|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
 Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2007 3:58 pm Post subject: Religious Extremists Running Amok in Australian Hospitals |
 |
|
Raped women barred from pill
By Adam Cresswell, The Australian
January 11, 2007 12:00
| Quote: |
SEXUALLY assaulted women who seek help at Catholic-controlled hospitals cannot be referred to rape crisis centres that supply morning-after pills, under church policy.
The policy, spelt out in an 80-page ethics document, has heightened concerns among doctors and rape counsellors about the Catholic Church's growing control of hospitals.
And The Australian reveals today that another fertility centre has been told to move out by the Catholic buyers of the hospital where it is based.
One prominent doctor said she had long been concerned at the church's rape policy, which is contained in an ethics document approved by the Catholic hierarchy in 2001.
The Code of Ethical Standards, compiled by Catholic Health Australia, says direct referral of raped women to centres that offer the morning-after pill "should only occur if reasonable steps have been taken to exclude the likelihood of pregnancy".
Senior Catholic spokesmen defended the policy as a logical and ethical extension of the church's opposition to the morning-after pill, which it considers morally no different to abortion. But Melbourne GP and medical broadcaster Sally Cockburn said she was "blown out of the water" when she read the policy.
"If this is the way their staff are mandated to behave, then I don't believe rape victims should be taken to their hospitals at all," Dr Cockburn said.
"They have no right to make us follow their point of view, and if they're going to be taking over more hospitals, I'm concerned." |
Church denies pill to raped women
The Catholics are taking over more and more Australian hospitals, forcing their religious doctrine on the general population. When are the crazy multicults going to wake up to results of their disasterous 'do-goody' social policies? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2007 4:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I've never, in my entire life, met a member of the church of mulitcult who in any way ever defended any action of any Christian. They worship non-whites, and non-Christians.
The Christians in the story ought to be criticized, and the lunacy of their positions exposed. And nobody ought to be called a racist for doing so. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cbclark4
Joined: 20 Aug 2006
Location: Masan
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2007 4:52 pm Post subject: Re: Religious Extremists Running Amok in Australian Hospital |
|
|
| Big_Bird wrote: |
Raped women barred from pill
By Adam Cresswell, The Australian
January 11, 2007 12:00
| Quote: |
SEXUALLY assaulted women who seek help at Catholic-controlled hospitals cannot be referred to rape crisis centres that supply morning-after pills, under church policy.
The policy, spelt out in an 80-page ethics document, has heightened concerns among doctors and rape counsellors about the Catholic Church's growing control of hospitals.
And The Australian reveals today that another fertility centre has been told to move out by the Catholic buyers of the hospital where it is based.
One prominent doctor said she had long been concerned at the church's rape policy, which is contained in an ethics document approved by the Catholic hierarchy in 2001.
The Code of Ethical Standards, compiled by Catholic Health Australia, says direct referral of raped women to centres that offer the morning-after pill "should only occur if reasonable steps have been taken to exclude the likelihood of pregnancy".
Senior Catholic spokesmen defended the policy as a logical and ethical extension of the church's opposition to the morning-after pill, which it considers morally no different to abortion. But Melbourne GP and medical broadcaster Sally *beep* said she was "blown out of the water" when she read the policy.
"If this is the way their staff are mandated to behave, then I don't believe rape victims should be taken to their hospitals at all," Dr *beep* said.
"They have no right to make us follow their point of view, and if they're going to be taking over more hospitals, I'm concerned." |
Church denies pill to raped women
The Catholics are taking over more and more Australian hospitals, forcing their religious doctrine on the general population. When are the crazy multicults going to wake up to results of their disasterous 'do-goody' social policies? |
It's called choice go to a different hospital.
cbc |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2007 5:11 pm Post subject: Re: Religious Extremists Running Amok in Australian Hospital |
|
|
| cbclark4 wrote: |
| Big_Bird wrote: |
Raped women barred from pill
By Adam Cresswell, The Australian
January 11, 2007 12:00
| Quote: |
SEXUALLY assaulted women who seek help at Catholic-controlled hospitals cannot be referred to rape crisis centres that supply morning-after pills, under church policy.
The policy, spelt out in an 80-page ethics document, has heightened concerns among doctors and rape counsellors about the Catholic Church's growing control of hospitals.
And The Australian reveals today that another fertility centre has been told to move out by the Catholic buyers of the hospital where it is based.
One prominent doctor said she had long been concerned at the church's rape policy, which is contained in an ethics document approved by the Catholic hierarchy in 2001.
The Code of Ethical Standards, compiled by Catholic Health Australia, says direct referral of raped women to centres that offer the morning-after pill "should only occur if reasonable steps have been taken to exclude the likelihood of pregnancy".
Senior Catholic spokesmen defended the policy as a logical and ethical extension of the church's opposition to the morning-after pill, which it considers morally no different to abortion. But Melbourne GP and medical broadcaster Sally *beep* said she was "blown out of the water" when she read the policy.
"If this is the way their staff are mandated to behave, then I don't believe rape victims should be taken to their hospitals at all," Dr *beep* said.
"They have no right to make us follow their point of view, and if they're going to be taking over more hospitals, I'm concerned." |
Church denies pill to raped women
The Catholics are taking over more and more Australian hospitals, forcing their religious doctrine on the general population. When are the crazy multicults going to wake up to results of their disasterous 'do-goody' social policies? |
It's called choice go to a different hospital.
cbc |
Australian cities are not compact like European or Asian cities. Hospitals can be very spaced out. A rape victim is supposed to carefully plan the logistics of getting to an appropriate hospital after she is raped? She is supposed to know exactly which hospital is controlled by who? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pligganease
Joined: 14 Sep 2004
Location: The deep south...
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2007 5:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| That source wrote: |
| SEXUALLY assaulted women who seek help at Catholic-controlled hospitals cannot be referred to rape crisis centres that supply morning-after pills, under church policy. |
| Adam Cresswell wrote: |
| Church denies pill to raped women |
Nice choice of words, Adam Cresswell. The church isn't denying the pill, it is simply not referring them to places where they can get the pill. Can the people go get the pill themselves? Sure. Does this mean the church doesn't have to be a part of something they find to be against their religion? Yep. Is this a case of trying to make Christians look as ignorant and bass-ackwards as Muslims. Indeed.
Last edited by Pligganease on Wed Jan 10, 2007 5:42 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2007 5:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Pligganease wrote: |
| Big_Bird wrote: |
| Church denies pill to raped women |
Nice choice of words, BB. |
No. Not my choice. Did you check the link?
| Adam Cresswell wrote: |
| Church denies pill to raped women |
Also, do you realise that a traumatised rape victim only has a short finite time to get the morning after pill before it is no longer effective? That means that going by your logic she already has to know her options. If she is unfortunate enough to end up in one of these Catholic run operations, and she doesn't know her options, she is buggered. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pligganease
Joined: 14 Sep 2004
Location: The deep south...
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2007 5:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Post corrected.
Still, providing abortions or birth control methods is not the job of a hospital, contrary to what many liberals think. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2007 5:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Pligganease wrote: |
Post corrected.
Still, providing abortions or birth control methods is not the job of a hospital, contrary to what many liberals think. |
No, it is the job of the rape crisis centre to counsel the woman about those options. But the Catholic hospitals are refusing to refer rape victims to any rape crisis centre that will counsel women about the option of taking the morning after pill.
So to get the morning after pill, the traumatised rape victim has to be carefully prepared for her rape, so that when she does get raped, she knows exactly which hospital to attend so she can get the proper counselling in time, in order that she can prevent the rapists baby from implanting itself in her womb. Nice. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pligganease
Joined: 14 Sep 2004
Location: The deep south...
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2007 5:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
She should know. Everyone should know. Everyone does know.
This is a case of what could happen if someone who didn't know went to the hospital looking for the morning after pill after being raped.
Since everyone knows about the rape counselling centers, which they do, this is a non-issue. It's just meant to smear the Catholics. Also, the article said it was a matter of policy. However, it's easy to assume that nurses or doctors still tell the victims where to go. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2007 6:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Pligganease wrote: |
She should know. Everyone should know. Everyone does know.
This is a case of what could happen if someone who didn't know went to the hospital looking for the morning after pill after being raped.
Since everyone knows about the rape counselling centers, which they do, this is a non-issue. It's just meant to smear the Catholics. Also, the article said it was a matter of policy. However, it's easy to assume that nurses or doctors still tell the victims where to go. |
How can you be so sure that everyone does know? I didn't know about the morning after pill (and its time limit) until I was a few years into my adult life. How do you know all the women (as well as young underage rape victims) know that some rape counselling centres will discuss all their options, while others are dominated by religious doctrine and don't? How can you assume that all nurses and doctors will still tell the victims where to go? No doctor or nurse is compelled by religious beliefs? I remember going to a doctor to get the regular pill. It was the nearest doctor to where I lived. I didn't know he was a very religious man (in his case jewish) when I went for my appointment. He wriggled and squirmed in discomfort and tried to talk me out of taking it, and advised just saying "no" until I was married blah blah blah... I was still young enough (though a couple of years past voting age) to feel very surprised and embarrassed at the time. If a medical service is not impartial and secular, this should be made absolutely clear to its potential clients. But it is not.
