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 )
California’s 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 committee’s recommendation to deny the physician’s 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 physician’s 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/