Threats From "Within"

The following was posted by Lou on his myspace blog.

They may not seem very threatening, but they are. They threaten to overthrow our court system and our laws, they threaten to take away our choices, and they threaten us in so many ways, yet they seem so innocuous. They have no bombs, and they are not homicidal fanatics.

They are the "Sisters of Charity [sic] of Leavenworth Health System", and they may be coming to a town near you any day now.

"The Sisters of Charity?" you ask in disbelief. "Yes," I say, "The Sisters of Charity." They want to buy two metro-Denver hospitals for $611 million.

Of course, they plan to improve the hospitals, but they also plan to prohibit all vasectomies, all tubal ligations, all abortions, all birth control counseling, and all living will choices (removal of feeding tubes, etc., for those terminally ill and in a vegetative state). In one stroke, they will rewrite the US Constitution and the laws of Colorado for those people in Jefferson County who are served by their hospital (and by no other hospital) if the sale goes through. For these communities, there is no choice in hospitals, and there will be no choice in services.

Doctors who wish to provide the best possible medical services for their patients will find themselves restricted and unable to perform potentially necessary medical procedures. A group of Ob/Gyn doctors from one of the hospitals already has met with the Colorado Attorney General in an effort to prevent the sale. Presumably, many qualified doctors will be forced to disassociate with these hospitals, but the Attorney General does have the authority to intervene and prevent the sale. Both the doctors and their patients are relying on him to do so.

Forget the abortion issue. There are other issues at stake here. What about obtaining medical counseling so that a person can make an intelligent, informed decision about life-threatening (or life-saving) matters? What about the person who has a living will directing that he/she not be kept alive by machines, so that he/she might die with dignity? If such options conflict with the person's religious beliefs, then he/she need not take advantage of them. However, there are people served by these hospitals who are NOT Catholic, and who might have values and beliefs that differ from those of the Sisters of Charity. In effect, these people would be denied their choices permitted to them by law and by the US Constitution.

It isn't just the good people of Jefferson County who are at risk, nor is it just medical care. There is a growing trend that sees non-sectarian institutions being taken over by sectarian institutions with strong political or philosophical agendas. Instead of making political contributions, some people now make (tax-deductible) charitable or religious contributions to further their own beliefs. Then, their dollars are used beyond the scrutiny of public debate for purposes which may be, in essence, quite political.

Elsewhere, for example, groups have taken over school boards in an effort to bring religion (creationism) into the science classrooms, yet in some cases they have done so without publicly stating their purpose. Some of these efforts best can be described as "stealth" attacks.

Others have gone so far as to creep into power in efforts to destroy the public schools so that the parochial schools would benefit. If creationism cannot be taught in public schools, but can be taught in parochial schools, then it is their object to move the students into the schools where creationism can be, and will be, taught.

When a hospice denies needed pain-relieving drugs to terminally ill patients, is that denial done simply to avoid the cost of the extra drugs, or is it done out of some religious or moral conviction that drugs are evil? Even if it is a charitable hospice, any such institution may have either financial or religious restrictions imposed from outside. Can a hospice fulfill its mission with either type of restriction being imposed?

I don't intend this blog to serve as an anti-Catholic diatribe. Lois Uttley, director of the MergerWatch Project (which has been involved with other hospital mergers or purchases), has stated that, "We have found that compromises are always possible if there is some willingness on the part of Catholic officials to respect the needs of people of other faiths."

However, Denver Archbishop Charles Chaput apparently wants Catholic hospitals to follow the "ethical and religious" directives of the Church. It seems to me that he is more focused on the religious directives than on any ethical standards that could be applied by reasonable people.

The real purpose of this blog is to alert people to the risks and to the threats. These threats are real, although those threatening us do not use bombs, nor are they homicidal fanatics. They're religious fundamentalists, and they pose a danger to all of us.

There is no need to watch the borders for these people. Stronger Homeland Security will not alleviate the risks. They are here, in our own communities, and we need to be alert to what is happening. At least, that's how I see it. What do you think?

© 2007 Bryan Lower

Feedback: