Catholic health care and the situation on San Juan Island is the subject of a Washington Times editorial.
From the editorial, it sounds as if the people defending tax subsidies for Catholic health care would also defend tax subsidies for Islamic health care, Jehovah’s Witness health care, Jewish health care, and health care provided according to the rules of any other religion.
For each of these types of health care, different rules would apply. Islamic health care might start with the idea that modesty is such a crucial requirement, females can never be seen by male doctors or males never seen by female doctors. Of course, many Muslims might disagree, but it we want to achieve parity with Catholic health care, the rules of the most conservative Imams should probably apply.
Similarly, in facilities that operate according to the rules of Jehovah’s Witness followers, we can assume blood transfusions will be disallowed.
Now, a question arises as to whether or not patients should be told about the restrictions. If patients don’t need to be told that some Catholic health providers won’t provide contraception or won’t allow an abortion even after a patient has started miscarrying, it seems unfair to require an Islamic hospital to disclose its religious rules, restrictions, and requirements. Better to let people guess.
And why would any patient need to know that blood transfusions are not available in a facility run by Jehovah’s Witnesses? Surely, that’s something people can just be expected to KNOW, and if they don’t agree with the restriction, they can just get themselves up off the hospital gurney and go to a different hospital.
This new multi-cultural, taxpayer-subsidized approach to health care, which we’ll call “Let’s Let Religious Leaders Decide,” seems to be finding favor among the defenders of Catholic health care.
Oh wait. I’m hearing from sources that’s not what Catholic health care providers truly want after all. What they want is for the Catholic bishops to decide what health care we all should get and for the rest of us to pay for it. No one said anything about extending the same “courtesy” to other religions.
After all, providing tax-subsidized health care in a bunch of different hospitals/health care settings that operate by different religious rules without any disclosure of what the rules are would be simply crazy.