Replies

Ike confused woman, Jionni Conforti, ended up being surgically mutilated 3 months later, of course at a different hospital. She decided to sue the Catholic hospital for big bucks for the “humiliation” of being refused “transgender care”.

I think she knew perfectly well that it is forbidden by Catholic Health Ethics (and every “ETHICS” rooted in physical reality) to intentionally maim a patient. That means deliberately removing or impairing a limb, organ or system, destroying the normal function, if said organ is not diseased, cancerous or whatever.

Doesn’t matter if it’s a sex organ or an eye, leg, ear or any other organ. Doesn’t matter if its a male or a female. Doesn’t matter if they asked you to do it.

Catholic hospitals do not “maim on demand”.

A normal, observant Catholic would rather be fined or be imprisoned than to cooperate in any way with mutilating a mentally disturbed patient.

The patient intentionally targeted this particular hospital because she is severely anti-reality, severely anti-Catholic, severely greedy for big bucks, or all of the above.

You beat me to it.

Let’s say I’m a surgeon (of any religion or no religion) and somebody suffering from the disorder known as ‘apotemnophilia’ (an overriding desire to amputate a specific limb which is fully-functional) demands that I carry out the procedure. Can this person sue me because I refuse to mutilate him, whatever his feelings may or may not be? Totally insane, and just another reason why ethical individuals will be steered away from serious careers.

*I think she knew perfectly well that it is forbidden by Catholic Health Ethics (and every “ETHICS” rooted in physical reality) to intentionally maim a patient. That means deliberately removing or impairing a limb, organ or system, destroying the normal function, if said organ is not diseased, cancerous or whatever. Doesn’t matter if it’s a sex organ or an eye, leg, ear or any other organ. Doesn’t matter if its a male or a female. Doesn’t matter if they asked you to do it. Catholic hospitals do not “maim on demand”.* Great post. You mentioned "I think she knew perfectly well that it is forbidden by Catholic Health Ethics (and every “ETHICS” rooted in physical reality) to intentionally maim a patient. Doesn't the Hippocratic oath concur with Catholic Health Ethics? Primum non nocere

“I think she knew perfectly well that it is forbidden by Catholic Health Ethics (and every “ETHICS” rooted in physical reality) to intentionally maim a patient.”

Absolutely correct! It’s part of the oath coined by a rather famous pagan Greek doctor known as Hippocrates! ;)

The patient intentionally targeted this particular hospital because she is severely anti-reality, severely anti-Catholic, severely greedy for big bucks, or all of the above.

I agree. I'm absolutely convinced that it's intentional in EVERY. SINGLE. LAST. case of lawsuits brought against Christian religions, whether it's bakers baking a cake, a Catholic or Christian school, or a Catholic hospital.

Whatever.

I am sure it is ALWAYS a set up.