Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst ... 345678 LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 74

Thread: Medically assisted dying vs. Catholic Hospitals

  1. #61

    Default

    As a general rule I'd be on the side of the Catholic Hospitals however they are taking money from the government. If they were 100% private this would be a no brainer, the government shouldn't be interfering with their religious doctrine. However by the sounds of it they are not. By taking federal money they are bound to comply with directives from said government that they would be free off had they not taken the money. The hospitals should be forced to accommodate those seeking assisted suicide, if they are that against performing the act then they must at their expense transfer the patient to a hospital that will perform the act.

  2. #62
    mikejames

    Default

    I'm a libertarian (small "l" libertarian) and I fully believe people should be free to make their own end of life decisions. Keeping consistent with my belief is liberty, I do NOT think a religious institution should ever be forced to violate it's morals. I was raised Catholic and I'm at odds with the Church on this one....but I'd say they're freedom cannot be infringed to satisfy someone else. the solution is really simple. If you want doctor assisted suicide, then go find a willing provider.

    As to the OP, I'm not sure I believe that Catholic hospitals are "publicly funded" but I really don't know a lot about how Canada works. Regardless, I'd agree with them. Compelling a Catholic to kill someone against his morality is just fucked up. Again, quite simply, if you want a doctor who will agree to kill you (and I think you have that right) then go to a hospital that is ok with doing it. And if you're a doctor who wants to be able to offer this to your patients, then seek employment at a secular hospital.

    - - - Updated - - -



    Quote Originally Posted by Starrunner View Post
    I don't see how the hospital would be 'unprepared' for a request from a patient seeking to terminate their life, but rather the hospital is unwilling to end the patient's suffering based on religious beliefs. The reason we have separation of church and state is to ensure that everyone's constitutional rights are guaranteed by state funded institutions.



    I don't share this perspective. My reason for thinking about this is because my mother passed away in a hospital last week with cancer. She went swiftly and we never got to the point of discussing medically assisted death. I do remember several conversations with her in past years where she expressed her strong belief that she would never want to wither away in a hospital having others care for her and being a burden to her family. Her exact words were 'If I wind up in that condition, just put me out of my misery.' That is what my mother would have wanted. I don't see it as being a slippery slope because of the process and safeguards in place. It just allows people who cannot live with the suffering an option to die in dignity.



    This is what galls me. The church doesn't pay taxes, yet it refuses to provide services for which the taxpayers are paying for.



    They are most certainly denying service to a person suffering interminably for the remainder of their days. It's not a matter of simply transferring them to other hospitals. In the rural or smaller communities there may not be a hospital within reach and the patient may have to be transferred out of province. Also, a a patient requesting medically assisted death may not even be physically able to survive being moved to another hospital. There was a disastrous case in Edmonton of a man requesting termination of his life in a Catholic hospital, and the transfer alone practically killed him. The combination of being moved across town without medication left him screaming in agony in his final hours.

    http://news.nationalpost.com/news/ca...-death-request




    The legislation allows a doctor to opt out of performing the procedure as long as a referral is made to another doctor in the same institution. However, the edict from the church prohibits all doctors in Catholic hospitals from complying with a request for medically assisted dying.
    The sections I bolded are at odds with each other. Clearly you DO share that perspective as evidenced by your story with your mom. (side note, sorry for your loss....lost my dad to small cell lung cancer in 2015. Luckily it too went swiftly.)

    The reason we have separation of church and state is to ensure that everyone's constitutional rights are guaranteed by state funded institutions.

    What about the constitutional right of the hospitals owners? The rights of Catholics in general? You want to violate their religious freedom by making them commit a mortal sin? Seems you liberals only care about "rights" when you're the beneficiary, but always at the ready to stomp out anyone else's rights so long as you get what you want.

