This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

← [UPDATE - Ophelia Benson] Az. Hospital May Lose Catholic Status Over 2009 Abortion Case

[UPDATE - Ophelia Benson] Az. Hospital May Lose Catholic Status Over 2009 Abortion Case - Comments

Richard Dawkins's Avatar Comment 1 by Richard Dawkins

What does Catholic "status" mean? Why would a hospital want Catholic "status"? Does the Catholic church give money to the hospital? If not, wouldn't a hospital positively want to be rid of its Catholic "status"? If ever I needed to go to hospital, I would go out of my way to seek out a hospital that was certified as a Catholic Free Zone.

Richard

Sat, 18 Dec 2010 07:24:35 UTC | #564992

Austin K's Avatar Comment 2 by Austin K

Yeah, especially if it were a kids hospital.

Sat, 18 Dec 2010 07:27:21 UTC | #564993

msloane's Avatar Comment 3 by msloane

Richard, I suspect if you were admitted to a hospital with "catholic" status, the admissions clerk would be excommunicated.

Sat, 18 Dec 2010 07:28:01 UTC | #564994

alaskansee's Avatar Comment 4 by alaskansee

I'm a bit further north Richard but we have "Catholic" Hospital Trusts managed by nuns and such but staffed by mortals. I'm not sure why it's part of their organisation, just a historical remnant of being the only option. They too restrict services, abortion, but other providers are available locally and broken legs are non-denominational. Looks like a field where they have little relevance today, like adoption.

Sat, 18 Dec 2010 07:34:24 UTC | #564995

Richard Dawkins's Avatar Comment 5 by Richard Dawkins

I'm not sure why it's part of their organisation, just a historical remnant of being the only option.

If they get money from the Vatican or something, I could understand a hospital wanting to hang on to its Catholic "status". But DO they? If not, I repeat, what possible reason could a hospital have for WANTING Catholic "status"? Does anybody know the answer to the money question?

Richard

Sat, 18 Dec 2010 07:46:29 UTC | #564999

mirandaceleste's Avatar Comment 6 by mirandaceleste

Other than the Veteran's hospital, each of the six major hospitals in the (medium-to-large size) city where I live (in the U.S.) has a strong religious affiliation (and most were founded/co-founded by members of the religious orders with which they are affiliated). The ones that have Catholic status are affiliated with our local Catholic diocese and receive both their imprimatur, and, indirectly, various forms of funding and support.

The funding issue is a complicated one. In my city, as far as I can tell, the diocese helps to fund Catholic Charities, which, in turn, helps to fund and support the Catholic hospitals. And the Catholic hospitals in this area really are very, very Catholic. They provide excellent services (very highly rated by outside agencies, etc.) but there are gory crucifixes and random statues of saints and such scattered throughout the buildings. And, worse, because they are afraid of disapproval and afraid of losing a source of their funding (an understandable fear in a health care industry as financially screwed as ours is), Catholic hospitals will, if it comes down to it, ultimately prioritize the concerns of the Church over the health of a patient (as the case in this news story illustrates).

(ETA: I should have mentioned this in my post: Catholic Charities, according to Wikipedia, "is the second largest social service provider in the United States, surpassed only by the federal government".)

Sat, 18 Dec 2010 08:14:46 UTC | #565008

Stevehill's Avatar Comment 7 by Stevehill

They would do well to study the recent history of the London Hospital of St John and St Elizabeth, where in the end pretty much the whole board resigned rather than practice medicine according to the dictates of Cardinal Cormac Murphy O'Connor, local protector-in-chief of abusive priests and subsequently selected personally by Ratzinger to head up the church's own enquiry into the Irish abuse scandals (logical, I suppose).

A subsequent enquiry found the hospital lied to retain charitable status.

I suggest the Arizona hospital tells the church where to shove it and carries on doing medicine instead.

Sat, 18 Dec 2010 08:23:59 UTC | #565011

Mette's Avatar Comment 8 by Mette

There might be support groups that tend to favour certain hospitals if they adhere to "good" religious guidelines. If it's in the US I wouldn't be surprised.

And people wonder why I laugh when they tell me to move to the US and work there... haha. Hospitals are for helping people with medical emergencies, not to cater to their religious preferences.

Sat, 18 Dec 2010 08:25:51 UTC | #565013

Reckless Monkey's Avatar Comment 9 by Reckless Monkey

In Victoria Australia recently the Catholic church Archbishop threatened to close the hospital if the government didn't cave on allowing abortions after 20 weeks. Now I'm no fan of abortion as a form of post-coitus contraception especially late term but I freely acknowledge (it isn't my choice and never will be unless medical science can give me a uterus). However threatening to close one of Victoria's bigger hospitals would have had me if I have been premier of the state drafting legislation to close down all faith funded hospitals and have the government take them over. Seriously morally challenged.

Sat, 18 Dec 2010 09:11:51 UTC | #565027

JuJu's Avatar Comment 10 by JuJu

The medical staff at this Hospital is very professional, and science based. I use to work right across the street from it at 3rd ave and Osborn. I met a lot of the staff and they are genuinely good people. Its a very busy hospital and they save a lot of lives there. If my life was is the balance, I would feel confident in their service.

