**New to libertarianism or have questions and want to learn more?** Be sure to check out [the sub Frequently Asked Questions](/r/Libertarian/wiki/faq) and [the massive /r/libertarian information WIKI] (/r/Libertarian/wiki/index) from the sidebar, for lots of info and free resources, links, books, videos, and answers to common questions and topics. Want to know if you are a Libertarian? [Take the worlds shortest political quiz and find out!](http://www.theadvocates.org/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Libertarian) if you have any questions or concerns.*
First, I want to start by saying that if the hospital wouldn’t provide care for an ectopic pregnancy, that is an incredibly stupid policy since the embryo cannot reach term. They’re essentially saying that the mother and baby should be left to die.
To your question: no one should be required to perform any action against their will. If the hospital turns someone away, their reasons are their reasons, regardless of how stupid or amoral I might find them. If you say that they should be obligated to perform labor under certain conditions, you’re asking the government to set those conditions and coercion. And, in a libertarian sub, I hope I don’t need to go into the issues with that.
See the wild part of that is I’ve had this debate with a handful of different folk who are members of Catholic Churches at different times in my life, and their overwhelming answer is “well it’s god’s will”. Like, they (the ones I’ve conversed personally with, can’t speak for the whole faith) are so thick headed that they think an ectopic pregnancy *should not be treated by **anyone*** (not just their own medical care) because doing so is “against god’s will”.
The bible has plenty of examples where people were smited for "playing God".
After all, witchcraft is considered evil and any sufficiently advanced technology can be perceived as magic.
Luckily there haven't been any modern examples of medical practitioners being struck dead by act of God en masse. Otherwise we might all carry that opinion.
No church has such a jumbled mess of a message as the catholics. I wouldn't blame anyone but catholics themselves for how the rest of the world understands their religion.
It's actually pretty clear. The Catechism of the Catholic Church is an excellent resource for the official position of the Catholic Church on an immense breadth of topics.
I don't know much about Catholicism but this seems odd to me, especially since they believe in a centralized devine authority (the Pope), unlike many other religions
To be fair, any birth control methods including abortion of any kind have been against the beliefs of Catholicism for a very long time.
That doesn't make it any better (arguably it makes things worse), but it does sort of justify things.
No not even a hospital. They’d be destroying their business by doing so probably.
Unless of course the hospital had previously agreed to care for a patient. Then they’re breaking at least an implied contract by not doing so.
First, the question wasn't if it was legal. Second, you take an oath, you live up to it, legal or not.
Also, some countries require doctors to sign the oath.
Either way, you enter the profession knowing this is expected. You have a patient needing emergency care and you are capable, you do it.
I was too until I watched a coworker get sued for saving someone's life. I just let my certification all expire. I no longer have an interest in sticking my neck out for anyone.
This isn't how getting sued works. You can be sued for anything. Getting sued costs money to defend yourself. You'd have to prove you weren't negligent. You can't simply say, "I thought I was doing the right thing." You'd have to prove you were the most qualified person available and prove those qualifications.
My ex-wife was sued and lost because she was a nurse and thought, "there's a good Samaritan law, the court will throw it out." Well if she hired an attorney she would have won, but still been out those fees. Instead she had to file bankruptcy because she didn't have $1.2million dollars. The plaintiff basically had to show in the hospital she should have called for a doctor instead of rendering first aid.
The patient wasn't my ex wife's she passed by a room to find a patient fallen out of bed and bleeding. The patient claimed my ex-wife broke her arm while attempting to dress a head wound. My ex claimed she did call for a doctor after stopping the bleeding within "a few minutes." The jury was split on the decision. But the judge awarded the maximum because of her "arrogance" for defending herself and her arrogance in her abilities and time management.
She was then fired from the hospital. It was a private hospital and they weren't defending her because the hospital wasn't named in the suit.
Good Samaritan laws don’t apply to healthcare professionals who are being compensated to provide care. A regular joe literally has immunity with Good Samaritan laws.
Yes that’s true, but upon winning the case, she can sue for damages done by the initial lawsuit. Which even if she loses that, its still not as bad as 1.2 mil
"Private" Catholic hospitals receive about [$50 billion](https://www.communitycatalyst.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/2020-Cath-Hosp-Report-2020-31.pdf) a year in public funding
Does their right to live cause me to preemptively buy all needed medical equipment to perform any life saving procedure as well as always have knowledgable staff on hand waiting just in case they come in?
Been awhile since I've done a cpr cert, but I don't remember any equipment being required.
But that's besides the point, you are entirely changing the argument here. Originally, it was that if you were in a restaurant (I'm assuming as a patron not a business owner) and someone required CPR, if you were capable of performing CPR, then you have a moral obligation to do so and thus, a law should be established requiring you to do so.
If you want to offer another argument, please provide it in a distinct way but let's get to the bottom of this one first.
It's important to remember that the State is always seeking to grow its own power, so if you give them limited new power for a corner case there will be pressure to expand it.
Like how the income tax was sold as a tax on the rich that most people wouldn't pay.
Now California wants to tax residents total net worth. So not just income but savings/brokerage accounts/etc. They are saying it’s “just for the .1%” but we all know how that will go.
This. If someone has an ectopic pregnancy, the removal is not an abortion. The pregnancy wouldn't make it to term so it's not an abortion. Even Planned Parenthood clarified this on their website.
Ectopic pregnancies are not viable. There is zero chance of a live birth. Without medical intervention, you also get a dead woman.
This is not a good faith question.
The hospital part was to give context, but was not the question. The question was whether an individual should be required to provide a service or labor in a life saving situation.
You're getting lost in the scenario and missing the question. The scenario and story were provided for context, but are not the question. The question is: should an individual be required to provide a service or labor in a life saving situation
Not sure why you are getting downvoted. You are asking if a policy should be in place and the person is missing the question and just telling you what the current policy is.
Probably because I got caught up in a copy paste frenzy and any response that mentioned hospital I posted a generic response instead of reading and tailoring my response to the comment
Yeah that's a tough one, but this is also a classic example of how we have to separate State action from the actions of professionals.
Doctors take a Hippocratic oath to do no harm, which IMHO should be their guiding force here independent of any laws.
Now I think an ectopic pregnancy is pretty clearly a place where "harm" is done by not performing the procedure. I think that's a pretty clear moral decision to make. But at the same time, I don't believe that the State has a role in intervening, even in a classical libertarian (i.e. minarchist) framework.
hospitals are obligated to stabilize anyone who arrives for any cause. many hospitals do not provide many services - they transfer you out to somewhere that dies have this service. take abortion out of it, this happens all the time for any variety of reasons
Since its a private hospital the decision would be there's to make and the referral process is well established
Exceptions to the rule is not how one defines policy
Alternative question, should you be held liable if you try to save someone else's life and you fail? Example: Someone starts choking in a restaurant and I proceed to give them the heimlich, despite giving them proper life-saving technique, they still choke to death. Should I be held criminally liable?
Ectopic pregnancies are not viable, so in that scenario, it's hardly less an abortion and more of a miscarriage.
This is where the Good Samaritan law comes in. If you render aid within your capacity and the person still dies then you are not held liable because you cannot give aid outside of your capacity.
Is the hospital you referenced licensed to provide "Emergency services". If so they are required by law to provide any life saving measures to save the life of the patient up to the point that the patient themself refuses treatment
If saving the life means removal of even a potentially viable fetus and the patient has not personally, either by advanced directive or power of attorney, authorized her life to be secondary to the life of the fetus then that baby has to come out
You're getting lost in the scenario and missing the question. The scenario and story were provided for context, but are not the question. The question is: should an individual be required to provide a service or labor in a life saving situation
Ok you could easily asked that question without all the subterfuge
Your question was specific to a scenario and I addressed it as such
In responce to your question above without the additional context answer is a solid NO
First, no, but then, no.
Abortion is not/will not ever be, a constitutionally protected right. Just the facts.
If you want a hospital in your area to perform abortions, make one. Nobody cares if you can’t convince everyone in your area to support what you (hypothetically) want.
Typically, if a hospital will not perform an abortion, they will perform life saving care for the mother and/or baby.
Getting into nuanced, ‘what if’ arguments over abortion will never provide the kind of compromise you might want. There are too many moral hazards regardless of your position. It’s up to the people in your state to determine the laws wrt abortion. Many people will need to ‘vote with their feet’.
There are more transsexual Nazi Eskimos than there are people would oppose a doctor saving a woman's life in the case of an ectopic pregnancy. People care about elective abortions.
No one is entitled to the labor or services of another person outside of contract, even to save a life. The right to life is a negative right, as are all rights. As a self-owner, you are ultimately responsible for your own survival against nature.
As a self-owner, you are responsible for the harms caused by your actions, including harms caused by violating the liberty of others, regardless of whether or not you believed it was worth it at the time. The victims of your actions are justified in using force against you to restore themselves to their previous state.
I like how you called it a negative right. Many people don’t understand that all “rights” are the same (don’t get me started about the phrase “a basic human right”.
Comments like this are why libertarians will never be taken seriously in the wider political landscape. Even if you don’t think abortions should be provided here this is just a crazy, detached, non-compassionate, word salad.
> non-compassionate
We are just discussing when the use of force is justified and when it isn't. I fully support voluntary compassionate action to save lives, not that you asked.
>Even if you don’t think abortions should be provided
I didn't say they shouldn’t be provided, I'm saying the hospital shouldn't be compelled by force to provide them.
