# 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:** 4
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2016, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/citing-catholic-rules-doctor-turns-away-bleeding-woman-with-dislodged-iud/764325/61 "2016-08-29T21:05:49Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Maybe had that advantage at the trial, he got a suspended sentence! > > Too soon? That’s not how I read it - I thought they nailed him! Anyway, you silly Americans - GO SINGLE PAYER ALREADY! You’ll avoid all this “out of network” crap. ---
**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, 9:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/citing-catholic-rules-doctor-turns-away-bleeding-woman-with-dislodged-iud/764325/62 "2016-08-29T21:41:01Z")
> [@D\_Anconia](#): > > The hospital didn’t cause her pain and suffering. How are they liable? They contributed to her suffering by withholding care. The fact that this was in violation of their own rules makes it that much worse. ---
**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, 9:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/citing-catholic-rules-doctor-turns-away-bleeding-woman-with-dislodged-iud/764325/63 "2016-08-29T21:42:14Z")
> [@Folacin](#): > > So, you’re going to close down all the Catholic hospitals? Or I guess prevent them from accepting Medicare/Medicaid funding? . . . If they insist on inflicting their religious beliefs on their patients…then, yes. That kind of theocracy must not be permitted. ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2016, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/citing-catholic-rules-doctor-turns-away-bleeding-woman-with-dislodged-iud/764325/64 "2016-08-29T22:04:39Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > From the opinion dismissing the suit (internal citations omitted): I wasn’t commenting that the hospitals were breaking laws – **watchwolf49** said that he didn’t believe a Catholic hospital would refuse to help a woman having a miscarriage. I provided cites where this has indeed occurred. I never said what they did was illegal. However, even if it’s legal, you cannot, in good conscience, tell me it’s _ethical_. Can you? :dubious: ---
**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, 10:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/citing-catholic-rules-doctor-turns-away-bleeding-woman-with-dislodged-iud/764325/65 "2016-08-29T22:09:31Z")
> [@Merneith](#): > > a couple new Justices. (And honestly - it’s time to stop nominating Catholics to the Supreme Court, at least until the balance evens out some.) That’s horribly bigoted. Should we stop nominating Jewish people or African-Americans too? ---
**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, 10:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/citing-catholic-rules-doctor-turns-away-bleeding-woman-with-dislodged-iud/764325/66 "2016-08-29T22:21:53Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > One possible theory is that the failure to provide urgent medical care violates the the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA), 42 U.S.C. § 1395dd. Assuming the statute applies to this facility (which is likely), it requires proof that the hospital failed to provide “for such further medical examination and such treatment as may be required to stabilize the medical condition.” They can also transfer the patient under some circumstances, but that appears not to have happened here. > > I think the key issue there would be whether the pain and bleeding were considered an emergency medical condition, which is defined in relevant part as "a medical condition manifesting itself by acute symptoms of sufficient severity (including severe pain) such that the absence of immediate medical attention could reasonably be expected to result in—(i) placing the health of the individual (or, with respect to a pregnant woman, the health of the woman or her unborn child) in serious jeopardy; (ii) serious impairment to bodily functions; or (iii) serious dysfunction of any bodily organ or part. Yup, that’s the standard, from 42 USC § 1395dd(e)(1)(A). Although they can discharge her if she is “stablized,” meaning that “no material deterioration of the condition is likely, within reasonable medical probability, to result from the transfer of the individual from [the hospital].” 42 USC § 1395dd(e)(4)(B). I don’t know enough about the world of IUDs to understand whether the symptoms mentioned here are covered by the conditions listed above. ---
**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, 10:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/citing-catholic-rules-doctor-turns-away-bleeding-woman-with-dislodged-iud/764325/67 "2016-08-29T22:23:09Z")
> [@Guinastasia](#): > > I wasn’t commenting that the hospitals were breaking laws – **watchwolf49** said that he didn’t believe a Catholic hospital would refuse to help a woman having a miscarriage. I provided cites where this has indeed occurred. I never said what they did was illegal. However, even if it’s legal, you cannot, in good conscience, tell me it’s _ethical_. Can you? :dubious: It flies in the face of my understanding of ethics, yes. I make no claim that my understanding of ethics is universally applicable. ---
