You are not logged in.
<b><font size="+1">Kettering hospital refused to help unmarried woman get pregnant</font></b> <BR>Posted November 8th, 2009 by News Staff <BR> <BR>Reported in the Dayton Daily News: <BR> <BR>Dayton filmmaker Karri O’Reilly, 40, has been trying unsuccessfully to become pregnant. After undergoing nine rounds of artificial insemination, she decided to try in vitro fertilization and called Kettering Reproductive Medicine to schedule an appointment. It seemed a logical move: The clinic bills itself on its Web site as “Dayton’s only full-service reproductive center with all services at one convenient location.” <BR> <BR>The receptionist peppered her with routine questions, including, “What is your husband’s name?” <BR> <BR>“I don’t have a husband,” O’Reilly replied. <BR> <BR>“Oh, we can’t treat you then,” she was told. “Kettering Health Network has a policy against treating unmarried people.” <BR> <BR>O’Reilly was stunned. “Are you kidding me?” she asked. “Seriously?” <BR> <BR>In the weeks since being denied treatment, she has been anything but silent. <BR> <BR>“They’re a religious-based organization and it’s within their rights to make these kinds of decisions — provided they don’t take taxpayer money,” O’Reilly said. “But they do. They take a lot of money from the federal government. That means they can’t be discriminatory in treatment. If you take in a dime of taxpayer money, the rules change.” <BR> <BR>The rules may be changing, in fact, because of her vocal opposition. Her complaints to numerous officials prompted Kettering Health Network, which is affiliated with the Seventh-day Adventist faith, to review its policy. Its network of hospitals includes Kettering, Grandview and Southview Medical Centers as well as Greene Memorial Hospital. Miriam Cartmell, Administrative Director of Women and Children’s Services for Kettering Medical Center, said in a prepared statement, “Like many faith-based organizations, our focus is on offering reproductive medicine service to married couples. We refer requests from individuals to other centers who have historically served these types of requests. We are reviewing our position on this, given the request of this individual.” <BR> <BR>O’Reilly said she’s encouraged by the hospital’s decision to revisit the policy. “That’s awesome,” she said. “At least now they will look at it. It’s a step in the right direction.” <BR> <BR>“As far as being in a traditional two-parent family, I would love it too,” she said. At 40, however, she can’t afford to wait any longer: “I’m not the Octomom; I’m not looking for some slot-machine payoff of children. But I’m not going to live my life based on someone’s idealized version of the family.” <BR> <BR>She’s not waiting around for Kettering Health Network to change its mind, either; she has already scheduled an appointment with a fertility specialist in Cincinnati. She’s not gay, but she doesn’t think lesbians should be denied treatment. “On their own Web site, Kettering Health Network clearly states they don’t deny treatment or discriminate on the basis of race, religion, sex, ability to pay or sexual preference, yet this policy clearly discriminates against gay people, if only by default.” <BR> <BR>Her crusade, in other words, has become a matter of principle. <BR> <BR>“It’s so unjust and such a ridiculously outdated policy,” she said. “Why use homophobia and discrimination on the basis of marital status to keep good loving parents from having children?” <BR> <BR>Original Source: Dayton Daily News, Nov. 7, 2009
Offline
<b><font color="0000ff">Some Questions on the Kettering In Vitro Story</font></b> <BR> <BR>Government money has been put into Kettering, as in all hospitals, I presume. Does this make it necessary for Kettering to behave on the moral level of the people? This issue extends to other entities such as the RCC and abortion. <BR> <BR>O'Reilly thinks it is homophobia driving Kettering's policy. I suggest that it is the simple, "out-dated" idea that sex and baby-making should be reserved for marriage. If push comes to shove, should Kettering close down its fertility clinic if it is going to be forced to violate the "sex in marriage only" value stance? <BR><font color="ffffff"><font size="-2">.</font></font>
Offline
Once the institution takes government support, and once the institute employs those who are of a broad spectrum of religious or philosophical beliefs, it no longer can claim to be of a certain denomination and force it's beliefs on those of the public that come to seek their services. It has in reality become a quasi religious institution. The moral convictions should no longer be held to biblical concepts on marriage when certain procedures are sought for and which are commonly offered to the public. The decision to perform certain procedures, due to the cross section of different professionals of different beliefs in the system, should fall on the choice of the individual doctors, in this case, relative to their beliefs and not the Churches. The only way to maintain a pure denominational control is to have a hospital that only hires from the denominations constituents and only serves the denominations constituents and only operates from denominational resources. <BR> <BR>Just my opinion, <BR>Cadge
Offline
Cadge, this is the distinctive difference between completely-owned and operated church entities and those that must rely in a large part to government funding, as all hospitals and many colleges are forced to do. <BR> <BR>Once these entities accept government funding, they have agreed to operate under the rules set by the government. This includes no discrimination on sex, orientation, race, or creed. <BR> <BR>This will have much larger affects than on this one hospital, but the entire SDA-operated institutions in the U.S. Who takes from the piper, must dance to his tunes.
