Should The State Pay Extra To Provide Special Medical Procedure For Religious Patient

[thir]

What would be fair here?

"A 64-year-old woman with a failing liver has rejected a liver transfusion that would be paid for via Medicaid, stating that the blood transfusion that would be required is against her religious convictions. She instead has sued the state, saying that their failure to provide her with a bloodless transfusion, which can only be performed in a different state, violates her right to freely practice her religion."

http://www.care2.com/causes/civil-ri...gious-patient/

[denuseri]

The state doesnt have much ground to stand on imho, there hospital facility is woefully outdated if they havent upgraded to bloodless surgical system allready.

Bloddless surgical systems are much more efficient, cheaper, and have better recovery rates with less chance of infection and complications arising.

So basically all she needs is a short bus trip to a facility with a modernized surgical suite.

<< mails Kansas a couple hundred bucks to cover the poor womans bus fare so they will stop bitching.

[Thorne]

Since when is the state required to meet everyone's desires? Regardless of the fact that the surgery is outdated, does it meet the MEDICAL needs of the patient? If so, then the state will meet it's responsibility, if it has any, by providing that surgery. If her outlandish religious superstitions forbid such a thing then SHE should be responsible for finding a different way. The state can provide what she needs. They are not obligated to provide what she wants.

[thir]

Bloddless surgical systems are much more efficient, cheaper, and have better recovery rates with less chance of infection and complications arising.


Is this what is used instead of blood?

Allotransplantation (allo- from the Greek meaning "other") is the transplantation of cells, tissues, or organs, sourced from a genetically non-identical member of the same species as the recipient.[1] The transplant is called an allograft or allogeneic transplant or homograft. Most human tissue and organ transplants are allografts.

[thir]

Since when is the state required to meet everyone's desires? Regardless of the fact that the surgery is outdated, does it meet the MEDICAL needs of the patient? If so, then the state will meet it's responsibility, if it has any, by providing that surgery. If her outlandish religious superstitions forbid such a thing then SHE should be responsible for finding a different way. The state can provide what she needs. They are not obligated to provide what she wants.

Is it really outdated?

I myself believe that it is unrealistic to expect solutions more expensive than what the hospital already has in place.

I also believe that you should have (if you do not) the right to refuse treatment if it is against what you want, for whatever reason.

What about food then? Vegetations who will not eath meat, muslims and jews (and others) who will not eat pig etc ?

[Thorne]

Is it really outdated?

I don't really know. I was referring to denuseri's statement that the "hospital facility is woefully outdated" because they don't provide the bloodless surgery.

I myself believe that it is unrealistic to expect solutions more expensive than what the hospital already has in place.

Which was my point exactly.

I also believe that you should have (if you do not) the right to refuse treatment if it is against what you want, for whatever reason.

Theoretically this is true, but in practice? I've heard of people being forced to receive unwanted treatments because some doctor or hospital administrator felt it was in the patient's "best interests". Conversely, we've all heard of patients being denied the right to end their own suffering, or the suffering of a loved one, because some doctor (or hospital administrator) doesn't allow euthanasia. (I've often wondered what would happen if hospitals had to absorb all the costs a patient incurs once they refuse euthanasia. I think we'd likely see a change of heart.)

What about food then? Vegetations who will not eath meat, muslims and jews (and others) who will not eat pig etc ?

What's the problem? If they want to deny themselves the pleasures of these foods, that's just more bacon for me! But they can't expect the state to subsidize their diets. Should the state be required to provide organically grown broccoli to every health nut who wants it?

[denuseri]

If you do a simple google search you will be hard pressed to find too much about the new improvements in bloodless surgery, wikipedia only has info about the original bloodless system as it was invented by Dr Lorenz that does indeed relay on synthetics, but a boolean search might give you better results.

Heck I think I only know about it becuase alltough I am no longer a nurse I still have access to reading the latest copies of AORN.

Its basically a more modern surgical "technique" recently developed to improve on the now outdated so called Bloodless system, which was never really truely bloodless to begin with and as you pointed out called for the use of synthetics.

It is specifically designed to overcome the need for synthetics and donnor blood and in most cases even eliminates the need of the patient to pre-donante some of their own blood before the procedure, just in case more will be needed.

In the new improvement : blood isnt wasted or lost in any kind in any kind of signifigant ammount during surgery at all, because its recovered right there on the table as it comes out instead and recycled/cleaned in the surgical suite through a simple yet inovative filtration system and pumped right back into the patient during the procedure.

It eliminates the need of using most synthetic blood replacements and the use of blood thats been degenerating slowley in the storage system from other donnors (they whole improvement was invented to combat the issues associated with synthetics and the fact that blood in storage was found to indeed go bad and loose effectivness in storage and carry all sorts of individual inhibitors when taken from a donnor to a fast recovery compared to your own being pumped right back into you).

And where the new technique is in use: its resulted in less chance of infection and faster recovery times accros the board.

Its not even all that expensive for a hospital to covernt too eaither.

[Thorne]

Its not even all that expensive for a hospital to covernt too eaither.

denuseri, it almost sounds to me like this technique is still in the development stage. How widespread is it? And do you include the training costs in the hospital's expense? After all, having to train nurses, doctors, interns, whatever, has got to be expensive in both money and time.

