# Citing Catholic Rules, Doctor Turns Away Bleeding Woman With Dislodged IUD **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [August 28, 2016, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/citing-catholic-rules-doctor-turns-away-bleeding-woman-with-dislodged-iud/764325 "2016-08-28T19:34:02Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2016, 2:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/citing-catholic-rules-doctor-turns-away-bleeding-woman-with-dislodged-iud/764325/21 "2016-08-29T02:13:03Z")
> [@D\_Anconia](#): > > You don’t know what you are talking about. This is not pain and suffering, under the law. How do you know? Pain and suffering is decided by a jury, in possession of all the facts. How much testimony have you heard? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2016, 2:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/citing-catholic-rules-doctor-turns-away-bleeding-woman-with-dislodged-iud/764325/22 "2016-08-29T02:21:37Z")
> [@davidm](#): > > What if there’s only one hospital within a reasonable distance? Do you believe that Catholics are legally required somehow to fund hospitals? If the Catholic hospital closes, then there’s NO hospital within a reasonable distance. Do you now pass a law requiring those stupid Catholics to re-open their hospital? > [@](#): > > What if your health care plan only includes Catholic controlled hospitals? What if it does? If you don’t like your health plan, buy another health plan. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2016, 2:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/citing-catholic-rules-doctor-turns-away-bleeding-woman-with-dislodged-iud/764325/23 "2016-08-29T02:29:01Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > How do you know? Pain and suffering is decided by a jury, in possession of all the facts. How much testimony have you heard? That not entirely true. Civil law is admittedly not my forte, but as I recall the rule, pain and suffering is a mixed question of fact and law. That is, there are fact patterns which do not, as a matter of law, give rise to pain and suffering awards. Moreover, pain and suffering and _damages_. Before you can even reach the question of damages, you must win the question of liability – which goes back to the question I asked: what cause of action does the alleged conduct create? For example, if I call you a unrepentant moper, you might well prove to a jury that as a direct result you suffered great pain and suffering. But that wouldn’t be relevant, because I have a right to call you that, and calling you that doesn’t give rise to any civil liability on my part. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2016, 2:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/citing-catholic-rules-doctor-turns-away-bleeding-woman-with-dislodged-iud/764325/24 "2016-08-29T02:39:01Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > I would hope that a woman put into such a predicament would receive legal counsel by the ACLU. > I don’t want to second guess the court system. But I would hope that the ACLU would file a complaint with [the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office for Civil Rights](http://www.aclu-il.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/2016-6-30_Melanie-Jones-OCR-Complaint.pdf) based on Mercy’s discriminatory policies and practices of denying women medical care relating to contraceptive services in violation of Section 1557 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act 1557 codifed at 42 USC 18116 (2012) (“Section 1557”) IIRC. > > Also, they might consider dropping a line to the [Illinois Department of Human Rights](http://www.aclu-il.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/2016-8-22_Redacted-Charge-of-Discrimination-Melanie-Jones.pdf) with regards to whether Mercy, a place of public accomodation, denied her the full and equal access to its facilitites, goods, and services on the basis of her sex. > > ( [Chicago area woman files complaint after being denied critical health care because of religious objections | ACLU of Illinois](http://www.aclu-il.org/chicago-area-woman-files-complaint-after-being-denied-critical-health-care-because-of-religious-objections/) ) > I would also recommend that Mercy review its education process on Catholic directives for physicians and residents. Those appear to be administrative complaints, not civil causes of action. Moreover, the specific allegation – that the hospital discriminated on the basis of sex by failing to offer contraceptive care in violation of the Affordable Care Act – seems to me to run in the face of the Supreme Court’s decision in Hobby Lobby v. Burwell: specifically, that Congress was bound by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act when it enacted the dictates of the Affordable Care Act. Under this rule, the ACA cannot substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion unless the burden is narrowly tailored to accomplish a substantial government interest. Do you believe that the ACA’s application here meets that standard of strict scrutiny? Do you believe there is some other reason that Hobby Lobby’s rationale is inapplicable here? ---
**Author:** ![watchwolf49](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9c0ed/32.png) [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2016, 2:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/citing-catholic-rules-doctor-turns-away-bleeding-woman-with-dislodged-iud/764325/25 "2016-08-29T02:59:51Z")
Why didn’t her insurance cover a trip to the emergency room? ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2016, 3:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/citing-catholic-rules-doctor-turns-away-bleeding-woman-with-dislodged-iud/764325/26 "2016-08-29T03:09:31Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Those appear to be administrative complaints, not civil causes of action. > > Moreover, the specific allegation – that the hospital discriminated on the basis of sex by failing to offer contraceptive care in violation of the Affordable Care Act – seems to me to run in the face of the Supreme Court’s decision in Hobby Lobby v. Burwell: specifically, that Congress was bound by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act when it enacted the dictates of the Affordable Care Act. Under this rule, the ACA cannot substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion unless the burden is narrowly tailored to accomplish a substantial government interest. > > Do you believe that the ACA’s application here meets that standard of strict scrutiny? Do you believe there is some other reason that Hobby Lobby’s rationale is inapplicable here? Q1: I don’t have an opinion on that, as I lack the proper legal background. Q2: I don’t have an opinion on that, as I lack the proper legal background. Moving to my position, 1. I’d hope that the ACLU does what it can within the bounds of law and prudence to give assistance to this woman. Then let the courts sort it out. 2. Frankly, there’s not a lot of daylight between me and the Catholic Church on this one, taking their positions on contraception and abortion as given. What happened in the OP is bad on a personal level, bad on a policy level, and not trivially bad on a theological level. If a gambler walks in with a gunshot wound, a Catholic hospital should treat him sinner though he is. If a prostitute has an STD, a Catholic hospital should treat him or her, sinner though they are. Even if the condition is not immediately life threatening. And if someone’s IUD is malfunctioning, the hospital should give care. They don’t have to replace it. They just need to address her ailment. From Jackmanni’s post, it would seem that the Catholic Church agrees with me and Jesus. In fact it wouldn’t shock me if what actually happened was a result of Doctor-patient miscommunication, and that it hasn’t been fully clarified to the press due to HIPAA and ethical confidentiality rules. 1. Generally speaking, I think my answers to Q1 and Q2 are entirely reasonable and I provide them without apology. I don’t find the questions unreasonable either. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2016, 4:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/citing-catholic-rules-doctor-turns-away-bleeding-woman-with-dislodged-iud/764325/27 "2016-08-29T04:00:49Z")
I must have gone to a different Sunday School than these people, the Jesus I got wouldn’t even _scold_ you for helping someone bleeding and in pain. More like “Yeah, sure, its on the books, technically a sin…Don’t worry about it, we cool.” ---
**Author:** ![Sunny\_Daze](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sunny_daze/32/438_2.png) [@Sunny\_Daze](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sunny_Daze)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2016, 4:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/citing-catholic-rules-doctor-turns-away-bleeding-woman-with-dislodged-iud/764325/28 "2016-08-29T04:40:42Z")
Actually, as I remember it, Jesus would scold you for _not_ helping someone who was bleeding and in pain. Let’s see there’s that leper story, the thing about throwing rocks. Yep, yep, pretty sure Jesus is all good on helping the injured, and not being all judge-y while you’re doing it. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2016, 4:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/citing-catholic-rules-doctor-turns-away-bleeding-woman-with-dislodged-iud/764325/29 "2016-08-29T04:48:23Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > Q1: I don’t have an opinion on that, as I lack the proper legal background. Q2: I don’t have an opinion on that, as I lack the proper legal background. Fair enough. > [@](#): > > 1. I’d hope that the ACLU does what it can within the bounds of law and prudence to give assistance to this woman. Then let the courts sort it out. OK. That’s certainly not unreasonable. > [@](#): > > 1. Frankly, there’s not a lot of daylight between me and the Catholic Church on this one, taking their positions on contraception and abortion as given. What happened in the OP is bad on a personal level, bad on a policy level, and not trivially bad on a theological level. If a gambler walks in with a gunshot wound, a Catholic hospital should treat him sinner though he is. If a prostitute has an STD, a Catholic hospital should treat him or her, sinner though they are. Even if the condition is not immediately life threatening. Agreed. And, indeed, it seems clear here that the correct Catholic answer is: the treatment should have been provided. > [@](#): > > And if someone’s IUD is malfunctioning, the hospital should give care. They don’t have to replace it. They just need to address her ailment. From Jackmanni’s post, it would seem that the Catholic Church agrees with me and Jesus. In fact it wouldn’t shock me if what actually happened was a result of Doctor-patient miscommunication, and that it hasn’t been fully clarified to the press due to HIPAA and ethical confidentiality rules. Possible. It does seem unreal to imagine a patient saying, “I have converted to Catholcism, and now understand my prior use of an IUD to be sinful; please remove it,” and be told, “Sorry, we have a policy of not providing any care relating to a contraceptive device.” In fact, the USCCB guidelines for [Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services](http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/health-care/upload/Ethical-Religious-Directives-Catholic-Health-Care-Services-fifth-edition-2009.pdf) (PDF at link) provide specifically: > [@Page 27 of linked PDF](#): > > Catholic health institutions may not promote or condone contraceptive practices but should provide, for married couples and the medical staff who counsel them, instruction both about the Church’s teaching on responsible parenthood and in methods of natural family planning. Nothing in that directive should have prevented medical assistance to Ms. Jones’s presentation with an IUD partially dislodged and expelled. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2016, 4:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/citing-catholic-rules-doctor-turns-away-bleeding-woman-with-dislodged-iud/764325/30 "2016-08-29T04:51:16Z")
> [@Sunny\_Daze](#): > > Actually, as I remember it, Jesus would scold you for _not_ helping someone who was bleeding and in pain. Let’s see there’s that leper story, the thing about throwing rocks. Yep, yep, pretty sure Jesus is all good on helping the injured, and not being all judge-y while you’re doing it. How do you account for Jesus making a whip out of rope and whipping the shit out of merchants and money changers? That seems a tad judge-y, yes? ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2016, 5:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/citing-catholic-rules-doctor-turns-away-bleeding-woman-with-dislodged-iud/764325/31 "2016-08-29T05:15:12Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > . . . as I recall the rule, pain and suffering is a mixed question of fact and law. That is, there are fact patterns which do not, as a matter of law, give rise to pain and suffering awards. . . . All very well, but that still doesn’t answer my question to **D’Anconia** , who seems very determined that sending someone away from a hospital with abdominal bleeding is exempt from causing legal pain and suffering. I’d really like him to explain why that is, because it seems paradoxical. It certainly would appear to be bad medical practice, perhaps rising to malpractice standards. Hospitals have gotten in trouble before for turning away people in extreme need. If “pain and suffering” isn’t the exact legal term involved, I’m pretty sure there is some legal liability involved. Hospitals can’t just kick people out at their whim. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2016, 5:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/citing-catholic-rules-doctor-turns-away-bleeding-woman-with-dislodged-iud/764325/32 "2016-08-29T05:17:43Z")
Not to mention the whole hell for eternity thing. And the fig tree. The guy seems to have suffered from multiple personality syndrome, or really bad manic-depressive symptoms. “Love one another” one day, and whamming on merchants the next. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2016, 5:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/citing-catholic-rules-doctor-turns-away-bleeding-woman-with-dislodged-iud/764325/33 "2016-08-29T05:46:31Z")
The correct “gloss” on the whole “moneychangers/temple” incident depends on perspective. One interpretation emphasizes the strict Jewish laws about sacrifice at the Temple and the correct performance of it, which does not include just buying something. This falls in line with the presumption that Jesus was _directly_ in the Hebrew tradition, as in “I am come to fulfill the Law”. Later theologians were at pains to de-emphasize the Jewishness, but never got very specific on what it was that the money-changers were doing, except to imply that it was related to associating Jews with handling money, usury, stuff like that. But I don’t think anyone has come up with a good explanation for withering that poor fig tree simply for not being ripe. Be like a programmer taking a hammer to his laptop because his code won’t run. ---
**Author:** ![D\_Anconia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/67e7ee/32.png) [@D\_Anconia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/D_Anconia)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2016, 6:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/citing-catholic-rules-doctor-turns-away-bleeding-woman-with-dislodged-iud/764325/34 "2016-08-29T06:55:53Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > All very well, but that still doesn’t answer my question to **D’Anconia** , who seems very determined that sending someone away from a hospital with abdominal bleeding is exempt from causing legal pain and suffering. I’d really like him to explain why that is, because it seems paradoxical. The hospital didn’t cause her pain and suffering. How are they liable? ---
**Author:** ![Nava](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/da6949/32.png) [@Nava](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nava)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2016, 8:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/citing-catholic-rules-doctor-turns-away-bleeding-woman-with-dislodged-iud/764325/35 "2016-08-29T08:02:36Z")
They are liable for not instructing their personnel appropriately on their own rules and regulations. Like any other company whose employee fucks up and specifically fucks up by claiming “company policy!”. ---