  3. #63

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by mikejames View Post
    I'm a libertarian (small "l" libertarian) and I fully believe people should be free to make their own end of life decisions. Keeping consistent with my belief is liberty, I do NOT think a religious institution should ever be forced to violate it's morals. I was raised Catholic and I'm at odds with the Church on this one....but I'd say they're freedom cannot be infringed to satisfy someone else. the solution is really simple. If you want doctor assisted suicide, then go find a willing provider.

    As to the OP, I'm not sure I believe that Catholic hospitals are "publicly funded" but I really don't know a lot about how Canada works. Regardless, I'd agree with them. Compelling a Catholic to kill someone against his morality is just fucked up. Again, quite simply, if you want a doctor who will agree to kill you (and I think you have that right) then go to a hospital that is ok with doing it. And if you're a doctor who wants to be able to offer this to your patients, then seek employment at a secular hospital.

    - - - Updated - - -



    The sections I bolded are at odds with each other. Clearly you DO share that perspective as evidenced by your story with your mom. (side note, sorry for your loss....lost my dad to small cell lung cancer in 2015. Luckily it too went swiftly.)

    The reason we have separation of church and state is to ensure that everyone's constitutional rights are guaranteed by state funded institutions.

    What about the constitutional right of the hospitals owners? The rights of Catholics in general? You want to violate their religious freedom by making them commit a mortal sin? Seems you liberals only care about "rights" when you're the beneficiary, but always at the ready to stomp out anyone else's rights so long as you get what you want.
    I addressed these issues way back in post #41 where I stated the following:

    In both Canada and the US, Catholic hospitals receive large sums of state and federal funding. In addition to tax exemptions, they also receive enormous amounts of health care dollars allocated by the government through the health care system (in Canada) and Medicare and Medicaid and special grants for specific services in the US. In 2011, Catholic hospitals received $27 billion in public funding, not including tax breaks, which constituted nearly half their revenue. Furthermore, one fifth of the doctors in religious hospitals reported facing ethical dilemmas when their medical judgment came into conflict with the hospital’s religious policy.

    http://america.aljazeera.com/opinion...taluntold.html

    When the state invests so much financially into an institution, it is incumbent upon the government to review their practices to ensure they are compliant with the legislation. The government itself becomes liable if it is perceived to fund institutions that serve only a segment of the population.


    It is hardly a separation of church and state if the government provides substantial funds to Catholic hospitals but is expected to back off so the church can practice its beliefs without any regard for the population that don't follow the faith and request the assistance. A doctor should have the right to conscientious beliefs, but terminally ill patients also have conscientious rights including the right to end their own suffering rather than prolong the pain. Also, what about the rights of a Catholic doctor who conscientiously objects to the dictum to withhold medically assisted dying procedures to terminally ill patients but is forbidden from helping the patient? What about patients who are at risk of death and have signed a 'do not resuscitate' order but get taken to a Catholic hospital? It's also not feasible to tell terminally ill patients to simply go elsewhere. There is a large number of rural areas and smaller communities who don't have access to other hospitals or are unable to traverse the distance. You also have to keep in mind the physical stamina and impediments of the patient in addition to the time sensitive nature of getting the assistance in a timely manner. Furthermore, it is a legal right to which they are entitled under the law and they are paying for it.

    The hospital is not being forced to violate its morals however, it would be a violation of ethical morals to accept public funds from a government while refusing to provide treatment to a segment of the public who request assistance.
    Last edited by Starrunner; 12-Jan-2017 at 01:51.

  4. #64

    Default

    The same holds true of doctors who received public funds and scholarships to get there degree , they can't suddenly flip a switch and claim religious freedom or practice of faith , if a hospital wants exemption they should receive no public funds and the doctors/ nurses they hire should not have used public funds to attend higher education .