But regardless, this doesn't answer the question: Must the state pay the expense to cater to a person's religious beliefs when local hospitals don't provide this type of surgery? My feeling is no, of course. Not only for religious beliefs but for any other possible personal agendas. Would the state have to pay to transport a patient to a different hospital just because he didn't want black nurses attending him? Hell no! How about when a woman in labor wants a different hospital because the local one doesn't provide free coffee in their birthing rooms? In other words, where do they draw the line?

[thir]

Theoretically this is true, [that you can refuse treatment] but in practice? I've heard of people being forced to receive unwanted treatments because some doctor or hospital administrator felt it was in the patient's "best interests".

That is what I hear too, and I have never, ever understood how this can be allowed. When it is underage persons we talk about it becomes very difficult, but adults? Do we not own our own bodies? Are we not in control of our own lives? How dare anyone take that away?

Another, similar problem is doctors who think they are entitled to decide whether or not to tell the patient what is wrong with them, even when they ask for the truth. What kind of guardianship is it that these persons take upon themselves? They may be wise in the ways of the body (hopefully) but there it stops. What is it that makes (some of) them think that they know better than you what you need? And even if they did, they would have no right to take decisions away from you.

As I see it.

Conversely, we've all heard of patients being denied the right to end their own suffering, or the suffering of a loved one, because some doctor (or hospital administrator) doesn't allow euthanasia. (I've often wondered what would happen if hospitals had to absorb all the costs a patient incurs once they refuse euthanasia. I think we'd likely see a change of heart.)

There I am more in doubt. I think the physician in person should be allowed whether or not to assist with euthanasia. (Why this difficult word? Are we afraid of saying it out loud: assisted suicide?) But I think that is should be within the law to do it.

What's the problem? If they want to deny themselves the pleasures of these foods, that's just more bacon for me! But they can't expect the state to subsidize their diets. Should the state be required to provide organically grown broccoli to every health nut who wants it?

Hmm...but by saying so we do say that 'our' culture is the norm, the baseline, and everybody must live by that. Is that democratic?

[thir]

In the new improvement : blood isnt wasted or lost in any kind in any kind of signifigant ammount during surgery at all, because its recovered right there on the table as it comes out instead and recycled/cleaned in the surgical suite through a simple yet inovative filtration system and pumped right back into the patient during the procedure.

Wow! Someone's been using the inside of their heads!

Thanks for the whole explanation Denuseri, it was very interesting indeed.

[thir]

But regardless, this doesn't answer the question: Must the state pay the expense to cater to a person's religious beliefs when local hospitals don't provide this type of surgery? My feeling is no, of course. Not only for religious beliefs but for any other possible personal agendas. Would the state have to pay to transport a patient to a different hospital just because he didn't want black nurses attending him? Hell no! How about when a woman in labor wants a different hospital because the local one doesn't provide free coffee in their birthing rooms? In other words, where do they draw the line?

As for the medical service, I must agree. But I think that is it happens to be within the normal procedure to change something to accomodate something, you should do it.

Out of curiosity I wonder if the procedure that Denuseri describs would satisfy a Jehovah witness person?

[Thorne]

That is what I hear too, and I have never, ever understood how this can be allowed. When it is underage persons we talk about it becomes very difficult, but adults? Do we not own our own bodies? Are we not in control of our own lives? How dare anyone take that away?

Ask the "Pro Life" groups about how this can be taken away.

I think the physician in person should be allowed whether or not to assist with euthanasia.

That's my point. But the law forbids it. And even in places where it might be allowed some doctors and hospitals refuse to allow it.

(Why this difficult word? Are we afraid of saying it out loud: assisted suicide?)

It's not just suicide, though. Sometimes a person has to make the decision for a loved one who can not make the decision himself. See the Terry Schiavo case as a prime example.

Hmm...but by saying so we do say that 'our' culture is the norm, the baseline, and everybody must live by that. Is that democratic?

Not sure what you're saying here. What culture? In the case of vegetarians versus meat eaters? I wasn't saying we should favor one point of view over the other. Far from it. ALL should be treated equally. Everyone has access to the same basic resources. Anything beyond those basics are the responsibility of the individual, not the state.

[Thorne]

As for the medical service, I must agree. But I think that is it happens to be within the normal procedure to change something to accomodate something, you should do it.

The problem in this case is that the local hospital(s) did NOT provide that particular technique, but did provide a perfectly acceptable alternative. It was ONLY the person's religious beliefs which created the problem, not the inadequacies of the hospital. Chances are the hospital will eventually include this procedure in their services, at which point that problem disappears. Until then, however, it is only the state's responsibility to provide the AVAILABLE services. If the patient wants something different it's up to HER to find it. And pay for it.

I wonder, though. Would it be possible, in this kind of case, for the state to pay the standard rate for the procedure (in that area) and make the patient responsible only for the difference in cost (including transportation)?

[TwistedTails]

IMO.. The State offered her the same treatment available to any other citizen of that State. It is her right to decline the services based on her religion, But not to demand special treatment because of that religion.

Cheers
Twisted