Of course O'Reilly has an excellent point.  The chickens are coming home to roost for Adventist health care.  Having become indebted to bondholders who care nothing about mission, except as it contributes to the bottom line; and having become dependent upon government subsidies, which can easily be conditioned on compliance with political correctness mandates that undermine SDA religious convictions, how will the Church respond?  Probably the way it always has: Institutional survival trumps mission and values.

Interestingly, the same progressives, who have rightly chided Church leadership for cowardice in the interests of institutional survival during the totalitarian repressions of the 20th Century, are now urging Church institutions to once again sacrifice identity and integrity by allowing themselves to be co-opted by the moral and political agendas of 21st Century statism.  And the Church seems to have lost its moral courage, keeping quiet on the legislative front, and hoping in vain to use political power and lobbyists to carve out conscience  clauses in the regulatory jackboot of universal medical coverage and gay rights that is descending upon SDA hospitals. 

Is it not strange that the Church came out so vocally against school vouchers, speciously claiming they were a threat to the "Wall of Separation" when political correctness was on their side?  But recently, with Gay Marriage initiatives on the ballots, and now, with universal health care looming, these much greater threats to Church mission and values are greeted with a trembling yawn.  I fear that the right arm of the message will soon become a finger puppet of the State.

Nathan - as usual, an impassioned, well-conceived post. 

But I have to ask, why are we unable to offer non-discriminatory health-realted services available to the general public without compromising our moral stand or our mission to bring the message of Salvation into all the world? 

It seems we've been able to reconcile our church's stance on abortion with our willingness to dialate a pregnant woman's cervix, insert a sharp instrument into her uterus, cut up the resident fetus, suck it out with a vacuum, and discard it as medical waste.  Our hospitals will abort babies without so much as a question, yet won't provide the services to safely bring a child into the world to an woman who is unmarried?  So option "B" for Ms. O'Reilly would be sleep around, get pregnant, and if she changes her mind, come to Kettering for an abortion, which we'll gladly provide. 

Please - I think worrying about mission and values is a waste of time when common sense is clearly not a part of the equation.

This lawsuit is long overdue.  Any hospital that accepts government money, as all surely must, is required to offer services that do not discriminate in any way.

It is blatant hypocrisy:  we gladly accept government funding, but we still wish the right to determine who we will treat.  I am putting my money on  the patient.

Just like the decades old Merikay Silver suit, discrimination has far too long been allowed by churches.  Once federal laws equalize the rights of all citizens, the church will either abide by those laws, or encourage an endless train of lawsuits, none of which will prevail.  The Church has long been able to discriminate without prosecution.  This will end in the next decade.

The hospital's stand on this is right: we should not be expending medical resources to bring a child into a single-parent family.  A single parent family is sub-ideal, as any member of a single parent family can tell you.

But Statefarmsteve also makes an interesting point.  Maybe if we didn't abort so many babies, we could have babies available for infertile couples to adopt, and wouldn't feel the need for heroic measures to help them conceive and bear children.  (Not that that bears on the present case, because I'm not in favor of allowing single women to adopt, either.) 

The Courts will only consider the legality, not a private opinion.  It seems rather simple:  accepting government monies requires abiding by government rules, and the rules demand no discrimination.

 Any private, church-funded entity can make such distinctions.  When the government pays, the government makes the rules.

Elaine, this article doesn't mention a lawsuit.  You've said here and at Spectrum that there is a lawsuit pending.  Where are you getting your information from?

David, you are right, there is no lawsuit.  However, the publicity is not helpful to the hospital and there could be a suit for discrimination if she elected to pursue it.

 Remember Merikay?  Defending itself is spending your tithe money, judiciously?

Statefarmsteve,  I don't know about other Adventist hospitals, but Loma Linda does not perform abortions except under very unusual circumstances, consistent with the official position of the Church.  And I can assure you that Kettering, as well as all Adventist hospitals, provide the best of maternal care to single pregnant mothers, regardless of their sexual orientation or how they got pregnant.

Do you think Adventist hospitals and physicians should offer sex change operations?  The Adventist Church believes that homosexual relationships are unbiblical and injurious.  Should their hospitals be required to cooperate in creating embryos for transplantation into surrogate mothers to be raised in homosexual families?  I maintain that Adventist institutions should indeed discriminate to protect its values and beliefs. Whether acceptance of government funding has compromised their ability to do so is a different question.

By the way, I highly doubt that Kettering has any moral opposition to single motherhood.  The real agenda is to have a policy that can deny IVF for gays without being accused of discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation. Marital status is not a constitutionally protected category, so by refusing IVF services for unmarrieds, they can say their policy is not directed against gays.  

I think Elaine is right.  Either Kettering will back down, or there will be a lawsuit. O'Reilly is a pawn for activists who don't care if Kettering is the only hospital in the country that discriminates in providing IVF services.  To them, no freedom is too important to resist the moral imperatives of the collective. To paraphrase Ronald Reagan, "When you hear someone say, 'We're the government, and we're here to help you', run!"  Adventist health care may find that it has run the wrong way.

Nathan, I'll have to take your word for Loma Linda's abortions, since I don't have personal access to HIPPA-protected patient files.  Although I'm unsure under what circumstance you'd have access to information protected by federal privacy laws, I'll accept your declaration.

I don't know if Loma Linda has reviewed the ethics or possibility of offering  sex-change operations.  Such procedures are offered at only a very few facilities in the nation.  I do know that Loma Linda has not shied away from ethical firestorms - Baby Fae created quite a stir, if I recall. 

I find it interesting that you consider SDA institutional ethics and the acceptance of government money to be two separate issues.  Yes, we should have moral standards.  If we do, why would accepting government money even enter into the decision-making process?  Either a position is moral and principled, or it isn't.  If there is a moral decision to be made, I can't understand why one would even pause to think, "Well, there's money at stake...." 

