« Wouldn't that be cutting off our nose to spite our face? | Main | Lectionary blogging: Mark 4: 26-34 »

June 08, 2009

Comments

Wendy Norris

Thanks so much for link, John.

It's an interesting question about the intersection of religion, patient-physician relationships and the big business of health care.

John Petty

Thanks for covering this story!

DKSampson

I keep wondering what happens when conscience clauses trump advanced directives. At what point does the medical community remember that they exist for patient care and without patients they no longer have a purpose?

Wendy Norris

Very good question, DK.

If the Sisters of Leavenworth (or any other religiously-based health care system) want to operate the business by denying certain types of care, they are within their rights.

The problem is that few patients can "vote with their feet" if they do not want doctrinal-limited care since health insurance restricts providers to pre-ordained networks.

It seems to me that one solution may be the public option, such as Medicare-for-All, currently being considered in the health insurance reform discussion in Congress, that wouldn't limit providers.

John Petty

Hear! Hear! I agree with Medicare-for-All, but think it would have more salience if Medicare was in better shape financially.

Hypatia

Without a real public option it would probably be better to have no health care 'reform' this year at all.

John Petty

Everybody says they're for it, but I remember 1994 and I was sure something good was going to happen then and it didn't. Prospects do seem to be better, but, like you, I'm wary.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Lectionary Posts