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

[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]

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)?