I think a lot of the staff are not religious, although I sure some are probably devout. Most of the devout ones are of the "Francis Collins" type. They tend to leave religion out of their work.

Sat, 18 Dec 2010 09:14:35 UTC | #565028

keithapm's Avatar Comment 11 by keithapm

The Catholic Church condemns direct abortion -- meant to terminate a pregnancy -- but permits indirect abortion in which fetal death is a secondary effect of another necessary procedure (Women's Health Policy Report, 6/28).

I don't have to say anything at all to highlight how daft that is, do I?

Sat, 18 Dec 2010 09:17:04 UTC | #565029

cheesedoff17's Avatar Comment 12 by cheesedoff17

I was once hospitalised for a week in a Catholic clinic run by priests. We were two in a room. The first day, I was greeted with great warmth by the two priests who were to look after us, but then one of them looked at the books I had brought with me and his face, to my surprise, went bright red with anger.

From then on they fawned on my room mate but refused even to look at me. It was only when I got to the end of "Baudelaire" that I discovered that he had in fact died in this very clinic and that he had blasphemed so loud and so long that his room had to be exorcised after his death. I suppose they thought incorrectly that I was being willfully provocative.

Sat, 18 Dec 2010 09:51:53 UTC | #565042

ridelo's Avatar Comment 13 by ridelo

Comment 5 by Richard Dawkins :

I'm not sure why it's part of their organisation, just a historical remnant of being the only option.

If they get money from the Vatican or something, I could understand a hospital wanting to hang on to its Catholic "status". But DO they? If not, I repeat, what possible reason could a hospital have for WANTING Catholic "status"? Does anybody know the answer to the money question?

Richard

My guess it's rather the other way round: that the Vatican is fed somehow by the hospital. Prove me wrong.

Sat, 18 Dec 2010 11:50:21 UTC | #565071

Hammert1me's Avatar Comment 14 by Hammert1me

If not, I repeat, what possible reason could a hospital have for WANTING Catholic "status"?

Richard,

I suppose if they were short of blood for transfusions, or organ transplants, they could could just head to the local off licence for Jacobs Creek and Hovis.

Sat, 18 Dec 2010 11:59:52 UTC | #565075

HughCaldwell's Avatar Comment 15 by HughCaldwell

when I got to the end of "Baudelaire" that I discovered that he had in fact died in this very clinic Comment 12 by cheesedoff17

Baudelaire died in the clinic of Doctor Duval at 1 rue du Dôme, Paris, on 31 August 1867. Is there still a hospital there?

Sat, 18 Dec 2010 12:16:01 UTC | #565078

Simon Templar's Avatar Comment 16 by Simon Templar

If they get money from the Vatican or something, I could understand a hospital wanting to hang on to its Catholic "status". But DO they? If not, I repeat, what possible reason could a hospital have for WANTING Catholic "status"? Does anybody know the answer to the money question? Richard

They are members of Catholic Healthcare West the 8th largest hospital provider in the USA and largest in California. See website for details

The Catholic Church condemns direct abortion -- meant to terminate a pregnancy -- but permits indirect abortion in which fetal death is a secondary effect of another necessary procedure (Women's Health Policy Report, 6/28). I don't have to say anything at all to highlight how daft that is, do I?

Why daft ? Killing the baby directly is not allowed. Killing the baby directly to save the mother not allowed. Treatment to save mother which as a side effect kills baby, allowed. Right or wrong depends on your POV, but not daft

Sat, 18 Dec 2010 12:23:31 UTC | #565082

Alan4discussion's Avatar Comment 17 by Alan4discussion

It looks like we're back once again to the Dunning- Kruger effect in which the retards take on airs of superiority and pose as experts on specialist subjects!

Apart from marketing to morons, I wonder why any doctors or nursing staff would want the specialist medical status of being directed by woo-driven stupidity!

Sat, 18 Dec 2010 13:07:31 UTC | #565091

cheesedoff17's Avatar Comment 18 by cheesedoff17

Reply to HughCaldwell comment 15

The clinic where I was treated was St Jean des Hospitaliers, which is in the 7° Perhaps the Brothers also or originally ran the Clinic Dr Duval. Where ever it was, he was cared for, according to the book, by the Brothers which was, I presumed, the reason for them treating me like a pestiféré. Sorry I don't know if there is still a clinic Dr Duval. I would have to look it up.

Sat, 18 Dec 2010 13:13:59 UTC | #565093

SomersetJohn's Avatar Comment 19 by SomersetJohn

Any chance of finding out how many (if any) kiddy fiddlers this arsehole might have protected/shielded in his career, or any other morally indefencible actions he may well be guilty of?

Sat, 18 Dec 2010 14:07:38 UTC | #565113

T. S. Elliott's Avatar Comment 20 by T. S. Elliott

Olmsted wrote that CHW's "actions communicate to me that [the hospital does] not respect my authority to authentically teach and interpret moral law in this diocese."

