This has gotten such a diverse outcry of comments at another board were I post, that I was interested to see how people here would react. I've been fairly surprised and bemused by some of the comments thus far.





My personal view on the whole topic is simple.
1. No, the government should not be allowed to force hospitals (especially religious ones) to carry a drug that they are morally opposed to. However,
2. My belief is that, aside from what your religion tells you, if you are a good doctor (and a good person in general) you should be willing to put your own morals and personal beliefs aside long enough to allow a patient, such as a rape victim, to make their own choices. Especially if you live in an area where it would be extremely difficult to get Plan B on time for the woman to take it. (Remember, after 72 hours it's useless)

Example, I don't believe in abortion, but I don't believe the morning-after pill is an abortion. If I were raped today I'd have that pill in me by tomorrow. But if I was raped and ended up unconcsious in a coma for a month and THEN found out I was pregnant, I would have the baby. On that same note, however, if I were a doctor and a rape victim was brought to me, unconcious and in a coma for a month, and I found that she was pregnant, the second she woke up I would ask her if she wanted the baby or not, and if HER CHOICE was to not have it, I would find someone willing to give her the abortion.

I've found that in this world, people think far too much about themselves and their own beliefs and generally negate other people's rights to make their own decisions.

I agree, that im rape cases, Plan B would be fine. In short.


On another note. Would this belong in POOP? *shrugs* I'm fine with it here, just technically.

The problem here is that one person is inflicting their religious views on another person. As pointed out, the woman may not be in any condition to play Plan B Scavenger Hunt*. By running a public hospital, accepting medical patients and then refusing medical treatment on religious grounds, one is interfering with the religious beliefs of the patient. If the hospital is to remain open as a public hospital, it cannot pick and choose what medical services it chooses to dispense based on its religion.

And yeah, this belongs in POOP.


* A recent case here in Arizona resulted in the woman eventually missing the 72 hour period as she searched high and low for Plan B, culminating in a very snide Walgreen's pharmacist lecturing her on morality. This did not go over well.

But wasn't that becuase she had unprotected sex with some guy nad not getting raped?

While there is an important distinction for this debate, the circumstances surrounding her need for the drug weren't what kept her from getting it. At least, from my understanding of what happened.

I agree with what's already been said: the hospital is a public institution, and therefore, should not be making decisions on the care of its patients based on religious values.

It is the choice of the patient what should happen inside her body. Religion should play absolutely no part in a doctor's care unless they are in a facility that says it only will administer to a certain type. Which is another bad idea in general, because no matter their religion a dying person is a dying person, end of discussion.

Yeah, this is for POOP. *Boots*

You can't enforce public morality views on a church run hospital. And the woman going to a pharmacy or another hospital isn't going to kill her, not in one bit. The easy solution could be if an impasse is reached, the Catholic Church could just close down the hospitals or put notice that they can't treat rape patients and that they have to go to other hospitals.

Basically, keep your government out of the church and the church will keep itself out of politics. What you want next, force an Islamic or Catholic hospital to perform abortions because you think they should? NO.

So long as the hospital is private, that works. But if the hospital is public, then it is no longer a 'keep your government out of our church', but a 'keep your church out of my life' issue.

As for the woman having to travel, she's just been raped. Do you really want to send her driving all over town looking for the hospital or drug store that is not feeling preachy?

Read the description: All hospitals, including Catholic hospitals.

Again, keep the dirty state out of the church, plain and simple. Its an extremely slippery slope. Whats next, force all Churchs to marry gays and allow them to be priests, how about force all churches to have an open house where other faiths can try to convert people, how about put the sword verses on the steps of the US supreme court, what about allowing Scientologists hand out pamplets in elementary school?

Keep the State out of the church and vice versa.

Waffle is correct.

Catholic hospitals are no longer religious instituions; they are public health institutions. People who are not Catholic may very well have health insurance that works at a Catholic hospital. People without insurance may have a Catholic hospital as the nearest, best, or quite possibly the only hospital they can use.

Abortions take time and trouble to do and schedule. It is okay for a Catholic hospital to not do abortions but instead refer a person who needs an abortion to a list of local providers who do abortions.

It is not okay to send someone off to look for Plan B. Plan B is not something that takes time and trouble to do and scheudle. It's just a birth control pill. It's exactly the formulation of some early birth control pills (although it's got a higher dosage of hormones than modern birth control pills), and it must be done quickly. Ease of aquisition is the limiting step in the use of this treatment. If you make it hard for a person to get Plan B, they aren't going to use it.

I do think a Catholic hospital could get away with prohibiting Plan B on the campus if they had a very careful system set up to give rape vicitims Plan B. In other words, as long as the Catholic hospital could point the vicitim to person who could perscribe (because it's not over the counter in the US at the moment) and provide Plan B within 0.5 mile of the hospital, available 24 hrs a day, then the drug wouldn't have to be actually in the hospital's pharamacy stores. But, really, that sounds like much more trouble than providing it themselves. So I'd support legislation with some very carefully described such exceptions, but, yeah, Catholic hospitals really should find a way to provide this medical service.

the kicker is they want to effect all hospitals, it doesn't state anywhere that they would preclude private hospitals.

Is a hospital that doesn't treat the general public still defined as a hopsital? Where does the municipal ambulance take you when you are unconcious?

I think some definitions may be confusing us here.

If a woman is likely to end up in a given medical facility following a rape, that medical facility is required to stock and dispense Plan B. The drugs will be dispensed with all the sensitivity and courtesy one should afford a fellow human who has just survived a violent sexual assault, meaning one keeps one's views on Plan B to oneself. Further, the drugs should be dispensed with all due speed, as the patient has enough on her mind with AIDS, sexually transmitted diseases along with the more mundane trauma, possible physical injuries and interviews with police to attempt to capture individual responsible without having to worry about the 72 hour time limit.

Acceptable?

If they get money from the government, I would consider them non-private, and suceptable to governmental rulings. Including 'your religious beliefs cannot interfere with your public duty'.

I used to work for a Food Bank. The job of hunger relief is shouldered almost entirely by religious organisations; however, our Food Bank received federal funding, so we had rules about religion. The organisation's religious practices could not interfere with their mission of feeding the hungry. They could not require attendance to a Bible study, a prayer meeting, or even do so much as give a sermon while the hungry ate. To get food from us, they had to allow anyone that wanted food to come in while they were serving, get food, and leave with no pressure.

As soon as you receive public funds, your privacy is dispelled. "Private" hospitals should not be getting patients from emergency services.

* Snicker *

Dispel Privacy
Abjuration
Level: 2 Government
Components: M
Casting Time: 1 Fiscal Year
Range: United States
Target or Area: One Institution
Saving Throw: None
Spell Resistance: No

You can use this spell to remove the privacy effects from any institution. Once successfully cast, the institution is considered public and must obey all laws regarding privacy race, gender and religion. It may no longer bias, prefer or advocate any particular race, religion or gender.

The range of the spell is unlimited, but will have effect only on US institutions. To be successfully cast, the institution must accept a bushel of money from the government. If the money is accepted, privacy is dispelled with no saving throw, regardless of spell resistance or constitutional protection.

Once privacy has been dispelled, it may not be regained for at least one fiscal year. To regain privacy, the institution must undergo a rigorous fiscal cleansing, eliminating any taint of government money from its coffers. At the DM's discretion, this may involve completing a quest of some sort from a high level cleric or auditor.

The material component for this spell is one bushel of taxpayer money.