« Church Politics | Main | American Idol: Paris, Katharine McPhee, Taylor Hicks, or Daughtry? »
Sunday, February 26, 2006
Connecticut, conscience, and Catholic hospitals
Apparently, lawmakers in Connecticut are putting together a bill "that would require all Connecticut hospitals, including the four Roman Catholic hospitals in the state, to provide emergency contraception to rape victims." The news story, and the proposal's supporters who are quoted, speak simply of "contraception," while those speaking for the Catholic hospitals speak in terms of early abortifacients:
The Rev. John Gatzak, director of communications for the Archdiocese of Hartford, said the archdiocese would oppose any legislation requiring hospitals to administer contraceptives in cases where an egg already has been fertilized or ovulation has begun.
The Catholic Church "does believe and always has that human life begins at conception and that human life" at the point of conception "is entitled to all the respect that other human life is entitled to," Gatzak said.
I assume that the First Amendment would not require an exemption from Connecticut's "emergency contraception" mandate (though, perhaps, state law would). Is there any compromise possible? Or, is the Catholic Church simply going to have to give up on running full-service hospitals? And, if the Church were to do this, would that be good for civil society and for the poor?
Posted by Rick Garnett on February 26, 2006 at 08:19 AM | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c6a7953ef00d834ba8e6769e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Connecticut, conscience, and Catholic hospitals:
Comments
One of the proponents of the bill mentioned state subsidies. Recently, in my county, we had the county board considering lifting the tax-exempt status of a hospital group because they were not serving enough poor people. The nominal real estate tax rate for commercial property is approximately $9.00 per $1,000.00 of fair market value per year (and even higher in the poorer suburbs without a big tax base). This is not a small thing for a ten to twenty million dollar facility.
BTW: I was in a Catholic hospital's emergency room when a very young girl accompanied by two friends equally as young came in and said "I have a different kind of emergency". She was treated with great discretion, courtesy and professionalism by everyone from the security guard on up. For most of the staff at Catholic Hospitals, I imagine "morning-after" treatment is just another medical procedure. It does strike at the fundamental core of beliefs of the founder -- the Church -- coming up against the demands of a secular world. (Cf. Dostoevsky's "The Grand Inquisitor"). (Heh. Where is Adil Haque when we need them). I would recommend that the Catholic Hospitals be allowed to keep on doing what good they can and not be punished for not doing everything the world demands.
Posted by: nk | Feb 27, 2006 7:40:58 AM
nk: OK, thanks for the clarification. I would still be unhappy if the comprehensive emergency room nearest to me were no longer routinely accessible. But I wonder if the hospitals might actually benefit from no longer having acute care status? Aren't full service ERs financial drains?
Posted by: snowball | Feb 27, 2006 1:01:28 AM
It would not be a total loss of the hospital. Only its status as an "acute care" hospital. It would have to change its emergency room protocol. It would not be a routine "closest point" destination for all emergency calls. This would have an effect on its income and possibly its tax-exempt status (the second not a small thing because it includes real estate taxes) but it could compensate by the fewer charity cases it has to take. You would be surprised how many top-notch hospitals do not have comprehensive emergency rooms. Patients get around it by a) private ambulance or b) transfer from their "nearest point" emergency room to their preferred hospital.
But I do appreciate the question and clarification. Perhaps I should have said that the legislature considers the loss of four comprehensive emergency rooms as de minimis.
Posted by: nk | Feb 26, 2006 10:36:56 PM
I don't think that the loss of 4 out of 31 hospitals (that is, about 1 hospital in 8) would be "de minimis." And that's assuming each of the 31 hospitals has the same number of beds and equivalent facilities. It also assumes that the 31 hospitals are evenly distributed around the state (or at least evenly distributed in line with the population distribution of CT).
Would it really be de minimis if, say, an inner city neighborhood lost a major hospital? Or an underserved rural area? Or if a hospital with especially good facilities for some specialty or another closed its doors? I doubt it.
Posted by: snowball | Feb 26, 2006 9:16:58 PM
According to this link (http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A9ibye.sugFEK6wAAhZXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTBwajRhdWVrBGNvbG8DZQRsA1dTMQRwb3MDOQRzZWMDc3I-/SIG=148dbsapf/EXP=1141050412/**http%3a//www.ct.gov/ohca/lib/ohca/hospitalstudy/HospToday.pdf%23search='catholic%2520hospitals%2520in%2520Connecticut') only four of Connecticut's thirty-one acute care hospitals are Catholic. As I understand "acute care" the hospital must have a comprehensive emergency room, available to everyone regardless of ability to pay, where local emergency medical services transport victims including, I suppose, rape victims. The legislators may consider the effect of their legislation on the Catholic hospitals to be de minimis.
Posted by: nk | Feb 26, 2006 9:34:56 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.