1619
Pretty much (lemmy.world)
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] crawancon@lemm.ee 100 points 2 months ago

wtf is a catholic hospital? you get wine and crackers while you wait in purgatory?

[-] rockerface@lemm.ee 61 points 2 months ago

They add indulgence cost to your hospital bill

[-] qupada@fedia.io 20 points 2 months ago

Remaining alive: such an indulgence...

[-] theangryseal@lemmy.world 9 points 2 months ago

I do not currently feel as though I am indulging…

I shall have another beer! Bravo!

[-] Brkdncr@lemmy.world 38 points 2 months ago

Many hospitals are owned by the Catholic Church and are a huge source of income.

[-] pearsaltchocolatebar@discuss.online 26 points 2 months ago

Not just the catholics, either. Many flavors of Christianity run hospitals.

[-] gibmiser@lemmy.world 23 points 2 months ago

It's a good cover for diabolical greed

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] TwoBeeSan@lemmy.world 14 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

The kind that demon mother teresa ran. Where care is secondary to conversions

Edit: i said conversations. Lol

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 95 points 2 months ago

Perhaps Catholic institutions shouldn't be forced to perform actions against their beliefs, but then they don't get to use the word "hospital" in relation to whatever their building does.

I feel this should apply to pharmacies too. If you want to have pharmacists that can deny you valid prescriptions from your doctor, then they don't get to call that building a "pharmacy". Just like cigarettes there should be a large lettered warning on the door to the establishment informing you that the person inside has indicated they will deny you a prescription if they feel like it. If the pharmacists want to exercise their moral discretion, they don't get to use the word "pharmacy" for whatever building/business they're doing it in.

[-] LuxSpark@lemmy.cafe 29 points 2 months ago

If they aren't a hospital or pharmacy then they shouldn't be able to practice medicine.

[-] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 11 points 2 months ago

I mean, they could run clinics. Nothing saying they can't specialize. Podiatrists don't perform a lot of abortions, I'd imagine.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world 61 points 2 months ago

If y our religion dictates that you not perform life saving procedures, Then you have no business being in medicine.

[-] obinice@lemmy.world 42 points 2 months ago

Religious hospitals? What will they think of next!

At least in countries that charge patients money for their healthcare, these religious hospitals are free, right? Given how much money Christianity makes in donations, and given that their whole religion is all about helping others for nothing in return and without judgement, it would make sense they'd run free hospitals providing healthcare for all, no matter their situation ♥️

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] exploitedamerican@lemm.ee 38 points 2 months ago

I don't want religious institutions near healthcare. Imposing attitudes of abstinence only moral puritanism on others. Thats not medicine. Like the WHO said 7 almost 8 years ago drug use needs to be globally decriminalized to remove attitudes of discrimination from health care settings. And at the time then nobody foresaw roe v wade being knocked back and turning the clock of social progress back 5/6 decades+ i wish j could say things cant get any worde but they can and they will. So we don’t need the people making things worse involved in the administration of medical care. We already have too many religious bigots with hoarded wealth whispering in the ear of the dumbest moron on the planet who has control of the nuclear football. And healthcare is already bastardized by the incentives of shareholder profits and the vultures of the for profit insurance industry whos sole purpose is tk deny people adequate health care to boost profits whenever possible so lets not shove religion down the throats of people who are often denied basic dignities.

[-] alvvayson@lemmy.dbzer0.com 27 points 2 months ago

A hospital is just a building and the organization that owns the building.

The real question is, should hospitals be allowed to force or forbid doctors from providing medical care?

A doctor (Catholic or not) should never, and can never, be forced to perform a medical procedure, including abortions. And they also shouldn't be forbidden from performing a medical procedure.

Hospitals just provide rooms and equipment so that doctors can provide the care that their patients need, within their ability to provide that care.

[-] NotBillMurray@lemmy.world 23 points 2 months ago

"do no harm, unless it violated your specific religious ideology" that's how the oath goes right?

[-] bleistift2@sopuli.xyz 11 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

“Do no harm” is not the same as “Do prevent harm.”

Also, if you’re citing the Hippocratic Oath,…

I will not give to a woman a pessary to cause abortion.

[-] DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 9 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

The Hippocratic Oath was created to forbid surgery, since it was a provable harm before modern hygienic standards. No one has sworn the original in centuries, but they do swear modernized versions which don't include such ignorant nonsense.

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] JasonDJ@lemmy.zip 20 points 2 months ago

This is really it. If a doctor has a moral objection to abortions, maybe gynecology wasn't the right discipline for them to practice. That's on them, and they should be upfront about it being a personal moral objection and for them to seek another doctor.

I'm fine with that compromise, because I suspect those doctors are and will remain the minority, and everyone's rights are preserved.

But if a chief of medicine, or worse, a board of non-doctors, says their hospital won't perform abortions on religious grounds? Then fuck you, you're not a hospital, you are a faith-based healing center, and need to be treated as such.

Hospital administration needs to be science-based care and check their religion at the door, especially if they aren't directly practicing. They shouldn't be making decisions that directly effect people that they are indirectly related to based upon someone's interpretation of an old anthology of fables.

[-] Olgratin_Magmatoe@slrpnk.net 13 points 2 months ago

That's fine. Just don't expect to keep your medical license as you sit around doing nothing as people die of preventable deaths.

If you're a doctor, your job is to save lives. If you intentionally fail to do that job it shouldn't be your job.

If a fireman refused to put out a fire because they didn't feel like it, they'd be lose their job too.

[-] Chocrates@lemmy.world 13 points 2 months ago

I disagree somewhat. If a doctor is practicing in a situation where an abortion is necessary, it was their duty to not be a doctor if they find that morally repugnant.

[-] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 7 points 2 months ago

should hospitals be allowed to force or forbid doctors from providing medical care?

They provide the facilities, which includes administration and legal and billing. So in that regard, they have to have some kind of say, simply because they need to stock the equipment, train the nurses/MAs, and establish standard protocols for a given procedure. Otherwise, how do you contest a medical malpractice claim?

A doctor (Catholic or not) should never, and can never, be forced to perform a medical procedure, including abortions. And they also shouldn’t be forbidden from performing a medical procedure.

Doctors can and do regularly incur liability if they fail to perform certain necessary medical procedures, particularly in emergency room settings. A doctor that fails to follow protocol can be subject to malpractice. If, for instance, a Christian Scientist doctor refused to provide a blood transfusion to an individual suffering from sever blood loss or a narcotics prohibitionist doctor attempts to do surgery without providing anesthesia, they can get in some serious trouble.

Religious convictions don't override medical protocols. What's at issue is the legality of the protocols as they stand. Can a woman whose health is at risk from pregnancy receive an abortion without the doctors incurring criminal liability?

Right now, it appears that State AGs in prohibitionist states are threatening the licenses and freedoms of doctors who would provide life-saving care. Hospital administrators are acting as intermediaries because the hospital itself would suffer legal liability if staff knowingly permitted/facilitated an illegal procedure.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Signtist@lemm.ee 23 points 2 months ago

I rotated through a Catholic hospital while getting my degree in genetic counseling. Our whole job was to give women with pregnancies at high risk of genetic conditions all the information they needed to make an informed decision on how they want to move forward, and we weren't even allowed to mention the option of abortion. I was very glad when that rotation was over.

[-] kipo@lemm.ee 12 points 2 months ago

I would really like to see someone who is getting their degree or license push back on the requirement to rotate through a religious hospital, on the grounds that it violates the religious freedoms of the students.

If we’re going to have unconstitutional religious freedom laws, we may as well try and use them against our oppressors.

[-] neomachino@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 2 months ago

Wow

I thought the term "catholic hospital" was a joke. That doesn't even make sense to me.

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] renzev@lemmy.world 23 points 2 months ago

How come 90% of these twitter screenshots I see on lemmy are all just witty comebacks to fake opinions that nobody actually holds? This is like those "feminist gets rekt with facts and logic" compilation videos on youtube, but for liberals. Poking fun at strawmen every once in a while is entertaining, but it gets old really quickly.

[-] EncryptKeeper@lemmy.world 27 points 2 months ago

This is a 100% real opinion a lot of people hold.

[-] renzev@lemmy.world 11 points 2 months ago

Nevermind, I think you're right. I was confused by the term "catholic hospital", but I looked it up and apparently a lot of hospitals around the world really do have a religious affiliations.

[-] cheers_queers@lemm.ee 14 points 2 months ago

a woman i nannied for almost died giving birth to both of her sons. when she had the second one, she asked them to tie her tubes while they were doing the c section and they refused due to their religious policies. she had to fully recover from the birth and then find a doctor who would do the procedure, then had to recover again from that surgery.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] SlopppyEngineer@lemmy.world 22 points 2 months ago

Reclassify abortion as an exorcism, get a priest chanting some Latin during the procedure and done.

[-] Lodespawn@aussie.zone 20 points 2 months ago

If they don't want to perform particular procedures based on their faith then they can call themseves a "Western Faith Therapy Centre"

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] lightnsfw@reddthat.com 18 points 2 months ago

I think we should also force chuck e cheese to perform abortions.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] BonesOfTheMoon@lemmy.world 18 points 2 months ago

We have a Catholic hospital here in the city where I live in Ontario. Being publicly funded makes what they do different from the American ones, but despite doing women's health and obstetrics they don't do tubal ligation unless it's approved by their board, so even if you had a planned c section and were planning on having your tubal during the procedure, if you had to have your c section on an emergency basis because you labour early, they won't do it. It's so fucked up. It's a good hospital but come on. It's 2025, most Catholics use birth control. If you don't want to do abortions, fine, but a tubal during a c section is really just saving someone a second surgery.

[-] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 7 points 2 months ago

they don’t do tubal ligation unless it’s approved by their board

So they aren't above doing the procedure entirely? They're just persnickity about who is "worthy" of receiving the service?

If you don’t want to do abortions, fine

It's crazy how a life-saving procedure is off-the-table on the "Pro-Life" grounds.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] user224@lemmy.sdf.org 14 points 2 months ago

Rather not, I'd be worried they'd "fuck up" on purpose.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] OprahsedCreature@lemmy.ml 12 points 2 months ago

Plus it's probably way easier for them to fuck kids at a Chuck E. Cheese. Actually it's probably easier at the hospitals but the supply is larger at the Chuck E. Cheese.

[-] gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de 11 points 2 months ago

I honestly disagree.

If i'm a programmer working at a company, and that company asks me to write code that would enable autonomous rockets for warfare (like armed drones), i might refuse because i have ethical concerns about it. But i'm still a programmer.

From the view of catholic hospital staff, providing abortions might be murder, and they have ethical concerns about it. They are still a hospital.

[-] Hawke@lemmy.world 21 points 2 months ago

Nah, for the catholic hospital staff they probably shouldn’t have a job if it goes against their personal ethics.

But organizations do not have religion.

[-] jaggedrobotpubes@lemmy.world 9 points 2 months ago

Ok but your thing is an actual problem and their thing is a made up non-problem which it is their job and (ironically) sacred hippocratic duty to perform.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] NinjaFox 9 points 2 months ago

In both your programmer case and the case of the catholic hospital staff member you have a very clear option, you can not work at that facility. Don't want to write code for military weapons, cool then work somewhere that doesn't do that. Don't want to provide abortions at your work, cool then work in a medical facility that doesn't provide them. Many facilities don't perform abortions just because they aren't intended to, such as clinics etc so you should work there.

Your programmer case also doesn't make sense because extending the metophor you want companies to be allowed to not develop software that is used by the military...they can already do that.

[-] Whats_your_reasoning@lemmy.world 8 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Does refusing to program a drone prevent a cancer patient from receiving treatment? Do these drones prevent organ rupture in ectopic pregnancies? When asked to program armed drones, are you also sitting face-to-face with a person who is suffering or dying because you aren’t actively programming them?

The denial of healthcare involves victims. Nobody’s hurt when you refuse to do a drone-programming job, but witholding a medically-necessary abortion directly results in avoidable human suffering. That’s the key difference that makes these situations incomparable.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 02 Jan 2025
1619 points (100.0% liked)

Microblog Memes

6811 readers
794 users here now

A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.

Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.

Rules:

  1. Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
  2. Be nice.
  3. No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
  4. Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.

Related communities:

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS