PHOENIX — St. Joseph’s Hospital in Phoenix can no longer be considered Catholic.
That is the decision Bishop Thomas Olmsted of Phoenix announced Tuesday.
Citing seven years of vain attempts to get the institution to comply with Church teachings on abortion, sterilization and birth control, Bishop Olmsted said in an interview with the Register, “What I’ve tried to do is make clear at the present time I cannot assure them St. Joseph’s Hospital is following the ethical directives of the Catholic Church.”
St. Joseph’s administration responded that the bishop’s declaration will not change how it does its work or its claim to be Catholic.
The president of St. Joseph’s, Linda Hunt, said in a prepared statement, “Though we are deeply disappointed, we will be steadfast in fulfilling our mission of care. …Nothing has changed.”
The issue arose earlier this year when an abortion was performed on a woman with pulmonary hypertension, a condition exacerbated by her 11-week pregnancy. Because Sister of Mercy Margaret McBride, at that time vice president of mission integration at the hospital, concurred with a hospital ethics advisory committee decision to okay the abortion, Bishop Olmsted privately informed her she had thereby automatically excommunicated herself.
But the excommunication was somehow made public.
Bishop Olmsted said that throughout his seven years as the ordinary in Phoenix he has been attempting to bring St. Joseph’s and its parent company, Catholic Healthcare West, in line with Catholic teaching.
“A few [staff] have expressed concern. It’s been difficult to put their complaints in writing because of their fear of losing their jobs,” he said. “There also are patients: A mother goes and her child is delivered, and once the delivery takes place, it is recommended that she have her tubes tied, which is illicit.”
From the start, Bishop Olmsted was concerned that Catholic Healthcare West was operating Chandler Regional Health Center in Chandler, Ariz., in willful disregard of the U.S. bishops’ “Ethical and Religious Directives” (ERDs). “That’s why they didn’t use the word ‘Catholic’ in the Chandler name. They were proud of it,” said Bishop Olmsted.
In fact, Father John Ehrich, diocesan director of medical ethics, said the hospital administration seemed more concerned with pleasing various government agencies than following Catholic moral teaching.
“There is no doubt the primary concern was their standing as it relates to licensing of their hospital and their ability to practice medicine,” said Father Ehrich. “I think, unfortunately, they see their ability to practice authentically Catholic health care as extremely difficult given the current laws. They are, no doubt, more concerned about that than following the ethical and religious directives of the Catholic Church.”
$2 Billion at Stake
St. Joseph’s, Chandler Regional and one other Catholic hospital operated by Catholic Healthcare West deliver $2 billion worth of health-care services to Arizona Medicaid through an entity called Mercy Care. These services include elective abortions and sterilizations.
“The state mandates that they have to perform those services,” said Father Ehrich. And even though these procedures are done outside St. Joseph’s, “they are still formally cooperating in this, which is completely contrary to Church teaching, and they know this.”
Bishop Olmsted said St. Joseph’s administration promised to produce letters from other bishops supporting their policies, but “they have never produced those letters. At one point they said, ‘The bishops didn’t want to put it in writing.’ And my response was: ‘Would you do business that way?’”
Next, St. Joseph’s produced arguments from a canon lawyer that supported them, “which argument,” said Bishop Olmsted, “I found completely unconvincing.”
Father Ehrich said that canon lawyers and moral theologians solicited by the secular media defended the controversial abortion with the Catholic doctrine of double effect. The Church teaches that there is a morally acceptable “double effect” when a treatment of a condition endangering the mother has the “foreseen but unintended” effect of killing the unborn baby.
“But this was not what St. Joseph’s said at the time. “They freely acknowledged that they terminated a pregnancy. They would say, ‘We had to terminate the pregnancy to save the life of the mother.’”
In response to Bishop Olmsted’s announcement, the Catholic Health Association, which represents Catholic hospitals in the United States, supported St. Joseph’s. CHA’s president, Sister Carol Keehan, in a statement, praised St. Joseph’s staff for its “long and stellar history of protection for life at all stages” and defended their actions in the case in dispute with Bishop Olmsted.
“They carefully evaluated the patient’s situation and correctly applied the ‘Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services’ to it, saving the only life that was possible to save,” said Sister Carol, a Daughter of Charity who was a key supporter of President Obama’s health-insurance reform bill earlier this year.
“But the ERDs themselves state that the diocesan bishop exercises responsibilities rooted in his office,” said John Brehany, executive director of the Catholic Medical Association, representing U.S. doctors committed to practicing medicine in conformity with Catholic teaching. “If they are denying the role of the bishop, they are not following the ERDs.”
Father Ehrich speculated that the operation was conducted to reduce the hospital’s or doctors’ exposure to a lawsuit. But it was unnecessary medically, he claims. “The mortality rate for hypertension is very, very low.”
St. Joseph’s president, Linda Hunt, disagreed. “In November 2009, the woman was admitted to St. Joseph’s Hospital and Medical Center with worsening symptoms,” she said in her prepared statement. “Tests revealed that she now had life-threatening pulmonary hypertension. The chart notes that she had been informed that her risk of mortality was close to 100% if she continued the pregnancy.”
“If we are presented with a situation in which a pregnancy threatens a woman’s life,” Hunt added, “our first priority is to save both patients. If that is not possible, we will always save the life that we can save, and that is what we did in this case.”
Hunt added that the decision to abort the child was made “in collaboration with the patient, her family, her caregivers and our ethics committee. Morally, ethically and legally, we simply cannot stand by and let someone die whose life we might be able to save.”
Will Do It Again
Bishop Olmsted’s action may have no tangible effect. Hunt said, “St. Joseph’s will retain its name, and our Catholic heritage will always be at the core of who we are. Our mission and values will not change, nor do we believe this action will have any impact on our operations.”
The Sisters of Mercy will continue to run the hospital, which will continue to provide facilities for priests to administer the sacraments. It will continue to refuse to perform elective abortions. And if the same condition arises where an abortion is required to save a mother’s life? “We would do it again,” Hunt stated.
Bishop Olmsted admitted there is nothing he can do beyond what he has done. He would not direct Catholics to shun St. Joseph’s as patients or staff.
The problem posed by St. Joseph’s claiming to be Catholic is a broad one, he said. “We are going through a crisis of Catholic identity both in terms of individuals who claim to be Catholic, but neither talking nor acting in accordance with Church teachings, and in terms of institutions such as universities and health-care organizations.”
Brehany said more than the ethics of a particular case is at stake. If it were just a dispute over “a one-off complex case,”, it would be possible to give St. Joseph’s “the benefit of the doubt. It seems that it is a more systemic rejection not only of the Church’s teachings but also the bishop’s role in the diocese.” He believes St. Joseph’s “really underestimates the reality and the effects of the rupture that has taken place and the effects of no longer being in living communion with the Church. It gets back to almost a Protestant principle: ‘Of course we’re good Catholics. Of course we’re following Jesus. We just don’t accept that bishop, that successor of Christ.’”
“One of the tools that Christ gave the Church as a service to the experts and laity involved is a structure of authority and guidance to help resolve disputes. … That’s precisely what is in dispute.”
Brehany said St. Joseph’s is acting as if it is claiming to be “an independent magisterium. You know: ‘We will teach what is ethical.’”
Register correspondent Steve Weatherbe writes from Victoria, British Columbia.
Edward Pentin: Images of Rome's 2013 March for Life
Comments
Post a Comment
This is a truly a sad situation. We mere mortals can not perceive an outcome that will save the lives of both individuls precisely because we are mortals. The catchy phrase,“Let go and let God” was not followed here. “Man” played God here and did not trust God’s decision. Would have both somehow miraculously lived? Was it the time for one or both of them to meet their maker? Shall we ever know? What this event does do, however, is demonstrate the difference between those who are Catholic and those who continue to mold their identity from the proverbial Catholic cafeteria.
I completely support Sr. McBride and the Hospital.
There is no mention here, as far as I can see, of
the 24 page report written by M. Therese Lysaught
describing this entire case.
The hospital was right to do what they did. I applaud
their courage in standing up to this bishop. I applaud
them for refusing to commit to letting pregnant women
in reproductive crises die if they can save their lives.
I applaud Sr. Carol Keehan for standing up for the hospital.
The implications of this crisis are huge.
This case should be of deep concern to all Americans, and
especially women.
I hope Catholics will express their support for Sr. McBride
and Sr. Carol Keehan.
This is similar to the situation many of us saw in High School ethics classes. Take a hypothetical situation: 5 people are stranded on a desert island. The circumstances are that they will be rescued in 6 months. They have just barely enough food to keep 3 people alive for that long. Is it ethical to kill 2 of them to allow the other 3 to live? It is not. It’s wrong to perform an evil act to accomplish a good. As another commentator said, this is a time when we have to trust God. The doctors decided that there was no chance of the mother living if the pregnancy continued and wanted to perform an evil act to accomplish a good. They were not trusting in God at all, only in their own limited knowledge. It’s hard to trust God in these situations, but we must.
Point of technicality: Sister Margaret McBride and Sister Carol Keehan are sisters, not nuns. Nuns live a monastic and contemplative lifestyle with solemn vows, whereas sisters work in some apostolate in the world, taking simple vows. It’s no wonder that those outside the church don’t know this distinction, when even our Catholic publications don’t distinguis between different types of religious life.
To be clear: neither the bishop, nor the Magisterium, nor anyone else I’ve seen comment is suggesting that the hospital should “let pregnant women in reporductive crises die if they can save their lives.” At dispute is the manner in which this was done, which was NOT morally licit as the principle of double effect was not properly applied here. A more acceptable scenario could have been to stabilize the mother in every way possible (via medications, etc.)—and if this resulted in the loss of the baby, then double effect would have been appropriately applied.
And yes, the implications are huge—how healthcare is delivered in this country should be of grave concern to all citizens. Until medical care is provided in a manner which seeks to uphold the dignity of every human person, we will be no more “advanced” or “progressive” than those of the ancient Roman Empire. And when healthcare providers are allowed to treat all patients in such a way that truly restores them to health, rather than based on the bottom line, society as a whole will benefit.
To truly see who “benefits most” in cases like this, one simply has to follow the money.
Keeping strictly to the medical necessity of the direct abortion, it appears that the bishop’s position is valid, and the necessity of that direct abortion is questionable.
http://www.wisn.com/health/17994163/detail.html
Pulmonary Hypertension is apparently *not* a definite reason to abort the child in the first place, based on Dr. Zwicke’s work since 2008: 40 women able to keep their babies out of 40 pregnant women with ph who were treated by Dr. Zwicke.
Anne, you are setting up a false dilemma since the bishop was not advocating to save the baby at the mother’s expense. That would be ridiculous since letting the mother die would also kill the baby (11 weeks). The guidelines in cases seem to be to treat the problem to save the mother even if the treatment can put the baby’s life at risk. From what I’ve read, there is no such thing as a medical necessity to directly abort a child in the womb. In ectopic pregnancies, they can remove the organ that is endangering the mother, and the child’s death is an inevitable side effect. In the case of the woman with ph, at the very least, if pregnancy-related changes to the woman’s body was endangering her life, and if those changes were being coursed through the connection via the placenta, then it is the placenta that perhaps may be removed or disconnected in some way to the mother. The child would again be a likely secondary victim, of course, but it is not a direct abortion.
If the reasoning is that it makes no difference, then we have dug up a more deep-seated problem.
Just my opinion. I don’t have a medical degree but I do have one in philosophy, and I think the bishop’s position is sensible. I would also add that we have a moral obligation to listen to our bishops. Sometimes they get things wrong, but their judge is their boss, not us. He was clear enough to tell the first bishops that those who hear them hear Him, and those who reject them reject Him. Proceed with extreme caution, and remember the rebellion of Korah.
“Diogenes” at Catholic Culture makes some good points about the involvement of Anne Rice at National Catholic Register.
.
http://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/otr.cfm?id=5439
Thank you Bishop Olmsted! Finally, a courageous bishop publicly stands tall in support of authentic Catholic doctrinal truth. Direct killing of a child in the womb is NEVER morally acceptable; nor is it ever the only option to save the life of the mother; nor does Church teaching in any way deny efforts to save both lives. This was an expedient decision to thumb their noses at the local bishop to justify a liberal agenda, to receive public funding and avoid litigation.