**Author:** ![Just\_Asking\_Questions](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ba9def/32.png) [@Just\_Asking\_Questions](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Just_Asking_Questions)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2016, 10:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/citing-catholic-rules-doctor-turns-away-bleeding-woman-with-dislodged-iud/764325/68 "2016-08-29T22:33:30Z")
> [@D\_Anconia](#): > > That’s horribly bigoted. Should we stop nominating Jewish people or African-Americans too? I know, right. Next thing, there’ll be a Catholic president, and then the whole country will be answering to Rome! ---
**Author:** ![TonySinclair](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/49beb7/32.png) [@TonySinclair](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TonySinclair)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2016, 11:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/citing-catholic-rules-doctor-turns-away-bleeding-woman-with-dislodged-iud/764325/69 "2016-08-29T23:25:18Z")
> [@D\_Anconia](#): > > That’s horribly bigoted. Should we stop nominating Jewish people or African-Americans too? Their race is immaterial. Their beliefs are not. Tell me, would you favor appointing a Supreme Court justice who believes in Sharia law? ---
**Author:** ![psychobunny](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/54ee81/32.png) [@psychobunny](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/psychobunny)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2016, 11:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/citing-catholic-rules-doctor-turns-away-bleeding-woman-with-dislodged-iud/764325/70 "2016-08-29T23:48:15Z")
WRT why the woman may not have gone back to the doctor who placed the IUD, it is possible that she had moved or changed insurances since it was placed. She could live thousands of miles away. It also may be that her insurance would cover an ER visit but since all of its participating hospitals were catholic, the only way she could get care would be to go out of network and pay full price for a secular ER-if she could even find one. That said, I don’t know why health care plans are not mandated to disclose in big black letters that they only contract with catholic providers and that therefore care will be limited by catholic doctrine. They should make patients sign a statment that they understand this as part of the contract. ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2016, 12:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/citing-catholic-rules-doctor-turns-away-bleeding-woman-with-dislodged-iud/764325/71 "2016-08-30T00:13:18Z")
> [@TonySinclair](#): > > Their race is immaterial. Their beliefs are not. > > Tell me, would you favor appointing a Supreme Court justice who believes in Sharia law? As much as I usually disagree with **D’Anconia** , he’s correct. Religious tests for office are unconstitutional, IIRC. If a Muslim justice vowed to uphold the current law as it is, then there should be no reason whatsoever to block his/her nomination. Same as a Catholic justice. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2016, 12:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/citing-catholic-rules-doctor-turns-away-bleeding-woman-with-dislodged-iud/764325/72 "2016-08-30T00:14:29Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I don’t know enough about the world of IUDs to understand whether the symptoms mentioned here are covered by the conditions listed above. After a little digging, it looks like this did not qualify as a medical emergency, so I think that claim is out. It looks like she probably doesn’t have a legal cause of action in court. I guess she might have a sex discrimination claim under PPACA, if she can show that this ethical directive is sex discriminatory. Arguable, I think, but not something any administrative panel is likely to accept for political reasons. ---
**Author:** ![TonySinclair](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/49beb7/32.png) [@TonySinclair](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TonySinclair)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2016, 12:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/citing-catholic-rules-doctor-turns-away-bleeding-woman-with-dislodged-iud/764325/73 "2016-08-30T00:23:01Z")
> [@Guinastasia](#): > > As much as I usually disagree with **D’Anconia** , he’s correct. Religious tests for office are unconstitutional, IIRC. If a Muslim justice vowed to uphold the current law as it is, then there should be no reason whatsoever to block his/her nomination. Same as a Catholic justice. By making their appointment conditional on vowing to not follow their religion (when it conflicts with current law), you gave them a religious test. ETA: And recent experience shows that candidates for the SC don’t always do what they say they’ll do during their hearings. ---
