snousle: (Default)
[personal profile] snousle
Ugh, this is a completely horrible development:


Health providers' 'conscience' rule to take effect:
The last-minute Bush administration declaration lets doctors, clinics, receptionists and others refuse to give care they find morally objectionable.


This is especially bad for people in small towns. In several small towns around California, the only hospitals are run by Seventh-Day Adventists, who have some truly far-out beliefs let's say "a history of curious beliefs" about medical care. I've heard of non-religious doctors getting frozen out, and the nearest non-Adventist care is more than fifty miles away.

The Web is curiously silent about the Adventists' moves, and I can't find much commentary on it beyond allegations of them discouraging abortion. But this eleventh-hour ruling is very disturbing given the domination of rural California health care by a religious group that seems likely to make immediate use of this law.

[Edit: It might be that I should be taking some of the things I hear with a grain of salt, having had limited direct contact with this group.]

Date: 2008-12-19 05:42 pm (UTC)
ext_173199: (Cross of Confusion)
From: [identity profile] furr-a-bruin.livejournal.com
It's a typical Bush maneuver; it's apparently intended as a stab at abortion and contraception - but like many of his ham-handed policies, it'll have all kinds of unintended negative consequences. Here's hoping its quickly reversed.

I have no idea what the Adventists are up to now. I do know I was delivered by an Adventist OB/GYN ... in a Catholic hospital (named St. Joseph's, in fact) ... and circumcised by a Mohel - who was recommended by the Adventist OB/GYN, on the basis of "if you really want this done, wouldn't you rather have the guy who knows what he's doing than an intern just after a few extra bucks?"

Date: 2008-12-19 07:03 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] bonemead.livejournal.com
How about these hopeless cases on life support that conservative Christians are so passionate about keeping alive? If health care workers feel that it's morally objectionable, does this mean that we don't have to take care of these people?

Date: 2008-12-19 07:09 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] snousle.livejournal.com
Good point! I was thinking of how this might be turned around against the xtians, and that is an excellent example.

Date: 2008-12-19 06:17 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] bitterlawngnome.livejournal.com
Holy *shit*.

And people are wasting time ranting about an empty gesture to appease the Xians at the inauguration.

WTF.

Date: 2008-12-19 06:37 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] snousle.livejournal.com
WTF indeed. This could be a problem for HIV patients in unfriendly areas.

Date: 2008-12-19 06:43 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] bitterlawngnome.livejournal.com
Oh it's way more than that. What about doctors/nurses/insurers who think it's a waste of resources treating smokers, or fat people, or motorcycle riders?

We're already fighting that battle here, over doctors turning away patients who "ignored" their advice about smoking or losing weight.

Date: 2008-12-19 07:23 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] bleepkeeper.livejournal.com
Yep, that was my first thought too: what happens when someone (inevitably) pushes this outside the abortion/contraception arena? Such an incredibly bad idea.

Hospital "takeovers?"

Date: 2008-12-20 08:04 pm (UTC)
From: (Anonymous)
Seventh-day Adventist hospitals have been part of California health care since the late 1800s. At no time has there been a "takeover" of a hosptal - in Ukiah or eleswhere - by Adventist Health in the sense that the present operators have been "forced" out. In terms of growth, for the past three decades there have been about 20 Adventist-operated hospitals total in the states of Arizona, California, Oregon, Washington and Hawaii . . . not exactly a threat to the hundreds of hospitals operating in these states. Adventist hospital care is among the best to be found anywhere, and its medical specialists and researchers at its Loma Linda (Calif.) University Medical Center are at the forefront of advanced medical science. To characterize Adventist medical practice as somehow different or questionable to that of mainstream medical science is far from the truth.

Re: Hospital "takeovers?"

Date: 2008-12-20 08:52 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] snousle.livejournal.com
It is considered polite for anonymous commenters to identify themselves. Please do so. I'm also curious about how you found this post... I'm guessing that there is some Adventist PR department that scans the web for references?

Anyway, I know of doctors in Ukiah that have been effectively driven out by the Adventist center - never overtly, it's just that their practice becomes impossible to sustain. I am also hearing about people who say they have been denied sufficient pain management medication because "if they put their faith in God they won't need it". Hysteria? Maybe. It didn't happen to me personally, so I can't really know. But if Adventists are scanning the web and jumping on everyone that criticizes them, maybe there's a reason their Web presence looks so controlled?

The Ukiah center has been here for twenty years, it's not as if the domination of medical care by this group has happened overnight. But they did effectively take over - not by "force", but there was enough concern at the time that there was an antitrust investigation, in which the Adventist hospital prevailed.

The fact is that the Adventists have in the past espoused many ideas that are at odds with mainstream medicine, including rejection of pharmaceuticals, and while much of their lifestyle advice is very good and effective, I have very little trust in religious organizations when it comes to separating their religious beliefs from the treatment of patients in a secular context. Particularly following the Bush ruling, when there is no other option for care, and when they openly call me a "sinner". You can imagine why I might be alarmed enough by this to take my medical needs to Kaiser, fifty miles away.

Re: Hospital "takeovers?"

Date: 2008-12-20 11:46 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] snousle.livejournal.com
FWIW, I have edited this entry to remove unnecessarily provocative language.

Date: 2008-12-22 05:10 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] gloeden.livejournal.com
Isn't there some sort of rule or something in place that allows an incoming administration to nullify any decisions like this that go into effect during the last days of the previous administration?
I seem to remember something like that.
Which could explain the relative silence on the web.
This could be seen as a pointless symbolic gesture that will never be allowed to stand.
But it's fucking sickening and makes me despise these people even more.

Profile

snousle: (Default)
snousle

August 2013

S M T W T F S
    123
45 678910
11121314151617
1819202122 2324
25262728293031

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Feb. 9th, 2026 10:57 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios