Author Topic: Catholic hospital says it refused surgery to trans man over religious directives  (Read 3436 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline jentay1367

  • *
  • Posts: 768
  • Reputation: +14/-1
I see the point here being conflated. This Catholic Hospital accepts Federal Funds and then ignored the Federal Mandate that states that they can't deny help to Transgender people if they choose to accept those funds. They were in violation of the law. If you don't want to help people outside your dogmatic principle, don't accept the funds, period. They were in the wrong because they violated the law. All the anecdotal and hypothetical things discussed here have nothing to do with those facts. If you violate the law and are caught, you'll be made to pay. Shouldn't the violators be checked with losing their funds or being fined? Since anarchy isn't the law of the land, it seems to me this is all pretty simple.

Offline Chris8080

  • Friend
  • ****
  • Posts: 110
  • Reputation: +1/-0
  • Gender: Female
jentay1367, since this is so simple please do some research, find and post the federal law that says every hospital that accepts fed handouts (assuming this hospital does) that the hospital WILL accept and perform EVERY ELECTIVE surgery EVERY patient that shows up wants. Nope, I am not gonna research it myself cause I have no desire to waste time looking for something that's not to be found, However since you are so sure this hospital is breaking the law please post the law(s) they are breaking.

This doesn't even have to be a religious issue. Many many doctors would refuse such surgery based on their Hippocratic Oath, the ones that do accept gender issues are for the most part doctors with additional training and an understanding of the gender issues. If that is not the case explain my 50 year quest for HRT and an orchi? If this wasn't the case I could have walked into ANY hospital and simply demanded they do it. That's not just Catholic hospitals it's all hospitals. That's 50 years trying to find a Urologist that would so much as talk with me about it much less do it. If this is not the case why do many surgeons that do gender issues require TWO letters from counselors before doing elective surgery?

Social issues and gender issues have improved a shocking amount in recent years and there is no reason to think it won't continue to improve in the near future. The success I have had in the last year was an impossibility 15 or 20 years ago. In the 90's I couldn't even find a worthwhile therapist without dressing full time. In Los Angeles of all places. Sure is a different story today. The very worst possible way to achieve further improvement for gender issues is to beat those opposed over the head with a club, it will certainly widen the divide not close it.

Offline jentay1367

  • *
  • Posts: 768
  • Reputation: +14/-1
Quote
jentay1367, since this is so simple please do some research, find and post the federal law that says every hospital that accepts fed handouts (assuming this hospital does) that the hospital WILL accept and perform EVERY ELECTIVE surgery EVERY patient that shows up wants. Nope, I am not gonna research it myself cause I have no desire to waste time looking for something that's not to be found, However since you are so sure this hospital is breaking the law please post the law(s) they are breaking.

Before you jump the gun, this applies to ANY entity (not just those regarding the ACA) that accepts federal funding allowing you the right to file a lawsuit. It also extends to peoples who identify with a gender contrary to that of your birth gender. Do I think these facts will affect your opinion? Of course not. You're to invested in being right to deal with facts.

 
Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has issued a proposed rule to advance health equity and reduce disparities in health care. The proposed rule, Nondiscrimination in Health Programs and Activities, will assist some of the populations that have been most vulnerable to discrimination and will help provide those populations equal access to health care and health coverage. It harmonizes protections provided by existing, well-established federal civil rights laws,[1] and clarifies the standards HHS would apply in implementing Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act, which provides that individuals cannot be subject to discrimination based on their race, color, national origin, sex, age, or disability.

Building on long-standing and familiar civil rights principles, the proposed rule takes important steps forward. Section 1557 is the first federal civil rights law to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex in health care. It extends nondiscrimination protections to individuals enrolled in coverage through the Health Insurance Marketplaces and certain other health coverage plans. And it provides that HHS’s health programs are covered by the rule.

The proposed rule explains consumers’ rights under the law and provides clarity to covered entities about their obligations. Section 1557 has been in effect since its enactment in 2010 and the HHS Office for Civil Rights (OCR) has been enforcing the provision since it was enacted.

