Apparently the next fight in the American holy war is against women’s breasts. The war front is a Catholic hospital in Dale City, California and the first shot across the bow (or breasts) hit Charlene Hastings in the chest.
Hastings, 57, had already had the major surgery she needed to become a woman. She had chosen a San Francisco plastic surgeon with privileges at Seton to perform the breast augmentation in October 2006. But the surgeon, Dr. Leonard Gray, told her that Seton no longer allowed him to operate on transgender patients, Hastings said.When Hastings called Seton to learn more, a surgical coordinator said the hospital would not allow its facilities to be used for transgender surgery, according to the lawsuit, “She was saying, ‘It’s not God’s will,’ ” Hastings said. “I couldn’t believe it. It’s a blatant case of discrimination.”
The lawsuit, filed Dec. 21 in San Francisco Superior Court, pits the rights of transgendered people against the hospital’s rights to operate according to its religious principles.
State law allows religiously affiliated hospitals to refuse to provide abortions, but there is no specific religious exemption allowing hospitals to deny elective surgery to transgender people.
The first question that comes to mind is how the hospital came to know that the patient was a post operative transsexual woman? As a health care provider myself, I can’t even look at my own test results. What gives the surgery coordinator or anyone else in the hospital the right to know?
Elizabeth Nikels, vice president of communications for Daughters of Charity said:
Seton Medical Center provides medically necessary services to all individuals, however, the hospital does not perform surgical procedures contrary to Catholic teaching; for example, abortion, direct euthanasia, transgender surgery or any of its related components.
What is considered a “transgender surgery”? Medical discrimination against transsexuals isn’t anything new. Robert Eads, a female to male transsexual, died of of ovarian cancer because more than two dozen doctors refused to treat Eads on the grounds that taking him on as a patient might harm their practice.
Of course Seton Medical Center still performs breast enlargement surgeries on women who are not transgender… because vainness is next to godliness.
6 Comments, Comment or Ping
Rebecca
Good luck to her.
The “transgender surgery” clause is pretty disturbing in light of all that happened to Eads. It’s bizarre enough that they’re classing breast implants as “transgender surgery” when they wouldn’t hesitate to do it to a cisgendered woman, but it could well set an important legal precedent if Hastings wins this one.
I would also be curious, as you say, to find out how they found out she was a post-op transwoman. It’s breathtaking how little our rights to patient confidentiality seem to be respected at times.
Jan 6th, 2008
Val
I’ve never understood how “religious exemptions” are supposed to have any standing in a capitalist society which is based by definition on the principle of service rendered for proper payment.
It does beg the question of, if TSism were ever successfully redefined as a strictly medical, as opposed to psychological, condition, whether the Catholic church would then re-evaluate its own position. Given the evidence of history, I rather think not.
Of course, if it were so redefined, it would also require a complete restructuring of the SOC, since the current regime is predicated entirely on a psychological diagnosis.
Jan 7th, 2008
Tom
How can anyone think a Catholic institution should be forced to go against their own beliefs?
It is freedom “of” religion, not freedom from religion.
Jan 17th, 2008
Marti Abernathey
When it violates HIPAA? As a business the church is not exempt from the laws of the state and federal government. Denying care is a violation of the Unruh Act which says:
Jan 17th, 2008
Val
If the practice of a religion makes it impossible to render equal service in a public business, you should either get out of the business or get out of the religion.
Jan 17th, 2008
Polar Bear
I’m sick and tired of the accomodations given to religious special interests in civil rights bills. 3685 had a terrible one installed in it.
Religious exemptions should apply to churches only, and never to any businesses or institutions they own, because that is just a way to legalize bigotry. In fact, religion is a terrible influence on politics, and in my opinion, any church that discusses political action from its pulpit should lose its tax exempt status.
That hospital probably has the right to discriminate - and that is a tragedy and farce. It should have no right to do that, is subject to HIPAA as Marti states, and should
let the chaplain be the only clergy present.
Jan 17th, 2008