Save a mother’s life or save the ideals of a church? Which is more important? According to Rev. Thomas J. Olmsted, the church is superior. A hospital shouldn’t be punished for doing its job — saving lives — even if it goes against the doctrines of the church. Not all people who seek treatment at Catholic hospitals are of the Catholic faith; even employees need not be Catholic. Putting everyone under one umbrella is wrong. If one goes to a hospital to be treated, it’s expected the best care is provided, not substandard care because of moral guidelines. When is it moral to leave people to die when life-saving treatment could have been provided, all because some Bishop, not directly associated with the hospital, decrees it to be left untreated? Catholic Healthcare West (now Dignity Health) and St. Joseph’s have nicely received $100 million a year from the government. Taxpayers are paying hospitals to not perform their duties? Catholic hospitals provide 15 percent of hospital beds in America, and hospital mergers are increasing these numbers. The government is paying a fair share of costs for all these hospitals. The government shouldn’t be investing taxpayers’ money into institutions that refuse to provide the care people need.
Kaitlyn Bushey
Gilbert
mesadog posted at 11:45 am on Wed, Feb 29, 2012.
Why is it more important? To make anyone you don't agree with comply with your beliefs? According to you it is.
I am not Catholic but I am as you are aware of how they operate. If I do not believe in that and want to make sure I am being treated somewhere that will provide certain options I desire I will go somewhere else.
I find increasingly more every day, people insistant on tolerance and acceptance of all beliefs have no interested in tolerance and acceptance of all beliefs.
dustbowl11 posted at 12:16 pm on Wed, Feb 29, 2012.
The real issue is their acceptance of the government funds. If they do not wish to follow government guidelines they should decline the money. But of course, that will never happen.
chatmandu002 posted at 2:10 pm on Wed, Feb 29, 2012.
The government funds received by the Catholic hospitals are for services rendered. As a matter of fact the hospitals are almost going broke because of the mandated services required by the government.
Leon Ceniceros posted at 2:10 pm on Wed, Feb 29, 2012.
The gentlelady Letter writer from Gilbert is so concerned about one patient's medical well-being but never mentions what the operation was. Don't you find this disturbing as a reader. If you raise the issue then it should be described so that the reader can form an intelligent opinion either for or against the Hospital's policy.
How about more Letters to the Editor being published on the other side of this issue ???
HOW ABOUT SOMETHING IN THE PAPER ABOUT THE 6,000,000 (6 MILLION HUMAN FETUSES THAT HAVE BEEN KILLED (ABORTED SINCE 1970) BECAUSE MILLIONS OF WOMEN HAVE "UNPROTECTED SEX" AND WOULD RATHER KILL THE RESULTING HUMAN LIFE THAT WAS CONCEIVED BY THEM......WHAT ABOUT THE "RIGHTS" OF THESE 6,000,000 HUMAN INFANTS....WHAT WAS "MORAL" ABOUT KILLING THEM ???
Arizona Willie posted at 3:36 pm on Wed, Feb 29, 2012.
Until the fetus is born there is nothing special about it.It is not sacred. " God " aborts tens of thousands of fetuses every day all around the world. Apparently " He " doesn't think they are so sacred.
I wonder why pro-life people never have an answer for that.
Dale Whiting posted at 5:44 pm on Wed, Feb 29, 2012.
Boy has this discussion gone way off topic!
It all started when HHS mandated that all healthcare packages provide birth control benefits, not abortions, but benetifs to prevent the need for abortions. Some clergy got hot under their white collars believing that the Administration had lied to them, changing positions. So as a reasonable compromise, in lieu of mandating that the sponsoring agency, typically the Catholic Church, specify that these benefits be included, them apparently contradicting religous principles, the Administration took away the need to mandate by doing the mandating itself. And the sponsors don't have to pay more because birth control services are cheaper that paying for prenatal and birthing expenses. So the insurance companies are happy, too.
So just why is this not a "win-win" proposition? Answer: "It's an election year!"
wdgnas posted at 7:43 am on Thu, Mar 1, 2012.
dale, i believe it wasn't their idea. so i couldn't possibly be a good idea...
onerebel posted at 7:29 pm on Thu, Mar 1, 2012.
AZ Willie says ,"Until the fetus is born there is nothing special about it.It is not sacred". So Mr Willie if your wife or daughter was 8 months pregnant,and was punched in the stomach causing them to loose the baby, that would just be a simple assault right ? I'm sure you wouldn't want the assailant brought up on murder charges? According to you, what was in their stomach was nothing more then a insignificant blob of flesh.
I believe most American's are just fed up with the government intruding more and more into our lives by telling us we have to accept all these things we do not believe in. The tree of liberty is being chopped down branch by branch, and Liberals are the ones sharping the axe !