This is not a non-issue. Can you imagine being a female and then being raped and then discovering to your absolute horror that you were carrying the rapist's baby? A truly horrific scenario.
More and more hospitals are being taken over by religious organisations in Australia. This has serious implications, especially for women (as all religions seem to be quite intent on keeping women under social and sexual control). Many women will not even realise the hospital they are attending is controlled by a religious organisation. They may have some strange and fanciful notion that they live in a fully modern and secular society! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pligganease
Joined: 14 Sep 2004
Location: The deep south...
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2007 6:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Big_Bird wrote: |
| Pligganease wrote: |
She should know. Everyone should know. Everyone does know.
This is a case of what could happen if someone who didn't know went to the hospital looking for the morning after pill after being raped.
Since everyone knows about the rape counselling centers, which they do, this is a non-issue. It's just meant to smear the Catholics. Also, the article said it was a matter of policy. However, it's easy to assume that nurses or doctors still tell the victims where to go. |
How can you be so sure that everyone does know? I didn't know about the morning after pill (and its time limit) until I was a few years into my adult life. How do you know all the women (as well as young underage rape victims) know that some rape counselling centres will discuss all their options, while others are dominated by religious doctrine and don't? How can you assume that all nurses and doctors will still tell the victims where to go? No doctor or nurse is compelled by religious beliefs? I remember going to a doctor to get the regular pill. It was the nearest doctor to where I lived. I didn't know he was a very religious man (in his case jewish) when I went for my appointment. He wriggled and squirmed in discomfort and tried to talk me out of taking it, and advised just saying "no" until I was married blah blah blah... I was still young enough (though a couple of years past voting age) to feel very surprised and embarrassed at the time. If a medical service is not impartial and secular, this should be made absolutely clear to its potential clients. But it is not.
This is not a non-issue. Can you imagine being a female and then being raped and then discovering to your absolute horror that you were carrying the rapist's baby? A truly horrific scenario.
More and more hospitals are being taken over by religious organisations in Australia. This has serious implications, especially for women (as all religions seem to be quite intent on keeping women under social and sexual control). Many women will not even realise the hospital they are attending is controlled by a religious organisation. They may have some strange and fanciful notion that they live in a fully modern and secular society! |
Secularism is secularism. The church is a business. It may suck, but that's the way it is. Don't like the Catholic hospitals? Don't go to them. If you have no choice, tough. That's the way of the world. Maybe Australians should push through legislation that would change these policies, but until then the church has every right to set their own policies according to their own rules.
Now, onto the subject and my assertion that this is a non-issue. It has been the policy for a long time, correct? Show me one example of a rape victim being forced to have the child due to the policies in debate here.
Also, doctors are people, too. They have opinions, and they don't always match your own. Is the pill 100% healthy for you? No. The Jewish doctor had every right to advise you not to take it. Impartiality does not mean that they agree with you. No person is impartial.
As far as the imagining goes... Well, I can list many "Can you imagine..." scenarios with a 0.00000000001% chance of happening that will anger you.
What this article is is a doctor who lost her job being a disgruntled employee and calling the press about a policy the hospitals have in writing that they may never follow. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2007 7:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I suppose as an American, religious fundamentalism is quite normal for you, and you've learnt to live with it. You are also more comfortable with the concept of the health system being very much in the private sector. Coming, myself, from a more secular Europe (and a country where the health service is largely provided by the secular state) I find this issue rather backward and very disturbing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pligganease
Joined: 14 Sep 2004
Location: The deep south...
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2007 7:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Big_Bird wrote: |
| I suppose as an American, religious fundamentalism is quite normal for you, and you've learnt to live with it. |
It isn't religious fundamentalism. I suppose it's "religious fundamentalism" that the Southern Baptists don't own a chain of strip clubs, or own controlling interest in Jack Daniels Distillery. Why don't they? Because it's against what they say they stand for and what their beliefs are.
Most Catholics view abortion in any form or fashion as wrong, and some extreme Catholics view any type of birth control as wrong. They shouldn't have to sponsor what they don't believe in, should they? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2007 8:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Coming, myself, from a more secular Europe |
I'm a little fuzzy on when the Church of England became disestablished. Could you remind me? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2007 9:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I remember the catholic run hospitals in Windsor, Ontario had no pediatrics wards because they wouldn't perform abortions. Government heathcare proscribed a pediatrics ward must offer the full range of legal services or none.
In a public healthcare system, you either have to provide all the legal services, regardless of morals, or suck it up and don't earn public money offering some services and not offering services you're morally uncomfy with. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
