Religious Hospitals Probed for Denying Women Care

Friday, July 9, 2010

A legal commentator analyzes the possible reverberations of a Catholic nun being excommunicated for authorizing an abortion that saved the life of a young woman and the ACLU's decision to act against what they say is a violation of federal law.

Bookmark and Share

(WOMENSENEWS)--Late last year, when a young mother of four came through the doors of St. Joseph's Hospital and Medical Center in Phoenix, Sister Margaret Mary McBride made a difficult decision. The choice she made would turn out to be the definitive one of her career.

Because of it, she suffered a very public excommunication at the hands of Bishop Thomas J. Olmsted, was held up by the Roman Catholic Church as an example of a former "woman religious" turned apostate and resigned at the request of the bishop from her position as vice president of mission integration at the hospital.

While details of the case remain hidden by federal privacy laws, the maelstrom of media attention generated by the incident has provided some information concerning the events that took place.

The woman, age 27, was 11 weeks pregnant and suffered from a serious condition called pulmonary hypertension, which ultimately led to a diagnosis of right-sided heart failure and shock. In consultation with her family and a team of doctors, the ethics committee of the hospital--on which Sister McBride sat--voted to allow an emergency abortion in order to save the life of the woman.

In a statement released shortly after the incident became public, the Roman Catholic Diocese of Phoenix proclaimed it a "scandal that a Catholic hospital would perform such a reprehensible act" and insisted that a set of ethical and religious directives, to which St. Joseph's and countless other public Catholic hospitals adhere, prohibit direct abortions under any circumstances--even, apparently, if that means almost certain death for the mother and fetus.

Representatives at St. Joseph's Hospital responded with a statement of their own, firmly reiterating that the procedure was necessary to save the woman's life.

Attention Focused on Murky Questions

Much of the attention over the past few months has centered on murky questions of ethical and religious significance, with popular reactions ranging from outrage at the Catholic Church for its treatment of Sister McBride to a renunciation of the hospital for opposing church directives.

With attacks so virulent coming from both sides of the political spectrum, it's important to recognize the situation for what it is, and what it is not. It is not a platform to criticize members of the Catholic Church for their deeply held religious beliefs. They are entitled to them. Nor is it a time to delve into the complex moral and political arguments so often associated with the practice of elective abortions.

Rather, it is an opportunity to identify and rectify a troubling and dangerous violation of federal law potentially taking place in Catholic hospitals across the country.

Last week, members of the American Civil Liberties Union's Washington legislative office did just that, along with the ACLU of Arizona and the New York-based ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project. Together, the civil liberties organizations sent a letter addressed to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, a division of the Department of Health and Human Services. In it, the organizations raise possible systematic violations by religiously-affiliated hospitals of the Conditions of Participation of Medicare and Medicaid and the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA).

EMTALA became law in 1986 and applies to hospitals that accept federal dollars for Medicare and Medicaid services, which, in practical terms, is almost every hospital in the United States.

8 COMMENTS | Login or Sign Up to post comments



Two Female Priests Buried as Church Outsiders


Vatican Expulsion Should Start Outcast Honor Roll

Reproductive Health

Brazil and Vatican Spar Over Reproductive Rights

This is a not a new story but it has always been on debate. Abortion is an immoral act and we all know that but who would love to kill an innocent child? The case is a matter of life of the mother or the both of them. They don't have any choice. If ever they chose the child instead of the mother, what do you think will happen? Let's admit that there are times that you need to break the law whether it's natural or not to be able to save lives. Of course in situations similar like this where what matters is between life and death.

THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU! Those of us raised Catholic and still know people dealing w/ Catholic issues, are grateful for your coverage of this travesty of justice, which continues throughout the country, and world-wide.

During my 18 years in Phoenix, AZ, I found St. Joseph Hospital to be a very good medical facility, I am upset by this story. Let's see: Male priests can molest children ruining their young lives and get sent to another parish. Last year a drunken priest crashed into a local restaurant injuring many (Smithville, TX) and got sent to another parish. A nun votes to save the life of a mother whose fetus is killing her and the nun is is verbally "whipped" and a victim of verbal "stone throwing" by the Catholic male hierarchy. I call it Catholic Sharia Law. But then I am still trying to figure out why men think they have a right to decide what a woman does with her body in the first place.
K-lee Starland, Ph.D.
International Human Rights Advisor

I read this story several months ago and was totally appalled by it. I hope something is done to protect women's lives in the future. I e-mailed the original article to my daughter and warned her about Catholic hospitals. Another thing that needs attention is the fact that pharmacists are given the power to disregard certain prescriptions if filling them goes against their religious or even personal beliefs. This means that many women have been embarrassed when trying to fill their prescriptions for birth control pills. They were simply told by the pharmacist that they would not honor the prescription and she must either go to another pharmacy or come back when another pharmacist was on duty at that pharmacy. These things have happened both here and in the UK. I was personally embarrassed when trying to fill my scrip for pain meds. The pharmacist treated me as a drug addict. I was told I must try another pharmacy if I REALLY thought I wanted to fill that scrip. (I, of course, took ALL my many scrips with me. I was not giving that particular pharmacy ANY of my money for anything else.) These sorts of things should be illegal. We need a law that clearly states that if a doctor writes a prescription, then any pharmacist MUST fill said prescription. They are not here to police our 'morals', they are hired to do one thing, and one thing only; fill the prescription for the medicine the doctor has ordered. Our entire health care system needs an overhaul NOW!

Pharmacists, doctors, and politicians who are Catholic or Fundamentalist/Evangelical Christians or Muslims or any other would-be theocrats, must be made to realize that WHILE THEY ARE ON THE JOB, THEY ARE NOT REPRESENTATIVES OF THEIR PERSONAL RELIGION. THEY ARE PUBLIC SERVANTS; and if they cannot handle that fact, they should find other careers. We cannot continue to let the Vatican, or Fundamentals/Evangelicals, or Islamic Sharia, or any other religious group, think it rules the world. Religions, as self-designated authority groups, need to be made to understand that they do not take first place in the law of any particular land. At best, they are second on the heirarchy, and must submit to the laws governing the people for their (the people's) protection, benefit and betterment.

These religious hospitals get government funds. The government law states that the patients life is the most important. She could have been transferred to another hospital if her condition was stable enough to do so. In this case it wasn't. Sometimes towns only have just one hospital that happens to also be religious. We need to make sure that religious hospitals follow the law of this country or NOT let them receive federal funds!

This is a hospital. In this case, how was it not possible to save both lives, the mother and the baby? Within medical and nursing abilities, today, this should have been possible.

Despite the miracle that is modern medicine 'real' miracles just don't (usually) happen. In this case if it HAD been possible to save both the mother and child then every effort to do so would have been tried. Doctors aren't magicians. They do their best...well, MOST of them do...but some things are simply not possible, and may never be. In this case it would have called for an artificial womb in which to transfer the embryo. Yes, it was still in the embryonic stage at that point. And, in this case this embryo was killing its mother. It's very sad, but not unusual.