Specific Provisions

The basic requirement of the law is that consumers cannot be denied health services or health coverage or discriminated against in other ways in health services or coverage because of their race, color, national origin, sex, age, or disability. The proposed rule addresses some of the populations that have historically been subject to discrimination. For example, the proposed rule includes prohibitions on gender identity discrimination as a form of sex discrimination, enhances language assistance for people with limited English proficiency, and requires effective communication for individuals with disabilities. Overall, the proposed rule ensures consumers have the equal access to health care and health coverage provided by the Affordable Care Act.

The proposed rule applies to any health program or activity, any part of which receives funding from HHS, such as hospitals that accept Medicare patients or doctors who treat Medicaid patients. It applies to any health program that HHS itself administers. And it applies to the Marketplaces and to all plans offered by issuers that participate in those Marketplaces.

Protections Against Sex Discrimination

The proposed rule requires that women have equal access to the health care they receive and the insurance they obtain. Moreover, the rule makes clear that sex discrimination includes discrimination based on gender identity. For example -

    Individuals cannot be denied health care or health coverage based on their sex, including their gender identity.
    Individuals must be treated consistent with their gender identity, including in access to facilities.
    Sex-specific health care cannot be denied or limited just because the person seeking such services identifies as belonging to another gender. For example, a provider may not deny an individual treatment for ovarian cancer, based on the individual’s identification as a transgender man, where the treatment is medically indicated.
    Explicit categorical exclusions in coverage for all health care services related to gender transition are facially discriminatory. Other exclusions for gender transition care will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

HHS is seeking feedback and public comment on the proposed rule. With regard to the proposed rule’s provisions on sex discrimination, for example:

    The proposed rule makes clear HHS’s commitment, as a matter of policy, to banning discrimination based on sexual orientation, and requests comment on how a final rule can incorporate the most robust set of protections against discrimination that are supported by the courts on an ongoing basis.
    The proposed rule also requests comment on whether Section 1557 should include an exemption for religious organizations and what the scope of any such exemption should be. Nothing in the rule would affect the application of existing protections for religious beliefs and practices, such as provider conscience laws and the regulations issued under the ACA related to preventive health services.

Communication with Individuals with Limited English Proficiency and with Individuals with Disabilities

The proposed rule adopts the longstanding principle that covered entities must take reasonable steps to provide meaningful access to individuals with limited English proficiency. In determining what the standard requires, OCR will evaluate each case on its facts, including the nature of the communication, and, as applicable, how often the entity encounters individuals who speak the language at issue and the resources of the entity.

Under the proposed rule, covered entities would be required to:

    Post a notice of consumer rights providing information about communication assistance; and
    Post taglines in the top 15 languages[2] spoken by individuals with LEP nationally, indicating the availability of such assistance.

To reduce burden and costs, OCR will provide a sample notice and translated taglines for use by covered entities. In addition, OCR will translate the notice into 15 languages and provide the translated notices to covered entities, should they wish to post one or more of those notices for their consumers.

Consistent with existing requirements, the proposed rule also requires covered entities to provide effective communication for individuals with disabilities by providing access to auxiliary aids and services, including alternative formats and sign language interpreters, unless the entity can show an undue burden or a fundamental alteration. The notice that covered entities must post provides information about these services as well. The proposed rule also incorporates familiar requirements related to the accessibility of facilities and technology and requires reasonable modifications of policies and practices where necessary to provide equal access for people with disabilities.

Coverage of Health Insurance in Marketplaces and Other Health Plans

The proposed rule prohibits discrimination in health insurance coverage on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, age, or disability. Among other things, this means that an issuer that participates in the Marketplace cannot deny, cancel, limit, or refuse to issue or renew any of its insurance policies or employ marketing practices or benefit designs that discriminate on any of these bases. The Marketplaces themselves must also operate in a nondiscriminatory way. And hospitals and certain other health care providers that receive federal financial assistance from HHS are also accountable for discrimination in the health plans they offer to their employees.

