- Joined
- Nov 12, 2013
- Messages
- 4,597
- Reaction score
- 6,126
- Location
- Atheist Utopia aka Reality
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Mercy Health Partners is part of Trinity Health, a Catholic-run medical group that prohibits abortion in its hospitals.
Tamesha Means lawsuit: Catholic hospital 'forced miscarrying woman to deliver 18-week fetus' | Mail Online
[h=1]Catholic hospital 'risked woman's life by forcing her to deliver 18-week fetus that had no chance of survival' because of no abortion policy.[/h]
- Tamesha Means, 30, of Muskegon, Michigan, filed a lawsuit Friday against the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops
- It claims Means, then 27 and a mother-of-two, visited the hospital - the only one in her county - three times after her water broke five months early
- She says she was told to go home before she miscarried on the third visit and was forced to deliver the 18 week fetus feet-first
Shades of the debacle in Ireland where the woman died.
I don't know why people are all flustered about the possible imposition of sharia law when there is a christian version just as bad and already in place.
Go to a different hospital. If she had time to go to the same one 3 times, she had time to go elsewheres.
There is more to this story. They would have probably transfered her by ambulance or at least told her to go to the nearest hospital. Fishy story.
They sent her home 3 times! I don't think their rules even allow them to transfer a patient for an abortion and they never told her she should have an abortion in the first place!!!!!!
I forgot about this but...My wife did clinicals at a Catholic hospital and was talking to a patient that I cant remember the exact story, but had some sort of problem with pregnancy that recommending birth contorl would have generally been good advice. My wife had to finish clinicals somewhere else, they threw her out. I look forward to finding out more in this thread.
and yet you liked Fisher's reply. I am confused. Did anyone actually read the article or do you respond based on the headline only?:doh
maybe I have misunderstood about this like thing. I "like" peoples posts for many reasons other than I completely agree with them. But in this case she should have gone to a different hospital. I read it again, what am I missing?
Why would she go to another hospital?
She went to the hospital. They didn't tell her that her life was in danger. They didn't tell her that the safest thing to do was to abort the fetus. They examined her. They gave her medicine.
What reason would she have to go somewhere else?
Her water broke, she should know...OB aint my thing but I would know to get a second opinion.
Ahh, I see! Even though the doctors did not give her any indication that she should see someone else, she should have assumed she knew better than the doctors!! :roll:
Wow Really?
They never told her that the was no chance the fetus would survive. If they had told her that and that their policy is no abortions, she could have made that choice. The doctors have an obligation to her first and foremost. Do no harm and they almost killed her.
Everyone seems to be missing the fact that this hospital was the only hospital in her entire county. I'm sure someone will decide that she *should* have driven how ever many miles it took to go to another hospital in another county (even though many public hospitals require people to be a resident of the county), and if she didn't have a car she *should* have hopped on a bus for XX number of hours with her water running down her leg and labor pains starting, and if there was no bus service available she *should* have simply gone home like the hospital said and waited for god to either (a) deliver her stillborn child or (b) kill them both.
Bottom line, this hospital violated the sanctity of the "do no harm" premise by refusing to properly care for a woman who was in obvious distress, and not making arrangements for her to get the care she so desperately needed when they themselves refused to provide it. There's no freaking excuse for this. None.
She had two other kids so she knew that when her water broke and she went the first time that there was no turning back. So wow, yes, really. The doctors do not have an obligation to do whatever she tells them to do. She wanted an abortion and did not get one. That she had to deliver the baby would not have changed anything about the situation other than the she had to confront it.
I agree that the Dr's do not have an obligation to do what she says, but they do have the obligation to inform her of the danger she is in.
She is suing them because they wouldn't giver her an abortion and that they didn't tell her that the baby wouldn't survive? Do you not see an obvious conflict between her positions? Do you think the baby would have survived the abortion? Do you think she didn't know what was going on after having had two kids that her water broke 5 months early?
She is looking for a lottery ticket.
Tamesha rushed to Mercy Health Partners in Muskegon, Michigan, when her water broke after only 18 weeks of pregnancy. Based on the bishops' religious directives, the hospital sent her home twice even though Tamesha was in excruciating pain; there was virtually no chance that her pregnancy could survive, and continuing the pregnancy posed significant risks to her health.
Because of its Catholic affiliation and binding directives, the hospital told Tamesha that there was nothing it could do and did not tell Tamesha that terminating her pregnancy was an option and the safest course for her condition. When Tamesha returned to the hospital a third time in extreme distress and with an infection, the hospital once again prepared to send her home. While staff prepared her discharge paperwork, she began to deliver. Only then did the hospital begin tending to Tamesha's miscarriage.
The directives prohibit a pre-viability pregnancy termination, even when there is little or no chance that the fetus will survive, and the life or health of a pregnant woman is at risk.
They also direct health care providers not to inform patients about alternatives inconsistent with those directives even when those alternatives are the best option for the patient's health.
The lawsuit charges that, because of the directives, the USCCB is ultimately responsible for the unnecessary trauma and harm that Tamesha and other pregnant women in similar situations have experienced at Catholic-sponsored hospitals.
Additional Resources
Tamesha’s story is not unique to learn more about other women impacted by the Ethical and Religious Directives. Learn More:
Religious Hospitals and Primary Care Physicians: Conflicts over Policies for Patient Care, Journal of General Internal Medicine
Below The Radar: Religious Refusals to Treat Pregnancy Complications Put Women in Danger, National Women’s Law Center
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?