[eyesabove]

It seems we agree in principle but do you have any evidence of the above? It seems like a gross generalisation - religious people don't have the monopoly on caring! But I guess what I meant was that religious organisations shouldn't be involved in the public system (as in the OP) as they have views which might preclude certain services being offered to the public.

Nor do I believe they should be involved in profit-making private enterprise (those greedy churches!), although at least in that case they would have the freedom to offer what they like and people can choose to take it or not. In the public system those without the means don't have any other option and as a PP stated, religion shouldn't come into it.

I certainly wasn't saying that religious people have a monopoly on caring. I simply meant that in reference to the comment PP made about the necessity for medicine to be completely separate from religion - this is a historic relationship - not a modern issue.

The vast majority of 'private' religious-based health and welfare services in Australia run with a non-for-profit format or are part of larger umbrella organisations that do.

I'm confused. Why would teh government award the contract to a health provider if the health provider cannot provide the services that the government has deemed important?

The tender may not have specified the services that are in question here. Tenders generally have a number of specified services and key performance indicators that bidders need to quote on. They are unlikely to included every aspect of provided services.

Without religious-based health care in this country, the government would be forced to raise your taxes even further to provide entirely state-based care.

In relation to the OP - I do not think it is necessary for religious-based services to provide services that go against their moral values, regardless of the available local healthcare - that's not their concern - its a government issue to then provide complementary service alternatives such as a clinic to provide those services that are missing from the hospital services.

[soontobegran]

STBG, I was offered contraceptive advice after giving birth to DD1 at a public hospital. I was refused contraceptive advice after DD2 (like others in this thread) because the "public" hospital is run by an organisation with an anti-contraception agenda. That was denying us reproductive choice and is a completely different scenario to choosing to give birth at a private Catholic hospital.

Clearly different hospitals have different policies and I would advise everyone to ensure they know them before they book into their hospital of birth if possible.
I have only worked in obstetrics in the PUBLIC system, our hospital is a major obstetric hospital which runs under the umbrella of the Catholic church and contraceptive options are discussed and the mini pill IS prescribed.

[hayleymumof3]

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).

Tigerdog was this by any chance Calvery hospital? They did the same thing to me 9 years ago after asking me if there was anything I would like to discuss before I was discharged. I asked how soon would I be able to go on the pill and was told that he wouldn't discuss it with me because it was a Catholic hospital and it was against their religion.

[Mummy Em]

Wow, quite a few women in this thread reporting that they were denied contraceptive advice after birth in a Catholic-run public hospital.

They are not denied reproductive choice?
They choose to deliver in a Catholic institution with the knowledge that they will not be offered some types of contraception. They simply take control of their contraception on discharge.

It does complicate things a bit, though, if you can't go to your local public hospital. This hospital is in an area where there is another public hospital 20 mins away. It is also in a very low socio-economic area, and on the edge of a rural district. The hospital this one is replacing is now my local hospital.

When I got pregnant with dd2 I was living in a different area and we shifted house toward the end of my pregnancy, but having met my OB and midwives I stuck with the other hospital. It wasn't until I was discharged after my c/s that I realised that I wasn't going to be offered visits by the home visitting midwives because I had moved out of the catchment. I possibly could have made a fuss and got them to organise something with the other hospital, I didn't bother because I was feeling confident. But what about other women who might not feel as confident advocating for themselves? What if going to a different hospital puts them outside of the catchment for follow-up services? And what if transport is an issue for them, or their family?

I'm not sure what the answer is, but I think having people go outside of their area for healthcare is less than ideal.

[PatG]

Am I right in thinking that all those who ran into the doctors who wouldn't discuss contraception post delivery were in Canberra? Perhaps it is a very localised (e.g. one hospital - although if one, probably another somewhere too) issue, and that most under the catholic umbrella are more likely to be as described by STBG.

I think that if the organisation is granted the tender and provides the services as required under the agreement then they can do what they like otherwise. So it becomes a tender allocation issue - perhaps the tender should have gone to a different organisation. As a PP said, not all hospitals offer the same services, regardless of who runs them. I know of hospitals which have no maternity or children's services - you have to go somewhere else if your child may need to be admitted or you might give birth soon.

[soontobegran]

I'm not sure what the answer is, but I think having people go outside of their area for healthcare is less than ideal.

Honestly I don't think too many of us in Australia should complain about the availablity and quality of our healthcare when in some countries women are walking for days in labour to get to their local hospital. We are brilliantly catered for in the majority of cases but just sometimes that will mean travelling a few kilometres to another facility to access a certain procedure.
As I said previously, choosing to live remotely does present problems which are not in anyway avoidable but the rest of us don't really have to travel too far for excellent free healthcare.
I did not deliver in a hospital in my area, many surgeries that family members have involved going to hospitals out of our area, it is impossible for every area to have a facility that provides absolutely every possible service available.


EFS

This post has been edited by soontobegran: 14/04/2012, 03:40 PM

[Jenflea]

I gave birth in a PRIVATE Catholic run hospital 2 years ago and was given contraceptive advice. The hospital is run by the same group who run Calvary (which has public and private patients).
Though my IVF clinic had to leave the grounds when the group took over a few years beforehand.

[Saecularis Angel...]

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

I think it is perfectly reasonable for an institution to refuse to perform certain procedures or prescribe some substances - IF they are prepared to refer you on to someone who may if you so desire. If they refuse the procedure/prescription, AND refuse you a referral, to my mind that is an abuse of power. The question of whether the government has awarded the tender reasonably, to my mind, hinges on the question of whether services to which people might be referred are reasonably accessible.

I don't believe in religious organisations deviating into healthcare and other non-related service areas anyway.

It's non-related from one perspective, but caring for people is, from another perspective, the Church's core business. I don't think it can be dismissed so easily.

It seems we agree in principle but do you have any evidence of the above?

This was asking about public healthcare having religious roots. The first public healthcare was that given at the temples of Asclepius, the Greek god of healing. As religious forms have shifted, the churches took over that role, and a great deal of health care was done from monasteries (you may have heard of the order of the Knights Hospitaller). In time, it was easier to have them in separate buildings, eventually governments (often pushed by churches!) got involved, and the rest is history...

They don't do terminations at all,in any circumstance, as far as I know.

Not quite correct. There's an ethical principle called the law of double effect. It says that you can't do something bad for its own sake. But if something bad results because you're doing something good which is more important, that's permissible. (So, abortion to save the mother's life becomes permissible). But abortion for reasons which would be considered less weighty would not be.

[PatG]

STBG - I'm trying to imagine Australia if everyone who lived more than "a few kilometers" from another hospital which provided required services stopped "choosing' to live more than those "few Kilometers" away and moved closer.....

I know you were making a point in comparison to much much less fortunate places in the world but you did seem to over simplify issues faced by rural Australians.

[Jane Jetson]

Clearly different hospitals have different policies and I would advise everyone to ensure they know them before they book into their hospital of birth if possible.

And that's fine where there is genuine choice. In my case I'd heard rumours that the Northside public hospital did not offer contraceptive advice, and chose them anyway because I figured the Canberra Hospital was a bit far away for comfort. I was still kind of taken aback when I was refused advice even though I'd half expected it, as it seemed so out of place given the excellent care I'd otherwise received. If TCH had not existed or been much further away, I would have had no real choice.

People who live in rural and remote areas still need access to reproductive choice and particularly given that there are already significant restrictions for some people (socio-economic, cultural, distance, lack of anonymity in small towns) further restricting choice on other peoples' religious grounds is not helpful, particularly when we're talking about the possibility of emergency contraception not being offered by some hospitals.

Edited to explain myself properly.

This post has been edited by gingermeg: 14/04/2012, 03:57 PM