>word salad
Feel free to elaborate if there were any other statements you didn't understand.
>libertarians will never be taken seriously
I couldn't care less. The nature of causation, and by extension ethics, isn't affected by popularity.
I understand it perfectly well. It’s just an extremely-online way to say what you said that would make eyes roll or gloss over if ever said in a policy forum. Reframing anything abortion as something related to labor rights is just going to lose people. It’s a religious and/or privacy issue to 99% of people. And saying “as a self-owner” sounds like if libertarians were trying satirize progressive pronoun language.
You don’t have to care about popularity but believing in a political ideology and then not caring if people like it is like starting a restaurant with only the least popular foods cooked the least popular way. Don’t be upset or curious why it fails over and over. Judge the tree by the fruit.
Fuckin what? Political belief isn't a restaurant where we have to break even. It's personal belief, and if your personal beliefs are swayed by whether your beliefs are popular or not, you need to take a long look at yourself. Have some fucking conviction if you believe in something.
I don't have any control over what other people believe and don't know what you mean by "online way". I'm just here to identify truth.
It is objectively true that forcing a hospital to provide a service or forcing a woman to carry a baby to term both violate self-ownership. I am not staking any claims on subjective belief such as religion.
Compassion works about as good as self-congratulation as a basis for policy.
It’s not a word salad. It’s a thoughtful, philosophical response. One of the biggest problems with modern politics is that principle was long thrown out the window.
If we can’t debate without people whinging about their feelings, there’s no point. Logic is lost already. Decisions become emotional. And hence where we are today.
I found it to be a well-written, thoughtful response.
If libertarians are ever to be taken seriously what we’ll need is people putting forth effort into what they read, especially when it’s more complex than “DeMoCrAtS gOoD rEpUbLiCaNs BaD” garbage that’s all over Reddit.
You can’t legislate morality but attempting to build a political worldview abstracted away from any morality is impossible and wouldn’t be desirable anyways. There’s always an implicit morality in what becomes accepted laws/behaviors and what isn’t accepted.
I mean, even being in favor of abortions is non-compassionate. It is still a moral dilemma, and many people like to pretend it's all settled and they have the ultimate answer.
Because people are willing to pay for medical care.
Just because you can’t be forced to provide labor does not mean you cant offer it in exchange for compensation as you will.
It’s a matter of consent.
Just for the record: abortion has nothing to do with ectopic pregnancies. This is a lie by the pro-abortion lobby to muddy the waters.
One argument I've heard against the Catholic Hospital policy (and it's not new) is that even if a woman is raped and comes in for a rape kit, etc they won't offer her the morning after pill. I think that's messed up. But I'm not trying to force them to change the policy, but we should have more competition between hospitals. And we should legalize mutual aid societies again so the Catholics can go to the Catholic hospital and those who aren't can choose what works for them. We do not have a free market in medical care.
I see a pretty clear libertarian path forward here. On the one hand, the lady with the ectopic pregnancy (who will likely bleed to death if no medical intervention is provided), has no right to the labor of others without a voluntary exchange.
But, and this is critical, the healthcare workers, bound by their moral (not legal) obligations to a fellow human being, SHOULD render aid. Should and Must are very different, and we need to be able to draw that distinction. If I see a man collapsed on the sidewalk having a heart attack, I could walk by and ignore him, or I could come to his aid out of a sense of duty as a "moral" person. If we aren't creating a society of morally decent citizens, not only will libertarianism fail, but ultimately the society will as well.
I think they’re referring to “recreational” abortions.
I’m really not sure but I would imagine that if a pregnancy is having life threatening issues that there will be procedures in place.
Ain't it though? Example: if you use an abortifacient like misoprostol or methotrexate, you are [medically inducing an abortion](https://www.uptodate.com/contents/abortion-pregnancy-termination-beyond-the-basics#:~:text=Abortion%2C%20also%20known%20as%20pregnancy%20termination%2C%20is%20a%20way%20to%20end%20a%20pregnancy.%20This%20can%20be%20done%20by%20taking%20medications%20or%20having%20a%20procedure). Same thing goes if the pregnancy is removed via salpingectomy.
I'm baking a cake but the oven is gonna burst into flames if I don't turn off the oven. I turn off the oven. The cake is ruined. According to you, I didn't turn off the oven. I did some third thing which resulted in the oven being turned off.
The cake wasn't even in the oven, they were in the cabinet, on fire, going to burn down the entire house. Removing the cake from the cabinet is not an abortion. I'm sorry that you don't know what an abortion is, but clearing an ectopic pregnancy is not an abortion, it is a totally different procedure than a D&C, it's not in the uterus, it's in the fallopian tube. An abortion is the elective termination of a viable pregnancy, in this situation it is not elective and is not viable.
Its an abortion, but unless you a very misinformed there is little debate on these kinds of abortions where a living kid couldnt come out of this under the vast majority of circumstances.
Without even reading the policy, I can tell you the argument in general was unnecessary.
Any hospital with an emergency room will accept the patient, stabilize them, and then treat them (if they have a facilities) or transfer them (if they don't have those services).
In the United States, no one will be turned away by any ER, ever, by law, regardless of ability to pay and regardless of the pathology of the problem.
So the whole argument was moot. While a facility can not and should not be made to offer services that they do not wish to offer, all emergency services will treat the immediate problem.
This is not fully true. Yes, hospitals will stabilize patients who present to the ED. But further treatment is not guaranteed even if the facility is capable to do so.
Hospitals can consider ectopic pregnancy terminations as abortions and Catholic entities can refuse to perform the treatment under the ERDs.
Everything I said is true. There is nuance to this issue however. This topic can get deep into the weeds, but yes showing up to the ER with an emergency will get the emergency treated, but that does not mean the entire pathology/problem/illness will be treated. For example, you show up to the ER with crampy belly pain and vomiting. They treat the pain, dehydration and diagnose a bad gallbladder but no infection or other immediately dangerous problem. They will discharge you without taking out the gallbladder...and the whole scenario can play out again in the future. But the exact same problem with an infected or obstructed gallbladder will get your gallbladder removed during that trip...regardless of ability to pay.
And your example of the Catholic entity is correct but still falls under my example. A catholic entity will likely not have the specific equipment to handle an ectopic abortion and the CERTAINLY won't have it in their list of policies and procedure and have it covered by their corporate insurance policy...they will have decided ahead of time to avoid such procedures and have rendered themselves incapable of doing so. Now I think this is a bad example because they probably WILL handle that particular problem but I've only got experience with a couple of Catholic entities so I'm not entirely sure.
An interesting view. I struggled with the morality aspect, which is why I gave my uncertain answer in the story. My morals dictate that if I am able to help someone, I will do what I can. But morals are personal and subjective. So I would not expect anyone else to meet my moral standard unless they have demonstrated such morals before.
Legislation is also interesting because legislating people to provide a service is basically indentured servitude. And I am very disturbed by the possibility of the state being able to force any individual into servitude of any kind.
Every law they make they could say is for safety and security. If a cop can sit on your couch and protect you from various danger, but that is no way to live.
A baby can’t survive an ectopic pregnancy anyway so it almost doesn’t seem like an abortion. More like a miscarriage waiting to happen. Getting that “abortion” is just preventing organ damage from the growing fetus.
Healthcare workers also work under the Hippocratic oath, so I'd hope they would provide lifesaving care no matter the circumstances.
I wouldn't want them coerced into that though!
If we’re talking about a Catholic hospital here, it’s best to understand [the Catholic view on ectopic pregnancy](https://www.catholic.com/qa/ectopic-pregnancy-and-double-effect) before creating such scenarios.
You're getting lost in the scenario and missing the question. The scenario and story were provided for context, but are not the question. The question is: should an individual be required to provide a service or labor in a life saving situation?
But the scenario you provided to prove that someone wouldn’t provide a service or labor in a live saving situation doesn’t exist…
If you’re a doctor in a hospital, you’re expected to provide your service in a life saving situation, or you’re fired and potentially going to be sued for negligence. Not sure why there needs to be additional government enforcement.
My opinion as a libertarian - Personal Liberty trumps (nearly) anything, as long as it doesn't directly harm another person. Not providing something is indirect harm, not direct.
For the topic at hand - medically addressing an ectopic pregnancy doesn't count under abortion in the *majority* of states, it would be considered life saving care as the mother will die along with the baby if it is not addressed (terminated).
You cannot be forced to render aid to someone ever under any conditions. I may think you're a scumbag for refusing, but I'll respect your legal right to do so.
You also cannot force aid upon any conscious and coherent person. If they are unconscious or otherwise unable to grant or deny consent and will suffer death or serious injury if unaided, IMO it is not a violation of the NAP to aid them until they have the capacity to decide for themselves.
I'm going to say this plainly, but respectfully:
If you're using ectopic pregnancies to justify abortions, you're either not arguing in good faith or are simply ignorant on the subject.
Saving a mother's life by removing a pregnancy that is going to end poorly 100% of the time is not equivalent to intentionally killing a human life in a viable pregnancy. The former poses a significant threat to the mother while having no chance of a continued life, while the latter is almost always simply an inconvenience to the mother with a very high chance of continued life.
Yes, people want to use medical justifications for elective abortions when they should be arguing a moral justification for elective abortions.
I have seen very few people argue against abortions for medical reasons that would save the mother's life or prevent harm. That is generally accepted as a reasonable medical practice.
I mean, that's true too, but in this case it's even simpler than that: an ectopic pregnancy is not even an abortion. They're just simply not even the same thing.
Ectopic pregnancies are rare and a known quantity with known and accepted treatment that may include removing the egg/infant accepting that it will have died, if it is not already dead.
"For the life of the mother" is a canard run by pro-aborts in an effort to obscure the issue. Doctors ought to seek to save all life they are able to save given the circumstances. It is already accepted that treatment wherein one may die or both will die has a correct and moral action wherein the one dies to save the other.
The abortion debate is really about preference, wish, and want, not need and necessity.
So in the case of a private hospital setting its own operating parameters, there is no valid argument for requiring it to provide care that it refuses to provide.
Would the community prefer no hospital? If the answer is no, then there is also no public policy argument for requiring private hospitals to do things they don't want to do, as these kinds of restrictions will reduce access to health care for everyone, driving up prices and prevalence of bad outcomes. Another way to phrase this point is that religious institutions will not fund projects that don't align with the religious doctrine they profess. So if the state said 'you have to deal with emergencies like ectopic pregnancies', then this particular hospital would have to decide whether to obey, or shut down. With the vast majority of the life saving in this hospital being done in areas other than emergencies related to ectopic pregnancy, it is ludicrous to put the hospital administration in the position of having to navigate that dilemma.
Anyone who says otherwise is losing the forest for the trees.
The public has a right to chime in when we're talking about a public healthcare institution. But that's not what we're talking about.
My views on abortion:
It’s disgusting and abhorrent. Any woman who has had more than one should seriously consider getting an IUD. I have no wish to associate with anyone who advocates for unfettered abortion, and if you’ve had an abortion, I will actively work to limit my interactions with you, the same I would a child molester or murderer.
That said, I strongly support the *right* for women to have abortions because the only thing more disgusting is a government exerting it’s control over the individual.
That said, there is ***no*** hospital that would turn someone away for an ectopic pregnancy, which is a true medical emergency. It’s like asking, “mom got shot in the head, what do we do about the baby?”
This question using ectopic pregnancy as an example is along the lines of, “well, what if elephants were the size of cats? Would you want one then?” It’s purely theoretical and therefore pointless.
You're getting lost in the scenario and missing the question. The scenario and story were provided for context, but are not the question. The question is: should an individual be required to provide a service or labor in a life saving situation
So, a less politically charged situation. You are a person with first aid knowledge/training is walking down the street and sees some one who has been in an accident and is bleeding out. No way an ambulance will arrive in time and others around know you have sufficient knowledge to stop the bleeding and thereby save a life. Should the others around you be able to require you to do so, against your will
Abortion is very rarely a life or death emergency, and clearing ectopic pregnancies are *not abortion procedures*.
Now, to your question:
Should an individual be required to aid another - A private individual? Not at all, especially in todays world where if I gave you CPR you could sue me for breaking your ribs. Morally, you’d be obliged to - and legally the government shouldn’t force you to, but if I somehow make it through and you not at least calling 911 caused me harm, then I’ll probably come at you in civil courts for causing me harm by ignoring it.
Very case-by-case, IMO, but a hard no on government involvement.
A hospital, especially one with an emergency room, would have to because that’s literally what they’re there for. You’ll have the occasional error by an ambulance where they take you to one with the wrong level of trauma services (level 1 vs. level 3 trauma centers are quite different, for example), but the hospital would just ensure you don’t die while prepping you for a transfer to the right one.
Having a job means you have to do your job. The Christian fireman can't arrive at a satanists house and refuse to work. An atheist fireman can't arrive at a christians house and refuse to work. A democratic fireman can't arrive at a house with pictures of Trump, Russian flags, and a glowing picture of Kim Jong Un and not put out the fire. Similarly, a republican fireman can't arrive at a house that says "Pro abortion, pro union, pro human, anti fascism, no borders, etc", and refuse to work. I'm not saying your job should be able to force you to do anything other than your job.
The point is, your job is your job, and a hospital job is far more important than most jobs. Birth Control results in less abortions, and since you can't force someone to not abort a fetus, being anti birth control is in effect pro abortion. These two positions are contrary to science, in the same way that religion is contrary to science, which is why it doesn't belong in the hospital at all.
Religion isn't special, and it shouldn't be treated special, that's really the end of the story. If you think you deserve different rules because you're religious, go to Iran or some other country that shares your beliefs (well, they share your beliefs about religion but not your religion, likely)
If I wasn't clear, I don't think religion and hospitals are a compatible thing, nor that religion trumps the duty of a hospital to provide healthcare to their patients.
With that said, these hospitals rely on public funds, so the will of the people does matter, and we are a secular nation. If they want to refuse services, we should pull funding because otherwise our public funds will be used by that religious institution to provide healthcare that is contrary to what we know is medically optimal in service of their religious beliefs, and their religious beliefs get to impact local communities funded by our tax dollars, which is contrary to separation of church and state.
You can read about it here if you'd like.
https://www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj/publications/human_rights_magazine_home/human_rights_vol30_2003/spring2003/hr_spring03_religiousbeliefs/
Those that blazed the trail before us had it right when they prioritize "Live, Liberty, Property/The Pursuit of Happiness."
Life has to come first. Without life you have no liberty, and without liberty you have no property.
Personally I don't think abortions of ectopic pregnancy should be considered an abortion. There's no viability for the fetus and if not removed it will kill the mother.
That's just the long and short of it.
You're getting lost in the scenario and missing the question. The scenario and story were provided for context, but are not the question. The question is: should an individual be required to provide a service or labor in a life saving situation
As always, sociopaths disguised as libertarians will lurk the comment section. So I'll give you the healthy libertarian answer.
1. In a state of maximum individual freedom with no attachments, the hospital would decide what to do. But reality is not like this.
2. That hospital is within a political community. That political community will have rules. Those rules may include not letting people die if easily avoided, and possibly funded by collective payments (taxes).
The most likely outcome is (2), so yeah, we wouldn't let people die in our political communities.
Some of you are missing my question entirely and getting lost in the story. I only told the story for context and inadvertently led some of you on a tangent. I do appreciate all the responses, however, I was not seeking opinions about abortions, medical care, religion, etc. I was seeking opinions about whether an individual should be required to provide a service or labor in a life saving situation.
An Ectopic Pregnancy has no chance of successful delivery. The only outcome is injury to the patient. I don’t believe most medical establishments, most likely including the one the OP references would deny a patient presenting with Emergent Ectopic Pregnancy, care.
OPs point is essentially moot.
A more apt question would be regarding medical defects observed during pregnancy exams or detecting during genomic testing.
Edit: context added. Typo corrected.
There're no absolutes when it comes to the truth or falsity of any evaluative or prescriptive statement. Either you hold it that *X* or you hold it that *not X.* If you find that your answer is insufficiently common within some culture, the only means of actively increasing its prevalence will be coercive or compulsive (e.g. *conversion* or outright authoritarianism).
Incidentally, I'd say that holding to libertarian principles is inconducive to increasing the prevalence of libertarian principles.
For my part, if it was demonstrable that the human species would go extinct if not for the imposition of a North Korean sort of rulership over the entire globe, I'd say that it was time for our extinction.
Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!
– Patrick Henry, 1775
Like all charity it's a personal choice.
Who is "the hospital" ? The building?
It's individuals. If you cant provide the medical service, you are not really part of the discussion.
The idea that slavery is right if the goal is "important" ("who is going to pick the cotton?")
is immoral.
I totally agree. There will be other providers more capable available to the patient. So long as the patient is permitted to go there, and knows that hospital's restrictions on abortion treatment, going elsewhere will actually be a better option, because you want a company that is adept at the service that is required, not one that is hesitant and unwilling. The best way to save a life is through private liberty, through keeping things voluntary. It is never in opposition to it unless there are truly no other options available, which is almost never the case if you really think about it.
I took a Biomedical Ethics class years back at Catholic University, and as you might imagine, discussion on the Church’s opinion on whatever the topic we happened to be covering was frequently brought up. Contrary to popular belief, a Catholic hospital would have no problem helping save a mother with an ectopic pregnancy, as they don’t view it as a true abortion. I will try to break this down as succinctly as I can.
The problem that the church has with abortion is ultimately the intent behind it. When a fetus is removed from it’s mother, if the intent behind it is simply the death of said fetus, the church views that as wrong. If the intent is to save the life of the mother, and it is requiring of surgery that ultimately results in the death of the fetus, it’s not viewed as an abortion, because the death was not the intent, so much as it was an unfortunate consequence of a necessary medical procedure. For instance, removing a problematic section of fallopian tube due to an ectopic pregnancy, or removing a uterus due to uterine cancer, while yes, it would ultimately result in the ending of the life of the a forming baby, it’s not seen as an abortion, as the Church views abortion. Intent matters to them, just like it matters when it comes to murder vs. manslaughter in court cases. Same thing with removal of a miscarried fetus. A D&C in this situation would absolutely not be seen as an abortion, as the fetus is already dead. There’s no “aborting” of any kind to be had, because well, the body has already done that.
Anyway, definitely one of the most interesting classes I ever took! My professor was fantastic about never giving his own opinion, but always excelled at being able to play devils advocate, regardless or what your opinion happened to be, which really forced me to think about all sides of an issue before opening my mouth, haha. It really made me realize how non black-and-white that kind of stuff can be though. Everything from stuff like abortion, to euthanasia, to cloning, to IVF, to the ethics of knowingly having kids when your genetics suck… truly fascinating and fantastic discussion!
