As a Catholic nun, who was raised in a non-Catholic family and converted as a young adult, I do not believe that we should begin providing and subsidizing abortion services for under-insured patients. Every life, which is started at conception, is a gift from God—no ifs, ands, or buts—and thus should be protected. By providing and helping to pay for these services, it shows that we are in support of humans having the right to place or take away value on an innocent life (Donum Vitae 1988: 147). Furthermore, I do not think we should support IVF treatments and prenatal testing including amniocentesis. These services “expose [man] ‘to the temptation to go beyond the limits of a reasonable dominion over nature’” (Donum Vitae 1988: 141). A life is not ours to say whether or not it should be worth living, even if it may be in a woman’s womb.
Prenatal testing and amniocentesis gives patients the knowledge and the chance to “play God”, to be able to choose whether the life of a fetus is worth living or if the patient is able to care for the fetus when born. Prenatal testing does not tell a patient if his or her baby has a genetic disease. It only tells patients if the baby is at risk. In order to ensure a baby has a certain genetic disease, then amniocentesis should be carried out. Amniocentesis is an invasive process, and when getting this procedure, the patient has a 1:200 chance of getting a miscarriage, which is the same ratio of chance of a patient’s baby having Down’s syndrome if the patient is older. Additionally, being a parent includes the commitment to unconditionally love one’s baby, and choosing to get an abortion because of a genetic disease interferes with that commitment. Also, if given the option, “an infant wouldn’t choose to die like an adult would choose to die at the end of his [or her] life” (“The Burden of Knowledge: Moral Dilemmas in Prenatal Testing” 1994).
Giving these services and allowing patients to choose whether or not to keep the fetus further puts a stigma on people with disability. Why is it okay to have a normal baby whose personality might drive one crazy rather than a baby with Down’s syndrome? Why is it not normal to have a baby with Down’s syndrome? This is answer is due to societal pressures and a pressure to look like everyone. Lastly, these services only test for certain genetic diseases. There are a million other things that could go wrong during a pregnancy that we do not have technology to test for. If money and fear of not being able to provide the necessary care for children with genetic diseases arise, then there are still options such as putting the baby up for adoption. For example, according to the documentary “The Burden of Knowledge: Moral Dilemmas in Prenatal Testing”, there is waiting list of people wanting to adopt kids with Down’s syndrome (1994).
Though the local area is home to those who are in favor of IVF treatments, abortion, prenatal testing and amniocentesis, the hospital was based on Catholic roots. I think the Catholic roots should be revered. Additionally, the donor base is still prominently Irish Catholics. The hospital operates mostly from funds from our donors. Since we are choosing to subsidize medical care for under-insured patients, this hospital cannot function without our donor base, and thus the hospital should look to uphold Catholic values.
In addition to social workers and genetic counselor, the hospital use to provide spiritual counseling by Catholic clergy. This counseling should be continued and not open to clergy of other religions. These Catholic values are not just Catholic. They are humane values of humans valuing other human’s lives. They are values any human could have if they have respect for human life. Though I understand that the medical staff believes that the Catholic clergy are interfering with their work by opposing assisted reproductive technology and late term genetic testing, the medical staff can sometimes be close-minded to not the argument that the Catholic clergy are making. The medical staff can make decisions that they think are the best for the patients but fails to think about its consequences on the fetus. The decision to end a life of a fetus is not favored by us Catholics who also believe that our beliefs align with natural law.
Catholic clergy are not making a rushed decision but rather carefully thought out. We Catholics make our decides based on natural law. Natural law refers to rights that are embedded in nature and that can be reasoned out. Therefore, natural law cannot be opposite of what Scripture says. Both reason and Scripture influence each other. Natural law is also evident in the Declaration of Independence, a document that is dear to the hearts of all Americans. It states that we Americans have self-evident rights, which are then listed as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Life here is extended to the life of unborn people as well since life starts at the point of conception. Thus, the reason that the Catholic Church makes universal claims that we think others should also consider is because they are grounded in natural law.
Our historically Catholic nursing staff has been alarmed by the possibility that the hospital will now provide abortion and reproduction services. For those nurses who are unwilling to perform these procedures, I’d say I would respect their decision and allow them not to perform these procedures. They should make sure that the patients do know all the current options available. Being misinformed can result in a decision that the patients are going to regret, especially while carrying fetus and while the woman’s body is going through hormonal changes. For example, if some patients knew that there was a waiting list of people wanting to adopt children with Down’s syndrome, they would not have continued with abortion. Making sure to reiterate their options to the patients will help them to make a more informed decision. I would ask the nurses to listen to the patients to see their reason for doing such procedures and see if there is anything the nurses can inform them about to help them make their decision. I would then tell the nurses, if any, who are willing to perform these services to go ahead with them.
I will also try to remind the nurses that ultimately, although I am also against these services, if the hospital starts to provide these services, that we are all children of God. The first commandment that God gives us is to love one another. We are not all perfect and strong enough to decide to have reject these abortion and reproductive services. Shower patients with love and patience while they are going through a difficult moment in their life. Unless they would like to resign from their position or continue to express their discontent to the administrators of the hospital, I would leave the work with those are willing to do the services. In the case of having no nurses to provide the nurses, then the hospital should reconsider providing abortion and reproductive services especially if some funds will be lost and nurses refuse perform procedures. The hospital has to decide which is more important: serving the patient population or continue operating and functioning as a hospital.
Though we no longer in Biblical cosmology, Biblical cosmology can still continue to shape our society (Delaney 1995: 188). Our subconscious knows that life is precious. Killing a person can bring much guilt to a person. Conception brings about life that cannot be denied. If you had been someone with Down’s syndrome, and your parents decided to terminate you, how would you feel? Though at that point, one probably would not be able to feel, one also does not have the right to decide to terminate another person’s right. Every human, fetus, and embryo has the self-evident right to life.
God bless,
Sister Nguyen
Sister Nguyen,
Let me begin by saying that while I am not of the same faith or opinion as you, I understand your desire to practice your beliefs in a place that honors these practices. I understand the importance of living in a community that supports you and respects your values. I also would like to tell you that I myself spoke in opposition to offering services such as abortion, IVF and prenatal testing at our hospital. However, refusing these services to members of our community is simply unreasonable. If our hospital doesn’t offer them, this by no means will stop members of our community from seeking them out. Refusing to accept these practices into your own life and in a place associated with your faith is perfectly reasonable, but it is ignorant to think that this will translate to the greater society of citizens with extremely mixed beliefs and values.
I would like to invite you to put yourself in the shoes of a member of the Lebanese immigrant population in our town, a devout Shi’ite muslim woman. Understand that this individual, like you, is bound to a certain belief system. This individual, like you, has grown up in a place where that belief system reigns. That belief system may clash dramatically with yours, but that doesn’t deny the fact that it exists and that people exist who hold these beliefs. Whether you agree with her values or not, this is a fellow human being who is very much like you in many ways. Imagine you are forced to move to a place where an alternative religion represents the majority; where every facility operates under Catholic auspices so devoutly that it creates a situation where only Catholics can partake in their services. I ask you, does this person deserve equal access to healthcare? Does this person deserve to practice their beliefs in a place that honors those practices, just like you do? If the situation were reversed, and you were the one living in a Shi’ite Lebanese community, would you want to be free to practice your religion without feeling oppressed by the values of another?
If you said yes to any of these questions, then you will not oppose us opening a separate clinic in our community where we could offer abortion, IVF, and prenatal testing services. This clinic will be unaffiliated with the hospital, as I understand the significance of being a hospital previously grounded to a certain denomination. I wholly agree that staff of this hospital should not have to consider or even work beside people performing procedures they do not agree with. However, by allowing a separate clinic to offer these services we are doing several things. We are recognizing the existence and sheer prevalence of reproductive technologies in our society today, thus can offer the best and most up-to-date medical care to our community. We are preserving the history of this town and this hospital so that Catholics can continue to feel valued and free of oppression. Finally, we are honoring our esteemed staff, donor base and wide patient demographic, whose beliefs we must accommodate.
Dear Sister Nguyen,
As a fellow Catholic, I share many similar views regarding artificial reproductive technology and prenatal testing usage. Through my training and experience as a doctor, I have encountered some unfortunate circumstances where I believe a little leniency may be permissible.
For example, when I was in medical school, I was working for a short period of time in a maternity department. Here, I assisted with birthing and clinical checkups for pregnant women. One case in particular comes to mind of a woman who had been the victim of rape and was impregnated. Should she have the right to an abortion? I think so. I believe that in situations as extreme as this, it would be best for both the unborn child and the mother to abort the pregnancy. This would limit future suffering.
