You wouldn't go to a Catholic hospital to have an abortion but what if you went to a Catholic hospital and one was needed in order to save your life?
A women in Michigan went to the only hospital within 30 miles of after her water broke while in the eighteenth week of her pregnancy. She was given Tylenol and sent home. She went in a second time and though she was in intense pain and bleeding the hospital sent her home again. It was not until the third visit, when she began a premature labor did the hospital step in and treat her. By that point the women had two acute infections and was in extreme pain. She delivered a premature baby in the breech position that lived for only two and a half hours.
Medical experts who have reviewed the case have determined that the fetus had virtually no chance of survival and that this would have been apparent on her initial visit to the hospital. They also said that in these such circumstances doctors usually induce labor or surgically remove the fetus to reduce the mother’s chances of infection.
This women is Tamesha Means and the American Civil Liberties Union is filing a lawsuit against the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops on her behalf. The suit alleges that the hospital did not tell Means that her fetus was doomed, nor that inducing labor and terminating the pregnancy was the only way to reduce the risk of a dangerous infection that could cost her her own life as well. Why is the ACLU suing the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops instead of the hospital where the negligence occurred? It is the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and their “Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Healthcare Services requires Catholic hospitals to avoid abortion or referrals, “even when doing so places a woman’s health or life at risk.” Catholic hospitals that disobey can expect to at the very least be dropped from their religious affiliation.
One such recent example is St. Joseph's Hospital and Medical Center in Phoenix. In 2010, the hospital was stripped of its affiliation with the church after doctors performed an abortion on a woman in her first tri-mester because it was necessary to save her life. She had pulmonary hypertension and nearly 100% chance of killing her had she continued her pregnancy.
The senior Nun who gave the final okay for the termination was excommunicated by the local bishop.Sister Margaret McBride believed that the termination was warranted given that there are some circumstances where procedures that endanger the fetus are allowed to save the mothers life. Apparently, pulmonary hypertension and near certain death for the mother doesn't fall into this category.
What is terrifying is that the position of the church in this life and death situation would have been to let both the mother and her 11 week old fetus die. Just as if Means had ended up losing her life to the infections that ravaged her body after being sent home from the hospital. From the article cited above: "They were in quite a dilemma," says Lisa Sowle Cahill, who teaches Catholic theology at Boston College. "There was no good way out of it. The official church position would mandate that the correct solution would be to let both the mother and the child die. I think in the practical situation that would be a very hard choice to make."
In this regard, hospitals with religious affiliations are not institutions that are bound to the basic medical principles such as saving the patients life regardless of whether or not she is pregnant. Being a pregnant women is more than a liability in a Catholic Hospital and this isn't the first such case to bring that issue to the forefront of the "abortion" debate. In October 2012, Savita Halappanavar began miscarrying her 17 week old fetus in Ireland and was admitted to the hospital. Halappanavar repeatedly asked for an abortion but was informed that the Catholic hospital she was being treated in would not intervene in the miscarriage as long as the was a heartbeat. They would not perform a life saving abortion and Halappanavar died from sepsis a week after she was admitted to the hospital.
If hospitals cannot practice medicine because of their religious affiliation than they should not be allowed to exist. Medical treatment centers need to practice medicine regardless of the religious beliefs held by the bishops or board members. These patients turned to these institutions with the belief that their lives would be respected, their wounds would be treated, that doctors would be making decisions about their health. In the instance of Savita Halappanavar, I don't think it is a stretch to say that this women was killed by the very people who were supposed to treat her. She was forced to carry a dying, non-viable fetus while she laid in bed being poisoned by her own body. The women in Phoenix who had a near certain fatal diagnosis had the hospital not removed the fetus from her body- well,the women who gave the okay was excommunicated. Priests involved in sexual abuse scandals, priest who have been found GUILTY of sexual abuse of children have not been excommunicated but this Nun who allowed a life saving abortion was. Hypocritical and disgusting. The worth of women in the church is made clear over and over again. Women are dispensable, they should die if it means they need a fetus removed in order to live. They should suffer in order for a fetus to...what? Perish with "dignity?"
Whether the ACLU succeeds in suing the Catholic bishops or not, this case brings the issue into the ever raging abortion debate. Is it not the right of women to live first? How many more stories like this need to happen? How many more times do women have to put their lives on the line for the sake of an unborn and often doomed fetus? These women did not want abortions while the possibility of "life" existed. These women wanted to carry their pregnancies to term and what kind of society has medical facilities that will risk a patients life for the so-called "beliefs" of the ones who operate it?
No comments:
Post a Comment