    It seems to me (and I was raised Roman Catholic) they want to have there cake and eat it too, that's just wrong , and incidently many of us have the scripts to end our lives and have the medication locked away in a cupboard, many people expire before ever getting to the point of ending there own suffering , however with big pharma continually raising the price on the drug of choice we use , in many cases people can not afford the prescription , the crooks at the company are trying to price patients out , a 1 gram dose in the last 5 years has gone from less than $500 to in excess of $10,000 in many areas of states that have legalized it , as you might be able to tell this something I know very well .there are doctors studying a gentle cocktail of drugs that would be more affordable but so far ,nothing comes close , because it's either something to harsh on the mouth and stomach ( literal mild burns on tongue and lips ) or doesn't work as efficiently as the single drug , we are trying to avoid suffering and many people are resistant to drink something that has the appeal of castor oil !

    Sent from my SM-T810 using Tapatalk

  5. #65

    Default

    If the government is partially funding a hospital I would assume the government, and the people it represents, are receiving some benefit from this arrangement. Unless it is specifically stated in the agreement, I don't see why we should assume the politicians have an automatic right to override the medical decisions of hospital administrators. In cases of questionable medical practices the politicians can, and do, create laws to address those concerns, forcing all hospitals to comply. Within this legal framework, however, I would opt for allowing hospital administrators to make the decisions on how to best run their hospitals rather than giving politicians that authority.

  6. #66
    mikejames

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by Starrunner View Post
    I addressed these issues way back in post #41 where I stated the following:

    In both Canada and the US, Catholic hospitals receive large sums of state and federal funding. In addition to tax exemptions, they also receive enormous amounts of health care dollars allocated by the government through the health care system (in Canada) and Medicare and Medicaid and special grants for specific services in the US. In 2011, Catholic hospitals received $27 billion in public funding, not including tax breaks, which constituted nearly half their revenue. Furthermore, one fifth of the doctors in religious hospitals reported facing ethical dilemmas when their medical judgment came into conflict with the hospital’s religious policy.

    http://america.aljazeera.com/opinion...taluntold.html

    When the state invests so much financially into an institution, it is incumbent upon the government to review their practices to ensure they are compliant with the legislation. The government itself becomes liable if it is perceived to fund institutions that serve only a segment of the population.


    It is hardly a separation of church and state if the government provides substantial funds to Catholic hospitals but is expected to back off so the church can practice its beliefs without any regard for the population that don't follow the faith and request the assistance. A doctor should have the right to conscientious beliefs, but terminally ill patients also have conscientious rights including the right to end their own suffering rather than prolong the pain. Also, what about the rights of a Catholic doctor who conscientiously objects to the dictum to withhold medically assisted dying procedures to terminally ill patients but is forbidden from helping the patient? What about patients who are at risk of death and have signed a 'do not resuscitate' order but get taken to a Catholic hospital? It's also not feasible to tell terminally ill patients to simply go elsewhere. There is a large number of rural areas and smaller communities who don't have access to other hospitals or are unable to traverse the distance. You also have to keep in mind the physical stamina and impediments of the patient in addition to the time sensitive nature of getting the assistance in a timely manner. Furthermore, it is a legal right to which they are entitled under the law and they are paying for it.

    The hospital is not being forced to violate its morals however, it would be a violation of ethical morals to accept public funds from a government while refusing to provide treatment to a segment of the public who request assistance.
    Seems like you want the separation of church and state when it suits your agenda but not otherwise. Typical liberal hypocrisy.

  7. #67

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by mikejames View Post
    Seems like you want the separation of church and state when it suits your agenda but not otherwise. Typical liberal hypocrisy.
    I don't really understand how you came to such a conclusion based on the post he had written. I always hate when people do these sort of things instead of actually putting forward a counter argument. What is the point of such a comment? Typical mikejames arguments ... you see how stupid that sounds ... it's not a good argument. It means absolutely nothing.

    So how about instead you explain how he is being a hypocrite. Don't just say it seems he wants the separation of church and state when it suits his agenda but not otherwise. Actually, point out how you came to such a conclusion.

  8. #68
    mikejames

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by MarchinBunny View Post
    I don't really understand how you came to such a conclusion based on the post he had written. I always hate when people do these sort of things instead of actually putting forward a counter argument. What is the point of such a comment? Typical mikejames arguments ... you see how stupid that sounds ... it's not a good argument. It means absolutely nothing.

    So how about instead you explain how he is being a hypocrite. Don't just say it seems he wants the separation of church and state when it suits his agenda but not otherwise. Actually, point out how you came to such a conclusion.
    He made a bunch of assertions with not backup. Show me a hard figure of public money in the US going to Catholic hospitals. I'll wait. Medicaid is payment for services rendered, it's not "public funding". But even if catholic hospitals did get public funding, that doesn't mean a christian should have to commit immoral acts, or acts they find immoral. I'm catholic but fully support physician assisted suicide so I don't really have a dog in this fight.

    If you want to be able to kill yourself, go to a secular hospital. It's that simple really.



    It is hardly a separation of church and state if the government provides substantial funds to Catholic hospitals but is expected to back off so the church can practice its beliefs without any regard for the population that don't follow the faith and request the assistance.
    source of "substantial" funds in the US?



    A doctor should have the right to conscientious beliefs, but terminally ill patients also have conscientious rights including the right to end their own suffering rather than prolong the pain.
    So a patients conscientious rights should trump the doctor's conscientious beliefs? Why? So the doctor should be forced to violate his very moral core simply because his employer got some tax dollars? Should catholic doctors be forced to perform abortions too? Maybe you'd prefer a total ban on religion instead since you don't want to actually allow people to practice their religions.



    Also, what about the rights of a Catholic doctor who conscientiously objects to the dictum to withhold medically assisted dying procedures to terminally ill patients but is forbidden from helping the patient?
    Since when is it a "right" to not have to do what your boss tells you to do? IF you don't like the terms of your employment then go get another job.



    What about patients who are at risk of death and have signed a 'do not resuscitate' order but get taken to a Catholic hospital?
    DNR and physician assisted suicide are not the same thing. In the latter case, meds are given to kill you. in the former there's no attempt to revive in the event of clinical death.



    It's also not feasible to tell terminally ill patients to simply go elsewhere. There is a large number of rural areas and smaller communities who don't have access to other hospitals or are unable to traverse the distance
    .
    Probably the only valid argument you've made, but again I don't see how you justify making people violate their morals.
    You also have to keep in mind the physical stamina and impediments of the patient in addition to the time sensitive nature of getting the assistance in a timely manner.



    Furthermore, it is a legal right to which they are entitled under the law and they are paying for it.
    Liberals simply do not understand what the word "right" means. You DO NOT have any right to anyone else's labor. Sure, you have the right to end your own life at any time (whether the law recognizes it or not, YOU are the sole owner of your life and have the right to end it any time). But what your suggesting is people having a right to make someone else do something they do not want to. Such things are absolutely NOT rights. The only thing you have a right to when another party is involved is to transact business in which they're a willing participant. There's a pervasive belief growing in the US that people have a "right" to free healthcare. NO. Healthcare is a combination of someone else's labor, services, and property. Thinking you have a right to use someone else's labor without compensation is called slavery.

  9. #69

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by mikejames View Post
    He made a bunch of assertions with not backup. Show me a hard figure of public money in the US going to Catholic hospitals. I'll wait. Medicaid is payment for services rendered, it's not "public funding". But even if catholic hospitals did get public funding, that doesn't mean a christian should have to commit immoral acts, or acts they find immoral. I'm catholic but fully support physician assisted suicide so I don't really have a dog in this fight.
    Well, I have been doing a google search and while I cannot find anything that explicitly states hard figures on how much they receive. It is implied and stated pretty much everywhere that catholic hospitals do receive public funding. I mean, just look it up yourself and you will see this isn't even the first time catholic hospitals have been put into questioning for denying procedures for people. It's not just the assisted suicide thing. How can certain organizations be calling for them to be stripped of federal funding if they are not receiving any?

    Also, no one is telling a Christian to commit immoral acts, all that is being said is that the hospital itself needs to provide the service because they are a medical facility. Their job isn't based on their damned doctrine, their job is based on providing care for the people. That means you hire someone willing to do the procedure. It's that damned simple dude. If they are receiving federal money, it stands to reason they should be upheld to federal law .. and it's not that fucking hard to follow such a law either. It's not like only catholic doctors work at a catholic hospital.

    Whether or not Medicaid and Medicare funding is considered public funding I would say is fairly debatable. It's still payment coming from the federal government for their services. If they are not providing the services that are needed for the patient ... why should they receive payment or be eligible to receive funds through those means? Sounds to me like they are not doing their damned job, and thus should be cut off from being eligible or not be recognized as an official medical facility.

    I do have a number for how much they received in 2011 from those programs. $27 billion in net revenue.
    http://www.catholicsforchoice.org/he...ic-healthcare/



    If you want to be able to kill yourself, go to a secular hospital. It's that simple really.
    But it isn't, because sometimes that hospital is the only one within the person's community. So your argument here is absolute bullcrap. Sometimes that hospital is their only option. So then what? Fuck them? Tough shit? Where exactly is your argument for them? Sounds to me like you don't have one.



    source of "substantial" funds in the US?
    Well, as I said, I looked it up and everywhere seems to imply that is the case. Though I think most people consider Medicaid and medicare as public funding. And I would say $27 billion is certainly substantial. Whether or not you consider that actually public funding is irrelevant, because it's still funding they are receiving regardless from the federal government.




    So a patients conscientious rights should trump the doctor's conscientious beliefs? Why? So the doctor should be forced to violate his very moral core simply because his employer got some tax dollars? Should catholic doctors be forced to perform abortions too? Maybe you'd prefer a total ban on religion instead since you don't want to actually allow people to practice their religions.
    The patient's rights don't necessarily trump the doctor's conscientious beliefs, but the patient's rights do certainly trump the beliefs of the hospital itself. If they have a doctor willing to do the service or they are capable of hiring a doctor who will ... then what is the issue? Because no one has to be forced to do anything besides the hospital needing to provide the service, it's not saying they need to force someone who doesn't want to do it.

    I also find it pretty funny you and several people keep coming back to this argument like as if only catholic doctors work at a catholic hospital. XD Like as if forcing someone to do the procedure is something that needs to occur when you can just hire someone fi you have no one willing to do it. You hire doctors of all types of backgrounds with all types of capabilities .. are you seriously telling me ... they cannot offer a doctor who is willing to do such a simple procedure? Really? With all that money they are getting from the federal government, are you telling me they are incapable of hiring 1 doctor who is willing to do it?



    Probably the only valid argument you've made, but again I don't see how you justify making people violate their morals.
    You also have to keep in mind the physical stamina and impediments of the patient in addition to the time sensitive nature of getting the assistance in a timely manner.
    No morals need to be violated if they just hire someone willing to do it.



    Liberals simply do not understand what the word "right" means.
    I don't think that is the issue here. I actually think it's your own lack of understanding that is the problem.




    You DO NOT have any right to anyone else's labor.
    Again, then don't force anyone to do it, just get a doctor who WILL do it. I fail to understand how such an obvious fix is entirely oblivious to you. Chances are they wouldn't even need to hire someone else because catholic hospitals have all sorts of doctors who don't just follow catholic doctrine. Also, a patient's right does trump the hospital's shitty beliefs because that hospital is getting paid by the federal government to do it. If you believe the hospital as a whole should be able to choose to not offer such services then they should no longer be recognized as an eligible hospital to accept Medicaid and medicare. They should become entirely separate from the federal government.



    But what your suggesting is people having a right to make someone else do something they do not want to.
    Nope, that isn't what is being suggested at all. You just seem incapable of thinking about the obvious solution of just having a doctor willing to do it.
    Last edited by MarchinBunny; 13-Jan-2017 at 22:57.

  10. #70
    mikejames

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by MarchinBunny View Post
    Well, I have been doing a google search and while I cannot find anything that explicitly states hard figures on how much they receive. It is implied and stated pretty much everywhere that catholic hospitals do receive public funding. I mean, just look it up yourself and you will see this isn't even the first time catholic hospitals have been put into questioning for denying procedures for people. It's not just the assisted suicide thing. How can certain organizations be calling for them to be stripped of federal funding if they are not receiving any?
    Right so the entire argument is nonsense then. Unless you can prove a substantial public funding is provided to these Catholic hospitals, I don't see how you can argue "since they're receiving public funds they shouldn't be able to hide behind a separation of church/state argument. That has been the argument this whole time.



    Quote Originally Posted by MarchinBunny View Post
    Also, no one is telling a Christian to commit immoral acts, all that is being said is that the hospital itself needs to provide the service because they are a medical facility. Their job isn't based on their damned doctrine, their job is based on providing care for the people. That means you hire someone willing to do the procedure. It's that damned simple dude. If they are receiving federal money, it stands to reason they should be upheld to federal law .. and it's not that fucking hard to follow such a law either. It's not like only catholic doctors work at a catholic hospital.
    Yes, that's exactly what you're asking them to do with a clever slight of hand I see too. For the entirely of this thread, public funding was the entire basis for trying to mandate they offer this service. Now you're changing it to "all that is being said is that the hospital itself needs to provide the service because they are a medical facility." Nope, that' not all that's been said. Secondly why should a private institution be forced to hire people willing to a procedure if hte OWNERS of the institution have a moral problem with the procedure? So yeah, your asking Catholics to violate their morals by forcing them to employ their assets to commit something they believe to be wrong. It has nothing to do with the beliefs of the individual doctors. They don't own the place.





    Whether or not Medicaid and Medicare funding is considered public funding I would say is fairly debatable. It's still payment coming from the federal government for their services. If they are not providing the services that are needed for the patient ... why should they receive payment or be eligible to receive funds through those means? Sounds to me like they are not doing their damned job, and thus should be cut off from being eligible or be recognized as an official medical facility.

    I do have a number for how much they received in 2011 from those programs. $27 billion in net revenue.
    http://www.catholicsforchoice.org/he...ic-healthcare/
    No it's not really debatable. Those are payment for services provided. It's not federal grant money or anything. That would be different. But even then, if that were the case, you can't force people to violate their morality (well you can but it's not right)




    But it isn't, because sometimes that hospital is the only one within the person's community. So your argument here is absolute bullcrap. Sometimes that hospital is their only option. So then what? Fuck them? Tough shit? Where exactly is your argument for them? Sounds to me like you don't have one.
    Tough shit. If you don't like where you live move. You dont' have a right to anything simply because you chose a shitty place to live. So yeah, fuck them I guess. You're not entitled to everything you want in life simply because you exist. They can stay home and kill themselves the old fashioned way.



    Well, as I said, I looked it up and everywhere seems to imply that is the case. Though I think most people consider Medicaid and medicare as public funding. And I would say $27 billion is certainly substantial. Whether or not you consider that actually public funding is irrelevant, because it's still funding they are receiving regardless from the federal government.
    No, no one considers that public funding. Only people trying to make a disingenuous argument. That revenue is payment to the hospital for work they already did. $27 billion across thousands of hospitals is peanuts, but that's irrelevant.




