treatment denied

[niyad]

(the catholic church's war on, and hatred for, women, continues apace. if you live in an area that only has a catholic hospital, women, you are seriously screwed)

Treatment Denied



Kathleen Prieskorn gasped in shock as her medical nightmare began. Still reeling from the heartbreak of an earlier miscarriage, Prieskorn was three months pregnant and working as a waitress when she felt a twinge, felt a trickle down her leg and realized she was miscarrying again.

She rushed to her doctor’s office, “where I learned my amniotic sac had torn,” says Prieskorn, who lives with her husband in Manchester, N.H. “But the nearest hospital had recently merged with a Catholic hospital—and because my doctor could still detect a fetal heartbeat, he wasn’t allowed to give me a uterine evacuation that would help me complete my miscarriage.”

To get treatment, Prieskorn, who has no car, had to instead travel 80 miles to the nearest hospital that would perform the procedure—expensive to do in an ambulance, because she had no health insurance. Her doctor handed her $400 of his own cash and she bundled into the back of a cab.


. . . . .
Ordeals like the one Prieskorn suffered are not isolated incidents: They could happen to a woman of any income level, religion or state now that Catholic institutions have become the largest not-for-profit source of health-care in the U.S., treating 1 in 6 hospital patients. And that’s because Catholic hospitals are required to adhere to the Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services—archconservative restrictions issued by the 258-member U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.


. . .

http://msmagazine.com/blog/blog/2011/05/09/treatment-denied/

[virgogal]

1. I walked away from the church about 45 years ago because of

it's attitude towards birth control.

I never looked back.

[niyad]

2. we left almost the same time, for the same reason.

[notesdev]

3. humor me a question

what happened to the guy who got her pregnant twice?

[niyad]

4. humor me by reading the article

[notesdev]

5. I did, I didn't see any details about that

[mzteris]

6. humour me by telling me

WTF does that have to do with the misogynistic treatment of women by the Catholic church?

[notesdev]

7. I should say he has some responsibility here too

wouldn't you agree? Shouldn't he have been helping her through this ordeal?

[Lars39]

8. ahe may have been broke, too, and unable to take off work lest

he be fired. She may have not been on good terms with him. Lots of different scenarios. Bottom line...she could not get the needed medical procedure at the Catholic hospital.

[notesdev]

10. Yeah, I don't think this story is as cut and dry as it's being made out to be

She's completely unprepared for any problem, even though she had a similar problem in the recent past; gets pregnant twice in a short period of time yet the impregnator is nowhere to be found, and is not even mentioned; and the symptoms reported are consistent with a failed attempt at a self-induced abortion.

We do not have the full story here. I feel bad for the lady, but her troubles did not start at the Catholic Hospital and I do not think it is right to pin the blame on them exclusively for a situation that had many controlling factors outside their scope of involvement, which this article does.

[Lars39]

11. Ah, the old blame the victim schtick.....gets really old.

[notesdev]

12. I knew that was coming

This girl set herself up for a world of trouble, and when the hospital adheres to its ethics code, the consequences of her actions becomes its fault.

We don't have the money to ameliorate the detrimental health effects of reckless behavior and we never will. People need to buck up and look after their own well being and not depend wholly on others to provide it for them. What you're defending is a "right" to be clueless and stupid and self-destructive, and then to have other people pay the bill for it. No society can function under those conditions.

[Lars39]

13. She went to the nearest hospital and was denied the treatment she needed.

Wouldn't have mattered if she was a millionaire, the hospital denied her the treatment she needed.

You obviously did not read the article.

[notesdev]

14. The story is a fabrication

It didn't pass the smell test for a reason - the central premise doesn't stand up against the most basic fact-checking.

Let me extract a few statements and highlight some text:

She rushed to her doctor’s office, “where I learned my amniotic sac had torn,” says Prieskorn, who lives with her husband in Manchester, N.H.

OK so she lives in Manchester NH

“But the nearest hospital had recently merged with a Catholic hospital—and because my doctor could still detect a fetal heartbeat, he wasn’t allowed to give me a uterine evacuation that would help me complete my miscarriage.”

The nearest hospital would therefore have to be Elliot Hospital, as it's the only hospital in Manchester NH.

To get treatment, Prieskorn, who has no car, had to instead travel 80 miles to the nearest hospital that would perform the procedure—expensive to do in an ambulance, because she had no health insurance. Her doctor handed her $400 of his own cash and she bundled into the back of a cab.

This is the fabrication. There are in fact abortion services provided right across the street from Elliot Hospital, which I have found here:

http://www.manchesterob.com/services.htm

Note abortion is on the list of the services they provide.

Furthermore, there are a number of other hospitals also closer than 80 miles away to Manchester, just get out Google Maps and go take a look.



This is a sob story designed to evoke an emotional response for propaganda purposes, and you swallowed it hook, line, and sinker because it conforms to your biases and preconceptions.


EDIT:

Sheesh, look at this resume:

http://mollymaureenginty.wordpress.com/resume/

Maybe, just maybe she might have a vested interest in stirring up more concern than is actually warranted, given that she's only built her entire career on the issue. This author is an activist, not a reporter, and if the magazine were reputable it would have some indication that the author is a conflicted party on the subject of the article.

[Lars39]

15. Story aside, aren't you the least bit concerned that the end result

of a hospital merging with a Catholic hospital is that the hospital no longer offers possibly life=saving procedures to women? And before you says there's always another hospital, that is not always the case in some counties.

[One_Life_To_Give]

16. This story is troubling

I would be alarmed to read that Elliot refused a procedure that was necessary to save the life of the mother. As would people throughout the region. Being only 50 miles from downtown Boston this is a predominantly Liberal area. Feminist Health 20 miles up the road in Concord. Or south to Lowell General, Leahy Clinic etc. All far less than 80 miles.

Which begs the question what else is the story Not telling us? I tried to find a statement from Elliot on their policy or specifically addressing this. Their Ethics page is reporting an error. :shrug:

As you note if it can happen up here then people elsewhere are in real trouble. But when easily checked facts are questionable it raises doubts about the rest of the story.

[One_Life_To_Give]

19. Merged in 1994? and since dissolved

The merger was dissolved officially in 2000. They cite cultural issues. Essentially it looks like people from Catholic Hospital had a problem with Elliot personnel still performing late term abortions.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3257/is_4_55/ai_73328480/pg_4/?tag=mantle_skin;content

[prole_for_peace]

17. By looking at the website of the place "right across the street"

it seems (to me) to be a physician's office not an urgent care clinic. The article doesn't state when Ms. Prieskorn's water broke but it could have been after the clinic's operating hours.

Also, it doesn't look like this clinic offers emergency services so they may not have been able to help her anyway.

And why should she have to jump through ANY hoops to obtain a perfectly legal medical procedure?

[musette_sf]

18. NOT (and really bothered by all these assumptions)

If a woman is pregnant, intends to carry to term, and has a miscarriage, she does NOT go to an abortion clinic. Abortion clinics do NOT customarily treat miscarriage situations. Abortion clinics perform elective pregnancy terminations.

If a woman is miscarrying, she goes to a hospital.

A hospital is prepared to deal with complications. An abortion clinic, when unforeseen complications occur, sends the distressed patient to a HOSPITAL.

Women who go to abortion clinics for terminations are examined and found to be in a sufficiently healthy state to have the elective abortion performed in a non-hospital setting. If they are NOT sufficiently healthy, the abortion will not be performed at the clinic. Other arrangements will have to be made.

CLEARLY this woman needed to go to a HOSPITAL.

As far as I know, the only abortion facilities that are prepared to deal with potentially severe health complications are those like Dr Tiller's, Dr Carhart's, and Dr Hern's. Late term procedures, when tragically needed, often include medical complications. And there are medical issues that could require patients being treated in one of these facilities to be transferred to a hospital. And none of these facilities are intended for the use of caring for women who miscarry.

Your tone in your post really bothers me. It's like you're trying to prove that Catholic hospitals have the right to let female patients die, they have the right to refuse to treat women, and that any problem having to do with pregnancy and female reproductive care issues can always be taken care of by the convenient local neighborhood abortion clinic, if a woman doesn't want to die in the Catholic hospital. I don't understand what your problem is, because this is so far from the truth it's scary to think that there are people, on DU, that really think the way you do.

On edit: The facility "right across the street" is an OB/GYN clinic that provides reproductive health care services and performs ELECTIVE PROCEDURES. It is NOT a hospital and is NOT a facility where a miscarriage would be treated. This facility would have sent this woman TO A HOSPITAL, and the closest hospital WOULD NOT PERFORM A D&C/ABORTION. The only result of going to the place "right across the street" would be more time wasted when a patient was in a health crisis.

[niyad]

20. you seem to have some sort of comprehension problem, because, had you actually READ the article,

you would see discussion of her HUSBAND, and a very thorough explanation. but, no, you choose to defend the catholic church's misogynistic treatment of women by blaming her. nice try, but no cigar.

again, TRY READING THE WHOLE DAMNED ARTICLE>

[mzteris]

9. while that may well be true

it has absolutely nothing to do with the point of the story.

Maybe she doesn't know who the father is? Maybe he's a deadbeat? Maybe he's married. Maybe she "makes a little money" on the side?

Would any of those mean she's entitled to appropriate healthcare?

[niyad]

21. the article clearly states that she is marred.

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Scout]

23. are you sure you are in the right place? n/t

[niyad]

29. darn, looks like I missed something interesting

[Lars39]

24. How about we force the catholic hospitals to treat women as if they

were whole people?

[Scout]

25. oh Lars you silly ;-)

women aren't people, we're just vessels for that seed ... can i be YOUR vessel??? ;)

[Lars39]

26. lol

slight problem there...I'm a vessel,too. :rofl: :D

[Scout]

27. LOL that's what i get for not checking your profile, and ASSUMING n/t

[Lars39]

28. lo.l..don't worry about it...happens a few times a year.

My nickname in school was Lars and I decided I would always be 39, a la Jack Benny. :D :hi: