Transgender Man Sues Catholic Hospital for Refusing to Remove His Uterus

[Heddi]

https://heatst.com/life/transgender-man-sues-catholic-hospital-for-refusing-on-religious-grounds-to-remove-his-uterus/

A Catholic hospital in Trenton, N.J. is being forced to defend itself after they refused to remove a transgender man’s uterus.

Jionni Conforti is a 33-year-old man who had scheduled a hysterectomy at St. Joseph’s Regional Medical Center back in 2015. He filed a lawsuit after he was told the hospital couldn’t perform the surgery because it was a Catholic hospital. He was able to get the procedure done at another hospital, but he is hoping to get a court order requiring the hospital to provide the procedure for future transgender patients. He is also seeking monetary damages.

The hospital, however, is claiming First Amendment protection. In its response filed Friday, they argue that being forced to perform the procedure would go against their religious beliefs. Other related cases in recent memory are the Hobby Lobby and Little Sisters of the Poor cases, although those had to do with contraceptives and not transgender surgery. Both of those cases were ruled in favor of the religious groups..

The hospital believes that the “court system shouldn’t be able to interpret ethical and religious directives from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops followed by the hospital.” The directives they follow say that procedures deemed “morally wrong” by the church don’t have to be performed by hospitals operating under the church. They also cited state law that says hospitals can’t be forced to provide “sterilization services or procedures.”
-----



The surgery was obviously approved by the surgeon and the insurance co prior to being done. IN order to be approved, medical documentation detailing the need for the procedure is required.

If the surgeon performing the operation was okay with it, then whose religious beliefs were being violated? The hospitals? Can a building have religious beliefs?

THe fact that this was a planned, approved, cleared surgery that was cancelled, to me, shows that it was done in a discriminatory manner. The hospital approved the procedure then declined it once they found out the patient was transgender. Where was their prohibition against procedures that cause sterilization WHEN THEY ACCEPTED AND APPROVED A SURGERY TO REMOVE A WOMAN'S UTERUS to begin with?

Fucking hypocritcal bigots.

[guillaumeb]

1. Are there medical reasons that might require that a uterus be removed?

If so, you might already have the answer to your question.

[Heddi]

2. There obviously was a medical reason, hence why the surgery was scheduled

Maybe you're not familiar with how surgery works.

You don't just go to the hospital and say "I want my uterus removed" and they put you in a room and take it out.

It has to be considered medically necessary to be done

That is determined by a physician

The physician's office then requires certain clearances -- lab, cardiac, etc.

Once the patient is cleared for surgery, from a clincial point of view, the surgery is scheduled.

Roughly simultaneously, the surgeon's office and the hospital both seek approval from the insurance that is covering the surgery (private, medicare, medicaid, etc). Those insurances will require medical documentation of the surgery's necessity. It is not uncommon for a doctor to find a procedure medically necessary but it be deemed NOT necessary by the insurance company.

The surgery is only booked once the hospital (where surgery is being performed) and surgeon (who is doing surgery) get authorization that the procedure will be paid for.

This process can take from days to weeks, depending on the urgency.

The fact that the surgery was scheduled means that 1) a doctor found it medically necessary 2)the hospital accepted the case 3) the third party payor agreed that the surgery was medically necessary.

So why did the hospital, after getting surgeon and insurance approval, withdraw their allowance for surgery to be done?

If it was medically appropriate on Monday, it's gonna be medically appropriate on Tuesday.

They withdrew their allowance because they are a bigoted institution with transphobic policies that did not allow this patient to get a medically necessary (as determined by physician and payor) surgery.

Now you tell me. What reasons, aside from religious-based, transphobic policies, would the hospital have to not allow this surgery that they were perfectly fine to have done before being notified that the patient was F-M trans?

[guillaumeb]

4. First, the article does not say that there was a medical reason for the removal.

And people can privately pay for surgery.

If the reason was that the patient was emotionally stressed and saw the removal as necessary for his mental health, I can sympathize with him, but if a private hospital has a policy against performing certain procedures, absent a law requiring that all procedures be done at all hospitals, I do not see how he has a case. While I do not personally agree with the Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, 573 U.S. ___ (2014) decision, it is actually established law.

And the fact that he was able to get the procedure done at another facility indicates that he had other options.

[Heddi]

5. Even with private pay, there would have to be a medical reason for the removal

Again, I'll take a few minutes out of my lunch schedule to give a brief run-down for those in the audience who don't know how surgery works.

