France First of all, if you assume all people working in the same place are of the same religion, you haven't grasped reality at all...second...so what? This is a sick human being! Save her and then discuss the ethics afterwards..
How Ironic. Mercy hospital didn't give that woman mercy they rather just watched her in pain than giving helping hand :D Only in US though... In Europa no hospital can't do something like that because the laws. But US your laws are pretty ridiculous :D
There is another hospital about 10 blocks north from Mercy. If these hospitals will let their religious dogma dictate the procedures they will do, they will go out of business.
Yes, but the Hippocratic oath is not legally binding. "Also I will, according to my ability and judgment, prescribe a regimen for the health of the sick; but I will utterly reject harm and mischief"
+RiotforPeacePlz Of coarse it does. The swore to do no intentional harm. Let's say an ancient Greek was very religious and a Phoenician needed care. They couldnt deny them care because something they did was against their belief. Let's say a jew needed care. They wouldn't deny him care because he is circumcized. These kinds of things are precisely what the oath is for.
so she was not asking it to be inserted, or to be given any kind of birth control? but the birth control was the cause of the medical procedure that was needed? ...does the hospital follow this same logic as to babies? the church is against premarital sex, unwed sex....so if a woman comes in and is pregnant and the baby (iud) needs to be delivered (removed), but mommy is not married , will they turn her away? the religious right needs to stop being allowed to act like the American taliban. same thing, same concept,
I almost start to consider that religion shouldn't be involved in medical decision making in any way. Isn't there some laws for this? Can you be any kind of licensed medical thing and behave like this?
How are (religious) hospitals even allowed to refuse to give care? Isn't it illegal to do that? It is in the Netherlands and there are plenty of catholic hospitals here too.
My mom had a miscarriage before she had me and went to a catholic hospital for help, and she was bleeding too but they turned her away because they didn't want to kill the baby.
What happen if the person is dying in front you? and you told the person who dying that we can't help the person, that family of the person can sue you. These system are stupid.
01:30 I was thinking the same thing when I first heard the name Mercy in the hospital name. Who turns away a sick person who needs help, especially when you are a hospital. The USA shock me every time. Poor woman
The doctors working at Mercy should be ashamed! Turning down a patient in need should be punished by involved having their medical license either suspended or revoked!
Actually there are a ton of restrictions on IUD's under insurance, so it is actually likely it wouldn't be covered there. When I got my IUD I had to jump through hoops to make sure it was covered, and my gyno told me that if I was having problems with it to come back to her office if I could, cause it's not guaranteed to be covered in a hospital environment. It's a larger issue than just this hospital.
Quote "Mercy's Director of Missions said that in Jones' case, the doctor did not consult their ethical committee. He also said that in this case, removing the device would not have violated the system's directives." You can blame the doctor for this, not the hospital.
Mercy in Chicago is one of the most DISGUSTING hospital's in the city, consider yourself lucky they didn't touch you. To the young lady that had to deal with this stupidity I wish you a speedy recovery.
$1000 dollars to go to the emergency room? It costs $50 here in New Zealand and I always thought that was crazy expensive, since my regular doctor costs $5. Woah.
No, it doesn't, that's just what you pay. I'd be very surprised if the cost of providing emergency room care was much less expensive in New Zealand than it is here. The difference is that because New Zealand's medical system is set up to be more cost effective, the coverage covers more of the cost of the emergency room visit than if you didn't have coverage at all. But, if you didn't have coverage, I doubt very much that the cost of visiting an ER would be much lower than it is in the US. It's just very expensive to keep the personnel and testing equipment available on that basis.
Chris L No, the total cost is also much less in most other developed countries. In some of them they break out the cost subsidized by the government plan as well as private insurance. Costs are in general far lower than in the U.S. In my case I noticed that the total cost was about one tenth as much as it is in the U.S. and the out of pocket cost was a small fraction of that. Independent comparative analysis of the total costs of health care systems among developed countries noted that the U.S. is three times more expensive than the next most expensive system for approximately the same level of care and far worse access to care. In fact the U.S. placed at the bottom of those countries for access to health care. So we are paying by far the most for the worst access to health care. We are being cheated and lied to.