Offline
I worked for Kettering Hospital for 13 years. During the early years, they would accept federal money. The funds to build and operate the new facility came from the Charles Kettering family, other interested companies and individuals. Then administration became greedy and wanted to build an empire. Well they have and will just have to pay the consequences. Too bad. <BR> <BR>Now, I understand that they will do abortions. They will stoop to take a life, but will not bend to allow one to be conceived. (scratching my bald head) Almost more babies are conceived out of wedlock than after marriage. OY, what has this world become?
Offline
No hospital can operate today without taking both Medicare and Medicaid funding. With this acceptance, they become obligated to operate under government guidelines. Catch 22?
Offline
Don, isn't the point, she doesn't want to have sex to have a baby??? She wants to bypass the man and the sex if I hear her position correctly. She's not a lesbian, as she states, the right guy hasn't come along and her biological clock is about to quit ticking, right??
Offline
Wouldn't she be condemned for choosing some man to inseminate her? She is then condemned for wanting in vitro fertilization. It seems that either way, she is condemned. <BR> <BR>There are literally millions of single mothers currently in the U.S. Some by choice, but far more because a father skipped out, and often in divorce, the mother gains custody. It is a fallacy to even think that single motherhood is terrible. If it were, our present President would be a high school dropout, likely in prison. My granddaughter, raised by her mother, almost exclusively until she was an adult, is now a very well-adjusted PhD psychologist. Successful children are raised by single mothers everywhere. Any potential mother who would willingly pay the price required for in vitro fertilization is surely a dedicated and loving potential mother.
Offline
<b><font color="0000ff">Isn't the point, she doesn't want to have sex to have a baby??? </font></b> <BR> <BR>There seem to be at least two points:<ol><li>The right of a church, getting tax dollars, to follow its corporate conscience. <LI>The morality of having a baby whose father is intentionally left out of parenting from the very beginning.</li></ol>
Offline
I believe that Karri O'REILLY'S POINT IS: <BR> <BR>3. The right of a person to go into a medical institution and receive/demand services that are offered to others without discrimination based on race, gender, political affiliation, philosophy of life, sexual orientation, (If people believe that they are born Gay, then to them it's true. Even if it isn't) etc. All these things, and especially when the institution has applied for and accepted government funding, non-profit status, tax write-offs etc. As long as any of society's laws are not being broken, the client should be serviced. <BR> <BR>As I've opined before, because the institution has also hired those from a cross section of society with different beliefs in God or philosophies of life, the moral question should fall on the individual that is asked to perform the procedure. Because the institution has entered into collusion with the government and also hires indiscriminately, they have "tainted" their purity of beliefs so as to be able to enforce their religious convictions on the masses that seek their services. Otherwise, the only way to maintain their religious integrity is to divest themselves from any government aid and only hire and cater to those of their religious beliefs. <BR> <BR>When we choose to "mix it up" with the "world's" systems we can not help but create dilemmas. "Be not unequally yoked with unbelievers, for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness, and what communion hath light with darkness?" 2Cor. 6:14 <BR> <BR> <BR>To those who choose to enter into the affairs of the world: <BR> <BR>If I don't like it,I have a right to oppose it in the press. I have a right to peaceful assembly and demonstration to protest against anything I disagree of. I have a right to muster up a political action group to get laws passed to how I believe it should be, and go by whatever the majority of the populace or political process, chooses. (Except where in the Presidential vote process of the American political system the popular, majority vote, is subservient to the electoral college vote; organized crime, in my opinion <img src="http://www.atomorrow.net/discus/clipart/happy.gif" border=0>) Call in the RICO squad!
Offline
It has been shown by better experts than I, that the quotation of not being unequally yoked was not for marriage, but for businesses. <BR> <BR>At least, there is more than one way to interpret this text.
Offline
<b><font color="ff0000">Unequally Yoked Together. Does 2 Corinthians Apply to Marriage?</font></b> <BR> <BR>This site provides a careful examination of the issue: <BR> <BR><a href="http://www.gracecentered.com/unequally_yoked.htm" target=_top>http://www.gracecentered.com/unequally_yoked.htm</a> <BR><font color="ffffff"><font size="-2">.</font></font>
Offline
It is possible to use it in many situations, however, where is it ever used to prohibit one Christian from marrying another Christian? <BR> <BR>The Jews prohibited marriage with non-Jews, but Christians removed all those previous barriers and now we are all one in Christ. <BR> <BR>As for businesses, how would it be possible for business to discriminate?
Offline
What if, rather than a legal rule, it is viewed as a spiritual guideline? An individual can apply the principle to their own situation without trying to meet the exact (imagined) legal expectation. At the extreme far end of the spectrum, a Christian knows that to marry a Satanist is contrary to the Pauline principle on this. Thus, the counsel provides guidance without imposing exaction and guilt. <BR><font color="ffffff"><font size="-2">.</font></font>
Offline
No SDA pastor (I can't speak for other denominations) is required to perform a marriage ceremony against his wishes. So, there should never be a problem. <BR> <BR>Another Christian minister may readily perform the ceremony for two Christians; it is only that SDAs interpret "unbeliever" as being non-SDA: a very poor eisegesis of the text. <BR> <BR>As I mentioned above, many SDA ministers will mary two Christians.
Offline