lolPersecution part 87

[charizbarb]

Ew. I know what some people would say should be done to the agencies, but I'm trying to be more cautious on't tinternet. :evil:

Thing about scabbing, if you scab, for the rest of your life you know exactly what your price is. Exactly what you can be bought for. That must make it hard to sleep at night.

Are they scabs if they weren't part of the original dispute though? It sounds like they're not part of the hospital's full-time staff (experienceddd, correct me if I am wrong). If so they're also unlikely to be aware of the dispute itself and so they're not being bought for anything, it's just a vacancy like any other.

Personally though, as much as I am pro-union in other areas, when people's lives are at stake it is different. I do not think frontline emergency services should be allowed to strike (admin yes, nurses no) because people's lives are more important than a pay dispute or whatever. If I was a nurse drafted in because of this, the knowledge that I'd be saving people's lives who might have otherwise died just because of a strike would be plenty for me to be able to sleep at night. People's lives should be above union politics imo, no politics or cause is more important than a sick person being able to have medical care.

[Coconut Flan]

What I found as examples of the indirect consequences was for things like cancer treatment and abdominal surgery.

The Catholic church's position, as I understand it, is that no direct action may be taken against the fetus, thus any abortion is ruled out. However, I did find an article about pre-eclampsia and acceptable Catholic treatment. Labor may be induced as that is more of an action of the mother's body rather than an assault, as the article phrased it, against the fetus.

[Guest Anonymous]

Personally though, as much as I am pro-union in other areas, when people's lives are at stake it is different. I do not think frontline emergency services should be allowed to strike (admin yes, nurses no) because people's lives are more important than a pay dispute or whatever. If I was a nurse drafted in because of this, the knowledge that I'd be saving people's lives who might have otherwise died just because of a strike would be plenty for me to be able to sleep at night. People's lives should be above union politics imo, no politics or cause is more important than a sick person being able to have medical care.

Reasoning like this is exactly why nurses aren't paid shit. There's always somebody willing to dole out the emotional blackmail ("Oh but isn't your calling worth more than mere money?", etc.) and there's always somebody willing to eat it up.

[emmiedahl]

What I found as examples of the indirect consequences was for things like cancer treatment and abdominal surgery.

The Catholic church's position, as I understand it, is that no direct action may be taken against the fetus, thus any abortion is ruled out. However, I did find an article about pre-eclampsia and acceptable Catholic treatment. Labor may be induced as that is more of an action of the mother's body rather than an assault, as the article phrased it, against the fetus.

It is certainly a matter of controversy now, under a Pope who is as trustworthy as Jack the Ripper, but under the former Pope RCC hospitals were performing procedures like these with the full approval of the American bishops. The justification was that the fetus was dying because it was in a dying vessel and thus was treated more like a hospice situation.

Catholic theology is interpreted in various ways according to the powers that be *at that moment*. There have been recent changes in papacy and I know these are affecting the way the catechism is interpreted. If the current attitude is that women should just shut up and die, then I stand corrected and I re-state my plea to keep providers with religious objections to standard health care out of health care altogether.

[Jezebel]

A nurse who is qualified to carry out a particular procedure which may be a lifesaving procedure and refuses on the grounds of her personal beliefs really has no business being a nurse,...

I think there is room in the nursing profession for nurses who refuse to participate in certain procedures, such as abortion. But it sure as hell isn't in an OR where an emergency abortion to save a woman's life is even remotely a possibility.

I have an annoying Internet acquaintance who very nearly died of pre-eclampsia, and required a therapeutic abortion to save her life. Annoying as she is, I'd hate to think that anyone on the ER/OR/Obstetrics staff would have thought it was better to refuse her care and risk her death (as well as that of her unborn daughter) than to assist in the abortion. That's just horrifying. It's evil, in fact.

But here's the thing: a hospital should never put a nurse who refuses to assist in abortions in a job where that's even a possibility, however slim. She shouldn't have been hired for that particular nursing job, IMO. Frankly, I don't think she should have even applied for it if she was opposed to even therapeutic abortion for things like pre-eclampsia, but ultimately I think it was the hospital's bad call to hire her for the OR position the first place.

And the didn't even fire her right away after that--her initial lawsuit three years ago, filed while she was still working there, claimed that they "punished" her by giving her fewer shifts and no overtime. Well, duh.