Someone mentioned lawsuits, but it seems to me that the doctors could have been charged under Arizona law with criminally negligent manslaughter by allowing the woman die when they could have operated to save her life. I do not believe that Bishop Olmsted’s rationale would have flown in a court room.
I just want to second Rachel’s point: “neither the bishop, nor the Magisterium, nor anyone else I’ve seen comment is suggesting that the hospital should ‘let pregnant women in reproductive crises die if they <sic> can save their lives.” If the hospital sought a direct abortion, then the hospital was morally wrong. I was previously concerned whether everyone was arguing over the definition of “double effect,” but it seems clear, from this latest piece, that the hospital employed that terminology only after the fact, meaning that the hospitals *intention* was the abortion. Do everything possible to save that woman’s life, and if the child dies, God be with them both. But do not directly kill. The equality of their lives was certainly not upheld in this case. And shame on you, Ms. Rice, for inciting disobedience in this case. The hospital was *not* stripped of its Catholic name because of this one event, but because of a series of events that show the hospital functioning outside Catholic parameters, events brought to light in the wake of this one.
I know many people in the medical field, and one thing everyone needs to know is that “the benefit must always out weight the risk” Doctors/nurses/etc. will not perform an abortion such as the one mentioned unless they know that the mother and child could both die.Unless you are medically trained and work on people who are seriously ill, you have no idea weather the benefit out weighed the risk. Doctors are for life not death. If they chose death all the time just think of all the people who would not be saved due to severe illness,heart attacks, severe burns etc. Who are we to pass judgment on these medical professionals? If they can show with medical records,test reports etc. that there was no way to save both the mother and the 11 week old fetus, then how can anyone say they were wrong? Shall we let 2 lives go, or are the doctors there to do what they are medically trained to do? I do not know any Christian (catholic,Protestant) that believes abortion is right. I think we just need to pray that the doctors make the right decision in each case and we need to realize each case is different.
How about a decree prohibiting the parent company - Catholic Healthcare West - from using the name “Catholic”? And follow that up with a request to the state attorney general to bring an action against it if it continues to use the name as it would be a misleading and deceptive practice, attracting donations intended for authentically “catholic” hospitals and unfairly impacting the truly “catholic” healthcare providers and entites of all kinds that rely on their communion with the local bishop to mold their public identity.
“If they can show with medical records,test reports etc. that there was no way to save both the mother and the 11 week old fetus, then how can anyone say they were wrong?”
What makes you think they’re going to show you everything? They’re going to show what will defend the hospital. This patient’s record is protected by medical privacy laws and they’re not going to divulge anything that would create liability. This is totally understandable on their part but it is hardly fully divulging all the details of what truly happened.
I am completely baffled by the interest and anti-bishop attitudes our Catholic issue has caused to non/former Catholics, like Ms. Rice. It’s as if the point of dissent, by “sisters” and celebrities alike, is to lessen or removed a bishop’s authority. Shameful behavior, to say the least.
Marty, I imagine many are baffled. But there is no doubt that anger still rages in the pews about the sexual abuse of children and the subsequent cover up by the bishops that lasted over a generation. That is not something the Church can easily get past. The bond of trust between bishop and faithful has been severely damaged and it will take a long time for it to be restored. Some say, “Get over it,” but a wound so deep doesn’t heal very fast. Once something as serious as that happens in one area the distrust and anger spreads into many other areas. In my opinion the worst thing the hierarchy could do is to react to that anger and distrust by becoming more autocratic. But what do I know - I’m just a deacon.
Deacon Robert Killoren - Right on! Especially since the coverup continues and is not being adequately dealt with. Moral authority indeed!
It will never be enough for how the abuse is being dealt with - even though our Pope has been open about it. Or any other terrible mistakes that the Church has been found guily of. Those citing abuse by priests have not and will not ever forgive the church. Why? Because they are more interested in themselves and gaining power in the eyes of men, and revel in the vulnerability of the Church. They never really respected Church authority to begin with. And who suffers? The sad truth: their souls, because the Sacraments are not revealed to them since they choose instead to feed their pride. And, also continue to attack the very Church that Our Lord instituted by continuing to receive the sacrament of Holy Communion with no repentance. Where is the hypocrisy? Could it be in our hearts?