Consumer Rights

If individuals believe they have been subject to discrimination in health care, they can file complaints directly with OCR. In line with existing federal civil rights laws, the proposed rule provides for a private right of action, giving individuals the ability to file a lawsuit under Section 1557.

Offline Deborah

  • *
  • Posts: 3,034
  • Reputation: +44/-1
  • Gender: Female
  • Trying to find my way out of the darkness.
Respecting their superstitions will get us nowhere.  The only thing that will work is beating "metaphorically" them into submission. 

We have been here before in this country with one group, usually white evangelicals, claiming the right to discriminate.  They have never, ever, stopped because the opposition respected their beliefs. 

In 1957 Little Rock, Arkansas did they welcome black students into formerly white schools because they realized the error of their ways?  No.  President Eisenhower had to send the 101st Airborne Division to Little Rock to force their compliance.  As it was then, so it is now.

You can take the side of the bigots and claim that race is different than transsexualism.  Yes it is.  So what?  The discrimination is exactly the same and being born transsexual is no more an individual choice than is being born black.

Or is it that this is asking for elective procedures?  All medical procedures are elective if we follow that logic trail.  An individual chooses to obtain medical treatment when they have a problem that medical science has found a way to legitimately treat.  As it is with diabetes or with cancer so it is with this.  If a medical professional chooses to not treat a specific class of patients because his superstitions lead him to reject established medical science then frankly I don't care one little bit about respecting his superstitions or putting him out of business.  He should leave the medical profession anyway and take up a profession more in line with his beliefs; perhaps a profession such as witchdoctory.


Conform and be dull. —James Frank Dobie, The Voice of the Coyote



Offline Chris8080

  • Friend
  • ****
  • Posts: 110
  • Reputation: +1/-0
  • Gender: Female
Ok jentay1367 I read the entire post. No where in it like it or not was there a word about elective surgery. No where in it did it mention that either doctors or hospitals are mandated to perform elective surgery upon request. Believe it or not I am on your side, to me it is much more than elective surgery. There is however that pesky thing called reality. Guess I'm a realist.

In addition that is from the ACA, I wouldn't put to much faith in that and no, Trump does not need to repeal it, it is collapsing of it's own weight. Fewer and fewer insured people every day and many others that have the coverage and it's impossible to use. Why? Because they are paying monthly premiums that are higher than their mortgage payments and then when they need coverage in some cases the deductible is as high as $12,000 to $15,000 per year. Yep, affordable care all right.

And Deborah, to make the case of race relations in the early 1960's and gender issues in 2017 is absurd beyond further conversation. That does hint at your being fairly young and have no real basis of comparison of then & now. Could be wrong about but it sure seems that way.

Offline jentay1367

  • *
  • Posts: 768
  • Reputation: +14/-1
As I stated, you're so invested in being correct that there is no reason to further the conversation. I'm not a masochist. As has been said many times before, we'll have to agree to disagree and let others make their own decisions based on the information at hand. I won't conjecture with you.  I'm out.
« Last Edit: April 15, 2017, 09:24:16 pm by jentay1367 »

Offline Deborah

  • *
  • Posts: 3,034
  • Reputation: +44/-1
  • Gender: Female
  • Trying to find my way out of the darkness.
I'm 57 and I grew up in the Deep South.  In addition to that I spent 20 years as an Army officer including some time in a place where I witnessed and investigated Christians who murdered a village for ethnic and religious reasons.  Christians misbehavin' all over the place.

Why is this the same?  Because it's being driven by people who think that there is another group that is inferior and that does not have a right to equal protection.  And race relations did, and still do, have a religious component.  There are Baptist preachers down here still, to this day, railing against miscegenation because it's against God's will.


Conform and be dull. —James Frank Dobie, The Voice of the Coyote



Offline Cindy

  • The Forum Administrator
  • *
  • *
  • Posts: 23,089
  • Reputation: +470/-0
  • Gender: Female
 :police:

I'm starting to feel like a mouse running in a treadmill with a "You are Here" sign in front of my nose.   The arguments are becoming very repetitive. Maybe it is time to move on to a new topic as I'm not sure anyone is going to settle this discussion.


