Middletown vs. Princeton
Beavercreek vs. Jefferson
Springfield vs. Belmont
Ellen Belcher is the Dayton Daily News opinion pages editor. She writes about state government, education, the environment, higher education and all things Dayton.
Martin Gottlieb is an editorial writer and columnist for the Dayton Daily News opinion pages. He focuses on the political process itself and does such national issues as war, the economy, taxes and Social Security, as well as a hodge-podge of local and state issues.
Scott Elliott is an editorial writer and columnist for the Dayton Daily News opinion pages. He writes about education, city and suburban issues, politics, business, workforce and consumer issues.Home > Blogs > A Matter of Opinion > Archives > 2009 > November > 18 > Entry
Editorial: Hospital’s rules slam into the rights of single women
The idea that a woman seeking in vitro fertilization would be asked to first show that she had a husband — and then get turned away only for being unmarried — feels like a throwback to another age.
That’s what happened to 40-year-old Karri O’Reilly at an office on the campus of Kettering Medical Center . Ms. O’Reilly is single, wants to have a baby and was seeking fertility treatment at Kettering Reproductive Medicine. The center is affiliated with Kettering Health Network, one of two large health care organizations — the other being Premier Health Partners — that dominate Dayton’s market.
Kettering is a private hospital, affiliated with the Seventh-day Adventist faith. It is common for faith-based hospitals to decline to perform services, such as abortions, that violate their teachings. Apparently helping an unmarried woman become pregnant falls in this realm for Kettering, although the hospital says it is rethinking its policy following Ms. O’Reilly’s complaints.
After declining to treat Ms. O’Reilly, the center referred her to other clinics in Cincinnati that don’t have its restrictions.
Ms. O’Reilly, a Dayton filmmaker, believes Kettering must provide its services without regard to a patient’s marital status because the network receives federal dollars. The rule against serving unmarried people, she notes, also would prevent gay couples from being treated. (Ms. O’Reilly is not gay.)
Finally, she argues that these rules discriminate in a way that violates the network’s own non-discrimination policy.
The hospital has a strong defense in asserting that its doctors can legally decide whom to see as patients, especially for elective services. While the hospital network receives federal Medicare and Medicaid money for treating patients in its hospitals, it does not receive this money at its reproductive center.
The argument that this sort of policy discriminates against gays and unmarried individuals has been raised elsewhere. Last year, California’s Supreme Court ruled that, under that state’s anti-discrimination laws, religious considerations cannot be used to make judgments about who can receive fertility treatments.
Kettering, of course, is entitled to practice its religious principles, especially when they involve an elective procedure. But those who disagree are as entitled to be offended that a hospital would put itself in the position of presuming to judge who should be a mother.
Pregnancy is such a private matter, such a personal choice, that the prospect of having to explain and justify yourself feels incredibly invasive.
At a minimum, Kettering’s posture creates public-relations challenges for the network. It has been expanding its influence in the region. In parts of the Dayton area, Kettering is the primary provider of health care services. Kettering and its sister hospital Southview, for instance, serve much of Dayton’s south suburbs. Greene Memorial Hospital, which Kettering operates, is the only hospital in Greene County. The coming construction of a new Kettering-run hospital in Beavercreek will extend the network’s reach.
As it expands, Kettering seeks to provide health care for a wide spectrum of people. Drawing dividing lines between patients based on considerations like marital status could get dicey.
Kettering suggests that there might be some give in its position. Possibly if its relationship with the center is an arm’s-length one, it can side step the religious conflict and back down.
Meanwhile, Ms. O’Reilly isn’t alone in being taken aback.
Permalink | Comments (23) | Post your comment | Categories: Editorials, Health Care, Scott Elliott
Comments
By Bob540
November 18, 2009 12:50 PM | Link to this
Just watch — Kettering will cave. Even if alternative services are available, no one dare base decisions upon faith these days.
By stephen
November 18, 2009 2:11 PM | Link to this
good…they should cave…this isnt about faith..its about discrimination and groups like these using faith as a cover and euphymism for excluding others and making themselves feel superior. If you are strong in your faith you dont need to push your views and punish others and deny people help based on them. Religion like everything else is used and abused for all the wrong reasons. It shouldnt be about turning people away because they arent like you think they should be. this is certainly not a Christ like thing to do; turn people away. Shame shame on KMC. Cave cave!!
By Quentin
November 18, 2009 5:33 PM | Link to this
Yeah but do men have any reproductive rights? She can go out and have or abort a child with no say so from a father. He could want the child and she abort but if she wants a child he is forced to support her and that child no matter what. Ohio even ruled last year that a boy under 15 who was molested had to pay support to the woman that molsted him. So KMC can make ther decision and if she doesn’t like it then sorry but she has choices at least unlike males.
By null
November 18, 2009 9:29 PM | Link to this
Show us anywhere in the US or Ohio constitutiions the “right” to in vitro fertilization.
By null
November 18, 2009 9:30 PM | Link to this
Show us anywhere in the US or Ohio constitutiions the “right” to in vitro fertilization.
By Really?
