[Mummy Em]

http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/wa/13...oing-male-snip/

SJGHC is the preferred operator of the planned $360 million Midland Health
Campus, which will have 367 public and private beds when it opens in 2015. It
said yesterday it could not comment on what services would be provided until
negotiations with the State Government were finalised.

But a spokeswoman for
the North Metropolitan Area Health Service said if a contract was reached with
the health group, it was expected services such pregnancy terminations,
sterilisation and contraception procedures would not be provided at the
hospital.

What do you think, should religious organisations running public hospital services be permitted to not offer certain services, as per their religious views?

This post has been edited by Mummy Em: 14/04/2012, 12:20 PM

[TherophosaBlondi]

No.

If they are accepting public funding then they should offer services that the public may want. After all, an early induction under so many weeks would be classed as a pregnancy termination would it not ? Surely an emergency hysterectomy would be classed as sterilisation? Even a voluntary hysterectomy?

There is a difference between not offering because you don't have the facilities and not offering because you don't think they should happen at all.

[eyesabove]

Yes. They aren't pretending that they are going to and then refuse the service. I figure if they come right out and say it, then so be it.

An Islamic, Greek Orthodox, or Jewish school wouldn't suffer a teacher suddenly teaching from the Anglican Prayer book. I don't see how a hospital service administered by a religious group is any different to a hospital. The doctor agreed not to perform those kinds of surgeries when taking the job. If they didn't want to uphold those ideals, then work in a different hospital.

[Guest_tigerdog_*]

In a word, no. But I guess it depends what was in the tender (if a tender process was used) - obviously if they've won the contract they have the means to provide all the services required under the contract. I don't believe in religious organisations deviating into healthcare and other non-related service areas anyway.

When I was at one of the public hospitals in Canberra having my last baby the doctor refused to discuss contraception with me as he wasn't allowed to as the hospital is run by a Catholic organisation (in my books this constituted neglect of the hospital's duty of care to myself as the patient).

[Jemstar]

When they are a private enterprise, they can yes (even though I think it's ridiculous).

However, given that this is a public hospital for all intents and purposes I think it really muddies the waters. When it comes to public health I don't think religion should come into it, so I think these services should be offered at the hospital.

[Jemstar]

Yes. They aren't pretending that they are going to and then refuse the service. I figure if they come right out and say it, then so be it.

An Islamic, Greek Orthodox, or Jewish school wouldn't suffer a teacher suddenly teaching from the Anglican Prayer book. I don't see how a hospital service administered by a religious group is any different to a hospital. The doctor agreed not to perform those kinds of surgeries when taking the job. If they didn't want to uphold those ideals, then work in a different hospital.

It's different because the situation of the schools you refer to are private enterprise, as are private hospitals, the hospital in question here though is a public hospital being run by private enterprise with government money, healthcare for all, equality and all that.

This post has been edited by Jemstar: 14/04/2012, 12:31 PM

[LynnyP]

I think a religious organisation should be able to do what they wish within the boundaries of their religion.

I also think that there should be minimum requirements to be eligible for geting Medicare money and one of those should be conception/termination services.

[soontobegran]

Whilst I don't have to agree with their stance they of course have a right to decide what services they will provide. Same as religious schools are within their rights to insist on teaching scripture to it's pupils.

There are always other institutions which will perform these procedures and IME they will always refer on.

[eyesabove]

In a word, no. But I guess it depends what was in the tender (if a tender process was used) - obviously if they've won the contract they have the means to provide all the services required under the contract. I don't believe in religious organisations deviating into healthcare and other non-related service areas anyway.

The concept of public healthcare was introduced to modern society by religious people. Today's religion-in-health-care simply mirrors what the major world religions have always taught about caring for others. The issue here is funding. If the services they are refusing to offer were specified in the tender they wouldn't have won it.

It's different because the situation of the schools you refer to are private enterprise, as are private hospitals, the hospital in question here though is a public hospital being run by private enterprise with government money, healthcare for all, equality and all that.

True, however all of these schools also receive public funding, as to private hospitals.

[LynnyP]

Religious schools can teach scripture and get public funding but they can't refuse to teach science and get public funding.