Hospital sale risks services

Consequences of Catholic buyer feared

By Myung Oak Kim, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)

Thursday, November 29, 2007

Judy DeHaas / The Rocky

Dr. Douglas Minton talks with Dallas Strong, 36, who opposes the sale of Exempla Lutheran Medical Center to a Catholic organization. Under the new owners, Strong says, she would have to go outside Jefferson County to obtain the tubal ligation scheduled for Friday for medical reasons.

Dallas Strong never thought religion might affect her medical care.

The 36-year-old mother of two from Arvada will undergo a tubal ligation Friday at Exempla Lutheran Medical Center in Wheat Ridge to heal a bleeding condition in her uterus.

If plans to sell the hospital to a Kansas Catholic organization go through, she wouldn't be able to get that procedure at Lutheran. That means no hospital in Jefferson County - one of the largest counties in the state - would perform tubal ligations, vasectomies, abortions or other forms of birth control.

"I'm flabbergasted," Strong said. "I was appalled that this was even something somebody could actually consider."

"They're hurting the average citizen. They're hurting me - a single mother who can only make it to Lutheran Hospital. Hospitals are there to care for people and not to show your religious might."

Some doctors also are up in arms about the pending $611 million sale of Lutheran and Exempla Good Samaritan Medical Center in Lafayette to Sisters of Charity of Leavenworth Health System. They say doctors will leave the hospitals because they don't want to compromise care. And that will hurt patients.

"The physicians and the community have a long-settled expectation that Lutheran will provide whatever services the community needs based on advances in medical science . . . and not directed by any outside religious factors," said Carla Murphy, an emergency room physician and president of the hospital's more than 900-member medical staff. "It's a question of patient and physician autonomy.

"It's a devastating loss of services to the community that the community is largely unaware of."

'Don't,' medical staff say

Lutheran's medical staff is writing a letter of opposition to Attorney General John Suthers, and leaders of that group are scheduled to meet with Suthers' office Friday.

The hospital's medical peer review committee, a panel of doctors who check cases for safety and quality of care, has threatened to resign because members don't want to police doctors with regard to the religious directives.

At issue are the "ethical and religious directives" that many hospitals owned by Catholic organizations must follow. Medical staff at these hospitals cannot give birth control counseling or perform related medical procedures. The Archdiocese of Denver has urged parties in the sale to follow the directives.

Lutheran doctors performed 378 tubal ligations, four medically necessary abortions and seven vasectomies at the hospital last year, according to Murphy. The abortions were as a result of medical emergencies to the mothers or the fetuses.

Murphy said doctors also wouldn't be permitted to take a person in a vegetative state off life support even if that's what the patient directed through a living will.

The St. Anthony hospital system - which is planning a new site in Lakewood that would make it the only other hospital in Jefferson County - is owned by a different Catholic group. Birth control procedures are not performed there.

Suthers has the option to block the sale. Because of a 1999 state law, Suthers can take action against the sale of a non-profit if he determines it would result in a "material change" in services.

His office has received a "large number" of letters and correspondence from organizations who favor and oppose the sale, said spokesman Nate Strauch.

Suthers has until the end of December to make a decision.

Arguments for, against

Lutheran and Good Samaritan hospitals are operated by Exempla Healthcare. Sisters of Charity of Leavenworth already owns a stake in the hospitals, but they would become sole owners if current partner, the Community First Foundation in Arvada, sells its share.

Exempla also opposes the sale. William Jessee, a doctor and chair of Exempla's Board of Directors, wrote a letter to Suthers on Nov. 1 expressing concerns over the medical restrictions.

Community First and Sisters of Charity both insist the sale will be good for the community. They say the procedures that would be prohibited represent less than 1 percent of total services at the hospitals and would be provided at other sites.

Palmer Pekarek, communications director for Community First, said millions of dollars will be spent on providing these services elsewhere.

"We want to make sure that these services continue to be provided in any manner that we possibly can," he said.

Christine Woolsey, spokeswoman for Sisters of Charity, said the tentative sale came about in part because Exempla asked to find ways to fund capital projects. As part of the transaction, $300 million immediately will go to pay for improvements at the hospitals. Sisters of Charity also purchased the old Children's Hospital site in Denver and is planning to build a new St. Joseph hospital there.

"We understand there are concerns about the change, but the large investment that is going to come from Sisters of Charity into the Denver area to go directly to patient care and quality improvements outweighs the change in procedures," Woolsey said.

Procedures at stake

If sales of the Exempla Lutheran Medical Center and the Exempla Good Samaritan Medical Center go through, both hospitals must follow Catholic ethical and religious directives, which means doctors won't be able to perform:

* tubal ligations

* vasectomies

* abortions

* birth control counseling or offering other methods of birth control

* Doctors also won't be permitted to take a person in a vegetative state off life support even if that's what the patient directed through a living will.

