Posted on 05/30/2010 11:48:20 AM PDT by narses
Please remember our soldiers, sailors and airmen who have given their lives to protect our freedom.
And may the Lord bless and protect you and your family on this Memorial Day.
"Gualberto Garcia Jones was born in Spain and emigrated to the United States as a child. He graduated with honors from the University of Wisconsin with a double major in history and political science. After clerking for a Denver District Court judge, he attended The George Washington University Law School. After graduation from law school, he became the Director of Legislative Analysis at the American Life League. Gualberto is a veteran of the 2006 campaign to outlaw abortion in South Dakota, and the 2008 Personhood Amendment in Colorado. During the 2008 Personhood Amendment campaign Gualberto founded the group Colorado Catholics for Personhood, which he still operates.
Gualberto is also the founder and Director of Personhood Education, a non-profit organization that is dedicated to the education of the general public regarding the personhood of all human beings. In 2009, Gualberto became the Director of Personhood Colorado, a group supporting the 2010 Colorado Personhood Amendment. He is also the legal analyst for Personhood USA."
If you have a problem with the Catholic Church, that is certainly your right. However, I wonder why you fail to acknowledge that the Catholic Church has been consistently on the side of life.
If you have a problem with a Catholic hospital allowing a doctor who performs abortions to have hospital privileges, I have already agreed with you. However, based on state laws it may not be as easy as we would like for hospitals to revoke privileges.
My real problem is your insinuation that I am somehow defending this hospital, because that is an utter FALSEHOOD. If you read my posting history, you will find that I consistently come down on the side of life regardless of a person's or institution's religious affiliations.
It is because the Catholic Church has been consistently on the the side of life that I comment. What? You think history automatically translates into the future, no matter what the current generation tolerates?
...I consistently come down on the side of life regardless of a person's or institution's religious affiliations.
I'm not challenging your track record. I'm challenging your current framing on this thread. That's it.
You want to define favoring sanctity-of-life by yours -- and by the Catholic Church's track record. I say, "that's all well and good...and perhaps great." But I'm not commenting on the grass already grown under our feet. I'm commenting on the caretaking of the lawn now. (And that's not the best lawn fertilizer you could be using)
Do we really think that what was done in the past automatically translates into caretaking for each new pre-born currently in the womb?
All I'm advising you is, "Hey, watch your language and your arguments on this thread."
Illustration: About 20 years ago, state legislators started considering passing fetal pain bills. All well & good. But if those legislators weren't careful in how they framed things, they would make it sound like abortion was "OK" on those pre-borns too young to feel pain. Those legislators were "pro-life." But even solid pro-life advocates, when commenting on these things (parental consent bills would be another example), can fall into sounding like some pre-borns are "fair game."
* Fetal pain gestationally aged pre-borns, no; younger than that, yes? (Well of course not, but lack of care in discussing this could imply that)
* Parental consent babies fair game? (Of course not, but some pro-lifers have come across sounding like if grandma says it's "OK," then it's OK)
* Pre-borns in Catholic hospitals no; but pre-borns "attended" to by exact same abortionist outside those hospital boundaries, yes? (Of course not, but your arguments make it sound like the geographical distinctions you are making are key points to distinguish; I would say that if we're looking at this from the angle of the pre-born being "attended" to by this abortionist, the baby would make no such false distinction)
Bottom line: This RC hospital is "upping" the reputation of this abortionist as being deemed as a "healer" by his very presence at this facility. There are women whose trust level in his recommendations are falsely raised because of his association with it.
So, are you more interested in defending the hospital or in defending pre-borns on this thread?
You could help answer that by lowering the defensiveness of yourself and this hospital and raising the defensiveness of the pre-borns at risk to this butcher.
...a doctor who performs abortions...
Abortions aren't "performances" and abortionists aren't real "doctors."
Which argument have I made on this thread that you disagree with?
I have stated that the abortionist has not murdered babies in this hospital. That is a statement of FACT.
I have stated that the hospital MAY NOT be able to revoke privileges simply because he is an abortionist. That is a statement of FACT.
I have stated that there is no indication that the hospital in any way supports the abortions. That is a statement of FACT.
So, are you more interested in defending the hospital or in defending pre-borns on this thread?
In which post have I in any way defended the hospital?
There is no one on this site who is more pro-life than wagglebee, on this or any other thread. Why you have chosen to direct this post at him is a complete mystery to me.
Answer: this DOES NOT mean that the hospital is accommodating abortions [Post #109]
#1 They are accommodating an abortionist, which = accommodating the abortion industry.
#2 We both know when a hospital extends privileges, there's a fair amount that goes with that...access to hospital computer systems; sometimes personnel; etc. ... they all carry on what they do in their offices on the go...which includes arranging for "procedures"
Which argument have I made on this thread that you disagree with?
That there's no accountability process re: abortionists under this hospital's privilege umbrella.
I have stated that the hospital MAY NOT be able to revoke privileges simply because he is an abortionist. That is a statement of FACT.
see articles below: P>Date: May 19, 2010:
* Source: Nun excommunicated, loses hospital post over decision on abortion
* Source: Hospital nun rebuked for allowing abortion in Phoenix
#1: As you read these articles, note that this woman wasn't just a nun but a hospital administrator [so I'm not referencing the "ex-communication" part]
Here's the article excerpts:
Catholic News Service:
PHOENIX (CNS) -- A nun who concurred in an ethics committee's decision to abort the child of a gravely ill woman at a Phoenix hospital was "automatically excommunicated by that action," according to Bishop Thomas J. Olmsted of Phoenix.
Mercy Sister Margaret Mary McBride also was reassigned from her position as vice president of mission integration at St. Joseph's Hospital and Medical Center in Phoenix after news surfaced about the abortion that took place late last year. The hospital did not say what her new job would be.
The patient, who has not been identified, was 11 weeks pregnant and suffering from pulmonary hypertension, a condition that the hospital said carried a near-certain risk of death for the mother if the pregnancy continued.
"If there had been a way to save the pregnancy and still prevent the death of the mother, we would have done it. We are convinced there was not," said a May 17 letter to Bishop Olmsted from top officials at Catholic Healthcare West, the San Francisco-based health system to which St. Joseph's belongs.
But the bishop said in a May 14 statement that "the direct killing of an unborn child is always immoral, no matter the circumstances, and it cannot be permitted in any institution that claims to be authentically Catholic."
"We always must remember that when a difficult medical situation involves a pregnant woman, there are two patients in need of treatment and care, not merely one," Bishop Olmsted said. "The unborn child's life is just as sacred as the mother's life, and neither life can be preferred over the other."
Sister Margaret, who has declined to comment on the controversy, was on an ethics committee that was called to decide whether doctors could perform an abortion to save the mother's life. Catholic institutions are guided in making such decisions by the "Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services."
USA Today/AP:
PHOENIX (AP) A nun and administrator at a Catholic hospital in Phoenix has been reassigned and rebuked by the local bishop for agreeing that a severely ill woman needed an abortion to survive.
Sister Margaret McBride was on an ethics committee that included doctors that consulted with a young woman who was 11 weeks pregnant late last year, The Arizona Republic newspaper reported on its website Saturday. The woman was suffering from a life-threatening condition that likely would have caused her death if she hadn't had the abortion at St. Joseph's Hospital and Medical Center.
Hospital officials defended McBride's actions but confirmed that she has been reassigned from her job as vice president of mission integration at the hospital. They said in a statement that saving the mother required that the fetus be aborted.
"In this tragic case, the treatment necessary to save the mother's life required the termination of an 11-week pregnancy," hospital vice president Susan Pfister said in an e-mail to the newspaper. She said the facility owned by Catholic Healthcare West adheres to the Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services but that the directives do not answer all questions.
