A Quote by Nancy Northup

The religious hospitals would jeopardize their patients' lives rather than perform a medically necessary abortion is not mere speculation, it is documented fact. — © Nancy Northup
The religious hospitals would jeopardize their patients' lives rather than perform a medically necessary abortion is not mere speculation, it is documented fact.
On areas like abortion where there is major disagreement among the mainstream religious groups in the Judeo-Christian tradition, I believe that requires a lot more caution. The Jewish position on abortion is very different from the Roman Catholic position. That is reason to be cautious about enacting laws rather than saying to the religious group: instruct your followers on these matters as matters of personal religious belief.
If we include hedonistic philosophy in hospitals, the lives of patients suffering from cancer would be much, much better.
Patient transfer service is another revolutionary step of the Punjab government, under which patients from tehsil headquarters hospitals and district headquarters hospitals are being shifted to large hospitals free of cost.
If the pro abortionists were not in control of the press, I am convinced that not only would the debate on abortion be over by now (have we really even had a national debate?), but the Pro-Life side would be victorious because we would have seen the pictures every night on television of what is taking place behind the doors of the abortion clinics and hospitals.
Some hospitals screen all ICU patients and isolate those with MRSA, a process that can be challenging for both caregivers and patients.
The fact that the most powerful and significant connections in our lives are (at the time) invisible to us seems to me a compelling argument for religious reverence rather than skeptical empiricism as a response to life's meaning.
One of the most appalling comments on our present way of life is that at one time half of all the beds in our hospitals were reserved for patients with nervous and mental troubles, patients who had collapsed under the crushing burden of accumulated yesterdays and fearful tomorrows. Yet a vast majority of those people would be walking the streets today, leading happy, useful lives — if they had only heeded the words of Jesus: “Have no anxiety about the morrow”; or the words of Sir William Osler: "Live in day-tight compartments."
We are more than the work we perform. In fact, I'd say that our work is a mere representation of who we are underneath.
People say mental hospitals are for the patients, in fact they are to protect society from them. They are justified in doing that. Society has to do what is best for itself.
We believe this approach (progress sharing) is a rational approach because you cooperate in creating the abundance that makes the progress possible, and then you share that progress after the fact, and not before the fact. Profit sharing would resolve the conflict between management apprehensions and worker expectations on the basis of solid economic facts as they materialize rather than on the basis of speculation as to what the future might hold.
Ventilators can be reused but hospitals need a sufficient supply to treat critically ill patients while still allowing enough time for each ventilator to be refurbished between patients.
Hospitals should be paid to keep patients out of the hospital, not for signing up more and more patients.
The greatest bulwark against an overreaching government, as tyrants know, is a religious population. That is because religious people form communities of interest adverse to government control of their lives; religious communities rely on their families and each other rather than an overarching government utilizing force.
Punishment is but legalized crime. In a society built on prevention, rather than retaliation, there would be very little crime. The few exceptions will be treated medically, as of unsound mind and body.
Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns in to universal, rather than religion-specific, values... it requires that their proposals be subject to argument and amenable to reason. Now I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, to take one example, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God's will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.
The health effects of air pollution imperil human lives. This fact is well-documented.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!