Offline Chris8080

  • Friend
  • ****
  • Posts: 110
  • Reputation: +1/-0
  • Gender: Female
I spent 20 years as an Army officer 

Thank you, your service is sincerely appreciated.  :)

Offline Deborah

  • *
  • Posts: 3,034
  • Reputation: +44/-1
  • Gender: Female
  • Trying to find my way out of the darkness.
Thank you, your service is sincerely appreciated.  :)
Thank you.  :-). And Peace.  I understand your point of view but just don't agree with it.  I hope I have been clear enough in expressing my point of view for it to be understood also, even if we don't mutually agree on it either.


Conform and be dull. —James Frank Dobie, The Voice of the Coyote



Offline Chris8080

  • Friend
  • ****
  • Posts: 110
  • Reputation: +1/-0
  • Gender: Female
With all of the forum's across the internet not a single political argument has ever been won. This discussion stayed fairly free of vitriol which is good, many do not. I mostly completely avoid any internet political discussion, not much good normally comes from it. I'm a moderator on another forum and it was decided as we set up the rules before going online with it there would be no political and no religious discussions allowed. Good policy I think, the atmosphere of the entire forum is pretty laid back and peaceful.

Offline TinaVane

  • *
  • Posts: 452
  • Reputation: +0/-0
  • Gender: Female
lgbt theist are an oxymoron
C'est Si Bon

Offline vanderpn

  • Genderqueer FTM
  • Neighbor
  • ***
  • Posts: 62
  • Reputation: +2/-0
  • Gender: Queer
lgbt theist are an oxymoron

I don't want to open a can of worms or derail the thread, but I don't think this is necessarily true. I believe that you can still be pro-LBGT and believe in the existence of some sort of god(s). My spirituality is pretty complex and has changed a lot over the years, but I would probably still classify myself as a theist, or at least a deist.

Offline DemonRaven

  • *
  • Posts: 67
  • Reputation: +2/-0
  • Gender: Intersex
  • Nerdy goof
    • ChatbotFriends™
I think a bit more respect for other's beliefs whether they are atheist or christian or buddhist is in order. I am also a Christian and intersex and on a waiting list to join a srs clinic.  I used to consider myself a plain lesbian christian before i found out i was intersex. My belief's pretty simple  and are that we need to follow the law and that includes church's. The only exception would be if they demanded us to worship something else or not help people (love god and love others).

Offline Deborah

  • *
  • Posts: 3,034
  • Reputation: +44/-1
  • Gender: Female
  • Trying to find my way out of the darkness.
Where does this respect for discriminatory religious belief end?  Does it end at being refused medical care?  Or does it end at homeless trans women in the USA being refused food in a soup kitchen as was in the news the other day?  Or does it end as you impact the ground after being thrown from the top of a building as many preachers openly sermonize about in the USA and as some Muslims currently are doing today?

So where does it end?


Conform and be dull. —James Frank Dobie, The Voice of the Coyote



Online josie76

  • Friend
  • ****
  • Posts: 434
  • Reputation: +9/-0
  • Gender: Female
  • Something beautiful emerges from a dark pool
Well after reading this I can see it's quite the hot potatoe subject.

First I want to say that the hospital is not following church doctrine but the whims of its board members. The Catholic Church made an official determination on gender issues back in the 1990s when a priest in Europe transitioned. The official decision was that the church would only recognize the gender of the person as born as. Basically this just allowed them to maintain the commonality of records with each diocese and prevents the church from accidentally acknowledging a same sex marriage after the fact. So yes trans people are discriminated against in other ways but in no way does the church set the rules for the hospital system. In fact that priest is the only woman today allowed to be a catholic priest by official church determination at the Vatican level.

Is it right for hospitals to discriminate? no. But hospitals turn away all kinds of "elective" surgeries whether church funded or private. Unfortunately it's the doctors and administrators who wield the power to choose what is "medically necessary" and what's not. For instance not even one private hospital in the US will provide an abortion service unless the mother is going to die. Even then they may not perform it on site. Is it right to tell a couple who just found out their baby has severe deformities that they have to carry it full term even though death is guaranteed? Having once gone through that scenario with my wife many years past I can answer absolutely not! At least this trans man can find another hospital to have the surgery in. By the time you find out your hoped for child has such issues, you only have a week or two to make a decision and find a provider of which there are only a few in the US before the law says you have to carry it to full term.

Back then we found a very compassionate doctor who dealt with parents with issues found late term. This was not the place for young single moms who got knocked up. It was a week long process with several other couples from across the country. It was one on one with the Doctor, group therapy with the others and the doctor, and some just with the other couples. Everyone had different issues but in every case the eventual outcome would have been terminal or at best complete disability in vegetative state. One barely 20 year old couple had a baby whose bones formed outside of its skin. This doctor was shot dead while attending his church one Sunday by a rabid antiabortion person.

Sorry I kinda skewed off topic.
Trying to find myself in this life.

A lifetime of depression and repressed emotions is nothing more than existence. I for one want to live now not just exist!




Offline DemonRaven

  • *
  • Posts: 67
  • Reputation: +2/-0
  • Gender: Intersex
  • Nerdy goof
    • ChatbotFriends™
Where does this respect for discriminatory religious belief end?  Does it end at being refused medical care?  Or does it end at homeless trans women in the USA being refused food in a soup kitchen as was in the news the other day?  Or does it end as you impact the ground after being thrown from the top of a building as many preachers openly sermonize about in the USA and as some Muslims currently are doing today?

So where does it end?


Conform and be dull. —James Frank Dobie, The Voice of the Coyote

In my opinion you are not acting like a christian by refusing to care for a patient. Those that do have not read their own bibles or skipped the parts that contain Christs words.

Offline DemonRaven

  • *
  • Posts: 67
  • Reputation: +2/-0
  • Gender: Intersex
  • Nerdy goof
    • ChatbotFriends™
There are two kinds of Christians now the right wing ones and the left wing ones. The right worships money and the law of the old testament. The left believes in doing good but does not always believe what the bible says. If i have to choose a side I will go with the left even though I believe all of the bible. So the ones causing the problems are the ones on the right. Don't lump us all into the  same basket.

Offline EmmaLoo

  • Been There
  • *
  • Posts: 125
  • Reputation: +3/-0
  • Gender: Female
You don't need to be against religion to understand why denying services is wrong. It's called Public Accommodations. As Americans, we have a tax-based government that pays for our state, local and national infrastructure. It was designed that way so everyone had access to a free marketplace to make a living. When you, as an individual, or a company, use this publicly financed framework you agree to provide services to all of those who have invested in it --all of us. You don't get to use our public streets and utilities and everything else we share in our communities to provide services to the likeminded and then deny the same services to others. It doesn't matter what kind of excuse you provide otherwise. If you want to participate, you have to accommodate everyone. This is why the baker gets sued. It's not because of their religious beliefs, it's because they are not meeting their responsibility according to public accommodation laws.


Seriously, I'm just winging it like everyone else. Sometimes it works, other times -- not so much. HRT 2003 - FFS|Orch 2005 - GCS 2017 - No Regrets EVER!

Offline Deborah

  • *
  • Posts: 3,034
  • Reputation: +44/-1
  • Gender: Female
  • Trying to find my way out of the darkness.
Don't lump us all into the  same basket.
But when it comes to the governments passing laws protecting the rights of Christians to openly discriminate against us, all Christians from both ends of the spectrum are included in that same basket.  Would you rather the Government enter into the debate on what beliefs and practices constitute a true expression of any one particular religion?

That would really cross the line of the First Amendment.

Conform and be dull. —James Frank Dobie, The Voice of the Coyote



Tags: