Catholic hospitals and c-section rates

Well the hospital Chaplain visited me during each hospital stay with the
kids at each Navy hospital. I'm not religious *at all* but I thought
that
was kinda neat

Our local hospital has a number of Chaplains: CofE (Episcopalean),
Catholic, as well as a Muslim and Hindu 'chaplain'. The CofE chaplain
visited us twice while Seoras was in NICU and performed his baptism.
Though we are actually CofScotland (Presbyterian) Father Stuart really
helped us a lot.

Megan


I don't know what Navy Chaplains are as such. I know they have ones who
wear a Navy uniform and ones who dress in black with the collar. Cuba had
one of each. I only ever had the ones in the Navy uniform visit me.

Yep the military has Jewish, Muslim, and various other Chaplains.

In ,
Iuil wrote:

*"Hillary Israeli" wrote
*
* OK, wait, I'm confused. Are you saying that when there is an ectopic
* pregnancy, your physicians are required to perform salpingectomy, despite
* the potential impact on future fertility??
*
*
*AFAIK, yes.

OK, so we seem to be on the same page here

*Wouldn't it make more sense to
* use methotrexate in those women who were good candidates for it (since it
* doesn't require invasive surgery), and salpingotomy or fimbrial expression
* rather than salpingectomy in women who met the criteria for those
* procedures, to preserve their fertility???
*
*
*That would mean treatment solely to end the "life" of the embryo, equal to a
*direct abortion.

But, why is that considered to be true? It is NOT "solely" to end the life
of the embryo. Clearly, it is being done to SAVE the life of the MOTHER -
who I imagine much of the time would be devastated at needing such a
procedure, and not INTERESTED in any procedure done solely to end the life
of the embryo unless it were a lifesaving procedure for her.

I understand if you can not explain this to me. I don't expect you to be
able to speak for the entire Church here . I just do not understand
their reasoning and I wonder if maybe you do? I don't expect it to be
LOGICAL - but I did sort of expect there to be some kind of reasoning of
some sort

* I don't really understand why salpingectomy would be preferable to any of
* those other procedures even from a religious or ethical standpoint. The
* end result in any case is the removal of a fetus from the mom's body, so
* what's the problem??
*
*Because removal of a foetus is a direct abortion.

But, salpingectomy IS removal of a fetus - it is removal of a fetus
surrounded by the uterine tube (um, fallopian tube they call it in people
), but it is still removal of the fetus. I guess this is where my
confusion comes in. Is the Church saying "it's ok to remove a tube, and if
by chance there is a fetus inside it, well, we'll just pretend we don't
notice?" Or is there some other reasoning at work?

*I don't claim it's logical, I don't claim that it's medically sound but, to
*the best of my knowledge, that is what is done. And it's done because of RC
*doctrine, as put forward by the bishops of this country during the debates
*surrounding abortion over the past 20+ years.

I understand that and like I said, I don't expect logic per se. I just
expect some sort of (faith based?) reasoning, some kind of explanation
that may not be acceptable to me, but would at least make sense to someone
who believes in all the stuff religious Catholics believe in

Thanks for trying to educate this Church-ignorant Jewish person

--
hillary israeli vmd http://www.hillary.net
"uber vaccae in quattuor partes divisum est."
not-so-newly minted veterinarian-at-large

Hillary Israeli wrote:

* I don't really understand why salpingectomy would be preferable to any of
* those other procedures even from a religious or ethical standpoint. The
* end result in any case is the removal of a fetus from the mom's body, so
* what's the problem??
*
*Because removal of a foetus is a direct abortion.

But, salpingectomy IS removal of a fetus - it is removal of a fetus
surrounded by the uterine tube (um, fallopian tube they call it in people
), but it is still removal of the fetus. I guess this is where my
confusion comes in. Is the Church saying "it's ok to remove a tube, and if
by chance there is a fetus inside it, well, we'll just pretend we don't
notice?" Or is there some other reasoning at work?

It's a distinction I'm having some trouble understanding. You can read a
description he

http://www.geocities.com/seapadre_19...pregnancy.html

(Read the bottom letter by the Brother).

As a Catholic, I've actually never even thought about it (until this thread).

Mary

who believes in all the stuff religious Catholics believe in

Thanks for trying to educate this Church-ignorant Jewish person

--
hillary israeli vmd http://www.hillary.net
"uber vaccae in quattuor partes divisum est."
not-so-newly minted veterinarian-at-large

I'm in a huge rush.
It's called the principle of double effect.
If you google that and/or search catholic sites like EWTN you will get
a good explanation. Better than anything I can hastily type out.

Karen

Erika wrote:

Ericka Kammerer wrote:
... There isn't a guarantee that there will
always be a convenient public hospital for everyone, however.

It is a pity. Good non profit, non religious, health care should be
available to everyone in this world. It shouldn't have to be about
your wallet either.

You won't get any argument from me on that one,
but it's not a perception that tends to go over well in
the US ;-) Of course, with skyrocketing health care
costs that may change one day...
Best wishes, Ericka

You know, in theory, and often in practice, I agree wholeheartedly. The
health care and insurance system in the US right now is horrid and makes
me angry. But sometimes I read what the women from countries with
socialized medicine have to say about the way things don't work so well
for them, and I fear that also. There is no perfect system, I'm sure,
but I am not really sure what the very best non-perfect system would
look like.

--
-- Vicki
Married DH May 21, 1995
Ima shel DS, born 11/16/99; and DD, born 5/19/02.
"Stay-at-home" Ima since October 2002.
An ounce of mother is worth a pound of clergy. -Spanish proverb
I may not currently be pregnant, but I look pregnant, does that count?

Vicki S wrote:


You know, in theory, and often in practice, I agree wholeheartedly. The
health care and insurance system in the US right now is horrid and makes
me angry. But sometimes I read what the women from countries with
socialized medicine have to say about the way things don't work so well
for them, and I fear that also. There is no perfect system, I'm sure,
but I am not really sure what the very best non-perfect system would
look like.


You have to be careful to distinguish, though. "Socialized
medicine" is a bit of a misnomer. There are at least two different
systems involved: singler payer and single provider--and they're
quite different and have different plusses and minuses. It seems
to me pretty much a no brainer that moving to a single payer
system at least eliminates a bunch of costs by removing the
profit taken by the middleman (i.e., the insurers, who are
doing quite well these days, thank you very much). Obviously,
there are economic issues in elminating insurers, but it
would take health care costs down a significant notch.
Whether one takes the next step and goes to a single provider
system is another question all together. Mostly what
people gripe about is that other systems "ration" care.
I figure what's the difference? We *already* ration care
in the US. We just ration based on ability to pay, which
is one of the least desirable approaches, if you're going
to ration care. Obviously, nothing is perfect--I'm not
that naive ;-) But the current system in the US has a
LOT of downsides.

Best wishes,
Ericka