When a pregnant woman is having serious, potentially life-threatening health problems resulting from complications, she should be treated immediately and thoroughly at any hospital, no matter what the funding source of that hospital happens to be. But the hospitals that are funded by the Catholic Church see the treatment of pregnant women in a different light, and that light is unjust and unethical. This paper points out the reason why.
Religion and Abortion
When a hospital's moral and ethical decision making process comes into conflict with the source that provides funds for the hospital -- or goes against the grain of the values of the funding source -- the results can expected to be controversial at best and harmful to humans at the worst. Indeed, to be specific, when the Roman Catholic Church provides funds for a hospital, the Church expects that its tenets, canons, codes of belief and moral values will be reflected in the policies of that hospital. Is this fair to the doctors and nurses in the hospital who have their own oaths to guide their professional actions? And is it fair to the patients who come to the hospital with urgent healthcare needs that to them, supersede any spiritual values or creeds that hospital funding sources might expect to be followed? The answer to both of those questions is a resounding "no"!
The case that brought about a lawsuit by the American Civil Liberties Union
The issue in question is the case in Muskegon, Michigan, in 2010, when Tamesha Means needed urgent hospital care and the only hospital in her county was Mercy Health, a hospital funded by the Roman Catholic Church. Means was 18 weeks pregnant and suddenly her water broke, which created a situation in which the baby had little to no chance of surviving. She had no choice but to seek immediate medical help, and according to a lawsuit filed against the Roman Catholic bishop's by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), she went to Mercy Health only to be turned down twice for care.
An article in The New York Times by Erik Eckholm points out that Means' first attempt to get help at Mercy Health was met with rejection. In fact, cruel though one can clearly see in hindsight, the doctors at this Catholic-supported hospital failed to inform Means that her fetus would have zero chance of survival and that continuing her pregnancy "…was risky" (Eckholm, 2013). The next morning Means, the mother of two children, returned to Mercy Health. She was "bleeding and in pain," Eckholm reports, and what was the hospital's response during her second visit? Cruelly, he was sent home again.
When she went back a third time, hoping the doctors would see the enormous amount of pain she was going through -- and the third time she had an infection as well -- the hospital prepared to send her home - again. But while the hospital staff was preparing her discharge paperwork, "…she began to deliver," the ACLU press release explained. "Only then did the hospital begin tending to Tamesha's miscarriage," the ACLU continued. The lawsuit is not against Mercy Health Partners, but rather against the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB). The ACLU stated in its press release that the directives that the USCCB places on the hospitals it funds -- which prohibit "a pre-viability pregnancy termination, even when there is little or no chance that the fetus will survive, and the life or health of a pregnant woman is at risk" -- then the USCCB is "…ultimately responsible" for the unnecessary pain, trauma, and emotional harm that Tamesha was forced to endure (ACLU, 2013).
How insensitive can a healthcare organization be and still be recognized as a legitimate source of medical care in the community? This is an issue that isn't just about hospital care or abortion; this boils down to the inhumane actions of a facility that is supposed to be serving the healthcare needs of the public. It is germane to this issue to take a look at the modern version of the Hippocratic Oath, published in NOVA (a Public Broadcast Service -- PBS -- program). These passages are part of the oath that all doctors and nurses are asked to live up to.
"I swear to fulfill, to the best of my ability and judgment, this covenant…I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures [that] are required…most especially must I treat with care in matters of life and death. If it is given me to save a life, all thanks…this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play God" (Tyson, 2001, NOVA).
Clearly, the healthcare professionals at Mercy Health in Michigan were more concerned about living up to the creeds of the Catholic Church than they were with saving a life, the life of Tamesha, to be specific.
The Phoenix Case: A Nun is excommunicated
This case isn't the only controversial policy based on Catholic opposition to abortion that has come to the attention of journalists; in 2009 the Bishop of Phoenix, Thomas J. Olmstead, announced that St. Joseph's Hospital and Medical Center would no longer be known as a Roman Catholic hospital (Goodstein, 2010). That is because the hospital violated "…church teachings by ending a woman's pregnancy in 2009," even though doctors were just trying to save a woman's life, Goodstein reported. Also, Sister McBride (part of the hospital ethics committee) was excommunicated from the Church for her part in the decision to abort a fetus -- to save the mother's life. The mother was diagnosed as having "…very severe pulmonary arterial hypertension with profoundly reduced cardiac output," according to the fact sheet associated with the event (McCruden, 2012).
The placenta was producing changes in the woman that were "…killing the mother," and the placenta was "…exacerbating the pathology," making it a life-threatening situation," McCruden explains on page 303. McCruden explains the Catholic Church's moral analysis, taken from the Catechism of the Church (1997, 1750):
The morality of a human act is dependent upon: a) "the object chosen"; b) "the end in view or the intention"; and c) the "circumstances of the action" (McCruden, 303). The Church defines "…a morally good act requires the goodness of the object, of the end, and of the circumstances together" (again, part of the Catechism of the Church, 1997, 1755). McCruden writes that the second and third conditions from the Catechism seem to have been met, and the intentions of the doctors and the hospital "…were good, that is, to save one life rather than allow two to perish" (303).
You’re 81% through this paper. Sign up to read the full paper.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.