Monday, August 24, 2009
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Church Won’t Be Part Of “Unhealthy Care”
PHOENIX ( CNA) — “ Healthcare reform is a good thing,” New York Archbishop Timothy Dolan told Catholic News Agency (CNA) during an August 5 interview in Phoenix, where he was attending the annual Knights of Columbus gathering. However, if it “ leads to the destruction of life, then we say it’s no longer health care at all — it’s unhealthy care and we can’t be part of that.”
Responding to a question about the Catholic Church’s view on health-care reform, Archbishop Dolan explained to CNA that the Church regards health-care reform as a good thing. “ The Catholic Church has been saying that for a long time,” he said, adding that our human dignity “ means that one has access to quality affordable first- rate health care.”
“That having been said, the devil is in the details,” he warned. While the Church agrees on the “ what,” namely, “ on the reform and renewed, reinvigorated health care,” it has some things to say on how it is carried out.
The archbishop of New York affirmed that the first thing that needs to be said is that “ every health- care system exists only to serve human life, not the other way around.”
“ Human life is not some commodity, some customer, some cog that is at the service of a bigger system or some bureaucratic network,” but rather, it is “ the end in itself and health care is how it is protected.” If health care begins to lead to the “ destruction of human life” through avenues such as abortion, end of life care, or the discarding of human embryos, then “ we say it’s no longer health care at all.” “It’s unhealthy care and we can’t be part of that,” Archbishop Dolan stated.
While some people question the Church’s involvement in the debate surrounding health- care reform, Dolan insisted that the Church should have a voice in the debate “ because nearly one out of every five patients in the United States who is in a hospital is under the embrace of the Church in a Catholic health- care network.”
“So please listen to us because we’ve been in this business a heck of a long time,” he said, recalling that members of the Catholic Church were the ones who “ opened up the first clinics, hospitals, and health- care networks.”
He concluded: “ Don’t exclude us now because you might be uncomfortable with the very values that gave rise to this magnificent network.”
Monday, August 17, 2009
By Kathleen Melonakos, M.A., R.N.
Can anyone refute that anal intercourse tears the rectal lining of the receptive partner, regardless of whether a condom is worn, and the subsequent contact with fecal matter leads to a host of diseases?
Classical sexually transmitted diseases (gonorrhea, infections with Chlamydia trachomatis, syphilis, herpes simplex infections, genital warts, pubic lice, scabies); enteric diseases (infections with Shigella species, Campylobacter jejuni, Entamoeba histolytica, Giardia lamblia, ["gay bowel disease"], Hepatitis A, B, C, D, and cytomegalovirus); trauma (related to and/or resulting in fecal incontinence, hemorroids, anal fissure, foreign bodies lodged in the rectum, rectosigmoid tears, allergic proctitis, penile edema, chemical sinusitis, inhaled nitrite burns, and sexual assault of the male patient); and the acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS).[iv]
There is a lot of literature, including on the NARTH website, discussing the 1973 removal of homosexuality as a diagnosis. The arguments against the change in diagnosis seem to center around "societal standards," moral relativism, "subjective distress" of the client, and whether or not there is any objective standard for "psychological" normalcy (for instance, the debate between Joseph Nicolosi and Dr. Michael Wertheimer in A Clash In Worldviews: An Interview with Dr. Michael Wertheimer).
On Feb. 5, 2002, I corresponded by e-mail with Dr. Robert Spitzer of the APA and asked him to send me references for the position papers and studies upon which his committee based its decision to remove the diagnosis. He told me to read Ron Bayer's book,[vii] the "closest thing to a position paper" (American Journal of Psychiatry,130:11, 1207-1216), and he said, "There was no specific list of references, but what was influential too was the Evelyn Hooker Rorshach study and the Eli Robins community study."[viii]
Dr. Satinover has said in an interview with NARTH:
When will doctors and other health care workers demand that officers in the American Psychiatric Association respond to the clear evidence in the following: Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth: the mortality rates listed in their own "APA's Practical Guidelines for Treating Patients with HIV/AIDS";[xvii] and other important reports, such as the Monograph put out by the Institute of Sexual Health, Health Implications of Homosexuality?[xviii]
What if this logic was applied to any other lethal illness? What if doctors said, "We refuse to treat cancer (or, say, alcoholism) because we only achieve a 50% cure rate--and many people who don't want to be cured find it oppressive that we do cure the others?" Why wouldn't the lawsuits for malpractice be filed?
The following is relevant contact information If interested in contacting these organizations, remember that our aim is to open up a principled, civil debate:
President, Richard Harding, M.D.mailto:M.D.RHarding@Richmed.medpark.sc.edu
President-Elect, Paul Appelbaum, M.D.firstname.lastname@example.org
Or: American Psychiatric Association1400 K Street N.W., Washington, DC 20005(888) 357-7924 -- FAX 202-682-6850 -- email@example.com
Thursday, August 13, 2009
"The Post had an interesting op-ed about how the House bill would pay doctors to give end of life counseling to seniors every 5 years. As a student of incrementalism, I can tell you that if this provision survived to become law, the next step would be to make it mandatory. Plus, the government would be providing the doctors with scripts. Care to guess what the scripts might say?
"Betsy McCaughey (former Lt Governor in NY, now heads an organization to build awareness about hospital deaths due to infections) had an interesting article on the risks of Obama care for the elderly in the Wall Street Journal. As a preview of things to come, she says that in Oregon, some cancer patients are being denied care by the state, and are afforded the benefit of physician-assisted suicide. Scary stuff. This is why people are angry. There will be countless opportunities via amendments to the law and regulations to push the culture of death inch by inch. First it's end of life counseling for seniors, then it will be mandatory prenatal testing & then counseling for pregnant women carrying a disabled child.
"Incrementalism is a powerful weapon in the culture of death - it helps promote the banality of evil that Hannah Arendt wrote of."
Saturday, August 1, 2009
Health Care Act: "would mandate abortion coverage in private health plans, expand abortion funding, override laws limiting abortion"
Health care: a basic right for all, from conception to natural death
Reform must not be vehicle for ‘abortion rights’ agenda
Congress: Follow President Obama’s pledge to preserve conscience rights
Cardinal Rigali Urges House Committee to Support Pro-Life Amendments to Health Care Reform Bill
WASHINGTON— Cardinal Justin Rigali, Chairman of the U.S. Catholic bishops’ Committee on Pro-Life Activities, wrote on July 29 to the members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee urging them to amend “America’s Affordable Health Choices Act” (H.R. 3200) to retain longstanding government policies on abortion and conscience rights.
Cardinal Rigali reiterated criteria for “genuine health care reform” set forth by Bishop William Murphy, Chairman of the bishops’ Committee on Domestic Policy, in his letter to Congress on July 17. He described health care as “a basic right belonging to all human beings, from conception to natural death” and said that “the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops is working to ensure that needed health reform is not undermined by abandoning longstanding and widely supported policies against abortion funding and mandates and in favor of conscience protection.”
The Cardinal enumerated several problems with the bill as introduced: It would be used to mandate abortion coverage in private health plans, expand abortion funding, override state laws that limit or regulate abortion, and endanger existing laws protecting the conscience rights of health care providers.
For the whole article visit the USCCB site here.