Chris L That's not at all how our healthcare system works. It's actually free here in New Zealand to go to the emergency room at the hospital, but it cost me $50 because there is a surcharge at specific A & Es. So if you can't afford the $50 local emergency room fee, you can drive an extra 15 minutes and get your medical care free (I couldn't drive due to an arm fracture so I chose to walk to the local emergency room, took 5 minutes and worth the $50 to not have to stuff around with transport). It has nothing to do with insurance, the government pays for it. I'm sure it costs the government quite a bit, but because we actually have our priorities straight our taxes cover it (and they are no higher than yours btw).
Cailin Tunnicliffe Again, it doesn't cost $50, that's what you pay, the government pays something on top of that. Most of the cost of ER service is having the equipment and technicians there in case somebody needs care. The equipment isn't any cheaper in New Zealand than it is anywhere else. I don't disagree without priorities, but if you're going to set people straight, you should probably know what you're talking about. People with health insurance here don't pay much more than you do, I think my plan charges $75 for the service.
Ana, emergency room services are free of charge to anyone regardless of whether insurance covers it or you don't have money. FREE! It's federal law. No hospital emergency room can refuse you.
Absolutely disgusting. People like that shouldn't even be in the medical field if they're not going to do their jobs! This strongly reminds me of that poor lady who died at that Catholic hospital in Ireland after the doctors refused to help her. This Merciless hospital ought to be shut down!
The same people who are against abortions and say they are "pro-life" are the same people who oppose programs and help for women and children and families once the child is actually born. Ridiculous.
Hippocratic Oath OUTRANKS Religion at every corner! If you refuse to serve someone in a hospital, you're not performing to the standards of that oath and are not suited to be a medical practitioner! END OF STORY! They should have helped her regardless of her situation and their stance! Religion should not take precedence over someone's health if that someone is bleeding and in pain!
That's not a Catholic insurer, that's a normal insurer. The plan probably only provides Catholic hospitals because they're cheaper as they don't provide a lot of the services that people might need.
Chris L OK, so she went with a plan and insurer that didn't provide these services for economic rather than religious reasons. Sounds like the same diff to me.
So some doctors are going to lose their license right? This is criminal negligence and if she had had serious complications because it wasn't taken care of, the doctors who turned her away would have been liable.
Wait, what ? How do you get censored by corporate interests? I'm truly asking because I don't know and suggest maybe you can do a short vid explaining that.
Give it time. If Christians get there way, it will be in Canada soon. And Christians are always fighting to get their way. We're persecuting them when we oppose their psychosis being imposed on everyone else.
TheHigherVoltage There would have to be a monumental shift in the psyche of all Canadians for this to ever be allowed. There isn't and hasn't been any kind of grumbling since the 80's about abortion and morality mixed with healthcare. There would have to be a monumental change in all Canadians, religious or not for anything to change and that just isn't on anyone's radar up here. I guarantee it won't happen because we insist our Government has no say or ability to affect our current healthcare as individuals. There are things not covered, but when it comes to women's rights and reproductive choices that will never go back to the way it once was and yes I can say that with total confidence.
As a Catholic I find what these doctors did was disgusting. That woman needed medical help and no matter what your view on pro life or pro choice those doctors should have helped her.
The title is a bit off. The word "for" should be "with" or "due to". As it is, it makes it seem like she was trying to get an IUD while on her period... Something most doctors would delay.
The hospital should have helped her if they had someone qualified to remove an IUD. Just as they should help a woman with a botched abortion. I would respect the rights of the hospital refusing to insert and IUD or perform an abortion. There is a huge difference. Regarding spilling the seed, the long video about the teen-age Jewish boy who was informed about sins in their next world mentioned that spilling the seed was a sin as was immodesty on the part of women. I wish he had elaborated on immodesty, just what constitutes it. The boy was raised a secular Jew, but it was the Orthodox Jews and rabbi where he was answering their questions. He was adamant about following the Torah. He also mentioned sex outside of marriage. There was a lot more to his journey to the next world and back.
In Ireland there was a case where a woman needed an abortion to save her life due to complications during pregnancy. the Catholic hospital refused out of belief and laws protecting that belief. she died. her name was Savita Halappanaver. afterwards the uproar and lawsuit changed the laws somewhat. (hospitals are now required to perform abortions where life of mother is at risk but there's a concientious objection clause where a doctor can still refuse based on belief. they were an Indian family. if they where Irish they probably would have been shamed and guilted into keeping their mouth shut. it's disgraceful that this goes on. priests and politicians make lousy doctors.
