by Thomas Lifson
Denying thousands of patients access to U.C. health care provider in the name of "anti-discrimination."
Hospitals and individual physicians that refuse to commit abortion, assisted suicide, genital mutilation in the name of "sex change," and certain other practices seem to enrage those who have no ethical qualms about such practices. It is not enough for the critics to affirm their own lack of moral scruples; they want to bully those who object to those practices into submission and active affirmation. Or else, suffer punishments...from taxpayer-funded organizations.
The Catholic News Agency reports:
The regents of the University of California have advanced a proposal that could end longtime partnerships with Catholic hospitals, as well as with other hospitals whose ethics bar participation in assisted suicide, abortion or transgender-affirmative care.
St. Mary's Medical Center in San Francisco, one of the many hospitals that would be punished.
The partnerships at issue allow physicians to do their residencies (a very important part of medical training) at hospitals.
The University of California Board of Regents chairman John Perez successfully included an amendment to a proposed policy that would push out University of California-partnered hospitals through "policy-based restrictions" on health care by 2023, the Sacramento Bee reported.
The policies in question are ethical policies related to prohibitions on abortion procedures, assisted suicide, in vitro fertilization, "gender-affirming care" for self-identified transgender people, and "end of life services," a euphemism for assisted suicide. (snip)
The proposed changes appear to target the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops' Ethical and Religious Directives, last revised in 2018, which aim to ensure ethical treatment at Catholic hospitals.
Other amendments proposed by Perez say partner hospitals must provide procedures to all people on a non-discriminatory basis, and must provide emergency services when transferring a patient to another facility would be detrimental to them.
It is unclear how broad the non-discrimination proposal will be, but some advocates contend that failure of hospitals to provide abortion discriminates against women, and failure to provide "sex change" surgery discriminates against the self-identified transgender population.
The move is not final:
The board of regents approved Perez's amendments to the proposed policy on June 23. It has 60 days to consider the proposal and make a final determination.
And the proposal does recognize that the bullying would reduce the care available to patients in areas with limited facilities (emphasis added):
"The university recognizes that such restrictions limit services for women, LBGTQ+ people, and those facing death, and therefore are not aligned with UC values," said the proposal. "However, affiliations with organizations that have adopted such policies provide thousands of patients with access to (UC health) providers they would not otherwise encounter, thus expanding clinical access, and make available opportunities for critical educational rotations that the university is unable to offer on its own."
And the president of the U.C. system (a physician) recognizes the downside:
University of California president Michael Drake has urged the regents to preserve the hospital partnerships, because they help provide mutual access for University of California Healthcare and people in more rural locations distant from the chain's medical centers. In Merced, the site of a University of California campus, the Catholic-run Dignity Health system operates the only hospital.
But to advocates of the bullying, the real cost to patients matters not at all. The key issue is "discrimination" (that is, the refusal to provide services that violate the individual or institutional consciences). See this column by a Los Angeles Times business writer, titled, "UC regents push back, finally, against Catholic healthcare restrictions." The column does not contain the word "moral" or "morality."
Many in the UC community considered any such restriction to be an infringement on "the university's commitment to provide treatment based on the best scientific information available," as the UC Academic Senate observed in a May 11 letter to UC President Michael V. Drake, a physician. "It goes against the university's obligation ... not to discriminate against any individuals," the letter said.
Even if the U.C. regents fail to approve the bullying, the state Legislature may act.
The board of regents' proposal echoes a proposal in the state legislature from State Sen. Scott Weiner, D-San Francisco. His Equitable and Inclusive University of California Healthcare Act, S.B. 379, would require the University of California health system to renegotiate agreements with Catholic hospitals. The hospitals would be forced to allow their staff to provide all care deemed medically necessary, or to end their links to the state university medical system.
Co-sponsors of the legislation include the ACLU of California, NARAL Pro-Choice California, and Equality California.
Compelling doctors and hospitals to violate their consciences and compelling religious institutions to violate their theology is totalitarian.
Photo credit: St. Mary's Medical Center.
Thomas Lifson
Source: https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2021/06/university_of_california_moves_toward_bullying_hospitals_into_violating_their_religious_moral_and_ethical_codes.html
No comments:
Post a Comment