(07-15-2013 11:09 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(07-15-2013 10:59 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  uh, the law says the DOCTOR running the clinic must be able to hold admitting privileges at a hospital located within 30 miles of the clinic. While hospitals might accept the patients, they DON"T ALLOW the abortion provider to admit them.

As you've been told "Abortion Provider" is not a medical title. It would be OB/GYN. Can you provide a link where OB's are being denied admitting privileges?

He can't. He has to make this assumption in order to make his emotional plea and vicariously snap at the religious backing of many Hospitals.

I find it funny that instead of complaining about the fact that secular groups often don't open hospitals if they can't make money at them, and seem to blame this fact on the religious who do it anyway.

The reality is that although the religious organizations run the business of being a hospital, they are completely barred from practicing medicine. There is no requirement that a practitioner believe in God, much less any particular sect in order to have privileges, and nobody is talking about regularly performing abortions at the hospital (something the government can't force unless it is to save the mother's life) so he has to come up with this fantasy that hospitals would make it a practice to deny doctors privileges if they are OBs who perform abortions in their other practice.

Hint for you Tom.

Privileges are about accepting risk, nothing more. There are regulations to ensure this and anyone denied privileges for an unreasonable reason would easily be able to sue and win and you know it. The hospital is already REQUIRED to take the patient. Having the doctor "still be on the hook" for their care is an advantage for the hospital, not a disadvantage.

(07-16-2013 01:49 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(07-15-2013 11:09 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(07-15-2013 10:59 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  uh, the law says the DOCTOR running the clinic must be able to hold admitting privileges at a hospital located within 30 miles of the clinic. While hospitals might accept the patients, they DON"T ALLOW the abortion provider to admit them.

As you've been told "Abortion Provider" is not a medical title. It would be OB/GYN. Can you provide a link where OB's are being denied admitting privileges?

http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2012/1...er-invest/

He can't. He has to make this assumption in order to make his emotional plea and vicariously snap at the religious backing of many Hospitals.

I find it funny that instead of complaining about the fact that secular groups often don't open hospitals if they can't make money at them, and seem to blame this fact on the religious who do it anyway.

The reality is that although the religious organizations run the business of being a hospital, they are completely barred from practicing medicine. There is no requirement that a practitioner believe in God, much less any particular sect in order to have privileges, and nobody is talking about regularly performing abortions at the hospital (something the government can't force unless it is to save the mother's life) so he has to come up with this fantasy that hospitals would make it a practice to deny doctors privileges if they are OBs who perform abortions in their other practice.

Hint for you Tom.

Privileges are about accepting risk, nothing more. There are regulations to ensure this and anyone denied privileges for an unreasonable reason would easily be able to sue and win and you know it. The hospital is already REQUIRED to take the patient. Having the doctor "still be on the hook" for their care is an advantage for the hospital, not a disadvantage.

http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2012/1...er-invest/

Actually, a hospital can refuse a doctor admitting privileges for just about any reason. Or for no reason. Hosptials, either because they take taxpayer funds to try to enforce religious dictats with taxpayer funds or because they fear domestic terrorism by abortion opponents generally do not allow OBGYN's providing reproductive choice services to associate with their hosptials.

BTW, the Federal Court blocked enforcement of Mississippi's TRAP law as well last month. Same thing will happen in Texas.

Because NO HOSPITALS in Amarillo or Abilene will allow ANY OBGYN performing abortions to comply with the law by allowing them admitting privileges.

The lawsuit should be to take the hospital's certificate of need away and give it to a secular group that will serve all the community.

I thought hospitals did not really like having emergency rooms anyway and would rather not have them.
Are they not a money loser, or do they mainly do it for public need and to get additional business?

(07-16-2013 11:41 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2012/1...er-invest/

Actually, a hospital can refuse a doctor admitting privileges for just about any reason. Or for no reason. Hosptials, either because they take taxpayer funds to try to enforce religious dictats with taxpayer funds or because they fear domestic terrorism by abortion opponents generally do not allow OBGYN's providing reproductive choice services to associate with their hosptials.

BTW, the Federal Court blocked enforcement of Mississippi's TRAP law as well last month. Same thing will happen in Texas.

Because NO HOSPITALS in Amarillo or Abilene will allow ANY OBGYN performing abortions to comply with the law by allowing them admitting privileges.

The lawsuit should be to take the hospital's certificate of need away and give it to a secular group that will serve all the community.

Did it ever occur to you that Dr Willie Parker may simply be a bad doctor?

You imply that these are religious based, and that charters should be given to secular groups, but ignore that the group in the very link you provide that denied Willie Parker is a secular and not religious group

Proof positive that you don't know what you're talking about.


Let me help you out

http://www.careermedicine.com/2007/10/st...rivileges/

Quote:Many medical insurance companies will require MDs to hold hospital privileges to qualify to be part of their medical network. If you want to do surgical procedures or round at the hospital, hospital privileges are needed. Obtaining hospital privileges are easy as of now. Hospitals needs MDs to send patients to their health care facilities. So most hospitals will be very helpful in helping you get privileges.

There are different types of hospital privileges. You may want to chose which is best suited for you:
Courtesy Privileges: Courtesy hospital privileges limit the physician to admitting only a nominal number of patients to the hospital. It still satisfies most medical insurance companies requirement for physicians to hold hospital privileges. Physicians are usually exempt from attending medical staff meetings. Such privilege is used by physicians who do not expect to admit patients to the hospital or do procedures there.

The hospital privileges are renewed every few years. Currently it is done automatically, as long as physician’s morbidity or mortality rate is not too high as compared to their peers. But starting 2008, JCAHO is now requiring hospitals to develop criteria to renew hospital privileges every year based on measured criteria such as mortality rate, patient satisfaction score, complication rate, and, yes! believe it or not, even handwriting legibility.

SO once again, you are poorly informed that they can just "make up" reasons not to allow. They have to file them with the Joint Commission and they are reviewed.

More help

http://bphc.hrsa.gov/policiesregulations...00116.html

If they were denied, chances are pretty good that they are uninsurable under their policy... meaning they are bad doctors who probably shouldn't be practicing medicine.