Mick52

Sun, Jun 13, 2010 : 6:11 p.m.

Alas, as much as I enjoy the articles by certain writers, its still difficult to take aa.com seriously as a news source when they publish such foolish opinion pieces. Like it or not, non profit hospitals are going to be a key factor in lowering the "high cost of health care." They do not have investors to repay. To tax them or withdraw federal funding is a foolish idea. To keep costs low, the fed should support non profits and the patients, well if you want health care, you are going to have to put up with their policies. Or go to a private hospital and bring your financial portfolio with you.

D. Mike Rossi

Sun, Jun 13, 2010 : 4:39 p.m.

Joan F. Howe... Why single out St.Joseph's? It's not the only hospital in the Ann Arbor area. My opinion, your Misinforming people about the hospital based on their religious beliefs, the Catholic Church on your part. You single out "ONE" hospital, when there are several other hospitals that are more than happy and willing to meet your "end of life" needs. I previously listed two hospitals that I looked up, maybe you missed them, so I will list it here again. They are the Univ of Michigan and Henry Ford. They accept and have web pages with Advance Directive information and how to complete the forms. If Rx For Life would do their job of "Preparation and Information", properly this information would be in a booklet, listing doctors and medical care facilities. This is just a smear campaign! Joan F. Howe and her colleagues maybe have other motives? The real truth is, this is about religion. Clearly there are other choices in facilities. Yet some say, "they're not as good!". Well don't blame St.Joseph's and the Catholic Church for that. They don't run those hospitals. Joan F. Howe and her group should be going after those Sub-Standard hospitals and have them brought up to the level of St. Josephs. Rx For Life is in fact, "Telling You", and wants you to believe that there are no places or choices. When in fact the choices really do exist! Choices of several hospitals to go to in fact. Joan and her group wants everyone to think Michigan only has Catholic Hospitals. Univ of Michigan and Henry Ford are not Catholic Hospitals So, Why Joan F. Howe, didn't Prescription for Care at the End of Life (aka Rx for Care) do the right and list the other hospitals, and go after the other hospitals and have their Standards for Care brought up to the level of St. Josephs? Joan, I welcome your response.

Al Feldt

Sat, Jun 12, 2010 : 7:12 a.m.

So far as I know, St. Joseph hospital also provides forms and information on advance directives to its patients. And Mr Rossi is correct that there are at least two hospitals in Michigan which are not controlled by the Catholic Church. I suppose there are quite a few more scattered around her and there. However, St. Joseph hospital is heavily supported by public donations from the general public, not just Catholics. They also receive federal and state funds from a number of sources. They also have been quite aggressive (some call it helpful?) in taking over the management of many smaller community hospitals such as the one in Chelsea and the one in Ypsilanti. Most health clinics and doctors throughout the state and especially in Ann Arbor refer all their patients to St. Joseph hospital since practice at the University Hospital is limited due to its emphasis on teaching and research. In short Catholic Hospitals are a dominant feature in our health care system locally and throughout the state. They do not ask incoming patients their religious affiliation but they also do not warn incoming patients that some of their medical decisions are controlled by Catholic doctrine regardless of the patient's wishes. I don't suppose anyone is foolish enough to expect them to allow abortions, but there are many other more subtle issues that patients must face where they or their families or even their doctors preferences may be ignored. Mrs. Howe and her group have done us the service of pointing out the recent decision by Catholic Bishops to not allow their staff to fully follow a patient's preferences in their end of life decisions. It appears, that Catholic hospitals may now be entertaining prolonging the lives of patients who are dying in anguish and hop0elessness and who wish to die. There are many cases on record of patients who have been kept artificially alive for years while in a vegetative state. I do not wish that for myself and I changed my doctor several years ago so that I could use the University Hospital. Not many patients have that opportunity. My religion and Mrs. Howe's and Mr. Rossi's is not the question here. The question is whether I must be kept alive against my will when there is no chance I will survive and I wish to end my pain, suffering, and meaningless medical costs no matter what the Council of Catholic Bishops may wish. At the very least, Catholic hospitals should provide information on this decision in all their literature including all their fund raising and charity drives.

Joan F. Howe

Fri, Jun 11, 2010 : 8:40 p.m.

We're pleased and amazed by all the blogs, both for us and against us. Our main goal is "to promote preparation of and information about Advance Directives to ensure that one's personal wishes are followed at the end of life." The State of Michigan prints and distributes the form you need to use. Call the office of either your State Senator or State Representative and you will be instructed where to call next. The forms are free and you can order in any number. You don't need a lawyer to fill one out. Saving lives is what we expect and want hospitals to do and St. Joe is an excellent hospital. However, conflicts are bound to happen when a person with a chronic or terminal illness which produces great pain, like cancer, or gradually reduced abilities to move and to take care of oneself, like ALS, expresses his wish to die. Catholic facilities are very strict about saving this life, even when the patient has a strong desire not to be kept alive. As some of you read in the report of the U. S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, the Bishops are quite willing to extend every kind of care "unless it is contrary to Catholic moral teaching." We wish that Catholic health facilities would announce a full disclosure of what constitutes these moral teachings. You, as a patient, have to learn what will and what will not be allowed. Your Advance Directive should be adjusted accordingly. But ------ you should have one, all of you, no matter what your age. Joan Howe, sec. for RX For Care

krc

Wed, Jun 9, 2010 : 7:19 a.m.