November 18, 2009 11:07 PM | Link to this
We have to itemize our rights now? How about just the right not to be discriminated against based on marital status or sexual orientation? Do we have specific language allowing us the right to drink Diet Coke or salt our food? No, and it’s against Adventist beliefs, but you can do THAT at KHN. Certain things are freaking obvious, as this is. If KHN takes taxpayer money, then they have no right to discriminate in access to treatment based on their religious agenda. Period. If O’Reilly sues, maybe we WILL see this specific protection spelled out.
By joe_mamma
November 19, 2009 8:31 AM | Link to this
It’s truly frightening how comfortable people have gotten with turning morality over to the government. Ms. O’Reilly has every right to be offended by Seventh Day Adventist’s stance on moral issues. But the Seventh Day Adventist’s have that same right to be offended that Ms. O’Reilly is asking them to forgo their morals. It’s a two way street. That’s part of living in a free society.
By Stephen
November 19, 2009 9:51 AM | Link to this
Free society does not equal taking tax payer money and then discriminating against people. KMC can discriminate all they want, and they should also give back the taxpayer money they have. Also, in a free society, citizens have the right to point out discrimination and put pressure on groups that discriminate. she is within her rights too for doing that.
By Quentin
November 19, 2009 11:07 AM | Link to this
So all those upset with KMN believe we should remove the VAWA and demand all the shelters return the money they were given, right? After all, since the Violence Against Women Act was created it required men not receive services and banned money to reseach male vistims.
By Jackie
November 19, 2009 1:07 PM | Link to this
Here goes Quentin again with his tirade. “Women raping men!”, “Condom in the trash!” It will make your child feel really good someday to know how daily you rant about how unwanted he or she was by you!!
By Biff
November 19, 2009 1:19 PM | Link to this
Wow, DDN deleted my post where I advised she should do it the old fashioned way and find a man!! Where, pray tell, DDN, do you find THAT offensive? Zazis!!
By Quentin
November 19, 2009 1:42 PM | Link to this
What is wrong Jackie, are you against men actually having rights when it comes to reproduction? You are a perfect example of what I was talking about at least. A boy can be molested and has to pay child support and it got less press than this case showing just how much they care about real discrimination. Jackie is upset when I gave a link showing courts ruling males responsible for support even when raped, molested, had the condom stole from the trash and even when she took the contents from oral sex and transferred them. So if that is all no big deal then why would the issue with KMC be a problem?
By Jackie
November 19, 2009 3:49 PM | Link to this
No, Quentin, I am not upset about anything you say. It never has any substance because you repeat the same thing over and over. I do like your new one though about the oral sex. The sad thing is that I think you really believe that these things happen.
By UrbanDweller
November 19, 2009 5:00 PM | Link to this
One word: Octomom. You get a single parent who could end up with multiple children from a single pregnancy and then can’t affort to take care of all the kids by herself. Who ends up paying for them? We the tax payer. I’m guessing as a “Dayton film maker” she probably isn’t making much to begin with either.
By ToleratingOthers
November 19, 2009 5:09 PM | Link to this
Joe_mamma has a point. Kettering hospital also doesn’t serve meat to their patients in any of their meals because of their religious beliefs. As mentioned, this is a free country. If you want meat in the hospital go elsewhere. Ms O’Reilly had a choice of going elsewhere, too.
By Actually
November 19, 2009 5:54 PM | Link to this
Kettering Hospital DOES serve meat, as well as coffee. As for the Octomom comments, realize that selective reduction is an option open to all women with multiples, and is discussed at length when you go in for IVF. As for Ms. O’Reilly’s income - not that is your business, but her website says she is a member of the Directors Guild and the BASE weekly salary for a person doing her job is $6,251 a week plus benefits and overtime pay. Look it up (dga.org). Her credits show she’s working a fair amount, and if she has money to pay for IVF (not usually insurance-covered), she likely is not living in poverty level.
By Hey Biff...
November 19, 2009 6:05 PM | Link to this
Biff, did it ever occur to you that Ms. O’Reilly, an educated, smart, self-employed lady who seems reasonably attractive might be so discouraged with the gene pool in Dayton she’d rather go it alone with store-bought sperm than shackle herself and her child to some of the winners posting here offering a bucket of their swimmers?
By Quentin
November 19, 2009 8:40 PM | Link to this
You doubt this happens Jackie? Here, have a link with the legal cases showing some of it. http://www.childsupportguidelines.com/articles/art199903.html And remember that Ohio was the first to do something about paternity fraud though the men are still not allowed to recover a dime. So she can have an affair and the husband is on the hook for supporting the child she has with another guy, he has no rights to see that child but he does have to pay support and most states still enforce that even when DNA shows the facts. But hey, don’t let the facts get in the way of discrimination you do like.
By Christian Louboutin Shoes
June 8, 2010 9:29 PM | Link to this
Really nice and impressive blog i found today.
By Cheap Insurance Quotes
June 18, 2010 8:42 AM | Link to this
your site is good!
By MBT Men Shoes
July 10, 2010 2:19 AM | Link to this
I’m definitely going to bookmark you! Thank you for your info.
By mbt tataga
July 11, 2010 12:34 AM | Link to this
Lots of helpful information. I have bookmarked your site.
By home loan
July 29, 2010 1:31 AM | Link to this
great share, great article, very usefull for me…thank you