| By Lori Freedman, Ndola Prata, Susan Ivey and Seth Holmes; republished from the BFA newsletter, That was the Week That Was, #142.
Should UC affiliate with religious health systems that prohibit choice in reproductive health care and LGBTQ-inclusive care? Those prohibitions are based on policies written by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, and not on any recognized medical standard of care. The policies discriminate against women, non-binary people, and transgender patients by restricting or prohibiting the provision of contraception, sterilization, abortion, infertility services, miscarriage management , and gender-affirming care; and they lack transparency. Last spring, UCSF backed away from an expanded affiliation with the Catholic-run Dignity Health System in the wake of widespread objections from faculty, students, UC staff, and advocacy organizations to Dignity’s restrictions on reproductive care. Yet the University of California still has numerous contracts that commit UC clinicians and trainees to provide medical care determined by religious doctrine when they treat patients in Catholic facilities. Last summer, UC President Janet Napolitano convened a UC-wide task force, the Working Group on Comprehensive Access, to consider whether such affiliations should continue. The task force put forth two options . Option 1 is favored by those in UC leadership who argue the need for continued growth of the UC system. It would allow continued and expanded affiliations throughout California with Dignity Health and other health systems that use religious guidelines to restrict care. Option 2 opposes any UC affiliations with entities that restrict care in ways that discriminate against any group of people. Option 1 does not protect UC faculty, students, or patients. While it purports to fulfill a UC commitment to provide the highest level of evidence-based care to all patients, this plan relies on the transfer or referral of patients to “other facilities” when the patient needs a service that is prohibited within a specific clinic or hospital system. It may also mean UC patients must receive treatment in religiously restrictive hospitals, like Dignity, when UC hospitals are full. Option 2 is the only way to be sure that UC personnel and students are protected from losing their ability to deliver medically-appropriate, non-discriminatory care that honors patients’ choices. This would be in conformity with UC health facilities that lead the nation in providing comprehensive reproductive health services and LGBTQ-inclusive care. We, therefore, strongly oppose UC affiliations with entities that deliver restrictive and discriminatory care. We encourage those within the UC system to send comments by Feb. 21, in order to have your say in this important discussion. Lori Freedman, Ndola Prata, Susan Ivey and Seth Holmes on behalf of the Board of the BFA. |