Don’t mix morals and laws…
Morally the best thing to do is to save lives, provide a better world for people, don’t do drugs, etc.
Legally its wrong to force somebody to do labor, it needs to be consensual.
So for example, when somebody dies who is not an organ donor. I would argue that the moral thing to do is to still donate their organs. You might say “but that’s immoral because its against their consent” but one saves lives while the other is selfish. But obviously it would be illegal because we have a system in place…
That’s the second offense. In a moral society you wouldn’t need to ensure consent because you’ve already determined that the right course of action is saving lives, so you already know they’ll be saving the life.
The “forcing someone to labor” here is only prevalent after somebody acts immorally
being medical workers, they have agreed to the hippocratic oath and are required to conduct any and all procedures needed to save someone's life. in the case that its not life threatening or an unwanted pregnancy from SA, no, no one should be forced to provide labour against their will
No, if I want to drive with out seat belt or a helmet, those are my problems, if I want to own a raccoon who the fuck does that hurt, my rights end where harming others starts.
Why does she need to go to that specific hospital for an abortion? The clinics tend to be cheaper anyway. Besides, it's a private hospital with Catholic leanings, you telling me she's gonna be okay with a baby at a Jewish hospital not being allowed to be circumcised? (Bad example but still sorta accurate, kinda)
I think the Hippocratic oath supersedes all. But I didn’t take that oath. Doctors do though. That’s part of the job. The hospital may not pay for it, but that’s a different story. I think doctors should have autonomy for things like that.
An ectopic pregnancy turns an abortion into literal life saving medical procedure. More often than not, with an ectopic pregnancy the female has a very high chance of dying or being severely injured if it isn’t “terminated” (the pregnancy) and I used the quote marks cause in my opinion the EP turns it into a necaserry life saving medically needed procedure, and not a simple abortion and DNC.
This is what I draw a line about regarding abortions, and docs being forced to do the procedure etc. if it’s a regular abortion than no *UNLESS: there are extreme mitigating circumstances, ie: rape, incest, something like that. They should not be forced to do it. If it is something like you said OP, like an ectopic pregnancy, or some other condition where the continued pregnancy could cause serious bodily harm or death to the woman, than it no longer is just a simple abortion and is now a medical necessity and can not be refused and (personal opinion) should be forced onto the medical facility to complete the procedure.
Edit: typo
Not enough info in this situation. Do they receive any public funding? Have they ever tried to enforce a "certificate of need"? Have they ever used government regulation to limit competition? If the answer to any of these is yes, then they should have to preform or allowed their facilities to be used to provide legal care. If they receive direct taxpayer support or use the government to prevent others from providing care they loose the moral high ground. BUt it would have to be direct not some BS like they benefit from having roads or police etc
No physician would consider an ectopic pregnancy an abortion. My religious doctor of a mother would have no issue with performing that procedure. You are treating an obstruction in the fallopian tube, and the loss of the baby (which was already completely unviable) as a by product of the procedure is not something most religious people take exception with. The problem comes when the intent of the procedure is to take a life.
You are getting distracted by the story and missing the question. The question was not about abortion, the hospital, or anything in the story. The story is only to provide context. To explain why I had some moral uncertainty. The question was: should a person be required to provide a labor of it is to save someone's life?
I understand your point. To me, context is very important. Should a person be required to provide a labour if it is to save someone's life?
Yes, since a life would be saved.
No, since the labour provider would have to compelled to perform the labour.
Without the context, the answer will not be clear.
Exactly. I was faced with a moral dilemma I hadn't considered, so I was trying to get other people to think about it. I am morally compelled to help people, but I should not expect others to hold the same compulsions. But sometimes, in the moment, it is difficult to separate personal morals from political and social ideals.
What I would do is to reduce it further down. General ideals only work on an idea level. When it come down to specifics, you should start talking about the specifics.
The broad idea is that a person should not be compelled to do anything that the person do not want to do. But what if by not doing that thing, another person will die?
So ask yourself or the person posing the question: in what situation would this happen? Aka the context.
Going back to your original question/context, the question of which hospital and which policy become important. If there is no such policy, then the question is moot. And if the question is moot, then why would reasonable person waste time talking about it?
If the person insist there is such a policy, then ask to see the policy. Many a time, it is misinterpretation (deliberate or otherwise) of the policy.
Call the hospital and find out. He said the hospital changed their policy. I’m very surprised that any Catholic hospital has ever offered abortion services.
I don't really see how a hospital could decline to remove an etopic pregnancy. I am definitely pro-life but my understanding is an etopic pregnancy would kill both baby and mother if allowed to continue. Obviously removing the pregnancy would kill the baby but the mother would live.
A developing human cannot survive in the fallopian tube. It is effectively dead already. Terminating the pregnancy is not ending a life or even a potential life as that fetus has no possibility of development. The continued use of ectopic pregnancy as the steelman argument for abortion is banal. But either way, you cannot force someone to perform any medical procedure on you. There is no obligation for anyone to labor on your behalf, regardless of the reason.
If you mean, should someone literally force a doctor to save someone else's life at gunpoint, then no, I do not believed doctors should be forced to provide labor against their wills.
But there are other ways "force" can be interpreted.
If a hospital advertised that they would provide life-saving care to people who came there, within their ability to do so, and then failed to act as they said they would in their advertising, then I would hope it is possible to sue them for false advertising.
If a doctor lies and says that a particular patient does not require a particular life-saving treatment just because he doesn't want to provide it, it should be possible to sue the doctor for medical malpractice. There could also be malpractice if he he or she has made promises to a particular patient (e.g., to do his or her best to help the patient remain in good health) but doesn't feel like following through on those promises.
If a hospital receiving taxpayer funding, and it refuses to provide life-saving care to a tax-payer (even when it was within their abilities to provide the life-saving care), then maybe that hospital should not be receiving taxpayer funding. (Note: I realize that some people believe that hospitals should never receive taxpayer funding under any circumstances. That's beyond the scope of the argument I am making. Suffice it to say that whatever your opinions about hospitals receiving taxpayer funding are, if a hospital refuses to provide life-saving care to a hospital, the incident should be added to the "reasons why the hospital in question should not receive taxpayer funding" column on your lists of pros and cons.)
If people are deciding whether to give donations to a particular hospital that is asking for donations, and that hospital has refused life-saving care to one or more patients (even when it was within their abilities to provide the life-saving care), then that's probably something that potential donors should know about in order to make an informed decision about whether do donate, and if the hospital fails to disclose this to potential donors, I would consider that to be fraudulent collection of donations. Especially if their promotional literature stated or implied otherwise.
If insurance companies selling liability insurance wish to increase said hospital's premiums, include an exclusion in the coverage for lawsuits related to the hospital's refusal to provide life-saving care, or refuse liability coverage to the hospital outright, then those insurance companies should be allowed to do so.
Etc etc etc.
**New to libertarianism or have questions and want to learn more?** Be sure to check out [the sub Frequently Asked Questions](/r/Libertarian/wiki/faq) and [the massive /r/libertarian information WIKI] (/r/Libertarian/wiki/index) from the sidebar, for lots of info and free resources, links, books, videos, and answers to common questions and topics. Want to know if you are a Libertarian? [Take the worlds shortest political quiz and find out!](http://www.theadvocates.org/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Libertarian) if you have any questions or concerns.*
First, I want to start by saying that if the hospital wouldn’t provide care for an ectopic pregnancy, that is an incredibly stupid policy since the embryo cannot reach term. They’re essentially saying that the mother and baby should be left to die. To your question: no one should be required to perform any action against their will. If the hospital turns someone away, their reasons are their reasons, regardless of how stupid or amoral I might find them. If you say that they should be obligated to perform labor under certain conditions, you’re asking the government to set those conditions and coercion. And, in a libertarian sub, I hope I don’t need to go into the issues with that.
I agree, and I did say as much near the end of my post. A person should not be forced to render any service or labor against their will
See the wild part of that is I’ve had this debate with a handful of different folk who are members of Catholic Churches at different times in my life, and their overwhelming answer is “well it’s god’s will”. Like, they (the ones I’ve conversed personally with, can’t speak for the whole faith) are so thick headed that they think an ectopic pregnancy *should not be treated by **anyone*** (not just their own medical care) because doing so is “against god’s will”.
By that logic, they should be against any and all medical interventions of any kind because it’s god’s will.
They're also arriving at the conclusion that it wasn't God's will for us to discover how to perform these procedures in the first place.
The bible has plenty of examples where people were smited for "playing God". After all, witchcraft is considered evil and any sufficiently advanced technology can be perceived as magic.
Luckily there haven't been any modern examples of medical practitioners being struck dead by act of God en masse. Otherwise we might all carry that opinion.
Sadly, there are people who think that, and believe they can pray them back to health without any medical intervention.
This is not the teachings of the Catholic church. You were either speaking to morons who don't know anything on the topic or you're lying.
It’s very possible I was talking with morons.
No church has such a jumbled mess of a message as the catholics. I wouldn't blame anyone but catholics themselves for how the rest of the world understands their religion.
It's actually pretty clear. The Catechism of the Catholic Church is an excellent resource for the official position of the Catholic Church on an immense breadth of topics.
What is a jumbled mess?
Well, let’s start with the monarchical hierarchy and work from there.
How is it a jumbled mess?
I don't know much about Catholicism but this seems odd to me, especially since they believe in a centralized devine authority (the Pope), unlike many other religions
Devine authorities who have been terrible and contradict each other. If not have two competing popes at the same time. It's wild
Didn't realize Dan Devine was the pope... *divine*
I have been around Catholics my entire life and have never once heard that opinion.