**Author:** ![TonySinclair](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/49beb7/32.png) [@TonySinclair](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TonySinclair)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2016, 12:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/citing-catholic-rules-doctor-turns-away-bleeding-woman-with-dislodged-iud/764325/74 "2016-08-30T00:40:01Z")
> [@Guinastasia](#): > > As much as I usually disagree with **D’Anconia** , he’s correct. Religious tests for office are unconstitutional, IIRC. If a Muslim justice vowed to uphold the current law as it is, then there should be no reason whatsoever to block his/her nomination. Same as a Catholic justice. I tried to edit the following into my previous post, but got the dreaded five-minute buzzer when I hit Submit. I agree that religious tests are unconstitutional, but I disagree with that line of the Constitution. So we need an amendment. But an amendment about that would never fly. So we’re fucked. But why should an odious belief not be cause for rejection, just because it’s religious? If a nominee said that he believed in Hitler’s theory of a master race, he’d be immediately rejected. Where’s the line between that, and a belief that abortion for any reason is a crime, or that homosexuality or adultery or even consensual premarital sex should be a capital crime? IMO, a stupid belief is a stupid belief, whether it’s in the Bible or not. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2016, 12:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/citing-catholic-rules-doctor-turns-away-bleeding-woman-with-dislodged-iud/764325/75 "2016-08-30T00:40:36Z")
> [@psychobunny](#): > > WRT why the woman may not have gone back to the doctor who placed the IUD, it is possible that she had moved or changed insurances since it was placed. She could live thousands of miles away. > > It also may be that her insurance would cover an ER visit but since all of its participating hospitals were catholic, the only way she could get care would be to go out of network and pay full price for a secular ER-if she could even find one. > > That said, I don’t know why health care plans are not mandated to disclose in big black letters that they only contract with catholic providers and that therefore care will be limited by catholic doctrine. They should make patients sign a statment that they understand this as part of the contract. Agreed. ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2016, 2:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/citing-catholic-rules-doctor-turns-away-bleeding-woman-with-dislodged-iud/764325/76 "2016-08-30T02:17:30Z")
> [@TonySinclair](#): > > I tried to edit the following into my previous post, but got the dreaded five-minute buzzer when I hit Submit. > > I agree that religious tests are unconstitutional, but I disagree with that line of the Constitution. So we need an amendment. But an amendment about that would never fly. So we’re fucked. > > But why should an odious belief not be cause for rejection, just because it’s religious? If a nominee said that he believed in Hitler’s theory of a master race, he’d be immediately rejected. Where’s the line between that, and a belief that abortion for any reason is a crime, or that homosexuality or adultery or even consensual premarital sex should be a capital crime? IMO, a stupid belief is a stupid belief, whether it’s in the Bible or not. No, we’re not “fucked”. There are plenty of politicians out there who have no problem putting their personal beliefs aside to follow the law. John Kerry and Joe Biden are both Catholic and they support abortion rights. Ted Kennedy was Catholic and he supported abortion rights. My mother’s a very devout Catholic and SHE favors abortion rights. And obviously an “odious belief” should be rejected, whatever inspires it, religion or not. However, the statement, “well, we can’t have any more Catholics (or whatever group) on the court, because they’ll vote this way”, is insane. It violates the religious test law and I believe it would violate the Civil Rights Act as well. There’s a damned good reason for those laws. ---
**Author:** ![watchwolf49](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9c0ed/32.png) [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2016, 3:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/citing-catholic-rules-doctor-turns-away-bleeding-woman-with-dislodged-iud/764325/77 "2016-08-30T03:16:37Z")
> [@watchwolf49](#): > > Nice catch … just something about this story that screams spin … I find it very hard to believe a Catholic hospital would refuse services to a woman miscarrying her baby, _refuse_ to try and save the pregnancy … that makes no sense at all … think of all the profit they’d make rigging her up with Mag Sulfate … > [@Guinastasia](#): > > Wanna bet? … [snipped out five links] > [@Guinastasia](#): > > I wasn’t commenting that the hospitals were breaking laws – **watchwolf49** said that he didn’t believe a Catholic hospital would refuse to help a woman having a miscarriage. I provided cites where this has indeed occurred. I never said what they did was illegal. However, even if it’s legal, you cannot, in good conscience, tell me it’s _ethical_. Can you? :dubious: Technically, there’s only four citations, the fifth is just a duplicate of the fourth. Did you read them? Each of the four _specifically_ said the hospital would not _induce_ labor. Do