FYI, you can go to www.catholic.com for info.but be warned - they put a spin on everything.

bedrog

Wed, Jun 9, 2010 : 6:06 a.m.

juliet...ummm! to provide medical care to believers, and others who may wish to use them....and often good medical care at that.., but with certain limitations which are the issue here.

juju10junk

Wed, Jun 9, 2010 : 5:19 a.m.

I'm curious if any of you Catholic hospital bashers has thought about why Catholic hospitals EXIST.

D. Mike Rossi

Tue, Jun 8, 2010 : 11:36 p.m.

Wow, another heated discussion! How many of you are theologian scholars? I'll bet none of you are. I know I'm not. I don't mean that as a slight to anyone. I merely wanted to point out our knowledge on "all" religious doctrines is limited and could be misinformed. Would it not be more egregious and to our chagrin if Doctors and Hospitals were only to treat us on a same faith based principles? Do you ask or know you Doctors religion and beliefs? Does it matter? Or are you just glad they have their diplomas on the wall? I prefer to know their skill and the Quality of medicine they provide. My son had to have Open Heart Surgery at age 21 this past November for a Cardio-Lypoma that grew between is heart and lung and was attached to his heart. I wasn't concerned about the Doctors religion, i was just glad he was one of the Top 100 Cardio-Thoracic surgeons in the U.S.! It was performed in a State Hospital, and everything went well. My Son was able to Graduate right on time with his class last month. But that night after his surgery I went into the hospital's chapel and thanked God for watching over my son and hearing my prayers. A good friend of mine told me, that if you ask God for something you should also say thank you, so I did. That's something that I believe in. I'm not going to tell a Faith Based Hospital what their policy must be or not be. We have our choices in hospitals. So chose the one that suites your medical needs, and ask them for a list of affiliated doctors to chose from. Or ask your health care provider for a list. Now remember, your health will be determined by your decision and the response and getting you to the hospital. For End of Life Care would you not want to go to a hospital or facility that will respect you wishes? Would you go to a Catholic Hospital for an abortion? NO! Rx For Life should be compiling a list of Who and Where to go for End of Life Care. Oh, I'm sorry "Advance Directives"!!! IT'S THE SAME THING with the SAME RESULTS... Call it what it is, don't Sugar Coat It! If Rx For Life would do their job of "Preparation and Information", properly this information would be in a booklet, listing doctors and medical care facilities. This is just a smear campaign! I dare Joan F. Howe and her colleagues to tell "The Church of Christian Science" that their church and denomination practices are wrong. I double dare you. http://christianscience.com/healing-stories/2010/06/01/a-case-of-spiritual-surgery/ The real truth here is, that this is not about religion, health care, money, end of life, abortion or the Constitution, IT'S ABOUT CHOICES. Rx For Life is in fact, "Telling You", and wants you to believe that there are no places or choices, when the choices really do exist choices to go to when in fact there really are to when there really are choices.... Michigan only has Catholic Hospitals.... I just looked it up, Univ of Michigan and Henry Ford they accept and have web pages with Advance Directive information and how to complete the forms. They're not catholic hospitals! Why didn't Joan F. Howe, secretary Prescription for Care at the End of Life (aka Rx for Care) do the same???????? Oh-yes, smear campaign!

Wolverine3660

Tue, Jun 8, 2010 : 7:29 p.m.

@Speechless, the Federal Courts have ruled that Catholic or other faith based organizations can make their own rules and policies, if they are private institutions. So, the original p[poster of this article, Joan is wrong, and she needs to talk to an attorney before she goes of an an anti-Catholic rant.

Basic Bob

Tue, Jun 8, 2010 : 7:18 p.m.

@Speechless, please explain how you think a Catholic hospital is violating any existing law. If an Advance Directive orders a course of action that is illegal, immoral, or contrary to sound medical advise, it will be ignored by any responsible health care provider in favor of a legal, moral, and medically sound course of action. A doctor who does otherwise will find himself in prison like Dr. Kevorkian.

Speechless

Tue, Jun 8, 2010 : 2:43 p.m.

No, I wouldn't prefer whining as a primary course of action. First, I'd suggest amending state or federal health care law, if necessary, to insure that large Catholic hospital networks cannot draw up policies in defiance of existing laws — with the intention creating medical service restrictions that are rationalized on doctrinal grounds. These networks may be private, but should be regulated as public utilities due to their oligopoly status in the U.S. health economy. (Similarly, Wall St. is mostly "private," yet I'd want them intensively regulated to lessen economic instability.) If Catholic hospitals do carry out the bishops' wishes, then maybe it will be time for a direct legal challenge. Perhaps patients' rights advocates will then mount a test case that winds its way through the court system.

