I am a doctor who has worked at the same catholic hospital for the last 17 years. Every morning and evening a loud, Christian prayer is piped into every patient room, conference room, and broom closet in the hospital.
This hospital is not financed by the catholic church. It takes medicare dollars from the US govt among others. Why doesn’t this violate the establishment clause?
Any advice or references would be appreciated. I think I’ll check with the ACLU as well.
Mike
If it is financed by the government, you would think it would be unconstitutional. I wouldn’t want to have to stay at any facility that imposes beliefs on me. However, it’s not easy for someone who is sick to ask to be transfer and fight for their Constitutional rights. So this is worse than imposing, it is taking advantage of those who can’t or physically and mentally find it difficult due to illness to fight back. I don’t see how it can’t be against the Constitution. :?
Well, since you described this as a “Catholic hospital” we already know that it’s privately run, rather like a parochial school. I would assume that the same laws applied to Catholic hospitals as to Catholic schools—that is, that directed prayer is legal. Only government-owned and government-run entities fall under the separation clauses of the Constitution. (Public schools, public hospitals, etc.)
Still and all you’d think that they would have the decency to restrict prayer to those patients who they knew were Catholic. Otherwise it looks rather like forced proselytization of the infirm.
Thank you all for the feedback. The situation is worse because this is the only hospital in this geographic region so neither MDs nor patients can simply go elsewhere.
I went to Catholic schools as a kid and it’s my understanding that they can only promote religion because they do not take federal dollars. Any hospital, private Catholic ones included, take millions in reimbursement from the federal Medicare program. I can’t see why this doesn’t violate the establishment clause.
BTW, if they had to choose between the cash and the prayer, I don’t think it would be much of a contest.
I went to Catholic schools as a kid and it’s my understanding that they can only promote religion because they do not take federal dollars. Any hospital, private Catholic ones included, take millions in reimbursement from the federal Medicare program. I can’t see why this doesn’t violate the establishment clause.
It’s an interesting question; I think we’d need a constitutional law expert to sort it out for us.
I am a doctor who has worked at the same catholic hospital for the last 17 years. Every morning and evening a loud, Christian prayer is piped into every patient room, conference room, and broom closet in the hospital.
This hospital is not financed by the catholic church. It takes medicare dollars from the US govt among others. Why doesn’t this violate the establishment clause?
Any advice or references would be appreciated. I think I’ll check with the ACLU as well.
Mike
CFI is doing something right because if you Google “catholic hospital” “loudspeaker” this discussion is your first hit.
I agree with the other comments above, it really depends on how much public funding the hospital receives, but because of Medicare and support for indigents it’s likely the hospital receives government funds.
Because of insurance rules, someone who finds themselves in this situation and finds it to be intolerable, would have to pay for their transfer to another hospital. Most insurance companies will not transfer a patient to another hospital at the same level of care, unless that hospital has something medically necessary to offer the patient, that the first hospital is lacking. Imagine having a heart attack or a stroke ‘i.e. nearest hospital issue’ and being transported to this hospital in a situation where you have no choice. Then having your privacy invaded by indoctrination and prayer over the loudspeaker. Yuck!
geo
Just so I’m being clear, my hospital is not one among many that patients can choose from. It is a major medical center and trauma center that does heart surgery, brain surgery, etc. The nearest equivalent facility is 90 minutes away with no traffic, which is rare.
In terms of funding, I would think a private hospital which accepts Medicare reimbursements would not be considered “government funded” as opposed to one which received direct funds from an agency. In the case of the former, the Catholic hospital is actually receiving the funds from the government ON BEHALF of the patient and is being paid for a trade of goods and services in which the patient is the customer and the government is the guarantor of payment.
A similar analogy would be a grocery store receiving food stamps from a customer. Legally, they are getting the money from the individual/patient/customer via a government program but are not being directly funded by a transfer from the government to the entity — the customer stands in the middle as the beneficiary of the money by which he or she may then pay for the good or service. You would not accuse a Christian grocer who posted WWJD posters in her store of violating the establishment clause becuse the store accepts food stamps, right?
In fact, all Medicare payments pass through the patient’s account to the provider so in essence the patient is paying for the service and the hospital is not being financed directly by the government. It is a tough question to ferret out in a time when so many consumer transactions are intermingled with gov’t. funds.
In short, the hospital can pray all day without fear of violating the separation clause. Now, whether or not it is MORAL to force one’s religion on those who are medically incapacitated and thus under duress, ah, that’s a question for philosophy, I suppose.
Thanks, MH, that does make sense and may be legally right.
As to morally right, the attitude of the hospital admin is that if everyone is not a Christian, they should be. At least they’ve tried to show us the light so their conscience is clear.
It’s a shame a secular entity can’t make a go of establishing a hospital in your area. Think of how much money could be used for medical research rather than religious education/proselytization.
That’s religion’s trump card: As long as they can convince the sheep that giving a percentage of income is a great virtue...Cha-Ching.
That issue was one which helped drive me away from the Baptist faith. Most Baptist pastors will preach that Christians do not have to follow all the archaic precepts in the Old Testament — UNLESS it happens to benefit the institution.
Such is the case with the “commandment” in (I believe) the book of Micah (or Joel?) exhorting Jews (and applied to Christians) to give 10 percent of one’s GROSS (not net) income to the “Lord” (in the form of the church). Gotta pay for those mega-buildings, folks.