you know the difference between inducing labor and _preventing_ labor. Here’s a clue, they are opposites. See, that makes your citations a complete strawman, I said rig the woman up with Mag Sulfate, which when given as an IV prevents labor … all your citations about failure to induce labor are meaningless in context. See … “try and save the pregnancy” is actually quite different than preforming an abortion … try again … The second strawman is that you say I don’t believe … I said I find it hard to believe … so I win that bet … English must be hard for you, finding something hard to believe does imply it is, in fact, believed … it’s just difficult to admit it or it was a difficult path to come to that belief. =≠=≠=≠= Catholics hold a hard line on abortion … they believe the very weakest of us are entitled to the most protection … so killing an unborn baby electively is never an option to them. They are within their rights to believe this … but I sure as hell don’t think they should be able to present themselves to the general public as a hospital unless they provide services normally expected by the general public. I’m not saying Catholics need to get out of the hospital business, they just need to leave their Catholicism out of their for-pay services. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2016, 3:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/citing-catholic-rules-doctor-turns-away-bleeding-woman-with-dislodged-iud/764325/78 "2016-08-30T03:29:00Z")
I admit being unclear on how _removing_ an IUD would run afoul of Catholic dogma. What if the woman had declared “I’ve seen the light and accepted Jesus and want the devil’s pogo stick taken out forthwith!” I can see why they would decline to _insert_ the device, of course. ---
**Author:** ![TonySinclair](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/49beb7/32.png) [@TonySinclair](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TonySinclair)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2016, 3:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/citing-catholic-rules-doctor-turns-away-bleeding-woman-with-dislodged-iud/764325/79 "2016-08-30T03:48:10Z")
> [@Guinastasia](#): > > No, we’re not “fucked”. There are plenty of politicians out there who have no problem putting their personal beliefs aside to follow the law. And there are plenty who don’t. And if there’s one thing you want in a Supreme Court Justice, it’s integrity. How much integrity does a man have who can leave his religious beliefs at the door when he goes to work? > [@](#): > > John Kerry and Joe Biden are both Catholic and they support abortion rights. Ted Kennedy was Catholic and he supported abortion rights. Great, that makes two (living). There are millions who don’t. And there is an indeterminate percentage of them who are willing to sit before a Senate committee and lie about how they’ll behave if appointed. > [@](#): > > My mother’s a very devout Catholic and SHE favors abortion rights. I’m sure your mother is one of the finest women who ever lived, but that statement is self-contradictory. If she were very devout, she would follow the teachings of the Church. Please note that I think it’s great that she doesn’t. > [@](#): > > And obviously an “odious belief” should be rejected, whatever inspires it, religion or not. However, the statement, “well, we can’t have any more Catholics (or whatever group) on the court, because they’ll vote this way”, is insane. It violates the religious test law and I believe it would violate the Civil Rights Act as well. There’s a damned good reason for those laws. I’ve already acknowledged it violates the religious test law, and I’ve already acknowledged that there is no chance my religious test (which is, “Are you religious? If so, thanks for playing.”) would ever be enacted. It’s still my opinion that the law should be administered by people uninfluenced by religion, and I will agree to disagree with the world on that. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2016, 3:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/citing-catholic-rules-doctor-turns-away-bleeding-woman-with-dislodged-iud/764325/80 "2016-08-30T03:57:22Z")
> [@TonySinclair](#): > > And there are plenty who don’t. And if there’s one thing you want in a Supreme Court Justice, it’s integrity. How much integrity does a man have who can leave his religious beliefs at the door when he goes to work? I’d be okay with it - if I perceived the greater integrity of a man who understood that his religious beliefs had no place in the functions of his particular job, and maintained that separation despite personal temptation to break it. If one can’t leave one’s irrelevant beliefs “at the door”, then you could probably find grounds to recuse most any judge on most any case. Heck, Trump would be right about Curiel, if we assume Curiel couldn’t have integrity _unless_ he let his Mexican heritage be a factor in his decisions. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/citing-catholic-rules-doctor-turns-away-bleeding-woman-with-dislodged-iud/764325.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/citing-catholic-rules-doctor-turns-away-bleeding-woman-with-dislodged-iud/764325.md?page=5)