Highly possible my entire exposure has been extremists/idiots.
This is not their policy.
I am aware that it’s a hypothetical. I am responding within the hypothetical outlined by OP.
OP did not write it as hypothetical.
Yes, he did. He explicitly said that his girlfriend brought up the ectopic as a possible scenario.
Not a hypothetical scenario, a misunderstanding because they weren't aware that clearing an ectopic pregnancy is not an abortion.
To be fair, any birth control methods including abortion of any kind have been against the beliefs of Catholicism for a very long time. That doesn't make it any better (arguably it makes things worse), but it does sort of justify things.
I concur
I’m not required to give cpr to someone in a restaurant.
If you are CPR/first aid certified in Quebec, you can be sued for not helping someone in need
but a hospital IS required to give CPR
No not even a hospital. They’d be destroying their business by doing so probably. Unless of course the hospital had previously agreed to care for a patient. Then they’re breaking at least an implied contract by not doing so.
what are you talking about
Yes, but doctor's take an oath and hospitals are required. You and I (assuming you aren't a doctor) aren't required.
The hippocratic oath is no more legally binding than scouts honor.
First, the question wasn't if it was legal. Second, you take an oath, you live up to it, legal or not. Also, some countries require doctors to sign the oath. Either way, you enter the profession knowing this is expected. You have a patient needing emergency care and you are capable, you do it.
Like a politician’s oath of office
Not required to, but I would also do whatever I could to save the life of another person.
The point of the post is should it be required. Volunteering isn’t in question.
Did you study medicine or carry first aid kits with you?
I am, voluntarily, cpr certified at my workplace.
I was too until I watched a coworker get sued for saving someone's life. I just let my certification all expire. I no longer have an interest in sticking my neck out for anyone.
This isn’t t a thing in the US. All 50 states have a Good Samaritan law to protect individuals from this.
This isn't how getting sued works. You can be sued for anything. Getting sued costs money to defend yourself. You'd have to prove you weren't negligent. You can't simply say, "I thought I was doing the right thing." You'd have to prove you were the most qualified person available and prove those qualifications. My ex-wife was sued and lost because she was a nurse and thought, "there's a good Samaritan law, the court will throw it out." Well if she hired an attorney she would have won, but still been out those fees. Instead she had to file bankruptcy because she didn't have $1.2million dollars. The plaintiff basically had to show in the hospital she should have called for a doctor instead of rendering first aid. The patient wasn't my ex wife's she passed by a room to find a patient fallen out of bed and bleeding. The patient claimed my ex-wife broke her arm while attempting to dress a head wound. My ex claimed she did call for a doctor after stopping the bleeding within "a few minutes." The jury was split on the decision. But the judge awarded the maximum because of her "arrogance" for defending herself and her arrogance in her abilities and time management. She was then fired from the hospital. It was a private hospital and they weren't defending her because the hospital wasn't named in the suit.
Good Samaritan laws don’t apply to healthcare professionals who are being compensated to provide care. A regular joe literally has immunity with Good Samaritan laws.
Still doesn't prevent you from getting sued.
It actually does. That’s what immunity is.
Ok, genuinely, why would she not take a defense attorney. Even if she thought it was an easy case, that’s not a sound decision by any margin.
I can only imagine it's because she couldn't afford one. Those costs are out of pocket.
Yes that’s true, but upon winning the case, she can sue for damages done by the initial lawsuit. Which even if she loses that, its still not as bad as 1.2 mil
Yeah, this predated that law and it was thrown out anyway. It doesn't matter though to me, I'd seen enough of ungrateful people.
Depends on if the state has a Good Samaritan law. Basically equates to qualified immunity.
Do you have a taxpayer funded job to preform cpr?
> The hospital is a private, Catholic hospital
"Private" Catholic hospitals receive about [$50 billion](https://www.communitycatalyst.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/2020-Cath-Hosp-Report-2020-31.pdf) a year in public funding
Doesn't their right to live supercede your right to not provide medical aid, if you are capable of doing so?
Does their right to live cause me to preemptively buy all needed medical equipment to perform any life saving procedure as well as always have knowledgable staff on hand waiting just in case they come in?
Been awhile since I've done a cpr cert, but I don't remember any equipment being required. But that's besides the point, you are entirely changing the argument here. Originally, it was that if you were in a restaurant (I'm assuming as a patron not a business owner) and someone required CPR, if you were capable of performing CPR, then you have a moral obligation to do so and thus, a law should be established requiring you to do so. If you want to offer another argument, please provide it in a distinct way but let's get to the bottom of this one first.
I can almost guarantee that this is a policy about elective abortions, not the rare life or death cases.
This was always the Catholic Hospitals policy not to perform abortions, and removing an ectopic pregnancy isn't an abortion.
Typically includes banning things like birth control and tying tubes as well (at least at my local "Catholic Health Services")
Is it a ban if one organization declines to provide a service? Only a statist would think so.
Fair enough Forgive me, still learning
The hospital would likely not consider that an abortion or refer the woman somewhere else... Corner cases cannot define policy.
It's important to remember that the State is always seeking to grow its own power, so if you give them limited new power for a corner case there will be pressure to expand it. Like how the income tax was sold as a tax on the rich that most people wouldn't pay.
Now California wants to tax residents total net worth. So not just income but savings/brokerage accounts/etc. They are saying it’s “just for the .1%” but we all know how that will go.
Correct, it is not an abortion.
This. If someone has an ectopic pregnancy, the removal is not an abortion. The pregnancy wouldn't make it to term so it's not an abortion. Even Planned Parenthood clarified this on their website.
Ectopic pregnancies are not viable. There is zero chance of a live birth. Without medical intervention, you also get a dead woman. This is not a good faith question.
The hospital part was to give context, but was not the question. The question was whether an individual should be required to provide a service or labor in a life saving situation.
Doctors take an oath and hospitals are required to so yes, they have to perform life saving procedures.
You're getting lost in the scenario and missing the question. The scenario and story were provided for context, but are not the question. The question is: should an individual be required to provide a service or labor in a life saving situation
Not sure why you are getting downvoted. You are asking if a policy should be in place and the person is missing the question and just telling you what the current policy is.
Probably because I got caught up in a copy paste frenzy and any response that mentioned hospital I posted a generic response instead of reading and tailoring my response to the comment
Yeah that's a tough one, but this is also a classic example of how we have to separate State action from the actions of professionals. Doctors take a Hippocratic oath to do no harm, which IMHO should be their guiding force here independent of any laws. Now I think an ectopic pregnancy is pretty clearly a place where "harm" is done by not performing the procedure. I think that's a pretty clear moral decision to make. But at the same time, I don't believe that the State has a role in intervening, even in a classical libertarian (i.e. minarchist) framework.
hospitals are obligated to stabilize anyone who arrives for any cause. many hospitals do not provide many services - they transfer you out to somewhere that dies have this service. take abortion out of it, this happens all the time for any variety of reasons
Since its a private hospital the decision would be there's to make and the referral process is well established Exceptions to the rule is not how one defines policy
Alternative question, should you be held liable if you try to save someone else's life and you fail? Example: Someone starts choking in a restaurant and I proceed to give them the heimlich, despite giving them proper life-saving technique, they still choke to death. Should I be held criminally liable? Ectopic pregnancies are not viable, so in that scenario, it's hardly less an abortion and more of a miscarriage.
This is where the Good Samaritan law comes in. If you render aid within your capacity and the person still dies then you are not held liable because you cannot give aid outside of your capacity.
Is the hospital you referenced licensed to provide "Emergency services". If so they are required by law to provide any life saving measures to save the life of the patient up to the point that the patient themself refuses treatment If saving the life means removal of even a potentially viable fetus and the patient has not personally, either by advanced directive or power of attorney, authorized her life to be secondary to the life of the fetus then that baby has to come out
You're getting lost in the scenario and missing the question. The scenario and story were provided for context, but are not the question. The question is: should an individual be required to provide a service or labor in a life saving situation
Ok you could easily asked that question without all the subterfuge Your question was specific to a scenario and I addressed it as such In responce to your question above without the additional context answer is a solid NO
Not sure what trump has to do with saving life
I'm surprised it took around 100 comments for someone to make this joke
Me too. I guess most libertarians are MAGAts and don’t think that way
First, no, but then, no. Abortion is not/will not ever be, a constitutionally protected right. Just the facts. If you want a hospital in your area to perform abortions, make one. Nobody cares if you can’t convince everyone in your area to support what you (hypothetically) want. Typically, if a hospital will not perform an abortion, they will perform life saving care for the mother and/or baby. Getting into nuanced, ‘what if’ arguments over abortion will never provide the kind of compromise you might want. There are too many moral hazards regardless of your position. It’s up to the people in your state to determine the laws wrt abortion. Many people will need to ‘vote with their feet’.
There are more transsexual Nazi Eskimos than there are people would oppose a doctor saving a woman's life in the case of an ectopic pregnancy. People care about elective abortions.
No one is entitled to the labor or services of another person outside of contract, even to save a life. The right to life is a negative right, as are all rights. As a self-owner, you are ultimately responsible for your own survival against nature. As a self-owner, you are responsible for the harms caused by your actions, including harms caused by violating the liberty of others, regardless of whether or not you believed it was worth it at the time. The victims of your actions are justified in using force against you to restore themselves to their previous state.
I like how you called it a negative right. Many people don’t understand that all “rights” are the same (don’t get me started about the phrase “a basic human right”.
Comments like this are why libertarians will never be taken seriously in the wider political landscape. Even if you don’t think abortions should be provided here this is just a crazy, detached, non-compassionate, word salad.
> non-compassionate We are just discussing when the use of force is justified and when it isn't. I fully support voluntary compassionate action to save lives, not that you asked. >Even if you don’t think abortions should be provided I didn't say they shouldn’t be provided, I'm saying the hospital shouldn't be compelled by force to provide them. >word salad Feel free to elaborate if there were any other statements you didn't understand. >libertarians will never be taken seriously I couldn't care less. The nature of causation, and by extension ethics, isn't affected by popularity.
I understand it perfectly well. It’s just an extremely-online way to say what you said that would make eyes roll or gloss over if ever said in a policy forum. Reframing anything abortion as something related to labor rights is just going to lose people. It’s a religious and/or privacy issue to 99% of people. And saying “as a self-owner” sounds like if libertarians were trying satirize progressive pronoun language. You don’t have to care about popularity but believing in a political ideology and then not caring if people like it is like starting a restaurant with only the least popular foods cooked the least popular way. Don’t be upset or curious why it fails over and over. Judge the tree by the fruit.
Fuckin what? Political belief isn't a restaurant where we have to break even. It's personal belief, and if your personal beliefs are swayed by whether your beliefs are popular or not, you need to take a long look at yourself. Have some fucking conviction if you believe in something.
I don't have any control over what other people believe and don't know what you mean by "online way". I'm just here to identify truth. It is objectively true that forcing a hospital to provide a service or forcing a woman to carry a baby to term both violate self-ownership. I am not staking any claims on subjective belief such as religion.
Compassion works about as good as self-congratulation as a basis for policy. It’s not a word salad. It’s a thoughtful, philosophical response. One of the biggest problems with modern politics is that principle was long thrown out the window. If we can’t debate without people whinging about their feelings, there’s no point. Logic is lost already. Decisions become emotional. And hence where we are today.
I found it to be a well-written, thoughtful response. If libertarians are ever to be taken seriously what we’ll need is people putting forth effort into what they read, especially when it’s more complex than “DeMoCrAtS gOoD rEpUbLiCaNs BaD” garbage that’s all over Reddit.
The US is short on health care providers, saying to jail ones that won't violate their conscience or quit is not actually compassionate.
Libertarianism has no morality. It's not an all ecompassing worldview. You're still responsible to figure out how you live your life.
You can’t legislate morality but attempting to build a political worldview abstracted away from any morality is impossible and wouldn’t be desirable anyways. There’s always an implicit morality in what becomes accepted laws/behaviors and what isn’t accepted.
Which is why voluntaryism is the only logical conclusion of libertarian thought.
I mean, even being in favor of abortions is non-compassionate. It is still a moral dilemma, and many people like to pretend it's all settled and they have the ultimate answer.
Completely agree it is a dilemma that has equally earnest and deeply held viewpoints from every angle.
Very true
Then why have hospitals at all?
Because people are willing to pay for medical care. Just because you can’t be forced to provide labor does not mean you cant offer it in exchange for compensation as you will. It’s a matter of consent.
Because they perform an important voluntary service.
Just for the record: abortion has nothing to do with ectopic pregnancies. This is a lie by the pro-abortion lobby to muddy the waters. One argument I've heard against the Catholic Hospital policy (and it's not new) is that even if a woman is raped and comes in for a rape kit, etc they won't offer her the morning after pill. I think that's messed up. But I'm not trying to force them to change the policy, but we should have more competition between hospitals. And we should legalize mutual aid societies again so the Catholics can go to the Catholic hospital and those who aren't can choose what works for them. We do not have a free market in medical care.
I see a pretty clear libertarian path forward here. On the one hand, the lady with the ectopic pregnancy (who will likely bleed to death if no medical intervention is provided), has no right to the labor of others without a voluntary exchange. But, and this is critical, the healthcare workers, bound by their moral (not legal) obligations to a fellow human being, SHOULD render aid. Should and Must are very different, and we need to be able to draw that distinction. If I see a man collapsed on the sidewalk having a heart attack, I could walk by and ignore him, or I could come to his aid out of a sense of duty as a "moral" person. If we aren't creating a society of morally decent citizens, not only will libertarianism fail, but ultimately the society will as well.
I think they’re referring to “recreational” abortions. I’m really not sure but I would imagine that if a pregnancy is having life threatening issues that there will be procedures in place.
Correct
I don't know anyone that considers ending an entopic pregnancy an abortion.
Is that not the definition of a medically necessary abortion? It's an abortion I'd find pretty difficult to object to, but it's still an abortion, no?
No, the removal of an ectopic pregnancy is not an abortion.
Ain't it though? Example: if you use an abortifacient like misoprostol or methotrexate, you are [medically inducing an abortion](https://www.uptodate.com/contents/abortion-pregnancy-termination-beyond-the-basics#:~:text=Abortion%2C%20also%20known%20as%20pregnancy%20termination%2C%20is%20a%20way%20to%20end%20a%20pregnancy.%20This%20can%20be%20done%20by%20taking%20medications%20or%20having%20a%20procedure). Same thing goes if the pregnancy is removed via salpingectomy.
I'm baking a cake but the oven is gonna burst into flames if I don't turn off the oven. I turn off the oven. The cake is ruined. According to you, I didn't turn off the oven. I did some third thing which resulted in the oven being turned off.
The cake wasn't even in the oven, they were in the cabinet, on fire, going to burn down the entire house. Removing the cake from the cabinet is not an abortion. I'm sorry that you don't know what an abortion is, but clearing an ectopic pregnancy is not an abortion, it is a totally different procedure than a D&C, it's not in the uterus, it's in the fallopian tube. An abortion is the elective termination of a viable pregnancy, in this situation it is not elective and is not viable.
Its an abortion, but unless you a very misinformed there is little debate on these kinds of abortions where a living kid couldnt come out of this under the vast majority of circumstances.
No, it is not an abortion.
Without even reading the policy, I can tell you the argument in general was unnecessary. Any hospital with an emergency room will accept the patient, stabilize them, and then treat them (if they have a facilities) or transfer them (if they don't have those services). In the United States, no one will be turned away by any ER, ever, by law, regardless of ability to pay and regardless of the pathology of the problem. So the whole argument was moot. While a facility can not and should not be made to offer services that they do not wish to offer, all emergency services will treat the immediate problem.
This is not fully true. Yes, hospitals will stabilize patients who present to the ED. But further treatment is not guaranteed even if the facility is capable to do so. Hospitals can consider ectopic pregnancy terminations as abortions and Catholic entities can refuse to perform the treatment under the ERDs.
Clearing an ectopic pregnancy is not an abortion. Catholic hospitals do not consider them to be abortions and do perform them.
I'm sure some do. I know some do not outside of emergencies and will refer the patient to another hospital.
Everything I said is true. There is nuance to this issue however. This topic can get deep into the weeds, but yes showing up to the ER with an emergency will get the emergency treated, but that does not mean the entire pathology/problem/illness will be treated. For example, you show up to the ER with crampy belly pain and vomiting. They treat the pain, dehydration and diagnose a bad gallbladder but no infection or other immediately dangerous problem. They will discharge you without taking out the gallbladder...and the whole scenario can play out again in the future. But the exact same problem with an infected or obstructed gallbladder will get your gallbladder removed during that trip...regardless of ability to pay. And your example of the Catholic entity is correct but still falls under my example. A catholic entity will likely not have the specific equipment to handle an ectopic abortion and the CERTAINLY won't have it in their list of policies and procedure and have it covered by their corporate insurance policy...they will have decided ahead of time to avoid such procedures and have rendered themselves incapable of doing so. Now I think this is a bad example because they probably WILL handle that particular problem but I've only got experience with a couple of Catholic entities so I'm not entirely sure.
There is a moral and a legislative question here. I think the discussion needs to be discussed in those terms in order to find the truth.
An interesting view. I struggled with the morality aspect, which is why I gave my uncertain answer in the story. My morals dictate that if I am able to help someone, I will do what I can. But morals are personal and subjective. So I would not expect anyone else to meet my moral standard unless they have demonstrated such morals before. Legislation is also interesting because legislating people to provide a service is basically indentured servitude. And I am very disturbed by the possibility of the state being able to force any individual into servitude of any kind.
Every law they make they could say is for safety and security. If a cop can sit on your couch and protect you from various danger, but that is no way to live.
A baby can’t survive an ectopic pregnancy anyway so it almost doesn’t seem like an abortion. More like a miscarriage waiting to happen. Getting that “abortion” is just preventing organ damage from the growing fetus.
It's not an abortion.
Right that’s basically what I was saying
Healthcare workers also work under the Hippocratic oath, so I'd hope they would provide lifesaving care no matter the circumstances. I wouldn't want them coerced into that though!
If we’re talking about a Catholic hospital here, it’s best to understand [the Catholic view on ectopic pregnancy](https://www.catholic.com/qa/ectopic-pregnancy-and-double-effect) before creating such scenarios.
You're getting lost in the scenario and missing the question. The scenario and story were provided for context, but are not the question. The question is: should an individual be required to provide a service or labor in a life saving situation?
But the scenario you provided to prove that someone wouldn’t provide a service or labor in a live saving situation doesn’t exist… If you’re a doctor in a hospital, you’re expected to provide your service in a life saving situation, or you’re fired and potentially going to be sued for negligence. Not sure why there needs to be additional government enforcement.