Wolverine3660

Tue, Jun 8, 2010 : 1:46 p.m.

Speechless- regardless of the fact that in some places the Catholic hospital might be the only place in town, it still does not nulify the fact that as private institutions run by the Catholic Church, in America, they have the right to draw up policies that follow the teachings o f the Catholic Church. No amount of whining that"it isnt fair", will change that.

Speechless

Tue, Jun 8, 2010 : 1:27 p.m.

»» a2trader, The more narrow the actions taken by the bishops in their disputes with ongoing medical trends in civil society, then the better for everyone. They maintain a heavy degree of influence over provision of medical care through Catholic ownership of many hospitals. Whether the issue at hand is narrow or broad, it's deeply problematic to allow the Church to unilaterally make any major medical decision affecting the fate of others. Giving a private religious institution the power to effectively rewrite public laws to fit its internal doctrines will set a terrible legal precedent that all of us will be required to live under. »» wolverine3660, I've twice commented (along with others) on why the idea of hopping from hospital to hospital is largely an impractical fantasy in many places. This red herring argument distracts from concern over a large religious institution using its leverage as part of a health care oligopoly to impose its brand of morality on the public.

Wolverine3660

Tue, Jun 8, 2010 : 12:17 p.m.

Joan, if your group dislikes the moral principles Catholics choose to live by, members of your groupouhgt not to go to a Catholic Hospital Go to a Hospital/Hospice/Nursing Home etc, run by a secular entity. The Univ of Michigan Hospital, or Henry Ford Hospital, might be good choices, for example. Catholic Hospitals are privately owned entities,and they are well within their right to make policies.

a2trader

Tue, Jun 8, 2010 : 12:03 p.m.

Everyone needs perspective on this issue. If you READ the actual "Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services, Fifth Edition" (google it) starting on page 29, you will get that the Catholic church's recent clarification has to do with people in a persistent vegetative state - people who are chronically ill, not terminally ill. If you have a dying person, the Catholic church recognizes that foregoing nutrition and hydration to allow death may be fully appropriate: "58. A person may forgo extraordinary or disproportionate means of preserving life. Disproportionate means are those that in the patients judgment do not offer a reasonable hope of benefit or entail an excessive burden, or impose excessive expense on the family or the community." The exception is for people in persistent vegetative state as noted below: "58. In principle, there is an obligation to provide patients with food and water, including medically assisted nutrition and hydration for those who cannot take food orally. This obligation extends to patients in chronic and presumably irreversible conditions (e.g., the persistent vegetative state) who can reasonably be expected to live indefinitely if given such care. Medically assisted nutrition and hydration become morally optional when they cannot reasonably be expected to prolong life or when they would be excessively burdensome for the patient or [would] cause significant physical discomfort, for example resulting from complications in the use of the means employed. For instance, as a patient draws close to inevitable death from an underlying progressive and fatal condition, certain measures to provide nutrition and hydration may become excessively burdensome and therefore not obligatory in light of their very limited ability to prolong life or provide comfort. " Please note the distinction between inevitable death and a chronic or persistently vegetative state.

Speechless

Tue, Jun 8, 2010 : 11:29 a.m.

Heidi, In regard to medical choices or behaviors where there exists a social consensus that the actions in question are either 'good' or bad,' then there should be no problem. If a few people demand that hospitals to offer a type of medical service that nearly everyone else finds inappropriate, that choice will not be provided. Alternately, when a proposed service finds a wide degree of public support, it will likely begin to appear in hospitals over time. But, in regard to end-of-life choices, there exists no social consensus. While the views of Catholic bishops are no doubt shared by some percentage of people from other religious persuasions, there is a large and ever-growing section of the population who seek broader options in this serious matter. Again, Catholic hospitals act as a gateway to health care for millions, many of whom may not have another choice available. When these entities refuse to provide services covering a certain category of crucial medical decisions which has legal support under state and federal rules, they effectively choose to rewrite public law — unilaterally — to suit their own personal moral preferences. This should not be allowed to go forward. The Church should not take advantage of its considerable power and privilege in providing health care to impose a version of Catholic morality (not even shared by many liberal Catholics) on the rest of the community, here and elsewhere. Also, it is a form of social blackmail to even suggest that Catholic hospitals such as St. Joe may shut down in part or in whole due to legal pressure to carry out directives its board does not support. That is, for these institutions to say, "play the game our way, or else we'll simply pick up our marbles and go home, and everyone will suffer for that." The mere suggestion of such action represents a strong argument against private provision of hospital services and strongly favors a more socialized service structure, which would eliminate the risk of such dangers to the public.

bedrog

Tue, Jun 8, 2010 : 7:04 a.m.

re heidi's latest.. despite the harshness toward some catholic doctrine/personnel of my posts here, i actually agree with much of what she says..and she seems like a reasonable sort of person with whom one could civilly argue just what "common good" constitutes...... particularly re issues of contraception ( if not abortion), gay marriage, and science vs creationism in the schools and the medical arena....

pseudo

Tue, Jun 8, 2010 : 7:01 a.m.