Again, one justified action by this bishop has nothing to do with the past abuse by priests. And, we dont advance our own spiritual agenda one bit in the eyes of God when we attempt to tie the rightful actions of the bishop in this case to it. It is shameful behavior.
Only a small minority of active Catholics pay heed to the bishops. Everytime one of them opens his mouth, someone is hurt. For years they wanted to play house, now they want to play doctor.
I agree with Bishop Olmsted, far too many organizations step over the line thinking the money they reveive will justify the failed reasoning.
Sadly, it is very difficult to police the Catholic religion since it is very large overall.
However, Bishop Olmsted like many Catholics draw the line when it conflicts with the very heart of the religion; to preserve life.
Within this case it is clear evidence that the planned mother could have been monitored and cared for during the time of labor.
Oddly, an entire hospital staff of trained professionals were afraid to make an attempt?
What a sorrowful way to call oneself a Catholic, I see it practically everyday ~ so many so-called Catholics go to church whenever they want, rarely ever go to confession, pick and choose what they desire to believe.
All the latter causes is a distant relationship with the church, no different than a marriage seperation which is always noticed as grief.
I can understand the old in age not being able to get to church because of health conditions but oddly that is all I see in church anymore!
God bless Bishop Olmsted for his desire to uphold the teaching of the Catholic church.
I guess my comment last week was not long enough. To further get to the point I want to thank God the Father, His son Jesus and the Holy Spirit for bringing life to the man we call Bishop Thomas Olmsted. He is truely representing the Church that Jesus asked St Peter to start. Imagine if the miracle of birth were left to female humans only to decide upon we may not have a man standing up for the teachings of Jesus in the twenty first century today. Anne Rice, as a woman to another woman: I pray for your soul.
I take the pro-life movement very personally. I support the Bishop and hope someday he can talk the bishops in Massachusetts to have the same stance. We are one of the most anti-life states in the country.
“If they chose death all the time just think of all the people who would not be saved due to severe illness, heart attacks, severe burns etc.” I believe this will eventually come to pass.
Everything on this side of Heaven should’ve been done to preserve the life of both-repeat BOTH-mother and child.
Those who are supporting the two sisters are risking your own souls. Those who support sin, commits the same sin once removed. Abortion is a grave sin.
As a result, there is one less person in the world because of their decision.
Yeah, I am guilty of equalizing “nuns” and “sisters”. If I say one, I may mean the other.
I wish to add my support for the Bishop to those who have already done so. It was apparent, during the Obamacare process, that Sister Keehan’s interest was federal funding and not Catholic Teachings. The lesson here is to recognize that our Catholic institutions should never take federal funding because of the conflicts involved, especially when you have an administration like that of Pres Obama. The current administrations’ policies are antithetical to Catholic Teaching and will, if left unapposed, make further inroads against human dignity. The rationale for taking life will become more commonplace and less rigorous if they have their way. It really has no bearing on the discussion but this: “...we will be steadfast in fulfilling our mission of care. …Nothing has changed.” reminded me of a similar line in The Sound of Music made by the Nazi symphathizer in Austria. Obviously things did change.
Some Bishops looked the other way during the sex abuse scandal
and look what that got us. Now I’m reading that some people want
the Bishops to look the other way while Catholic Hospitals start
to murder the innocent.
Umberto Mancini
“Father Ehrich speculated that the operation was conducted to reduce the hospital’s or doctors’ exposure to a lawsuit. But it was unnecessary medically, he claims. “The mortality rate for hypertension is very, very low.””
If he is speaking about systemic hypertension, this is true; but this situation is not about maternal systemic hypertension or pre-eclampsia, but rather pulmonary hypertension. So I am not sure what he is speaking about. The mortality rate for pulmonary hypertension during massive hemodynamic shifts is significant and real - it is a very real life-threatening pathology that can easily lead to cor pulmonale and, subsequently, to complete heart failure.
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.