In addition to not being able to go walk into a hospital and say "i want a surgery" and they put you in a room and do it immediately, one cannot walk into a gynecologic surgeon's office and say "I want my uterus taken out" and the a-okay is given without any medical reason being present whatsoever

That medical reason may be related to transitioning from F-M. It may be to remove risk of hereditary uterine cancer (hint: it was). Very few surgeons who have admitting priveleges at major hospitals would be willing to risk their license and livlihoods to perform a medically unnecessary surgery. It's actually kind of against the law.

Now, they may fudge on the 'necessityness', but there has to be an underlying reason.

No doctor would perform a voluntary arm removal if there was not a compelling medical reason for the arm to be removed. WANTING the arm to be removed, much like WANTING the uterus to be removed, would not be a compelling reason.

Ah! But what about breast reduction/removal surgeries, or sex reassignment surgeries...I know you're just dying to ask that. Well, in there are compelling medical reasons to have organs removed. Breasts can be removed for cosmetic reasons. Genitalia can be removed or altered for cosmetic or surgery related to transitioning

But there is still a medical reason for the removal.

The doctor will not do an orchiectomy on a healthy man, not transitioning to female, without any history of testicular cancer or highly aggressive genetic testicular cancer or other medically necessary reason.

Now, knowing that, please find ONE compelling reason to answer why it is not a bigoted, transphobic policy to allow a medically necessary procedure on what is believed to be a woman without any future transitioning but DENIED upon the realization that the woman is a woman transitioning to a man.

The fact that he got it done elsewhere only shows that there WAS a compelling medical necessity for the procedure to be done by a hospital that did not allow itself to be blinded by bigoted, transphobic, anti-woman policies.

See, you kind of answered your own question there!

[Act_of_Reparation]

6. You obviously know a lot about the healthcare industry.

[trotsky]

9. So a baker has the right to refuse to bake a cake for a gay couple, or an interracial couple?

Interesting stance. Not very common on DU, but hey, I guess you gotta be different.

[Act_of_Reparation]

10. Everywhere you used a period instead of a question mark.

[guillaumeb]

11. As in this instance?

While I do not personally agree with the Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, 573 U.S. ___ (2014) decision, it is actually established law.

[Act_of_Reparation]

12. No, that's deflection. That's different.

Here, let me help you find all the places you said nonsensical things with dubious authority:

First, the article does not say that there was a medical reason for the removal

Irrelevant, because Heddi just told you people cannot have surgery without medical justification. Ergo, if a person is scheduled for surgery, it is can be assumed there is a medical justification for it.

Also, the news isn't going to mention what that justification is, because we have patient privacy laws in this country and, quite frankly, what goes on in this person's uterus is really none of your goddamned business.

And people can privately pay for surgery.

They can also pay for it in bubblegum if they find a really cool surgeon, but that has nothing to do with whether or not a procedure is medically justified.

It is clear you were unaware of that fact. Curious you decided to make a statement instead of asking whether or not private pay procedures were handled differently. It's almost like, you know, you just assumed you already knew the answer. Even thought you didn't.

Weird, innit?

If the reason was that the patient was emotionally stressed and saw the removal as necessary for his mental health, I can sympathize with him

The patient's opinion is irrelevant.

He. Had. Medical. Justification.

That. Means. It. Came. From. A. Doctor.

but if a private hospital has a policy against performing certain procedures, absent a law requiring that all procedures be done at all hospitals, I do not see how he has a case.

Really? Unless there's a law making every hospital perform every medical procedure, you can't take them court for refusing service? So, like, if a pharmacy doesn't stock every drug known to mankind you can't sue them for not serving black people? That's an odd rationale I'm not sure I follow. But since you asserted it, it must be true, amirite?

Here's a question: do you think they would have performed the hysterectomy if he had uterine cancer, or do think they'd send him somewhere else?

While I do not personally agree with the Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, 573 U.S. ___ (2014) decision, it is actually established law.

Does the hospital qualify as a closely held company under Burwell v. Hobby Lobby? Is there judicial precedent particular to the medical field that may override the Burwell v. Hobby Lobby decision? Is the patient bluffing hoping to strong arm the hospital into settlement?

I don't know. That doesn't mean this guy doesn't have a case, though.

[trotsky]

8. Well, he knows a lot about how religion should get to dictate it for others, I guess. n/t

[hrmjustin]

3. That is a case to watch! Might be a landmark case.