**Author:** ![kambuckta](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/53a042/32.png) [@kambuckta](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kambuckta)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2016, 9:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/citing-catholic-rules-doctor-turns-away-bleeding-woman-with-dislodged-iud/764325/36 "2016-08-29T09:25:08Z")
> [@D\_Anconia](#): > > The hospital didn’t cause her pain and suffering. How are they liable? Interesting question…if hospitals don’t ‘cause’ the pain/suffering, are they liable for not alleviating it? ---
**Author:** ![Merneith](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/57b2e6/32.png) [@Merneith](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Merneith)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2016, 9:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/citing-catholic-rules-doctor-turns-away-bleeding-woman-with-dislodged-iud/764325/37 "2016-08-29T09:57:14Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > How do you account for Jesus making a whip out of rope and whipping the shit out of merchants and money changers? That seems a tad judge-y, yes? Jesus himself accounts for why he throws out the moneychangers: He says in Matthew 21 - > [@Matthew 21](#): > > 12 And Jesus entered into the temple \*\*of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the money-changers, and the seats of them that sold the doves; 13 and he saith unto them, It is written, [c]My house shall be called a house of prayer: [d]but ye make it a den of robbers. 14 And the blind and the lame came to him in the temple; and he healed them. That bit I underlined is a quote from Jeremiah - > [@Jeremiah 7:11](#): > > 11 Is this house, which is called by my name, become a den of robbers in your eyes? Behold, I, even I, have seen it, saith Jehovah. Jeremiah is the book that records God telling the Prophet Jeremiah how He’s totally going to fuck shit up because Israel has become so faithless. Jesus quotes this line while throwing the moneylenders out of the Temple to contrast their behavior with an earlier verse calling the Temple, a house of prayer. Basically, He (Jesus) is condemning using a Temple as a financial institute. Jesus isn’t judging the moneychangers for personal failings or for being money changers, the way the Catholic Hospital was judgey to the sick woman. Jesus was angry because they were disrespecting the house of God. Then, you’ll note, Jesus rolls up his sleeves and gets to healing the sick people. It’s very apropos for this situation with the Catholic hospital in the OP. In the OP, the Catholic Hospital beaurocrats refused to provide care for a sick person, even if, by some light, she was a sinner. Jesus, OTOH, cleared the bureaucrats out of the Temple and then provided care for the sick. I believe it’s quite clear whose side Jesus was on in the OP scenario: He was on the side of the sick and injured. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2016, 11:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/citing-catholic-rules-doctor-turns-away-bleeding-woman-with-dislodged-iud/764325/38 "2016-08-29T11:26:35Z")
We don’t actually know whether or not Jesus’ healings were covered under HerodCare. ---
**Author:** ![puzzlegal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puzzlegal/32/3827_2.png) [@puzzlegal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puzzlegal)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2016, 11:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/citing-catholic-rules-doctor-turns-away-bleeding-woman-with-dislodged-iud/764325/39 "2016-08-29T11:54:44Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > What cause of action, specifically, do you hope to see successfully used? Malpractice. The doctor did the wrong thing, according to the rules he was supposed to follow: medical, moral, and administrative. > [@watchwolf49](#): > > Why didn’t her insurance cover a trip to the emergency room? My insurance “covers” a trip to the emergency room, but the copayment is about a grand. > [@D\_Anconia](#): > > The hospital didn’t cause her pain and suffering. How are they liable? I believe that hospitals, in their licensing, are require to offer a certain degree of emergency care. I’d be surprised if this didn’t breach that threshold. ---
**Author:** ![GrumpyBunny](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/bc8723/32.png) [@GrumpyBunny](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GrumpyBunny)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2016, 12:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/citing-catholic-rules-doctor-turns-away-bleeding-woman-with-dislodged-iud/764325/40 "2016-08-29T12:02:28Z")
Religion and medicine need to be kept separate. It is not the 1400s. Additionally, any hospital that takes any federal funds at all should not get to impose its religious beliefs on its patients. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/citing-catholic-rules-doctor-turns-away-bleeding-woman-with-dislodged-iud/764325.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/citing-catholic-rules-doctor-turns-away-bleeding-woman-with-dislodged-iud/764325.md?page=3)