Catholic controlled hospitals denying rape victims right to choose

[Bells]

SEXUALLY-assaulted women who seek help at Catholic-controlled hospitals cannot be referred to rape crisis centres that supply morning-after pills, under church policy.

The policy, spelt out in an 80-page ethics document, has heightened concerns among doctors and rape counsellors about the Catholic Church's growing control of hospitals.

And The Australian reveals today that another fertility centre has been told to move out by the Catholic buyers of the hospital where it is based. One prominent doctor said she had long been concerned at the church's rape policy, which is contained in an ethics document approved by the Catholic hierarchy in 2001.
LInk

That's right folks. Rape victims who are taken to or go to Catholic controlled hospitals will now be denied the right to choose not only the morning after pill, but also the right to be referred to a rape crisis centre that may offer women the morning after pill.

Now, if this were only in private hospitals that were Catholic, that would be another story altogether. But sadly, this will not just apply to hospitals owned by the Catholic Church. It will also apply to public hospitals that the Church has won the right to run. This means that government funded hospitals run by the Catholic group will now also deny rape victims the right to choose whether to have a morning after pill and be denied the right to be referred to a rape crisis centre that offers the services.

Catholic Health Australia chief Francis Sullivan said that as well as private hospitals, Catholic organisations ran 21 public hospitals around the nation that would also have to follow the ethics policy.

Imagine if you will if a woman has been raped and the only hospital within reach is a Catholic run hospital (be it public or private) and if this woman wishes to take the morning after pill to prevent a pregnancy as a result of the rape, she would be denied this treatment due to the Church's doctrine and views on abortion. Doctors and rape crisis centres are correct to be worried in the way the Catholic Church is quietly going around buying out control of both private and public hospitals.

Senior Catholic spokesmen defended the policy as a logical and ethical extension of the church's opposition to the morning-after pill, which it considers morally no different to abortion. But Melbourne GP and medical broadcaster Sally Cockburn said she was "blown out of the water" when she read the policy.

"If this is the way their staff are mandated to behave, then I don't believe rape victims should be taken to their hospitals at all," Dr Cockburn said.

"They have no right to make us follow their point of view, and if they're going to be taking over more hospitals, I'm concerned."

Karen Willis, of the NSW Rape Crisis Centre, said it was standard practice for a raped woman to be offered the morning-after pill, if there was a real risk of her becoming pregnant with her attacker's child. "To not offer someone the morning-after pill would be negligence as far as we are concerned," she said.

Indeed. Denying a rape victim the choice of a morning after pill can result in that victim having to face an even more difficult decision later on if she finds herself pregnant and carrying her rapist's child. The morning afterpill just ensures that a pregnancy cannot occur. Shouldn't it be up to the rape victim to decide whether or not she wants the chance of a pregnancy to occur as a result of her rape? No one is saying she is forced to take the pill. But to deny her the choice is tantamount to a further assault on the victim. And to deny her referral to rape crisis centres that offer the pill is frankly ridiculous. Denying her access to help is contrary to what hospitals are meant to offer the public. If they are to take such a stand, why are they taking Government funding for such services when they are then going to deny women the right to choose whether to take the pill? Hospitals are there to treat patients. They are not there to ensure victims of rape be further victimised due to a religious doctrine.

Not only are rape victims affected, but also women and couples who are seeking fertility treatment as the Catholic Church has also deemed that all fertility treatments that offer IVF will also be banned from their hospitals, both public and private. Fertility clinics are being told to move on from hospital grounds (both private and public) if said hospitals are run by the Catholic organisation.

And The Australian reveals today that another fertility centre has been told to move out by the Catholic buyers of the hospital where it is based.
-------------------------------------------------------

The buy-out by the rival Catholic Mater Misericordiae Hospital is subject to approval by competition regulators. But the Queensland Fertility Group, which offers in-vitro fertilisation and other fertility treatments at the site, confirmed yesterday it had already been told it must find new premises elsewhere. Catholic doctrine is opposed to IVF.

QFG Townsville director Ron Chang said the forced relocation was annoying, but predicted it would not interrupt services.

The Australian revealed on Tuesday that Canberra's John James Hospital - bought in October by a Catholic-controlled organisation - had begun withdrawing services to the Canberra Fertility Centre, which was based on its premises.

As I said, if this were the case in private Catholic hospitals, then it would be their choice. But to subject public hospitals that they have won the right to run and to force them to follow private church doctrines while being funded by the State is fundamentally wrong. So much for the notion of separation of church and state.

 

[Prince_James]

It's a Catholic institution.

They get to decide what they will and not allow.

Don't go to a Catholic hospital if one wants a morning after pill, or a referrral to such.

 

[spidergoat]

I'm glad to see they are doing their part to end the popularity of Catholicism.

 

[S.A.M.]

Are there a lot of hospitals not run by religious organisations?

 

[John99]

Are there a lot of hospitals not run by religious organisations?

there are plenty, but lets proceed for persecution purposes.

 

[Bells]

It's a Catholic institution.

They get to decide what they will and not allow.

Don't go to a Catholic hospital if one wants a morning after pill, or a referrral to such.

If it were just Catholic hospitals, then that would be different as I said before. However the Catholic Church group has also been granted the right to run public hospitals. Which are not funded by the Catholic Church but by the State and taxpayers money. The public hospitals run by the Church are in no way private. However they are enforcing their private religious values into the public domain in the forms of public hospitals.

We aren't talking about a woman turning up to a hospital seeking the morning after pill. We are talking about women who have been raped and have gone to or been taken to hospital for treatment and care that a rape victim would normally get. Now imagine if the only hospital in your area is a public hospital that is sadly run by the Church and they refuse to allow you access to the morning after pill or to tell you where you can go to get the pill and rape counselling? Don't you think a rape victim has been through enough? Or do you think rape victims should be forced to face a possible pregnancy caused by their rape?

Are there a lot of hospitals not run by religious organisations?

Yes there are. But in some areas of Australia, the distance between hospitals can be hundreds of kilometres. And if the only hospital in the area is run by the Catholic Church and it can be private or public, rape victims being taken to these hospitals will not be allowed to gain access to the morning afterpill to prevent a pregnancy from occuring from her rape, nor will they refer her to a rape crisis centre that does. Now rape crisis centres exist for a reason, not just to provide the pill, but also rape counselling and support to rape victims. Denying them access to such services can and will lead to the victim feeling further victimised by the very place that is there to help her.

The Catholic Church health group runs more than 70 hospitals in Australia, including 21 public hospitals. That's a lot and they are in the process of quietly acquiring more, both private and public. Now again, if it were a case of a privately run hospitals, then it is their hospital. But when they include public hospitals that are funded by the Government, then it is the Church intruding and forcing their private beliefs on the public to the detriment of not only rape victims, but couples and women who wish to access the IVF system.

there are plenty, but lets proceed for persecution purposes.

This is not a case of persecution. Merely a question of whether a Church has the right to impose their religious doctrines in public hospitals in such a fashion.

 

[S.A.M.]

What about social services? Can they help?

 

[Prince_James]

Bells:

Are you certain that it is giving the Church control of a public hospital? Or that the hospital has essentially been sold to the Church?

 

[Bells]

What about social services? Can they help?

Not if they work in the hospital. As it stands now the staff who work in all hospitals run by the Catholic Health Group are not allowed to prescribe the abortion pill or refer any woman who has been a rape victim to a rape crisis centre that may provide such services unless they can ensure that the woman is not pregnant.

Now if a woman is raped and bought in the same day of her rape, she would have to wait until it can be determined if she was pregnant as a result of the rape and would only be referred to a rape crisis centre (which provides access to the morning after pill) if it is found she were not pregnant.

In the big urban areas, women can get access to other hospitals that can counsel her or refer her to crisis centres so she has a choice and can get the help she needs, whatever that may be. But in rural areas where if the only hospital for hundreds of miles also offers rape counselling and happens to be run by the Church, it could result in women being forced to go ahead with pregnancies that are a direct result of her rape. I can't even imagine the horror of such a situation. As I said, if it were a private hospital owned by the Church, then it is their right to run it as they so choose. But to impose their religious beliefs in public hospitals as well, then it is fundamentally wrong. Hospitals accept State and Federal funding for the services they provide and some of these hospitals run by the Church (both private and public) are accepting race counselling funding and not providing it as it is meant to be provided. Instead they are taking State funds and using it to further their own religious doctrines even in public hospitals.

 

[Bells]

Bells:

Are you certain that it is giving the Church control of a public hospital? Or that the hospital has essentially been sold to the Church?

No. The Catholic Church health group now also runs several public hospitals.

Catholic Health Australia chief Francis Sullivan said that as well as private hospitals, Catholic organisations ran 21 public hospitals around the nation that would also have to follow the ethics policy.
Link

 

[Prince_James]

Ah, I see.

Here in America, though, we've had a case in regards to ethical decisions on the part of doctors and pharmascists. It was given to them to say "no" to any treatment they had a moral problem with. A pharmascist who thought the morning after pill, or the abortion pill, was immoral would not have to give the pill to someone, nor would a doctor have to perform an abortion.

I do have a bit of a problem with the mandate for -everyone-, considering it is not a Catholic institution at heart.

 

[laughing weasel]

If you accept public funds then you have to restrict your religous doctrine to off time. the boy scouts rejected public funding rather than allow gays in. that is their right. but if you work for a public position and you are ethically unable to provide a service then at the very least you should be required to direct people to services.

 

[Prince_James]

Actually, personal ethics was upheld, again, in America to be okay with ruling one's medical decisions, so long as that did not rob someone of consent.

 

[Bells]

Ah, I see.

Here in America, though, we've had a case in regards to ethical decisions on the part of doctors and pharmascists. It was given to them to say "no" to any treatment they had a moral problem with. A pharmascist who thought the morning after pill, or the abortion pill, was immoral would not have to give the pill to someone, nor would a doctor have to perform an abortion.

I do have a bit of a problem with the mandate for -everyone-, considering it is not a Catholic institution at heart.

I will be honest and say that it should be up to the individual. Doctors in their own practices and pharmacists who own their own business should not be forced to do something they are fundamentally against. However they own private businesses that are not dependent on public funding. Catholic run public hospitals (as well as private hospitals) are receiving funding from the Government to provide set services to patients. In the case of a public hospital run by a Church, it should not be up to that Church to enforce its religious beliefs on the public at the expense of the State.

They aren't only denying women the right to an informed choice, they are also closing down fertility clinics (even in public hospitals run by them) that provide IVF treatments because they are against IVF. Yet they receive funding for providing fertility services.

Catholic Health Australia's Code of Ethical Standards says raped women should not be referred to centres that offer the morning-after pill.

Karen Willis from the NSW Rape Crisis Centre said hospitals usually provide a full range of services to someone who has just been sexually assaulted, including counselling, forensic tests and the option of the morning-after pill.

Not providing all those options, Ms Willis said, is negligence.

"If you're going to be providing a service then, ethically not morally, you must provide the full range of services available within those parameters," she said.

Ms Willis said denying the morning-after pill to women who had been raped presented them with another barrier when they were already traumatised.

"Say, this is three o'clock in the morning, so she's going to then need to go to a doctor the next day or a hospital and say: 'Hi, I'm a sexual assault victim, this is why I want the morning after pill' and get a script filled ... when she's already in extreme crisis.

Ms Willis said that when federal, state and territory governments were drawing up new agreements with hospital operators, they should enforce particular guidelines to ensure they offer full services.

If the operators were going to restrict services, she said, then governments should not allow them to operate.

Hospitals should be told: "Either do it or ... we'll find somebody else to run this program," she said.

Link

And I have to agree with her. If you say you provide the service, you provide the whole service and not just the shortened version based on a religious belief. In some areas women only have access to one hospital and may have no where else to go. As she said, imagine a rape victim arriving in the middle of the night and then being told she cannot access the full rape crisis services there and will have to find one for herself the next day.

No one is saying they should push the morning after pill. But in a public hospital (at the very least), rape victims should not be told that this state funded hospital won't offer her that service and she'll just have to go elsewhere because the hospital administrators are Catholic and refuse to allow patients access to abortion or morning after pill that could prevent pregnancy.

 

[4534]

sad, but I can understand their decision since it's their domain.

 

[Bells]

sad, but I can understand their decision since it's their domain.

Private hospitals yes (since they own and run it) even though I find their ideology in this regard to be frankly ridiculous.

Public no.

 

[Prince_James]

Bells:

I will be honest and say that it should be up to the individual. Doctors in their own practices and pharmacists who own their own business should not be forced to do something they are fundamentally against. However they own private businesses that are not dependent on public funding. Catholic run public hospitals (as well as private hospitals) are receiving funding from the Government to provide set services to patients. In the case of a public hospital run by a Church, it should not be up to that Church to enforce its religious beliefs on the public at the expense of the State.

What about doctors who work in public hospitals? Do you object to them refusing to give assistance on moral grounds? Noting that ethics plays a huge part in modern medical care?

They aren't only denying women the right to an informed choice, they are also closing down fertility clinics (even in public hospitals run by them) that provide IVF treatments because they are against IVF. Yet they receive funding for providing fertility services.

That is corrupt. They ought to not be funded for that which they do not provide.

 

[Oniw17]

Aussies are lames.