This speaks louder than anything else. I think I might vomit.

Sat, 18 Dec 2010 14:36:20 UTC | #565122

Capt. Bloodeye's Avatar Comment 21 by Capt. Bloodeye

Perhaps missing legs regrow in a Catholic hospital.

Sat, 18 Dec 2010 15:13:13 UTC | #565140

HughCaldwell's Avatar Comment 22 by HughCaldwell

Comment 18 by cheesedoff17

Presumably, you were in the Clinique Saint-Jean-de-Dieu 19 rue Oudinot 75007 PARIS. Sorry to hear about the nasty treatment by Christian 'brothers'. What a way for health professionals to behave, giving you the cold shoulder when you were ill and specially in need of some human warmth.

Sat, 18 Dec 2010 15:34:13 UTC | #565150

Linda Ward's Avatar Comment 23 by Linda Ward

Richard, I think you know full well that too many hospitals in places like California are owned and operated by the Roman Catholic church. That results in poor, mostly Mexican immigrant women being denied access to reproductive technologies and advice. They are condemned to procreate for the cause of numbers for the church and to be servants at the homes of the rich.

Sat, 18 Dec 2010 16:27:08 UTC | #565168

BoltzmannBrain's Avatar Comment 24 by BoltzmannBrain

Comment 1 by Richard Dawkins :

What does Catholic "status" mean? Why would a hospital want Catholic "status"? Does the Catholic church give money to the hospital? If not, wouldn't a hospital positively want to be rid of its Catholic "status"? If ever I needed to go to hospital, I would go out of my way to seek out a hospital that was certified as a Catholic Free Zone.

There's something a little obscene about a millionaire, from an extremely privileged background, saying he would go out of his way to seek a "Catholic Free Zone". I doubt he has enough of a spine to say he would seek a Muslim Free Zone.

Sat, 18 Dec 2010 16:38:06 UTC | #565173

DocWebster's Avatar Comment 25 by DocWebster

Well here is a poor schmuck ready to say I would go out of my way to find a catholic free zone. The one hospital in my town is run by Catholic Health Initiatives. They were instrumental in the closing of the other hospital in town that had no religious affiliation by denying privileges to any doctor who worked there. If a patient had the misfortune of ending up at the Catholic hospital they would be denied their own doctor if that doctor were on the shit list. They then proceeded to buy out the ambulance company. You see where this is going don't you. The only way to use the non affiliated was to get there yourself but most of the doctors in town were already shunning the place so as not to lose privileges at the Crapolic hospital. Now there is one and since there is no competition the care is substandard at best and we don't get new doctors that stay in town any more, just people fulfilling requirements of their loans by serving 2 years in a rural setting. If you want to go to an unaffiliated hospital anymore it may be as much as a 400 mile trip depending on how serious the ailment. One thing is for sure, even if you can't make it that far you still don't go to the Hospital here, your better of dying quickly.

Sat, 18 Dec 2010 17:02:32 UTC | #565180

green and dying's Avatar Comment 26 by green and dying

Comment 24 by BoltzmannBrain :

There's something a little obscene about a millionaire, from an extremely privileged background, saying he would go out of his way to seek a "Catholic Free Zone". I doubt he has enough of a spine to say he would seek a Muslim Free Zone.

Why would that be obscene?

Sat, 18 Dec 2010 17:22:58 UTC | #565188

cheesedoff17's Avatar Comment 27 by cheesedoff17

Olmsted believes that he is doG's representative on earth. He is so sure that he knows what doG wants how can he possibly cope when mere hospital staff refuse to heed dogma. They must behave or he will have an epileptic fit.

Sat, 18 Dec 2010 17:24:25 UTC | #565189

God fearing Atheist's Avatar Comment 28 by God fearing Atheist

Comment 16 by Simon Templar :

Why daft ? Killing the baby directly is not allowed. Killing the baby directly to save the mother not allowed. Treatment to save mother which as a side effect kills baby, allowed. Right or wrong depends on your POV, but not daft

Good people do good things, and bad people do bad things, but religion causes good people do do bad things

So Simon, are you a bad person, or a good person who has been corrupted by the paedophile church into evil?

Sat, 18 Dec 2010 17:27:23 UTC | #565191

SoHelpMeReason's Avatar Comment 29 by SoHelpMeReason

Oh please. What a news-filler story. They'll retain their cherished "Catholic status". What's the church to do? Deny it and further diminish its every-declining presence and claim to good in the public sphere?

Mark my words, this hospital need not worry about losing anything.

Sat, 18 Dec 2010 17:33:45 UTC | #565193

God fearing Atheist's Avatar Comment 30 by God fearing Atheist

Comment 24 by BoltzmannBrain :

There's something a little obscene about a millionaire, from an extremely privileged background, saying he would go out of his way to seek a "Catholic Free Zone". I doubt he has enough of a spine to say he would seek a Muslim Free Zone.

Yea, Richard Dawkins is spineless. He wouldn't say boo to a Muslim.

Sat, 18 Dec 2010 17:41:32 UTC | #565197