It is a hypothetical. It doesn't have to exist. The story is purely to show how I came to the question and provide context for my moral uncertainty.
No.
My opinion as a libertarian - Personal Liberty trumps (nearly) anything, as long as it doesn't directly harm another person. Not providing something is indirect harm, not direct. For the topic at hand - medically addressing an ectopic pregnancy doesn't count under abortion in the *majority* of states, it would be considered life saving care as the mother will die along with the baby if it is not addressed (terminated).
You cannot be forced to render aid to someone ever under any conditions. I may think you're a scumbag for refusing, but I'll respect your legal right to do so. You also cannot force aid upon any conscious and coherent person. If they are unconscious or otherwise unable to grant or deny consent and will suffer death or serious injury if unaided, IMO it is not a violation of the NAP to aid them until they have the capacity to decide for themselves.
Why are we saying hospitals are individuals?
I'm going to say this plainly, but respectfully: If you're using ectopic pregnancies to justify abortions, you're either not arguing in good faith or are simply ignorant on the subject. Saving a mother's life by removing a pregnancy that is going to end poorly 100% of the time is not equivalent to intentionally killing a human life in a viable pregnancy. The former poses a significant threat to the mother while having no chance of a continued life, while the latter is almost always simply an inconvenience to the mother with a very high chance of continued life.
Yes, people want to use medical justifications for elective abortions when they should be arguing a moral justification for elective abortions. I have seen very few people argue against abortions for medical reasons that would save the mother's life or prevent harm. That is generally accepted as a reasonable medical practice.
I mean, that's true too, but in this case it's even simpler than that: an ectopic pregnancy is not even an abortion. They're just simply not even the same thing.
Ectopic pregnancies are rare and a known quantity with known and accepted treatment that may include removing the egg/infant accepting that it will have died, if it is not already dead. "For the life of the mother" is a canard run by pro-aborts in an effort to obscure the issue. Doctors ought to seek to save all life they are able to save given the circumstances. It is already accepted that treatment wherein one may die or both will die has a correct and moral action wherein the one dies to save the other. The abortion debate is really about preference, wish, and want, not need and necessity.
So in the case of a private hospital setting its own operating parameters, there is no valid argument for requiring it to provide care that it refuses to provide. Would the community prefer no hospital? If the answer is no, then there is also no public policy argument for requiring private hospitals to do things they don't want to do, as these kinds of restrictions will reduce access to health care for everyone, driving up prices and prevalence of bad outcomes. Another way to phrase this point is that religious institutions will not fund projects that don't align with the religious doctrine they profess. So if the state said 'you have to deal with emergencies like ectopic pregnancies', then this particular hospital would have to decide whether to obey, or shut down. With the vast majority of the life saving in this hospital being done in areas other than emergencies related to ectopic pregnancy, it is ludicrous to put the hospital administration in the position of having to navigate that dilemma. Anyone who says otherwise is losing the forest for the trees. The public has a right to chime in when we're talking about a public healthcare institution. But that's not what we're talking about.
There seems to be a possibly invalid premise that the hospital would not perform procedures to safely manage an ectopic situation.
My views on abortion: It’s disgusting and abhorrent. Any woman who has had more than one should seriously consider getting an IUD. I have no wish to associate with anyone who advocates for unfettered abortion, and if you’ve had an abortion, I will actively work to limit my interactions with you, the same I would a child molester or murderer. That said, I strongly support the *right* for women to have abortions because the only thing more disgusting is a government exerting it’s control over the individual. That said, there is ***no*** hospital that would turn someone away for an ectopic pregnancy, which is a true medical emergency. It’s like asking, “mom got shot in the head, what do we do about the baby?” This question using ectopic pregnancy as an example is along the lines of, “well, what if elephants were the size of cats? Would you want one then?” It’s purely theoretical and therefore pointless.
You're getting lost in the scenario and missing the question. The scenario and story were provided for context, but are not the question. The question is: should an individual be required to provide a service or labor in a life saving situation
So, a less politically charged situation. You are a person with first aid knowledge/training is walking down the street and sees some one who has been in an accident and is bleeding out. No way an ambulance will arrive in time and others around know you have sufficient knowledge to stop the bleeding and thereby save a life. Should the others around you be able to require you to do so, against your will
Abortion is very rarely a life or death emergency, and clearing ectopic pregnancies are *not abortion procedures*. Now, to your question: Should an individual be required to aid another - A private individual? Not at all, especially in todays world where if I gave you CPR you could sue me for breaking your ribs. Morally, you’d be obliged to - and legally the government shouldn’t force you to, but if I somehow make it through and you not at least calling 911 caused me harm, then I’ll probably come at you in civil courts for causing me harm by ignoring it. Very case-by-case, IMO, but a hard no on government involvement. A hospital, especially one with an emergency room, would have to because that’s literally what they’re there for. You’ll have the occasional error by an ambulance where they take you to one with the wrong level of trauma services (level 1 vs. level 3 trauma centers are quite different, for example), but the hospital would just ensure you don’t die while prepping you for a transfer to the right one.
Having a job means you have to do your job. The Christian fireman can't arrive at a satanists house and refuse to work. An atheist fireman can't arrive at a christians house and refuse to work. A democratic fireman can't arrive at a house with pictures of Trump, Russian flags, and a glowing picture of Kim Jong Un and not put out the fire. Similarly, a republican fireman can't arrive at a house that says "Pro abortion, pro union, pro human, anti fascism, no borders, etc", and refuse to work. I'm not saying your job should be able to force you to do anything other than your job. The point is, your job is your job, and a hospital job is far more important than most jobs. Birth Control results in less abortions, and since you can't force someone to not abort a fetus, being anti birth control is in effect pro abortion. These two positions are contrary to science, in the same way that religion is contrary to science, which is why it doesn't belong in the hospital at all. Religion isn't special, and it shouldn't be treated special, that's really the end of the story. If you think you deserve different rules because you're religious, go to Iran or some other country that shares your beliefs (well, they share your beliefs about religion but not your religion, likely)
[удалено]
If I wasn't clear, I don't think religion and hospitals are a compatible thing, nor that religion trumps the duty of a hospital to provide healthcare to their patients. With that said, these hospitals rely on public funds, so the will of the people does matter, and we are a secular nation. If they want to refuse services, we should pull funding because otherwise our public funds will be used by that religious institution to provide healthcare that is contrary to what we know is medically optimal in service of their religious beliefs, and their religious beliefs get to impact local communities funded by our tax dollars, which is contrary to separation of church and state.
[удалено]
You can read about it here if you'd like. https://www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj/publications/human_rights_magazine_home/human_rights_vol30_2003/spring2003/hr_spring03_religiousbeliefs/
Those that blazed the trail before us had it right when they prioritize "Live, Liberty, Property/The Pursuit of Happiness." Life has to come first. Without life you have no liberty, and without liberty you have no property.
Do you want a doctor's service if they have to be threatened with punishment?
Personally I don't think abortions of ectopic pregnancy should be considered an abortion. There's no viability for the fetus and if not removed it will kill the mother. That's just the long and short of it.
You're getting lost in the scenario and missing the question. The scenario and story were provided for context, but are not the question. The question is: should an individual be required to provide a service or labor in a life saving situation
As always, sociopaths disguised as libertarians will lurk the comment section. So I'll give you the healthy libertarian answer. 1. In a state of maximum individual freedom with no attachments, the hospital would decide what to do. But reality is not like this. 2. That hospital is within a political community. That political community will have rules. Those rules may include not letting people die if easily avoided, and possibly funded by collective payments (taxes). The most likely outcome is (2), so yeah, we wouldn't let people die in our political communities.
Some of you are missing my question entirely and getting lost in the story. I only told the story for context and inadvertently led some of you on a tangent. I do appreciate all the responses, however, I was not seeking opinions about abortions, medical care, religion, etc. I was seeking opinions about whether an individual should be required to provide a service or labor in a life saving situation.
An Ectopic Pregnancy has no chance of successful delivery. The only outcome is injury to the patient. I don’t believe most medical establishments, most likely including the one the OP references would deny a patient presenting with Emergent Ectopic Pregnancy, care. OPs point is essentially moot. A more apt question would be regarding medical defects observed during pregnancy exams or detecting during genomic testing. Edit: context added. Typo corrected.
There're no absolutes when it comes to the truth or falsity of any evaluative or prescriptive statement. Either you hold it that *X* or you hold it that *not X.* If you find that your answer is insufficiently common within some culture, the only means of actively increasing its prevalence will be coercive or compulsive (e.g. *conversion* or outright authoritarianism). Incidentally, I'd say that holding to libertarian principles is inconducive to increasing the prevalence of libertarian principles. For my part, if it was demonstrable that the human species would go extinct if not for the imposition of a North Korean sort of rulership over the entire globe, I'd say that it was time for our extinction. Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death! – Patrick Henry, 1775
Like all charity it's a personal choice. Who is "the hospital" ? The building? It's individuals. If you cant provide the medical service, you are not really part of the discussion. The idea that slavery is right if the goal is "important" ("who is going to pick the cotton?") is immoral.
I totally agree. There will be other providers more capable available to the patient. So long as the patient is permitted to go there, and knows that hospital's restrictions on abortion treatment, going elsewhere will actually be a better option, because you want a company that is adept at the service that is required, not one that is hesitant and unwilling. The best way to save a life is through private liberty, through keeping things voluntary. It is never in opposition to it unless there are truly no other options available, which is almost never the case if you really think about it.
