Because you don’t want to admit that it would be better than a hospital run on superstition.
The murderous version of Kali worship isn’t a powerful religion, so the rules are different for it. The analogy I was thinking of actually is a hospital run by Aztecs who sacrifice the occasional patient on an altar. That’s a close analogy to what a Christian hospital does when it lets people suffer and die because of religion; killing people for Jesus is no better and no different than killing them for Kali or Huitzilpochtli. Christians are just more likely to get away with it because their religion is powerful here-and-now.
Not every hospital has to provide every service. Not every hospital has an emergency room, for example. Not every hospital has a maternity ward.
Now, it is true that if EVERY hospital were to exclude certain services, that would be unacceptable. Obviously, there needs to be a certain level of emergency care available within a given community.
But this is why the key word “licensed” is so important. If there are already many hospitals in the community that have emergency services, to take this example further, then it is fine if a new hospital is licensed without that service. If there are not enough emergency services, than it should not be licensed unless it includes those services.
The burden is on the licensers to decide what is necessary for the community as a whole, not the hospital owners.
This is exactly it. Every hospital is “limited care” by some standard.
Well, everything is a limited commodity, but I question just how “limited” hospitals are. I suspect that if you have a hospital which doesn’t do blood transfusions, it’s not going to get a lot patrons and there is going to plenty of room for another hospital to exist.
And as I said above, not hospital offers a “full spectrum” of medically approved treatments. Besides, your hypothetical JW doctor would have to actually be a doctor in order to practice medicine.
How many actual qualified medical doctors are there who have religious exceptions to blood transfusions? There’s gotta be some JW doctors, but do they ignore this particular dogma?
But it doesn’t answer my question at all. Is there a legal minimum limit to what services a hospital provides before it can no longer call itself a hospital?
That’s an interesting question. Would a doctor who refused to order a life saving transfusion get to keep his license? If not, why should a hospital be any different?
Suppose I have a religious calling and believe that I can heal, and should charge for it. A laying on of hands. Can the state prohibit me from calling myself Dr. Second healer of all medical complaints and opening a place of worship? I suspect so. The practice of medicine is subject to state regulation. How about insurance? I sell health insurance only to very orthodox Christian Scientists to help them comply with the health care laws, but as a matter of doctrine, it cannot cover anything, therefore it is cheap. (I read the CM weekly magazine, and they seem to be alarmed at the health care reform going on).
I wasn’t trying to answer your question-- I don’t know the answer. I was just noting that you were asking the right question. I’m surprised no one else is paying attention to it.
That’s the question. It’s what I meant in post #8 when I talked about the spectrum of facilities ranging from reading rooms to a full hospital practicing modern medicine with no irrational restrictions. Where do we draw the line on what we allow to call itself a hospital?
I assume that the word “hospital” in defined is relevant statutes. So I suppose the proper question might be “how much do we allow that definition to be compromised in deference to religious freedom before we start pulling licenses?” A similar question would apply to pharmacies and pharmacists.
See I have no issue here, our government run our public hospitals and if you want to go private you can.
My friend’s child was born in a Masonic hospital and the goat sacrifice was completely optional and yes a catholic hospital may refuse an abortion but given that they are never the only game in town it is not a problem. It only becomes a problem if the government shirk their responsibility and shove it out the private sector to fund without strict rules in place to ensure continuity of offer.