    The patient's rights don't necessarily trump the doctor's conscientious beliefs, but the patient's rights do certainly trump the beliefs of the hospital itself. If they have a doctor willing to do the service or they are capable of hiring a doctor who will ... then what is the issue? Because no one has to be forced to do anything besides the hospital needing to provide the service, it's not saying they need to force someone who doesn't want to do it.
    But that's EXACTLY what you ARE saying, that the patient's rights to want to die override the hospital owners right to not want to kill them. Regardless of funding, that is what you're arguing. The "hospital itself" means the owners of the hospital. When you drill down far enough, everything is owned by people. You are absolutely suggusting that the patients' right to die trumps the hospital owners right to not want to use their facilities to do it.



    I also find it pretty funny you and several people keep coming back to this argument like as if only catholic doctors work at a catholic hospital. XD Like as if forcing someone to do the procedure is something that needs to occur when you can just hire someone fi you have no one willing to do it. You hire doctors of all types of backgrounds with all types of capabilities .. are you seriously telling me ... they cannot offer a doctor who is willing to do such a simple procedure? Really? With all that money they are getting from the federal government, are you telling me they are incapable of hiring 1 doctor who is willing to do it?
    Who said only catholic doctors work at catholic hospitals. I never said that. I'm sure many doctors in catholic hospitals would happily do it. Tough shit for them though. Their employer doesn't allow it. Don't like it? Get a new job. There's plenty of things I'd be happy to do for my clients that I'm not allowed to by company policy. Tough shit for me and my clients.




    No morals need to be violated if they just hire someone willing to do it.
    the morals of the church who owns the facility are violated. It's like you coming to me and asking me to kill someone. I don't want to do it. But you bought me my favorite gun. So I'm obligated to let someone who is willing to do it use my tool/asset (gun) to do it.


    It's kind of shitty analogy but the logic works. You want to make the owners of the bed, the room, the building, the drugs allow someone to use all those things to do something they themselves find wrong. Get it?




    I don't think that is the issue here. I actually think it's your own lack of understanding that is the problem.
    I doubt I'm the one lacking understanding here, sweetheart. Your misunderstanding of what rights are is actually at the crux of this discussion.




    Again, then don't force anyone to do it, just get a doctor who WILL do it. I fail to understand how such an obvious fix is entirely oblivious to you. Chances are they wouldn't even need to hire someone else because catholic hospitals have all sorts of doctors who don't just follow catholic doctrine. Also, a patient's right does trump the hospital's shitty beliefs because that hospital is getting paid by the federal government to do it. If you believe the hospital as a whole should be able to choose to not offer such services then they should no longer be recognized as an eligible hospital to accept Medicaid and medicare. They should become entirely separate from the federal government.
    I fail to understand why your hung up on the willingness of the doctors. It's the owner of the hospital that matters. That catholic church doesn't want to be in the business of killing people on their property.

    So they should be free too to tell the poor medicaid patients to fuck off then right? I mean if the gov't decides not to recognize them as a legit hospital and take medicaid payments then they shouldn't have to take medicaid patients at all right? Your argument here is seriously flawed.


    Nope, that isn't what is being suggested at all. You just seem incapable of thinking about the obvious solution of just having a doctor willing to do it.
    um yeah that's fucking literally what this entire thread is about. Forcing Catholic hospital owners to allow physician assisted suicide on their property. Try to keep up. Holy shit.

Similar Threads

  1. Assisted care for incontinence
    By Barbara in forum Incontinence
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 17-Jul-2015, 06:43
  2. Hospitals
    By Fluffyboy in forum Incontinence
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 12-Aug-2014, 15:43
  3. Diapers in SA hospitals.
    By Luckyfish in forum Diaper Talk
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-Apr-2012, 22:08
  4. Choosing to die documentary and assisted suicide
    By Y00kz in forum Mature Topics
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 01-Jul-2011, 08:18
  5. Catholic diaper tradition?
    By yourhuggies in forum Diaper Talk
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: 25-Mar-2010, 01:22

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
ADISC.org - the Adult Baby / Diaper Lover / Incontinence Support Community.
ADISC.org is designed to be viewed in Firefox, with a resolution of at least 1280 x 1024.