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. Many Muslims might disagree, but in order 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.
And in Rastafarian-run health care centers, amputations would be unavailable.
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.
And should a patient need to know that blood transfusions are not available in a facility run by Jehovah’s Witnesses?
This new multi-cultural, taxpayer-subsidized approach to health care, which might be categorized as “Let’s Let Religious Leaders Decide,” seems to be finding favor among the defenders of Catholic health care.
But do defenders of Catholic health care really want to apply the same “courtesy” to other religions?
It seems clear that 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.