Bishop Thomas J. Olmsted, head of the Phoenix Diocese, indicated in a statement that the Roman Catholic involved was "automatically excommunicated" because of the action. The Catholic Church allows the termination of a pregnancy only as a secondary effect of other treatments, such as radiation of a cancerous
LOL, do you think that's what I'm trying to do?
you don't know crap about me. I'm offended at the thought.
I agree. What they ARE NOT accommodating is abortion.
#2 We both know when a hospital extends privileges, there's a fair amount that goes with that...access to hospital computer systems; sometimes personnel; etc. ... they all carry on what they do in their offices on the go...which includes arranging for "procedures"
Giving hospital privileges DOES NOT mean that an office is provided and there is NOTHING in the story to lead one to believe that hospital computers or personnel are facilitating abortions.
I asked:
Which argument have I made on this thread that you disagree with?
To which you responded:
That there's no accountability process re: abortionists under this hospital's privilege umbrella.
Where have I made this argument?
At NO TIME have I suggested that the abortionist should have hospital privileges. I have simply pointed out that revoking them MAY NOT be as simple as it appears and I have also stated that there is NOTHING to suggest that the hospital has been used for abortion. So, you statement is meaningless, though I will commend you for dropping your insinuation that I'm not pro-life.
#1: As you read these articles, note that this woman wasn't just a nun but a hospital administrator [so I'm not referencing the "ex-communication" part]
Firing a hospital administrator is totally different from removing a doctor's privileges.
Do you have ANYTHING that says that a Colorado hospital can remove privileges when no laws are broken or malpractice isn't involved.
Do you have ANYTHING that says they can't?
Hospitals have been known to withdraw hospital privileges.
My understanding from other states is that such people can request hearings when denied privileges. (see below)
I did a quick search, & can get to additional research later...but there was a case making its way to CA Supreme Ct: Gil Mileikowsky v. West Hills Hospital and Medical Center
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA GIL N. MILEIKOWSKY, ) ) Plaintiff and Appellant, ) ) S156986 v. ) ) Ct.App. 2/8 B186238 WEST HILLS HOSPITAL AND ) MEDICAL CENTER et al., ) ) Los Angeles County Defendants and Respondents. ) Super. Ct. No. BS091943 )
Californias statutory peer review process, Business and Professions Code section 809 et seq., provides a physician with the right to a hearing for the purpose of reviewing a hospital peer review committees recommendation to deny the physicians application for reappointment to staff privileges. A hearing officer may be appointed to preside at the hearing, but the officer is prohibited by statute from acting as a prosecutor or advocate or from voting on the merits. (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 809.2, subd. (b).) The merits are determined by the trier of fact, often a panel drawn from other of the physicians peers. (Id., subd. (a).) We conclude the hearing officer lacks authority to prevent a reviewing panel from reviewing the case by dismissing it on his or her own initiative before the hearing has been convened, and also lacks authority to terminate the hearing after it has been convened without first securing the approval of the reviewing panel. We therefore will affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeal.
BACKGROUND
Dr. Gil N. Mileikowsky is a physician and surgeon board certified in obstetrics and gynecology. He had staff privileges to practice gynecology at West Hills Hospital and Medical Center (West Hills), an acute care facility. In May 2001, Dr. Mileikowsky applied for obstetrical privileges at West Hills and for renewal of his gynecological privileges. His applications were reviewed by a peer review committee, which recommended denial.
Source: http://lawzilla.com/blog/2009/08/03/gil-mileikowsky-v-west-hills-hospital-and-medical-center/
Refusal to renew IS NOT the same as revocation. Additionally this is talking about peer review which is not the same as the hospital administration.
I would love to be able to hammer this hospital on this, please let me know if you find something saying that the hospital can revoke privileges on religious grounds (and, unfortunately, that is all they have).
I love that attitude. I'll see what I can find & let ya know.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.