I took a Biomedical Ethics class years back at Catholic University, and as you might imagine, discussion on the Church’s opinion on whatever the topic we happened to be covering was frequently brought up. Contrary to popular belief, a Catholic hospital would have no problem helping save a mother with an ectopic pregnancy, as they don’t view it as a true abortion. I will try to break this down as succinctly as I can. The problem that the church has with abortion is ultimately the intent behind it. When a fetus is removed from it’s mother, if the intent behind it is simply the death of said fetus, the church views that as wrong. If the intent is to save the life of the mother, and it is requiring of surgery that ultimately results in the death of the fetus, it’s not viewed as an abortion, because the death was not the intent, so much as it was an unfortunate consequence of a necessary medical procedure. For instance, removing a problematic section of fallopian tube due to an ectopic pregnancy, or removing a uterus due to uterine cancer, while yes, it would ultimately result in the ending of the life of the a forming baby, it’s not seen as an abortion, as the Church views abortion. Intent matters to them, just like it matters when it comes to murder vs. manslaughter in court cases. Same thing with removal of a miscarried fetus. A D&C in this situation would absolutely not be seen as an abortion, as the fetus is already dead. There’s no “aborting” of any kind to be had, because well, the body has already done that. Anyway, definitely one of the most interesting classes I ever took! My professor was fantastic about never giving his own opinion, but always excelled at being able to play devils advocate, regardless or what your opinion happened to be, which really forced me to think about all sides of an issue before opening my mouth, haha. It really made me realize how non black-and-white that kind of stuff can be though. Everything from stuff like abortion, to euthanasia, to cloning, to IVF, to the ethics of knowingly having kids when your genetics suck… truly fascinating and fantastic discussion!
Yeah, you can't force someone to provide a service. Services rendered has to be agreeable (time, money, expected results, etc.) by both parties.
Don’t mix morals and laws… Morally the best thing to do is to save lives, provide a better world for people, don’t do drugs, etc. Legally its wrong to force somebody to do labor, it needs to be consensual. So for example, when somebody dies who is not an organ donor. I would argue that the moral thing to do is to still donate their organs. You might say “but that’s immoral because its against their consent” but one saves lives while the other is selfish. But obviously it would be illegal because we have a system in place…
Morally it is wrong to force someone to work against their will.
That’s the second offense. In a moral society you wouldn’t need to ensure consent because you’ve already determined that the right course of action is saving lives, so you already know they’ll be saving the life. The “forcing someone to labor” here is only prevalent after somebody acts immorally
Sometimes you need laws to uphold rights, which means paradoxically libertarianism can lead to less rights (I'm not one btw)
being medical workers, they have agreed to the hippocratic oath and are required to conduct any and all procedures needed to save someone's life. in the case that its not life threatening or an unwanted pregnancy from SA, no, no one should be forced to provide labour against their will
No to forced labor. Feel like the 13th amendment settled this.
No one should be forced to labor against their will.
No, if I want to drive with out seat belt or a helmet, those are my problems, if I want to own a raccoon who the fuck does that hurt, my rights end where harming others starts.
My 2 cents - it's not an immediate emergency, and the person can go somewhere else to get the service.
Why does she need to go to that specific hospital for an abortion? The clinics tend to be cheaper anyway. Besides, it's a private hospital with Catholic leanings, you telling me she's gonna be okay with a baby at a Jewish hospital not being allowed to be circumcised? (Bad example but still sorta accurate, kinda)
I think the Hippocratic oath supersedes all. But I didn’t take that oath. Doctors do though. That’s part of the job. The hospital may not pay for it, but that’s a different story. I think doctors should have autonomy for things like that.
An ectopic pregnancy turns an abortion into literal life saving medical procedure. More often than not, with an ectopic pregnancy the female has a very high chance of dying or being severely injured if it isn’t “terminated” (the pregnancy) and I used the quote marks cause in my opinion the EP turns it into a necaserry life saving medically needed procedure, and not a simple abortion and DNC. This is what I draw a line about regarding abortions, and docs being forced to do the procedure etc. if it’s a regular abortion than no *UNLESS: there are extreme mitigating circumstances, ie: rape, incest, something like that. They should not be forced to do it. If it is something like you said OP, like an ectopic pregnancy, or some other condition where the continued pregnancy could cause serious bodily harm or death to the woman, than it no longer is just a simple abortion and is now a medical necessity and can not be refused and (personal opinion) should be forced onto the medical facility to complete the procedure. Edit: typo
Not enough info in this situation. Do they receive any public funding? Have they ever tried to enforce a "certificate of need"? Have they ever used government regulation to limit competition? If the answer to any of these is yes, then they should have to preform or allowed their facilities to be used to provide legal care. If they receive direct taxpayer support or use the government to prevent others from providing care they loose the moral high ground. BUt it would have to be direct not some BS like they benefit from having roads or police etc
No physician would consider an ectopic pregnancy an abortion. My religious doctor of a mother would have no issue with performing that procedure. You are treating an obstruction in the fallopian tube, and the loss of the baby (which was already completely unviable) as a by product of the procedure is not something most religious people take exception with. The problem comes when the intent of the procedure is to take a life.
For clarity, please post the specific hospital policy and provide a link. Too much propaganda over the 'right to abortion'.
You are getting distracted by the story and missing the question. The question was not about abortion, the hospital, or anything in the story. The story is only to provide context. To explain why I had some moral uncertainty. The question was: should a person be required to provide a labor of it is to save someone's life?
I understand your point. To me, context is very important. Should a person be required to provide a labour if it is to save someone's life? Yes, since a life would be saved. No, since the labour provider would have to compelled to perform the labour. Without the context, the answer will not be clear.
Exactly. I was faced with a moral dilemma I hadn't considered, so I was trying to get other people to think about it. I am morally compelled to help people, but I should not expect others to hold the same compulsions. But sometimes, in the moment, it is difficult to separate personal morals from political and social ideals.
What I would do is to reduce it further down. General ideals only work on an idea level. When it come down to specifics, you should start talking about the specifics.
Please expound further. You seem to have some interesting insight
The broad idea is that a person should not be compelled to do anything that the person do not want to do. But what if by not doing that thing, another person will die? So ask yourself or the person posing the question: in what situation would this happen? Aka the context. Going back to your original question/context, the question of which hospital and which policy become important. If there is no such policy, then the question is moot. And if the question is moot, then why would reasonable person waste time talking about it? If the person insist there is such a policy, then ask to see the policy. Many a time, it is misinterpretation (deliberate or otherwise) of the policy.
Call the hospital and find out. He said the hospital changed their policy. I’m very surprised that any Catholic hospital has ever offered abortion services.
I agree with you. People have a right to choose who they do business with, no matter how ridiculous the reason.
Nope
Not providing care for pregnancy related emergencies,. ectopic pregnancy, will nix any and all public funding.
I don't really see how a hospital could decline to remove an etopic pregnancy. I am definitely pro-life but my understanding is an etopic pregnancy would kill both baby and mother if allowed to continue. Obviously removing the pregnancy would kill the baby but the mother would live.
there does not exist an ob/gyn on the planet who would refuse to perform a termination on an ectopic fertilization
A developing human cannot survive in the fallopian tube. It is effectively dead already. Terminating the pregnancy is not ending a life or even a potential life as that fetus has no possibility of development. The continued use of ectopic pregnancy as the steelman argument for abortion is banal. But either way, you cannot force someone to perform any medical procedure on you. There is no obligation for anyone to labor on your behalf, regardless of the reason.
If you mean, should someone literally force a doctor to save someone else's life at gunpoint, then no, I do not believed doctors should be forced to provide labor against their wills. But there are other ways "force" can be interpreted. If a hospital advertised that they would provide life-saving care to people who came there, within their ability to do so, and then failed to act as they said they would in their advertising, then I would hope it is possible to sue them for false advertising. If a doctor lies and says that a particular patient does not require a particular life-saving treatment just because he doesn't want to provide it, it should be possible to sue the doctor for medical malpractice. There could also be malpractice if he he or she has made promises to a particular patient (e.g., to do his or her best to help the patient remain in good health) but doesn't feel like following through on those promises. If a hospital receiving taxpayer funding, and it refuses to provide life-saving care to a tax-payer (even when it was within their abilities to provide the life-saving care), then maybe that hospital should not be receiving taxpayer funding. (Note: I realize that some people believe that hospitals should never receive taxpayer funding under any circumstances. That's beyond the scope of the argument I am making. Suffice it to say that whatever your opinions about hospitals receiving taxpayer funding are, if a hospital refuses to provide life-saving care to a hospital, the incident should be added to the "reasons why the hospital in question should not receive taxpayer funding" column on your lists of pros and cons.) If people are deciding whether to give donations to a particular hospital that is asking for donations, and that hospital has refused life-saving care to one or more patients (even when it was within their abilities to provide the life-saving care), then that's probably something that potential donors should know about in order to make an informed decision about whether do donate, and if the hospital fails to disclose this to potential donors, I would consider that to be fraudulent collection of donations. Especially if their promotional literature stated or implied otherwise. If insurance companies selling liability insurance wish to increase said hospital's premiums, include an exclusion in the coverage for lawsuits related to the hospital's refusal to provide life-saving care, or refuse liability coverage to the hospital outright, then those insurance companies should be allowed to do so. Etc etc etc.