Anyway, there are nursing specialties where there is no chance of ever having to play the anti-abortion conscientious objector card, and that is where people like her should be working. Period. End of story. No, they usually don't pay as much as the OR does. But every damned day, people make decisions to take less money rather than risk having to compromise their values. Most people I know (at least the ones who are not narcissistic sociopaths) have done that, at one time or another.

One example I can think of straight off the bat is the new pharmacist at the veterinary clinic I use. She's a fundie who didn't like filling prescriptions for birth control or providing Plan B, but who is wise enough to understand that it's not her place to refuse to provide legally-prescribed medications (including Viagra and other boner pills, which she also objects to). So she dispenses meds for animals instead, which pays less--but will never go against her morals.

[Wolfie]

What I found as examples of the indirect consequences was for things like cancer treatment and abdominal surgery.

The Catholic church's position, as I understand it, is that no direct action may be taken against the fetus, thus any abortion is ruled out. However, I did find an article about pre-eclampsia and acceptable Catholic treatment. Labor may be induced as that is more of an action of the mother's body rather than an assault, as the article phrased it, against the fetus.

In my experience with animals, not humans, I've learned that sometimes just inducing labor in an animal in trouble due to pregnancy complications does not actually induce labor. Wouldn't that be the same in some women, that they'd have to have an abortion because labor would not start?

[Coconut Flan]

Catholic theology is interpreted in various ways according to the powers that be *at that moment*. There have been recent changes in papacy and I know these are affecting the way the catechism is interpreted. If the current attitude is that women should just shut up and die, then I stand corrected and I re-state my plea to keep providers with religious objections to standard health care out of health care altogether.

On the bolded part we have complete agreement. Pope Benedict is the reason for many people leaving the church and looking elsewhere. In California, he has replaced two very liberal bishops with conservative bishops under the guise of cultural sensitivity to the large hispanic populations. As soon as her mother dies, one of my friends will be leaving the Catholic Church in all ways except keeping her name on the roster.

In my experience with animals, not humans, I've learned that sometimes just inducing labor in an animal in trouble due to pregnancy complications does not actually induce labor. Wouldn't that be the same in some women, that they'd have to have an abortion because labor would not start?

That one is beyond me to definitely answer and frankly this kind of hairsplitting that the Catholic Church currently does is one reason why I'm not Catholic. I do know that some women, even at term, can not be successfully induced so it stands to reason that there would be some induction failures earlier on also. I haven't yet seen a response to that possibility.

[emmiedahl]

In my experience with animals, not humans, I've learned that sometimes just inducing labor in an animal in trouble due to pregnancy complications does not actually induce labor. Wouldn't that be the same in some women, that they'd have to have an abortion because labor would not start?

I know of a major Catholic hospital chain on the West Coast in which medically necessary emergency abortions were performed with approval from the Bishop. They did have to be a life-and-death matter. And this was more than 6 years ago. I am not sure if that has changed.

Inducing labor might kill a woman with skyrocketing blood pressure and other symptoms of pre-eclampsia. Then the Catholic nurse would be responsible for another death.

[emmiedahl]

On the bolded part we have complete agreement. Pope Benedict is the reason for many people leaving the church and looking elsewhere. In California, he has replaced two very liberal bishops with conservative bishops under the guise of cultural sensitivity to the large hispanic populations. As soon as her mother dies, one of my friends will be leaving the Catholic Church in all ways except keeping her name on the roster.

My husband is going through it right now. It is really hard for him because he is just about as Catholic as a person can be. Tough times for Catholics who were raised in the strong social justice tradition created by John Paul.

[Wolfie]

I know of a major Catholic hospital chain on the West Coast in which medically necessary emergency abortions were performed with approval from the Bishop. They did have to be a life-and-death matter. And this was more than 6 years ago. I am not sure if that has changed.

Inducing labor might kill a woman with skyrocketing blood pressure and other symptoms of pre-eclampsia. Then the Catholic nurse would be responsible for another death.

I am in total agreement that labor could kill a woman who was already distressed- I am not against abortion either, I just was commenting that just inducing labor is not always going to solve the problem.

I really hope that chain is still doing it, and it's the hospital in my town, because it scares me that there is only a Catholic hospital within 20 minutes of where I live. (I think the one about 40 minutes is another Catholic one) and I don't even expect to be pregnant, but if a friend is, I'd hate for anybody to have to deal with it.

[Coconut Flan]

Tough times for Catholics who were raised in the strong social justice tradition created by John Paul.

And there you have it. My friend is very strongly in the social justice tradition and not in favor of any anti-abortion campaigns or retranslating the liturgy. Her local bishop sending money to California in support of Prop 8 is something I don't think she'll ever get over and probably neither will I. There are so many things and I'm sure your husband has a list also.

