- Rachel Miller claims to have been subject to gender discrimination when denied a tubal ligation in a Catholic hospital Mercy Medical

- Miller’s doctor, Samuel Van Kirk requested a tubal ligation for her immediately after the Cesarean, but was denied in an April 10 letter from Sister Brenda O’Keeffe, vice president Mission Integration and Spiritual Care Services.

- there are no other hospitals near Miller’s Redding home that have birthing and Ob/Gyn facilities that are not Catholic-affiliated

“This is a decision that I made with my family and my doctor and no one else should be involved in that process”, Miller said in the news release.

- the hospital receives both state and federal funding

- Catholic hospitals that ban sterilization procedures are on the rise in the US, according to a chart shared by ProPublica

- contraceptive sterilization is the second most common form of birth control in the US

http://rapidnewsnetwork.com/lawsuit-tests-religious-hospitals-right-to-deny-procedures/142348/

Do you think that it is unfair for people not to have access to hospitals that can provide options without intervention of a particular church/religion?

Is it the goverment responsibility to procure the people have this options?

Should the freedom of religion impose itself over the wishes of the patient?

Should religion and health be kept separate?

Once the institution starts accepting federal aid, they are not entitled to force others to abide by their religious beliefs.

/thread

Anything run by a religious organisation is not going to sanction things that conflict with its religious teachings - whatever downsides that may have need to be weighed against the benefits of having religious organisations foot part of the bill for medical provision, education etc.

Succinct and too the point.  The hospital did back off after public pressure on this case. Shame it was ever an issue.

thats why you shouldnt allow catholic institutions. they allways will trys to take rights away because their leader in rome says so. he hates free people.

Based on most of your posts in this section, I don't agree with you on much - but I do agree with you on this.

If you want to accept money, you accept their terms, simple as that.

Of course it's not necessarily as black and white as that. For example, if the hospital was being financially crippled by the Government in the first place, thus needing the funding to survive, the moral argument wouldn't necessarily be the same. If the mafia broke your legs and then gave you a wheelchair, well, they wouldn't have the moral authority to tell you what to do with that wheelchair, at the very least.

In terms of this case though, without doing any further research on the individual situation of this hospital, and just on the vague knowledge of the general prices of healthcare provision in the United States; it'd be reasonable to assume that actually the hospital really is a net beneficiary of Government action. Much of the price of healthcare can be attributed to the various regulations and tax structures around the healthcare industry.

Let them exist if they don't accept public money. People should be allowed to do what they wish with their private property.

they shouldnt exist as long as the church is behind it. thats a foreign organisation from a country thats one of the biggest enemy of free people. if catholics want a non church run catholic hospitl or school, thats fine.

Religion shouldn't be any part of health care, schooling or many other institutions. If people want to turn to fantasy for their own understanding of the universe they have the right to do so but it should never be forced onto others. Clearly modern medication is a constant fight with microscopic viruses and bacteria that because of their multiplying rate keep mutating into new variations and some of these new strains are difficult to deal with. The bacteria of today is getting very resistant to some older medication.

Health care seems a funny place to have such ridiculous primitive views.