Additionally, I disagree with you regarding clergy in the hospital. I believe that clergy of all faiths should be permitted to advise and support hospital patients. I do not think that the hospital should stray from its Irish Catholic roots in terms of the medical treatments provided to patients, but if a patient is not Irish Catholic, what is the problem with simply receiving support and advice from a clergy member of another faith? We may not have the same beliefs as individuals of other faiths, but we must be tolerant of their spiritual needs.
When dealing with nurses who refuse to provide abortion and prenatal testing services, I have trouble with this issue because I do not believe these services should be offered at the hospital in the first place, with the exception of extenuating circumstances. I believe that by educating and informing the patient on various treatment options, the patient would decide on their own not to undergo an abortion. As a medical professional, I take the concept of informed consent very seriously. Any patient undergoing any operation must be aware of the risks involved. The same reasoning applies to abortion.
In your proposal to the ethical committee, I truly appreciate your conclusion in which you indicate that we must always remember that “we are all children of God”. We all—embryo, fetus, and human alike—deserve the natural right to life. I believe that with minor compromise from the both of us, we can find a middle ground and work together to form a strong front to fight to retain the Irish Catholic medical practices at the Sasquatch Medical Center.
Thank you for voicing your opinion to the ethics committee.
Sincerely,
Dr. Jonah Adler, M.D.
Dear Sister Nguyen,
Thank you very much for your proposal of the guidelines the hospital should follow in the future.
As someone who studied medicine at a catholic school in the Northeast and having worked at our catholic hospital for the past 10 years I really value your opinion as a nun.
I think you are on the right track with your opinion on abortions and appreciate that you think we should leave it to the patient to decide whether they would like an abortion.
This point also leads me to the aspect which I think we disagree on the most. You stated that you think the medical staff should be able to choose whether to perform abortions and they should only have to perform abortions if it aligns with their beliefs. I disagree with this: I think as a medical professional, the treatment of patients should always be ones first concern and one should not let personal beliefs interfere with ones work. As medical professionals we should always treat the patients in the way which is best for them and in the way they desire to be treated.
Many of the staff of the hospital is Catholic and of course the main population in Sasquatch, Connecticut is mainly Irish catholic, but we are the only major hospital within a 45min drive. Thus we should aim to cater to all local communities. There is a growing Jewish community and a recent influx of Japanese immigrants. While those two communities may have very different views on pregnancy, both in Japan and Israel abortions are legal and readily available.
Another important part of the local area is the growing community of Lebanese people. Research on Lebanese Shiite people has shown that they often do seek IVF treatment and that when it comes to starting a family many people will break their religious beliefs. Many Shiite Muslims take Islam very seriously, which in most cases does not allow IVF, but are still willing to undergo the procedure to have a child. This might indicate that people following other religions may also choose to undergo a treatment which may not be allowed by their religion (such as Catholics).
Furthermore I agree that we should maintain our religious counseling. If Catholics have the option to have counseling from their clergy, why should other religions not have that option? I don’t think we should discriminate against any religion and thus open up religious counseling to all major religions in the hospital.
This being said I think that the medical staff should always have the last word when it comes to counseling because this is a medical institution. Most people here, at the hospital, are seeking medical advise and the best possible treatment from a medical perspective. Because of that, I think it should be up to the doctors to ultimately decide how their patients should be treated and the clergy should play a more passive role.
Dear Sister,
Thank you for these thoughtful comments. I appreciate your understanding of the difficult situations in which people often find themselves and which might lead to them making different decisions than those you think are correct. Though I am not Catholic, I have always found you to be a representative of that faith with whom I could converse even on difficult matters, and we have had our share of struggles and challenges. Some of our fellow committee members have offered excellent thoughts below that I think you should consider. For myself, I would like you to reflect on the following reality. The decision to dissolve our formal affiliation with the Catholic diocese has already been made, for reasons we both understand whether or not we agree with them. But your proposal seems unwilling to acknowledge this reality except grudgingly, holding on as much as possible to the ways in which things have been done in the past. This is admirable in terms of your consistency, but I must say that it is unlikely to carry much weight with the committee given the decisions that have already been made. Given that this will no longer be a Catholic hospital, is there any issue on which you are willing to work constructively with the new administration? You certainly have the right to maintain your positions as they are and there is even something noble about that but it is not, shall we say, an effective strategy for shaping what happens next. Will you reconsider?
best wishes,
Dr. Seeman, head of the hospital transition committee and member, ethics board.