[emmiedahl]

I am in total agreement that labor could kill a woman who was already distressed- I am not against abortion either, I just was commenting that just inducing labor is not always going to solve the problem.

I really hope that chain is still doing it, and it's the hospital in my town, because it scares me that there is only a Catholic hospital within 20 minutes of where I live. (I think the one about 40 minutes is another Catholic one) and I don't even expect to be pregnant, but if a friend is, I'd hate for anybody to have to deal with it.

I believe denying life-saving services on the basis of religion could compromise a hospital's ability to accept Medicaid and Medicare. I am not positive, but I know Catholic Healthcare West (or whatever it is called now, it is a large chain of hospitals on the West Coast) has made some interesting compromises to continue being eligible to accept these.

[Coconut Flan]

It seems, that hospital group found a solution.

http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/stories ... -ties.aspx

Maybe or maybe not. The Catholic hospitals will retain some religious ties although the nuns tend to be more practical.

[emmiedahl]

It seems, that hospital group found a solution.

http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/stories ... -ties.aspx

Maybe or maybe not. The Catholic hospitals will retain some religious ties although the nuns tend to be more practical.

Interesting. The article does not go into what changes will be happening, although I can certainly imagine.

I know one of the sisters involved in CHW and she is indeed a practical person. And a very nice one, I might add. I have some ties to CHW, obviously, and a few relatives and friends who are in the administration. They have no problem hiring non-Catholics for those positions. So there is an internal push to modernize being met with an external push from the church to be more conservative and more Catholic by the new definition.

The CHW hospitals I have encountered have been sensible and well-run. It is a shame to think the RCC would consider this a detriment.

I would really like to see religion out of health care. Even if a Catholic archbishop believes I should die rather than aborting a pregnancy, surely we all agree that I should not have to die for religions I don't belong to? Le sigh.

[JesusFightClub]

I won't tollerate a black leg. They aren't allowed in my home, if they come to my saloon they are asked to leave. I don't give a shit where they come from what, they worship and like you I know their price. My parents came to this country without a pot to piss in in or a window to toss it from, they never crossed a line or scabbed. When I was in HS I wasn't allowed to date this fella since his grandfather scabbed in the mines.

*nods* Yeah.

I had a personal case I thought was a good friend. I was repping her over a pay dispute for back pay she was owed. She crossed the line at the entrance I was on. It was quite funny, because she went "Oh shit, you WOULD be on this entrance" and I said "You fucking bitch, Susan"*. Went to see her next day and informed her I could no longer in good conscience take the case of a scab.

*Ah, picket line banter. I get in trouble for this constantly. Some people like to taunt the picketers. I like to taunt back. :twisted:

[JesusFightClub]

Reasoning like this is exactly why nurses aren't paid shit. There's always somebody willing to dole out the emotional blackmail ("Oh but isn't your calling worth more than mere money?", etc.) and there's always somebody willing to eat it up.

Sogba put this much better than I could, and yes, they are scabs. If you take the job of a striking worker, you are a scab. You're actively working against their jobs, rights, pay, conditions and pensions. You're harming the cause of your fellow workers for a wee bittie take home pay and yes, you were bought. It's like the punchline to the old (and sexist, unfortunately) joke - "We've established what you are, now we're just haggling about the price."

[browngrl]

[

But here's the thing: a hospital should never put a nurse who refuses to assist in abortions in a job where that's even a possibility, however slim. She shouldn't have been hired for that particular nursing job, IMO. Frankly, I don't think she should have even applied for it if she was opposed to even therapeutic abortion for things like pre-eclampsia, but ultimately I think it was the hospital's bad call to hire her for the OR position the first place.

And the didn't even fire her right away after that--her initial lawsuit three years ago, filed while she was still working there, claimed that they "punished" her by giving her fewer shifts and no overtime. Well, duh.

Anyway, there are nursing specialties where there is no chance of ever having to play the anti-abortion conscientious objector card, and that is where people like her should be working. Period. End of story. No, they usually don't pay as much as the OR does. But every damned day, people make decisions to take less money rather than risk having to compromise their values. Most people I know (at least the ones who are not narcissistic sociopaths) have done that, at one time or another.

One example I can think of straight off the bat is the new pharmacist at the veterinary clinic I use. She's a fundie who didn't like filling prescriptions for birth control or providing Plan B, but who is wise enough to understand that it's not her place to refuse to provide legally-prescribed medications (including Viagra and other boner pills, which she also objects to). So she dispenses meds for animals instead, which pays less--but will never go against her morals.

I think the bulk of responsibility to be in the "right" job rests squarely on the shoulders of the nurse. If anyone has strong religious convictions that prohibit them from doing certain things then DO NOT go into specialities where those things are called for. DO NOT go into emergent specialities where there is not time for debate or time to find a replacement to do the job you won't do. Go into fields like geriatrics. Do a desk job. No abortions there.

As for debating the necessity of the abortion - none of us were there. The legal record reflects the answers everyone gave when lawyered up. They do not reflect what actually happened. There may have been medical reasons that medication was not used. There may have been confounding factors on the mother's or baby's health. We don't know. What we do know is the mother and the doctor taking medical and legal responsibility deemed the abortion necessary. If the nurse refused to participate - she should not be in this field.

[Boltingmadonna]

emmiedahl said:

There is an excellent discussion here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_C ... d_abortion Under the "Discussion about possible justifying circumstances". It has always been controversial, but theological consensus since the 14th century has been overwhelmingly that abortion to save the mother (and some have argued even the mother's reputation) is fine.

Thanks for the link. However, after carefully reading it, I don't find that it supports your original statement. It's true that various theologians have attempted to suggest ways in which abortion to spare a woman's life would be acceptable, but they have always been condemned by the Pope. Further, most of these theological work-arounds were based on the earlier notion that there was a period before God placed a soul in the developing embryo. Thus, if it were eliminated during that time, it wouldn't be the same as abortion, since no human soul was present. Now that human life has been defined by the Pope as existing from the very moment of conception, that gray period doesn't exist.

For those who don't understand how this works, if your idea is condemned by the Pope, that means you are no longer allowed to teach it or speak about it. When the Pope speaks with authority on matters of faith and morals, he is considered to be infallible. That means he can never be wrong. So once he pronounces on something, there is no longer any room for discussion.

From the linked article:

A disapproving letter published in the New York Medical Record in 1895 spoke of the Jesuit Augustine Lehmkuhl as considering craniotomy lawful when used to save the mother's life.[30] The origin of the report was an article in a German medical journal denounced as false in the American Ecclesiastical Review of the same year, which said that, while Lehmkuhl had at an earlier stage of discussion admitted doubts and advanced tentative ideas, he had later adopted a view in full accord with the negative decision pronounced in 1884 and 1889 by the Sacred Penitentiary,[31] which in 1869 had refrained from making a pronouncement.[32] According to Mackler, Lehmkuhl had accepted as a defensible theory the licitness of removing even an animated fetus from the womb as not necessarily killing it, but had rejected direct attacks on the fetus such as craniotomy.[33]

Craniotomy was thus prohibited in 1884 and again in 1889.[31] In 1895 the Holy See excluded the inducing of non-viable premature birth and in 1889 established the principle that any direct killing of either fetus or mother is wrong; in 1902 it ruled out the direct removal of an ectopic embryo to save the mother's life, but did not forbid the removal of the infected fallopian tube, thus causing an indirect abortion.(see below).[32]

In 1930 Pope Pius XI ruled out what he called "the direct murder of the innocent" as a means of saving the mother. And the Second Vatican Council declared: "Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes."[34]

This seems pretty clear. The Pope has ruled that you can't induce labor if the fetus is non-viable, because that is the equivalent of killing it. One of the early means of saving a woman who was dying in a labor where the fetus could not be expelled was to crush its skull to allow it to be removed--craniotomy. The Pope also condemned this. The principle of infallibility means that no future Pope would dare reverse an edict by one of his predecessors, because that would mean admitting he could be wrong. So, in a sense, it doesn't matter who is Pope, because they are all bound by statements of dogma concocted by pre-modern people.

I don't mean to be obnoxious about this, but I keep harping on it because I think it's important for everyone to understand just what kind of crazy we're dealing with when we talk about the Catholic Church. Many intelligent and benevolent people belong to the Church, but the Church itself is a monstrous lumbering dinosaur that is not subject to reason.

[nokidsmom]

This seems pretty clear. The Pope has ruled that you can't induce labor if the fetus is non-viable, because that is the equivalent of killing it. One of the early means of saving a woman who was dying in a labor where the fetus could not be expelled was to crush its skull to allow it to be removed--craniotomy. The Pope also condemned this. The principle of infallibility means that no future Pope would dare reverse an edict by one of his predecessors, because that would mean admitting he could be wrong. So, in a sense, it doesn't matter who is Pope, because they are all bound by statements of dogma concocted by pre-modern people.

I don't mean to be obnoxious about this, but I keep harping on it because I think it's important for everyone to understand just what kind of crazy we're dealing with when we talk about the Catholic Church. Many intelligent and benevolent people belong to the Church, but the Church itself is a monstrous lumbering dinosaur that is not subject to reason.

My sister's first baby was a full-term stillborn. She and BIL went to the nearest hospital when she suddenly stopped feeling movement. It was determined that the baby had died but because it was a Catholic hospital, they would not induce. They had to get back in the car and drive a considerable distance to another hospital that her doctor was affiliated with where she could be induced and delivered. I am not Catholic but I had some respect for their traditions and beliefs, even though I didn't share them, before that. Not any more. Their crazy beliefs can be life threatening to others and I firmly believe they should just get out of healthcare but I don't that isn't going to happen.

ETA: This occurred in 1997.

[deelaem]

Tough times for Catholics who were raised in the strong social justice tradition created by John Paul.

Except for women. Pope-ee has no interest in social justice for women.

[pixydust]

I do not think anyone imagined that a nurse who is against abortions would be against a life-saving emergency abortion. It is so not the same thing, or at least pro-lifers insist it is not the same thing.

The Catholic Church is not against saving a mother's life when the fetus's life is already doomed. I hope the state comes after this nurse and removes her license. A patient could have died because of her.

This. Emmie said what I was trying to come up with in my head. Once again, my girl crush on Emmie is growing.

[nokidsmom]

Except for women. Pope-ee has no interest in social justice for women.

Yes. Even John Paul towed the party line when it came to women's issues.

[Arete]

Sogba put this much better than I could, and yes, they are scabs. If you take the job of a striking worker, you are a scab. You're actively working against their jobs, rights, pay, conditions and pensions. You're harming the cause of your fellow workers for a wee bittie take home pay and yes, you were bought. It's like the punchline to the old (and sexist, unfortunately) joke - "We've established what you are, now we're just haggling about the price."

Yeah, this conversation is familiar. My immediate and extended family all have what I would describe as flexible moral compasses. Meaning that you had to judge a lot of situations on a case-by-case basis. However, on the issue of scabbing, we are more dogmatically rigid than the current Pope. You never do it, EVER,......NEVER. The end. No discussion.

[Mustang Sally]

This is how I feel. There are plenty of hospitals where no elective abortions are performed. There are three huge Catholic hospitals right in my city, come to think of it. I get the conscientious objector exception argument, but disagree that the hospital should allow an exception like that in the first place. When a patient needs help, it should be all hands on deck, no matter a person's personal beliefs. If she or her next of kin signed permission for whatever medical intervention she needed, then everyone should just do their damn job.

I feel the same way about religious pharmacists who don't want to fill scripts for birth control or whatever. No problem - but find a new job. Your rights end where the rights of others begin.

I agree. It's like being a conscientious objector - you have the freedom to object, but you also don't get the job because you cannot perform its requirements due to your ethical choice.

You can't have it both ways.

[Palimpsest]

And there you have it. My friend is very strongly in the social justice tradition and not in favor of any anti-abortion campaigns or retranslating the liturgy. Her local bishop sending money to California in support of Prop 8 is something I don't think she'll ever get over and probably neither will I. There are so many things and I'm sure your husband has a list also.

You folks are making me feel really old! :lol: John Paul II was Pope for so long that I guess he is the only Pope many people remember, but I'm pushing 60 and clearly remember the year of three Popes. I don't think that John Paul II created the strong social justice tradition. That had its roots in the papacy of John XXIII and Paul VI built on it.

Had John Paul I lived for longer than 33 days as Pope, I think we would be seeing a very different church today. He had some fairly radical ideas. :D When he died and JPII took over some of us were deeply disappointed. If anything, John Paul II took a step backwards and was conservative in his approach to social justice issues and Church involvement compared to the good old days of John XXIII and Paul VI.

I find it hard to believe that Joseph Ratzinger is Pope today. For Vatican watchers, his involvement in so many financial scandals, his pursuit and diciplining of so many "dissident" priests over the years, and his involvement in some of JPII's more stringent attacks against the position of women in the church make him a very disappointing choice. Nuns that I know in several different American orders believe that he is now focusing on bringing them back into line. Apparently he sees some of their social justice projects as insubordinate and too activist and wants to put them in their place.