To the extent that Catholic Hospitals accept public money to provide care - they should play by PUBLIC/Secular rules. To the extent that I don't get a choice where I go if I'm in an accident, Catholic Hospitals practice in a Secular environment. I don't go to Catholic churches by choice. I certainly wouldn't support Catholic schools by choice. I don't CHOOSE a Catholic health provider (I want actual medical advice and counsel, not culitsh pro-unnatural life dogma). And yet, if I get hit by a car crossing Washtenaw, they will scoop me up and haul me over to St. Joes. At that point, St. Joes becomes a public service not a Catholic projection and they will obey my directives, DPOA or get sued.

Heidi Hess Saxton

Tue, Jun 8, 2010 : 5:34 a.m.

"Like many people, I want all religions to keep their doctrines off my body. To accomplish that, we must have a range of choices available. However, within the context of the U.S. health care system and its limited options, the Catholic bishops have taken action to effectively cripple free choice. This represents an attack on civil liberties which must be opposed." Every civilized society has laws that regulate the behavior of its members -- whether that law is secular or faith-based, the net effect on the person is the same (an encroachment on personal liberty). It limits personal rights. Homicide, rape, child pornography, tax evasion... all these things are judged to be not in the best interest of the common good, and are condemned and punished in individuals. This concept of "common good" is an important one, as it transcends religious convictions, thereby providing a useful place to discuss the relationship between the corporate needs of society and the individual rights of its members. Catholic medical institutions around the world provide care for people who would otherwise not have access to medical care. At the same time, it's important to distinguish between "rights" and "wants". You have a right NOT to practice religion. You do NOT have the right to dictate in the name of "free choice" that another person (or entity) violate his or her own conscience to do your bidding. (One immediate solution would seem to be to take the patient home.) Recently in one state Catholic Social Services closed down their foster care program, forced to choose between violating its beliefs and continuing to serve the abused and neglected children in the community. The state imposed its social agenda on a religious institution... and the community lost out. If something similar were to happen at St. Joe's, it would relieve the concerns expressed here about "keeping religion off my body" -- but at what cost? Sansdieties, I just finished reading the entire document of health directives (http://www.usccb.org/bishops/directives.shtml) and did not find the statement about patients being able to refuse food and water but only if they are kept conscious. There are provisions for some limited situations when it may be permissible to withhold food and water (such as when artificial means of hydration and nutrition are not available, or when the administration would inflict more harm than benefit). Par 61 does indicate that a patient should not be deprived of consciousness "without compelling reason." Again, it always helps to read the actual documents and not to rely on how they are interpreted by third parties -- especially those with a secular bias.

bedrog

Mon, Jun 7, 2010 : 4:18 p.m.

thick candy...sounds great. all calcutta all the time...sorry,not buying... but for the 3rd, time if people want to have dogmatic religious institutions care for them in life or at its end, its their choice... but my tolerance ends when they try to force their dogmas on the health/wellbeing of the rest of us,e.g. the church's stance on reproductive choice...and beyond the fraught issue of abortion is its opposition to even contraception!.. and stem cell research. locally its particularly annoying that tom monaghans ave maria law school has even mucked around with promoting creationism ( a truly dim witted belief) in the schools nationally and has been a frontline advocate against gay marriage.. which personally ticks me off royally on behalf of loved ones. and for the 2nd time much of my family is catholic, but not of the sort that would pass current vatican ( or mel gibsonian) muster...thank god!

Thick Candy Shell

Mon, Jun 7, 2010 : 3:25 p.m.

We have the cleanest air and water that we have had since the clean up of the 70's and I would actually argue that in many ways ever. We clean small "ponds" as if they were an essential part of the water shed. We also assume that every bit of contamination is bad. Sorry, Feces, human or otherwise is fertilizer. I would like you to come out to my area and you can see all of the cow manure being spread! The Fact is the planet could support easily twice the population we have now. We just need to learn to deal with it!

bedrog

Mon, Jun 7, 2010 : 2:49 p.m.

thick candy..as an academic, components of whose discipline are demography/land-use /and the fate of species believe me, ive heard all your arguments many times before.... bottom line, tho, is although extinction will doubtless be our inevitable fate as a species,it'd be nice to ward it off as long as possible. and that is made more difficult by overpopulation relative to finite resources ( food is the least of it...im talking clean air and water, and for own personal preference for some other species as company outside of zoos). none of this is made easier by doctrines mandating mindless breeding, which often are accompanied by the sorts of beliefs and mindsets that accelerate lethal conflicts with non- believers...and often resource competition is at the base of such. oh yeah...other aspects of my discipline are history and comparative religion,and although my own specialty is islam im not unfamiliar with the history of the institutions at issue in this thread.

Speechless

Mon, Jun 7, 2010 : 1:01 p.m.

Heidi, This issue isn't about your right, and the right of all Catholics, to practice your religious faith and to follow the leadership of the clergy. That is, to live your lives, and then to reach the end of life, according to your moral principles. Instead, it has to do with very expensive institutions — hospitals — that exist as a scarce commodity which provides essential, critical services to everyone. Because hospitals are usually far and few between, and since health plans may restrict our options further, we cannot expect the luxury of being able to jump around from one to another. As it stands now, large Catholic-owned health care institutions find themselves in a position to act as gatekeepers for the health and well-being of millions. In some localities, there may be nowhere else to go. In this area, we are lucky to have the UM Hospital providing us a second choice. For someone living in Howell, for example, their situation is more restricted. Like many people, I want all religions to keep their doctrines off my body. To accomplish that, we must have a range of choices available. However, within the context of the U.S. health care system and its limited options, the Catholic bishops have taken action to effectively cripple free choice. This represents an attack on civil liberties which must be opposed.

Thick Candy Shell

Mon, Jun 7, 2010 : 12:04 p.m.

@bedrog, you are correct in " e.g. that animal populations must have some sort of balance to their resource base and endless breeding is not viable", partially. We as a human race have decided that it is always better to give aid to areas than say "you made your bed, now lie in it". However, if you believe that the human population is over using anything on this planet, you are very mistaken. If allowed, the U.S. alone could produce enough food to feed every starving person out there. In addition, there is oil left on the Earth to last well over 100 years. Hopefully, by then, we will have an alternative, but for now. As for the Catholics, if you do not believe in what they say, so be it, but they are not forcing anything down. Go to U of M instead of St. Joe's, easy solution. I guess if I was looking at a hospital and it had "St." in its name, I would understand that there may be an issue.

Sansdeities

Mon, Jun 7, 2010 : 11:51 a.m.

To a2trader: If you want the details on Rx for Care`s concern about end of life care and patient`s rights ala advance directives, just Google U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. Then you can read about how they WON`T honor an advance directive if it conflicts with "Catholic teaching" How they will force a dying person to stay conscious after they allow food and hydration (MANH) to cease, even if the person is is great pain that can`t be managed. This poor suffering person will be taught the value of "redmptive suffering." Please tell me that`s not the "compassionate care" you say Catholic hospitals provide. That`s morally currupt and insane in a civilized culture.

bedrog

Mon, Jun 7, 2010 : 11:48 a.m.

heidi...i admit it: im intolerant of the intolerant/ignorant....i despise jihadists for example ( they're at the top of my 'dont invite to lunch ' list), but in a 2nd tier of dislike are other theologies that demonize my beloved gay relatives, refuse to acknowledge the elementary biological facts of life ( e.g. that animal populations must have some sort of balance to their resource base and endless breeding is not viable), etc etc...and have a long history of ramming their views down the throats of others ( often in notably unpleasant ways, per the centuries long inquistions...of which the present pope is actually the modern day heir, given his portfolio as a cardinal)..... but as i said earlier,if people voluntarily sign on to catholic hospice or health care servioces, they shouldnt bellyache at having to obey the rules. by the way a good 1/2 my family is catholic but not of the judgemental, doctrinaire sort being griped about here.

Paula Gardner

Mon, Jun 7, 2010 : 10:35 a.m.

Just took down a comment that included a personal attack.

Thick Candy Shell

Mon, Jun 7, 2010 : 10:24 a.m.

@David Briegel, normally I wouldn't get into this one, but we all understand that you believe in no future existence and that is fine. But it seems like your first move is always to insult. @commuter, never brought up war, torture, etc. But if you are going to bring it up and for the record, as I was raised Catholic many, many years ago. The Catholic Church is against Capital Punishment, Torture and Assassination. As for perpetual war, I think that is more directed at other religions / non religions than any of the Christian faiths.

David Briegel

Mon, Jun 7, 2010 : 9:46 a.m.

Commuter, you can't be serious. Birth Control? We really need more unwanted babies to experience our "freedoms"! How about "the church's" ready acceptance of Perpetual War, Capital Punishment, torture, assasination. In the name of Jesus! Allowing your "god's will" to occur seems logical rather than all those artificial means of continuing vegetation. After all, death is inevitable. Nobody gets out alive!

commuter

Mon, Jun 7, 2010 : 8:59 a.m.

It is unfortunate we live in a culture that accepts death more readily than it does life. Abortion, birth control, euthanasia.

Sansdeities

Mon, Jun 7, 2010 : 8:33 a.m.

To Heidi Hess Saxton: Catholics claim every death must be "natural". What a laugh. What is "natural" about being hooked up to artificial medical devices that can prolong your death indefinitly? I think what the church really means is no death may be hastened, even if that is the morally and ethically proper choice. It comes back to the church`s need for control of it`s flock, and non-Catholics where they can. One of the bishops directives says that a person who is dying can refuse food and hydration to hasten that death BUT only if they`re kept conscious. It goes on to say if this patient`s pain cannot be relieved without rendering them unconscious they will be taught the value of "redemptive suffering." What a cruel, uncompassionate, insane 13th century thinking, mindset of the church. But then your "2000 year old" church has an unmatched history of intolerance and oppression. And with the current scandal in your church, the most heinous part of it is the church`s institutionalized covering up and protecting the law breakers. So your church is not above criticism. Finally, the church`s insistance on keeping alive (prolonging their "natural death") of patients in a "persistent vegatative state" is an other example of the church`s 13th century mindset and actually speaks to the "vegatative state" of the bishops thinking. If the church really meant "natural death" they would rule out use of any artificial means of prolonging one`s death and see what god decides.

David Briegel

Sun, Jun 6, 2010 : 10:14 p.m.

Heidi, it is neither ignorance nor hatred. Not even intolerance. It is called disagreement. The "God" that Man created in his own image is used to justify many beliefs and quaint notions. Inconsistencies abound. Top Cat, I can't even imagine how difficult your decision must have been. I know that in my experience most people I encounter don't wish to "live" a "life" in a vegetative state ala Mrs Schiavo and I can't understand any degree of mythology or mysticism that would make sense of that situation. "Life" without a functioning brain or cognitive capability would seem meaningless. Frankly, in my opinion, my beliefs don't even conflict with the Pope.

a2trader

Sun, Jun 6, 2010 : 8:53 p.m.

It would be nice if Rx for Life put this into the right context, which of course they did not. They spin this as an end-of-life issue, when really it is to clarify the Catholic Church and its institutions' (eg hospitals) positions on person with CHRONIC health conditions and their fundamental right to nutrition and hydration. Please refer to the following www dot martindale dot com backslash health-care-law backslash article_King-Spalding-LLP_858120.htm. So, yes, if your loved one is in a vegetative state like Terri Shiavo, you will have to choose between the compassionate catholic hospital or the Rx for Life facility who will happily help you can pull the plug on your own timeframe. But this does not mean that catholic hospitals are suddenly going to insist upon making your terminally ill loved one live on through artificial means. Catholic hospitals provide some of the highest quality, compassionate care available in this country. T'would be nice if Rx for Life provided the details.

Heidi Hess Saxton

Sun, Jun 6, 2010 : 7:15 p.m.

As a practicing Catholic, I find it disheartening that so many individuals who pride themselves in "tolerance" toward every other segment of society, think it is acceptable to spout such ignorance and hatred towards the Catholic Church, a religion that has nearly a billion adherents world-wide! Is it really so audacious that the leaders of a faith tradition going back two thousand years affirm the existence of right and wrong, or urge its members to live in accordance with those beliefs? And why does it follow that the failure of some of its members, automatically negate the validity of an entire belief system? What human institution could withstand that kind of scrutiny? (Should we toss out the Constitution because twelve of the signers owned slaves?) Catholics believe that life is a gift from God, to be respected and protected from conception to natural death, and that when we return to God we will be judged for how we lived our lives while we were on earth. Consequently, Catholic institutions have a moral obligation -- to employees and patients alike -- to set policies consistent with that belief because of what is at stake: the eternal destiny of human souls. In light of this, the greatest kindness, the most compassionate act, is one that allows that soul to depart this world in friendship with God. Before denouncing Church teachings, it might be a good idea to find out exactly what those teachings are! The Church does not teach that life must be prolonged at all costs, or that advance directives are immoral. Here is one document (based on Catholic Hospice of Florida) that gives other useful guidelines: http://www.catholichospice.org/PDF/InformationAdvanceDir.pdf Finally, I'd like to close with a quote from the dearly departed Pope John Paul II, who with his own life modeled for the rest of us what it meant to offer up personal suffering for a greater good. (Catholics call that "redemptive suffering.") "Euthanasia must be distinguished from the decision to forego so-called 'aggressive medical treatment,' in other words, medical procedures which no longer correspond to the real situation of the patient, either because they are now disproportionate to any expected results or because they impose an excessive burden on the patient and his family. In such situations, when death is clearly imminent and inevitable, one can in conscience refuse forms of treatment that would only secure a precarious and burdensome prolongation of life, so long as the normal care due to the sick person in similar cases is not interrupted.5 -- Pope John Paul II Evangelium Vitae (The Gospel of Life), 1995, no. 65.

Top Cat

Sun, Jun 6, 2010 : 6:34 p.m.

I had to make the call, per my father's living will, to end hydration to him. He died 2 days later. My father was Catholic. All I can say is I hope you won't ever have to make such a decision about someone.

Al Feldt

Sun, Jun 6, 2010 : 3:21 p.m.

There seem to be two different issues afloat in these comments: 1). religious control over individual behavior and 2) public support for public benefits. 1). Individuals may, if they wish, write up a list of the things they would like done or not done when they are likely to die. If they seek medical advice do this, under the new health legislation their insurance will help pay for that. No one is required to do so. But if someone happens to be dying in a Catholic Hospital those wishes and directives are not to be followed, regardless of the beliefs or wishes of the patient, his family, his doctor or anyone else involved. The patient's personal care decisions have been made in advance in Rome. This is freedom of religion? 2). Governments encourage and require certain behaviors which provide a common good for all citizens. Thus, we tax ourselves to pay for roads, police and fire protection, schools, food inspectors, public health protection, street lights, flood control, armies, etc. We all benefit when we are all served by such activities. We also benefit when everyone is reasonably healthy and illnesses are discovered and treated early rather than at the last minute. This occurs when everyone has access to health care. The easiest way to provide that is national health insurance but that is unlikely in the present political climate. The next easiest way is to require that everyone has private health insurance. Anyone without health insurance is a potential liability to the rest of society because when they do become sick and disabled we will probably care for them anyways, usually at considerable extra cost via emergency rooms etc. Instead, we want them to take reasonable steps now to provide their own health care and the plan is to burden them with some extra taxes now if they don't. Sounds good to me.

Peter

Sun, Jun 6, 2010 : 1:55 p.m.

Such a warped interpretation of the constitution and reality would be amusing if it wasn't so prevalent amongst tea party members.

Me Next

Sun, Jun 6, 2010 : 1:33 p.m.

"my colleages & I' certainly have a right to not go to "Catholic" places. The US Constitution, "General Welfare" clause's definition is just "Food". If a majority of States suffer starvation for a majority of citizens then the Federal Gov must provide Food. The Federal Gov has no duty over my person. I am not a service nor a product & therefore their "Health Law" is unlawful. Requiring me to purchase anything is not Constitutional. Call it fine, penalty... fact it it's an unlawful tax. Threatening imprisonment for the unlawful law disobedience is a criminal act by Rule of Law. I've seen this "directive" pushed on the elderly. It can be manipulation, brainwashing a person into disparaging instead of enjoying their earned retirement. It is certainly your right & my right separate from yours, though the right is "common" to make your own decisions about health & death. Neither you nor Gov can take away my right, but Gov can deny funding that's not listed/enumerated. You have no right to interfere with religion. Just to not associate yourself. Our Constitution forbids US Gov to establish a National religion & forbids inhibiting an individual's religion so long as it doesn't break a criminal law; murder, rape, stealing,- stuff that violates another individuals "Bill of Rights". You can keep your religion but you will do it in prison for criminal act. Don't tread on me.

Speechless

Sun, Jun 6, 2010 : 12:54 p.m.

Under our privatized, for-profit health system in the U.S., paid health plans may require some of us to go to a Catholic hospital if we want coverage (however weak & inadequate the coverage may be). It would be a tragedy if some have to drop out of an employer-covered plan and pay for a different one completely out-of-pocket just to get around the Church's restrictions. Or have give up our longtime primary doctor based at such a hospital. Hospitals are few in number and becoming fewer due to closures. You can't just walk down the street to try your luck at a different one. Practically speaking, the hospitals today function as large, expensive public utilities which provide an essential service needed by all. And they should be regulated accordingly. It should be regarded as a serious violation of the law when they choose to impose an arbitrary religious belief system on the rest of the population — especially those most physically vulnerable whose condition might be terminal. That's cruel, not spiritual. Would it be fair, for example, if an electric utility began shutting off power at the offices of those community groups whose purpose or cause most offended the personal beliefs of the utility's CEO or its board of directors?

L. C. Burgundy

Sun, Jun 6, 2010 : 12:19 p.m.

Wow, first op-ed I've seen complaining about people receiving food and water. I'll definitely be avoiding the "Prescription for Care at the End of Life (aka Rx for Care)" chain of hospices and hospitals - starving to death is not my brand of compassion or care.

Macabre Sunset

Sun, Jun 6, 2010 : 12:14 p.m.

It's long past time to end the practice of not taxing churches on their revenue. They act as if they have their own laws, and don't have to follow the laws of our country.

Peter

Sun, Jun 6, 2010 : 11:42 a.m.

Though the federal funding point has been brought up already - I'd like point out that they're also a non-profit. Which precludes them from paying the vast majority of taxes (that business dodge anyway but that's another discussion). Even if they manage to secure all of the funding without taking any federal money, they're still benefitting directly from the government and therefore the populous, and as such as beholden to the various directives and laws regarding hospital operations.

Sarcastic1

Sun, Jun 6, 2010 : 10:57 a.m.

