What would you do if you were a nurse and pro-life advocate but was ordered into surgery to assist in an

.

abortion?  If you were told the patient’s life hung in the balance and your refusal to do your job would further jeopardize the patient, would that make a difference?  And what if the pregnancy was already twenty-two weeks along; would that complicate matters even more?

This is exactly what happened to a nurse in Brooklyn, NY.  Shortly after arriving at Cedars-Sinai hospital for her scheduled shift, she was ordered to provide assistance in an abortion.  In a federal lawsuit, Catherina Cenzon-DeCarlo claims not only was she forced to go against her morals and religious beliefs, but that the abortion wasn’t necessary, at least at the time it was completed.  The lawsuit goes on to say that she pleaded with the physicians to find another nurse who wasn’t so opposed to the procedure but was told if she didn’t accompany the surgeon into the operating room, she could very well lose her job due to patient neglect.  Against her beliefs, she did as she was told.  Now she’s fighting back.

Her lawsuit  says that she put in writing her vehement opposition to abortion and declared she would in no way participate in any abortion procedures.  If that’s the case, the question begging an answer is why wouldn’t the hospital select another nurse to assist?  And if what this nurse claims in her lawsuit that the procedure wasn’t a matter of life and death, what about the patient?  Was she told it was her life or the baby’s?  If the nurse’s lawyers can prove it wasn’t absolutely necessary, odds are, Cedars-Sinai is looking at another lawsuit, this time, from the patient.  Assuming the patient wanted the baby she was carrying - after all, she was already twenty-two weeks along - this woman must now live the fact an abortion she didn’t want was forced upon her by a doctor who chose to decide for her.

Cenzon-DeCarlo has federal “conscience rules” on her side.  Before leaving office, President Bush changed the laws for hospitals that received federal funding.  In short, unless and until a medical facility agreed to respect its workers’ religious and moral beliefs for controversial procedures, it would receive no federal funds.  As of now, these rules are in place; however, many expect President Obama to modify these restrictions, especially since Health and Human Services is accepting ideas regarding proposed changes.

In the meantime, this nurse continues her employment at the hospital.  The lawsuit is asking, among other things, she be allowed to once again work the overtime hours that were suddenly given to co-workers.

Should a thirteen year-old boy be allowed to decide what kind of cancer treatments, if any, he receives?  That’s what a judge had to decide last week in Minnesota.  The judge’s decision was against this child’s wishes, and now Daniel Hauser must undergo chemotherapy and any radiation treatments his doctors rule necessary.

The boy and his family wanted to pursue alternative treatments that didn’t include any kind of chemicals unnatural to the human body, even though the form of Hodgkin’s lymphoma he’s diagnosed with has a 90% cure rate.  He will remain in his parent’s custody, even though they were charged with medical neglect, provided they schedule an appointment no later than this week with an oncologist.  His mother has stated she wouldn’t force her son to abide by the court’s ruling.

The court says it was acting in the child’s best interest and since he’s only thirteen, he’s too young to make that determination.  This stands to reason since we don’t allow thirteen year-old kids to drink alcohol nor do we allow them to vote.  They’re too young.  Ah, but then again, we do allow underage kids to undergo

.

abortions and in some states, not even the parent’s notification is required.  So should this boy be allowed to cease his medical treatment?  Was the judge’s ruling right?  And what happens if the parents choose to not seek medical treatment as their way of honoring their son’s request?  Maybe more importantly, what if there are there natural remedies that can cure cancer without introducing radiation to the human body?  The parents insist their religious beliefs teach natural healing as a way to cure all that ails the human’s body and mind.  Regardless of how any of us feel about it, it’s a huge gamble to take with a young boy who has a cancer that responds well to modern medicine.  Further, this boy also has a learning disability that might be influencing the decision his family says he’s made with no influence from them.

The doctors who testified say six treatments of chemotherapy over six months would most certainly kill the tumor in its entirety.  One man who says he was cured of the same cancer via natural herbs stands behind this family and its decision on how their son lives his life.  He says the boy could die from the chemotherapy if he’s forced to undergo it, but that he’d stand by the family as they rejoice in his brave attempts to “test the law of the land”.

Links to lawyer, family lawyers on lawyerahead.ca