• November 29, 2007

  9:48 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  rolandhalpern writes:

  Although the Community First Foundation claims a study was conducted that found adequate alternative services (to replace those that would be lost) within close proximity to both Good Samaritan and Lutheran Hospitals, they have thus far refused to release their study, even to the Exempla board. This “wait and see” (until after the transfer goes through) posturing raises serious doubts that these alternative services will in fact be available, particularly in emergency “after hours” or weekend situations when they may be needed most. A town hall meeting to discuss the implications of the transfer, both pro and con, is being held Saturday, December 1st, beginning at 9:00 AM at the First Universalist Church of Denver, 4101 E. Hampden Avenue at the corner of Colorado Boulevard and E. Hampden. For more information you can contact Roland Halpern at 303-639-1202.

• November 29, 2007

  10:24 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  Queen_Gorgo writes:

  "the procedures that would be prohibited represent less than 1 percent of total services"

  Of course for the individual patient denied the service they need, the procedure represents 100 percent of their total need.

  If the religious organization that owns the hospital seeks to impose its religious dictates on the community it serves, the hospital should lose any federal funds or tax subsidies it receives.

  The refusal to remove life support is especially troubling. Patient autonomy is an important principle in medical ethics, and the right to refuse treatment is undebatably more important than the caregivers feelings about what the proper course of treatment is. Is the hospital ready to foot the bill for futile treatment of people with clearly expressed desires to be removed from life support?

• November 29, 2007

  1:46 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  tineveli writes:

  I am an employee of Exempla and I am truly saddend and sickened from this move. I dont think people understand that this is about shoving catholicism and its value's down the communities,and Employees throat wether they like it or not. I dont think people really understand that regardless of how many or the percentage there needs to be a presence in the community to provide these services. Not only will the community be affected but so will the employee benifits. I will no longer be able to have any of the services covered by the insurance I pay for !!! I beg the public to stop this sale at all costs, this will be nothing more than another blunder that affects everyone in Jefferson County, and really is targeting the poor, and trying to force them to be part of the religous cult. Please help stop this by sending in your demand that someone's religion not run YOUR LIFE, or affect YOUR medical care or realistic options at birth control as this will.

• November 29, 2007

  2:12 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  buddharun writes:

  I too am an employee of Exempla and thoroughly oppose this sale. As someone else mentioned, as an employee myself or family members insured through our policies I pay for would be restricted from receiving any of those services at ANY facility. I was amazed to hear how our sponsors felt there are adequate services considering we are the only medical center west of Denver that provides these services. In addition to having to adopt the ethical and religious directives (ERDs), what many people do not realize is that we are subject to the archbishop's interpretation of those directives. An ultraconservative bishop could have a much different interpretation than another bishop, and it is well known that the current archbishop has some very conservative views of not only women's health services but also end-of-life care. This transfer should be stopped at all costs in my opinion.

• November 29, 2007

  8:16 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  ColoradoDave writes:

  Religion has outlived its usefulness by at least 500 years. Can't we move out of the Dark Ages and leave all religions (Christian, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Wicca, Hinduism, Bahai, Zorastianism, Hellenic, Norse, Egyptian, Etc.) behind?

  5,000 years ago when we were ignorant, barely literate and barely social religion might have served a purpose. In the 21st Century all religion provides is terrorism (Eric Rudolph, Osama bin Laden, Aum Shinrikyo); hate (Taliban, Fred Phelps); Misogyny (Saudi Arabia, Taliban, Jerry Falwell) and annoyance (Pat Robertson).

  Religion offers nothing of value in the modern world.

• November 29, 2007

  9:19 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  RNBSN writes:

  I'm also a former Exempla employee and frankly, I'm "sickened and saddened" to see the bigotry of so many and the prejudice against the Catholic Church . Are you aware that Catholic hospitals provide roughly 15% of health care in the US? One in six patients is cared for in a Catholic hospital.
  Many of the other hospitals are provided by other religious organizations. The government provides very little by comparison.

  Two and a half million Medicare patients were treated in Catholic hospitals. Do you know how many doctors refuse to see Medicare patients any more? If you're curious, try calling any doctor in Boulder and seeing if you can get an appointment with only Medicare coverage.

  The Church provides nearly twice as much for treatment of HIV-AIDS patients as the government does. And almost three times as much for Palliative Care. In addition, the Church provides Adult day care/assisted living/residential care, home health programs and yes, even Hospice.

  Finally, abortions, vasectomies and birth control are not acute care (read "hospital") services. They are almost always provided on an outpatient basis. If necessary a small hospital could be built to take care of those few patients that wouldn't get what they wanted at a Catholic hospital. How about if the government picks up the tab?

  You say why should the Church's values be rammed down someone's throat, well it works both ways. Why should someone's secular values (or lack of values) be rammed down the Church's throat?

  See https://www.chausa.org/NR/rdonlyres/6... for more statistics.

• November 29, 2007

  10:05 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  ColoradoDave writes:

  RNBSN says "You say why should the Church's values be rammed down someone's throat, well it works both ways. Why should someone's secular values (or lack of values) be rammed down the Church's throat?"

  I do not say lets ram secular values down the churches throat I say let us cut the churches throats.

  We have progressed to the point that religion is more trouble than it is worth.

  Preferably we would have no more churches, however, if we have to have churches let's tax the heck out of them. Churches hold vast properties in land, art, and other forms of wealth. It is time to tax the church.