Hospital deal stirs emotions
Thu, 03/11/2010 - 00:23
Printer-friendly version
Send to friend
Herald/Review
SIERRA VISTA — With a partnership pending between the local hospital and a Catholic-based health care network, some in the community are seeking a dialogue.
In a Tuesday letter to the Sierra Vista Regional Health Center board of trustees, a local physician, a vice president of the National Women’s Law Center and the director of a group called MergerWatch addressed a number of issues for which they want answers before the agreement with Carondelet Health Network becomes effective April 17.
If you find a correction for this story, please contact our editorial department
Related Terms:
Family Fun This Week
|
Tue, 02/14/2012 - 05:30 - 07:00
|
|
Sat, 02/18/2012 - 09:00 - 12:00
|
|
Sun, 03/11/2012 - 04:30 - 07:00
|
|
Fri, 03/16/2012 (All day) - Sun, 05/06/2012 (All day)
|
|
Thu, 03/29/2012 - 10:00 - 12:00
|
|
Mon, 04/23/2012 - 09:00 - 16:00
|
|
Fri, 04/27/2012 - 10:30 - Fri, 05/01/2015 - 10:30
|
Based upon the reasons given on their web site, SVRHC has created all this
furor based upon Carondelet’s ability to bring enhancements e.g. to Quality
Improvement, patient transfers, supply chain savings, processes and
procedures, existing and new community services, etc. All the reasons given
are politically correct healthcare “speak”; yet, provides no substance that
can be measured or challenged. The CEO will be on Carondelet’s payroll. The
CEO’s work experience is within Catholic Healthcare system. Why does the CEO
payroll status change? What personal benefits does this change provide the
CEO? Senior Leadership at SVRHC are all approaching retirement age….Is this
the succession plan? Over the next 24 months, it will interesting to watch
the quiet job loss at SVRHC as various job leadership and/or functions
transition to Carondelet under the guise of savings and collaboration. THAT
will be this Board and Margaret Hepburn’s legacy to healthcare in Sierra
Vista. Update your resume
how many of you against this merger are wearing green today?
Why does it seem like people taken to SVRHC are transferred to Tucson anyway.
Sunnie you keep talking about all these benefits that this partnership will
produce. What will they actually improve so people can be taken care of here
in SV. All I hear is a lot of talk from people. What will Carondolet do for
this hospital and community. Are they paying for a burn unit? Are they paying
for an upgrade ICU? Are they funding a neo-natal area?
I have yet to read why this affiliation was necessary. Anyone know why this
so-called regional hospital wants to shack up with a bunch of religious
zealots?
“No one and I mean no one can do something to you without your consent.” Nice
thought, but what about the flip side? If the patient wants something - a
procedure, to die without pain, to be taken off life-support, would a
religiously-affiliated hospital DENY something that the patient has consented
to? “No religious doctrine will change how [you] deliver care…” Do you
really intend to flout hospital policy, once it’s changed, if it’s changed?
From your earlier post: “..If they don’t want it we wont force them to have
a breathing tube..and if the patient is beyond hope and there is no quality
of life, the patient will be allowed to die.” That’s how it is — now. It’s
frightening [wish I could add “unthinkable”] that a hospital board would
allow some person or organization, religious or otherwise, dictate medical
treatment and hospital policy.
You bet I would..it my license. Not the hospitals. It considered assault if
you touch a patient without their consent. Nursing 101 and the AZ state board
would back me 100%.
The problem won’t be patients or families who refuse treatment, it will be
families who are unavalible to refuse or ones who fail to abide by the
patient’s Living Will or DNR. Read the USCCB at
http://www.usccb.org/bishops/directives.shtml#partsix very carefully. Just
because we have followed the law to the letter does not mean we cannot be
fired under failure to conform to hospital poicy. The State Board is the
mininum standard, it does not mean that the hospital cannot set higher
standards.
Playdeebug, I’m directing this to you because you work at the hospital. I’ve
asked and others have asked…what benefits will this partnership provide.
The commercials say nothing will change. The health care will be the same.
Isn’t the idea of a partnership to improve in areas. They work together to
obtain a certain goal. Maybe I missed the benefits. I think the people would
be more open if they knew everything. The way the board did this was wrong.
They need to be open and honest. The people in this area are not stupid. They
know there is a lot more than is being said. Would you tell us what the
benefits would be. …thank you
Sunnie, the question was NOT “Would you give treatment to a patient who
didn’t want it,” the question was “Would you refuse treatment to a patient
who wanted it”. People may want treatment that a Catholic hospital won’t
give. Must a — say a Mormon — suffer an agonizing death without painkillers
because Catholic doctrine is that such pain is a good lesson?
What you have repeatedly been told.
Do YOU like what Hospice does for end of life patient care?
Hospice was STARTED by CATHOLICS.
“People may want treatment that a Catholic hospital won’t give.”
WHAT treatment are you wondering if a Catholic hospital won’t give?
Euthanasia?
Catholic hospitals will treat extreme pain with medications and painkillers
to relieve suffering as much as possible even if doing so results in
shortening the patients life; as long as the INTENTION is NOT to CAUSE DEATH.
(Meaning the intent was NOT to MURDER the patient; that would be illegal at
any and ALL Arizona Hospitals, not just catholic hospitals.)
So no a Mormon, Jehovah’s Witness, Buddhist, Shinto, Methodist, Jew or any
other WILL NOT “suffer an agonizing death without painkillers because
Catholic doctrine is that such pain is a good lesson”. There is NO SUCH
DOCTRINE; that is an out of context CLAIM. Does such as that happens in
hospice NOW?
Of course NOT.