Nun excommunicated for allowing abortion to save the life of a mother

[AGDee]

I left the church out of my question specifically I'm thinking more of the ethics. Legally, I would say that if they had done nothing, they could be sued for wrongful death or malpractice, couldn't they? If a person goes to an ER for life saving treatment, they cannot be turned away for lack of ability to pay. Yet, the hospital can refuse treatment for their own (not her) religious reasons? It's definitely an ethical dilemma.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by AGDee

I left the church out of my question specifically I'm thinking more of the ethics. Legally, I would say that if they had done nothing, they could be sued for wrongful death or malpractice, couldn't they? If a person goes to an ER for life saving treatment, they cannot be turned away for lack of ability to pay. Yet, the hospital can refuse treatment for their own (not her) religious reasons? It's definitely an ethical dilemma.

Catholic hospitals have some specific exemptions against having to provide abortions (as well as BC and IVF). I don't know if they'll always get away with it, but that's the current state of affairs. Docs who work there know it's part of the deal.

[Psi U MC Vito]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Catholic hospitals have some specific exemptions against having to provide abortions (as well as BC and IVF). I don't know if they'll always get away with it, but that's the current state of affairs. Docs who work there know it's part of the deal.

Makes sense. Otherwise they would be forced to violate their beliefs, which would go against the Constitution.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by Psi U MC Vito

Makes sense. Otherwise they would be forced to violate their beliefs, which would go against the Constitution.

Yeah it's a weird balance though because they do receive federal money which means they could probably be forced, however they provide like... 1/3 of healthcare so you wouldn't really want them to close.

[Psi U MC Vito]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Yeah it's a weird balance though because they do receive federal money which means they could probably be forced, however they provide like... 1/3 of healthcare so you wouldn't really want them to close.

They can't be forced, they just wouldn't be eligible to receive the federal money. And I don't know if that is the case or not.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by Psi U MC Vito

They can't be forced, they just wouldn't be eligible to receive the federal money. And I don't know if that is the case or not.

Right but it's essentially forced. Federal money includes, iirc reimbursements for medicare among other things. You would seriously struggle to keep a hospital running without it.

I'm quoting the 1/3 off of a site, but either way I know in the cities around here there are 2-3 hospitals and usually one is Catholic.

[agzg]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Right but it's essentially forced. Federal money includes, iirc reimbursements for medicare among other things. You would seriously struggle to keep a hospital running without it.

I'm quoting the 1/3 off of a site, but either way I know in the cities around here there are 2-3 hospitals and usually one is Catholic.

Medicare, Medicaid, and often times federal grants. You'd have to have a lot of private donors with deep deep pockets to keep running, I believe.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Psi U MC Vito

Makes sense. Otherwise they would be forced to violate their beliefs, which would go against the Constitution.

No, not unconstitutional. The Constitution only prevents the government from inhibiting the free exercise of religion, not private hospitals (or schools).

Whether Congress could condition receipt of federal money on certain things is a different issue, unrelated to the First Amendment.