Most people have some faith in their lives that guides them, wether it be religious or spiritual. The Catholic Church, Lutheran Church, or any other demonination has the right to voice their opinion and relay those views to their congregation. Just because you don't agree with it, doesn't make it wrong.

bedrog

Sun, Jun 6, 2010 : 10:33 a.m.

i have little use for alot of catholic dogma re reproductive matters, end of life stuff, sexual identity issues, papal infallibilty ( and seemingly its associated cover-up of pedophilia practices...and on and on... BUT...if one signs on to catholic hospice /hospital care don't be surprised at what you get...and dont complain about it. that said..i was extremely impressed by the ambiance and personal care ( notably bedside doctoral TLC) a friend got at st.joe's recently...although he wasnt there to die or get an abortion.

Basic Bob

Sun, Jun 6, 2010 : 10:14 a.m.

Interference from the Catholic Church??? I see it as interference from "Rx for Care" in how Catholic hospitals are operated. If "Rx for Care" wants to open their own death factories in competition with Catholic hospitals, they are free to do so. It seems there is a market among the commenters.

Edward R Murrow's Ghost

Sun, Jun 6, 2010 : 9:55 a.m.

Great minds think alike, Rod J. Good Night and Good Luck

Rod Johnson

Sun, Jun 6, 2010 : 9:53 a.m.

I'm sure the hospitals would be happy to give any state or federal money as part of the deal. Advanced directives have the force of law. To expand on Craig's logic, if you don't like the law and want to opt out of the social contract, find yourself another source of funding. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Edward R Murrow's Ghost

Sun, Jun 6, 2010 : 9:53 a.m.

Heardoc wrote: "If you do notlike the teachings of the Catholic church-- then use another facility or doctor. Go to a Muslim hospital or a jewish one or a methodist one." Fair enough, but the reverse should be true as well: If Catholic hospitals do not to permit their patients to receive the health care that is legal, if they want to impose their religion on my health care decisions, then they should not receive a single penny in federal funding (e.g., Medicare). And "Silverwings" has it exactly right: The current hierarchy of the Catholic Church does not have any authority whatsoever to make rulings about what is "moral." They would know "morality" if it stared 'em in the face. Good Night and Good Luck

silverwings

Sun, Jun 6, 2010 : 9:35 a.m.

The idea of Catholic bishops passing moral judgment on anybody right now turns my stomach.

David Briegel

Sun, Jun 6, 2010 : 9:12 a.m.

Maybe the Catholic Church could apply this philosophy (?) to Capital Punishment and Perpetual War Profiteering. Imagine the good that "God's will" could accomplish! walker101, you are just wrong! ignatz, the ignorance of dogma? Craig, maybe we shouldn't let them run hospitals.

Craig Lounsbury

Sun, Jun 6, 2010 : 9:07 a.m.

As a foot note to my comment I am a practicing Protestant.

Heardoc

Sun, Jun 6, 2010 : 9:05 a.m.

If you do notlike the teachings of the Catholic church-- then use another facility or doctor. Go to a Muslim hospital or a jewish one or a methodist one-- quit your complaining and stop your abuse of Catholics. geez--

Craig Lounsbury

Sun, Jun 6, 2010 : 9:04 a.m.

"Dying is very personal and private matter. My colleagues and I believe that a church of any denomination has no business or right to tell you and your doctor what you can and cannot do." except when you choose to use their facility. I have no right to tell you to flush your toilet in your house but if you come to my house and use my toilet you play by my rules.

Al Feldt

Sun, Jun 6, 2010 : 8:55 a.m.

The Advanced Directives I and my late wife wrote twenty years ago included Durable Power of Attorney for Health Care. Although she died at home, this recent decree from the Catholic Church seems to mean that if she had had the misfortune to start dying at St. Joseph's hospital where her doctor practiced, she might have been kept alive indefinitely, perhaps to this very day. I am certain she did not wish to end her life that way. Federal health care legislation just passed makes it easier and cheaper to obtain professional medical advice when writing an Advance Directive. Without a well written Advance Directive your fate is in the hands of whoever happens to be on duty at critical life threatening moments. But now, apparently your fate is in the hands of the Catholic Church, regardless of your own or your family's wishes as expressed in an Advance Directive.

Ignatz

Sun, Jun 6, 2010 : 8:46 a.m.

Ahhhh, the beauty of dogma.

seldon

Sun, Jun 6, 2010 : 8:27 a.m.

The Obama administration has not set any policy that requires or even encourages interfering with Advance Directives. In fact, the provision that Palin and others claimed would establish "death panels" actually would have required insurance companies to pay for patients to work with their physicians to set up whatever advance directives they wanted. If they wanted to. In Michigan, you are better off setting up a Durable Power of Attorney for Health Care. This designates a person or persons to make medical decisions for you if you are unable to do so. Advance directives are not the way to go in this state (and weren't even before this interference from the Catholic Church). Look into a DPOA.

walker101

Sun, Jun 6, 2010 : 8:14 a.m.

Kinda like what are current administration is doing.