I also find it bizarre that you would suggest that it is OK for Kettering to pump-fake the general public with a "no single parent" policy in order to underhandedly sidestep the obvious constitutional problem with discriminating against gay people.  Not only does this run over innocent bystanders like Ms O'Reilly, but it's not exactly taking a stand on the issue, is it?  If you are indeed right about the whole thing, I personally would consider it cowardly and foolish and dishonest.  Maybe these days it's okay to dodge issues and essentially lie and hurt innocent people in order to stick to your moral guns.  Whatever happened to taking a moral stand, and dealing with the consequences, even if it has a financial impact?

I think you're right with regards to the lawsuit potential.  However, it's unfair to label Ms OReilly as a pawn of activists, when we treated her with less regard than we would have a pawn of our own.  She was denied motherhood by Kettering, not because of her personal choices or situation or abilities or fitness to be a mother, but because turning her down allows us to deny services to gay people. 

I don't think this is a matter of the collective trying to force its morals upon an SDA institution.  I think this is a matter of an SDA institution trying to suckle at a bountiful teat, and then acting surprised when someone points out that the teat is attached to a mother who is in turn attached to certain demands and expectations.  At some point, the decision should be simple - acquiesce, or stop sucking.  It's hilarious that one would blame government for this moral dilemna, when all we have to do to end the showdown is release the nipple. 

I'm not sure I follow what you are saying, Steve.  Where did I say anything about institutional ethics, much less that it is a separate issue from acceptance of government money?  My concern isn't with ethics, but mission and religious beliefs.  They are not necessarily the same.  Ethics would not prohibit one of our hospitals from providing alcohol to patients, but it would be inconsistent with our mission and values. 

Your absolutist views of morality defy reality.  Of course money (resources) plays a role in moral decisions.  Isn't this the whole point of social justice concerns?  Suppose the government started giving money, no strings attached, to create dependency (Of course this is just a hypothetical; it never really happens - LOL!).  Then, after the beneficiary has become comfortable with ordering his business on the assumption that the "largesse" will continue, the government comes along and says, "Oh, by the way, we've just discovered some new fundamental rights for gays, and if your religious beliefs prevent you from offering the same IVF services to gays that you offer to straight couples, we'll take away your funding."   Does that not pose a moral dilemma, particularly if the withdrawal of a significant source of government funding threatens institutional survival?  It seems incredibly naive to argue otherwise.  Maturity in the real world requires that we balance and prioritize competing values.  Sometimes the most moral thing to do is to  make difficult compromises.

The reason O'Reilly is a pawn (a willing one at that) is that she is being used to push an agenda.  She would have no problem, nor would a gay couple have any problem, getting IVF at many other locations in the vicinity.  She, like liberals in general, wants to force others to adopt policies that accommodate a particular lifestyle that is inconsistent with their values.  You apparently do not view that as coercive.  I do.  You seem to think it is perfectly moral to create dependency through subsidies, and then later impose conditions on the continuation of those subsidies that were not apparent at the outset.  I do not.

Surely you cannot be as naive as you pretend to be, Steve. When the government subsidizes one business in an industry on certain conditions, other businesses cannot compete without bending to the will of the government.  How is that fair, moral, or Constitutional?

By the way, none of us really know the reasons and motivations underlying Kettering's alleged actions.  We don't even know for sure what the underlying policy is.  It would be nice to hear from someone in the know.  If I am right in my conjecture, this is not an issue of anyone being denied rights.  It's simply a matter of Kettering wanting to offer a very lucrative service without compromising Church standards.  Better deny that service to a single woman who can go down the street and get the same service than deny it to everyone.

 “Dayton’s only full-service reproductive center with all services at one convenient location.”

If this is their advertisement, it seems unethical to advertise such services, and then decline on  the basis of conscience.  To offer this service to all comers, and then decide that a particular patient doesn't meet an unstated criteria is also false advertising.

We do not know if the patient's insurance would cover that service, or the extent that government funding covers their patients.  More information would be helpful.

Nathan - see, here's the difference between you and I.  You blame the government for "creating dependency" through subsidies, and I blame us for thinking we're "dependents" in the first place, when in reality, we're not.  I say release the teat, and you say it's too tasty to do so.  I say continue to serve, even if it means lower executive pay, less marble and granite, and fewer sparkling towers and more practical, sensible buildings, and you say the alternative is insolvency. 

You say money plays a role in moral decisions, as if I'm stupid to not base my moral decisions on the dollar value of the outcome.  I say Dare to be a Daniel.  I say take a stand. 

I also unequivocably declare that "institutional survival" is not at stake.  Will the institution maintain its ability to pay its executives millions of dollars per year?  Will the institution be able to continue to build gleaming, billion dollar towers?  Probably not.  But could they continue to provide medical services to the community without what you refer to as "subsidies"?  Absolutely, without question.  You want the institutions to maintain their currrent level of luxury pay?  You want executives to be esconsed in marble and granite and leather, and to cash a paycheck every two weeks equal to or exceeding most people's annual salary?  Is this what you equate with "survival" and "moral compromise"?  Or do you deny that's what's going on?

Hmmm... continue to live in luxury, or take a moral stand.  I'd be happy to provide you with links to the websites for the luxury communities of million-dollar homes in which the executives from AHS live, but I'm pretty sure you know where they live already.  In those million-dollar homes' driveways sit Mercedes, BMW, and Lexus cars.  Heck, their kids own and drive around in those cars.  This is your definition of "moral dilemna"?  This, you refer to as "coercive"?  That's laughable, and it flies in the face of common sense.  You want to "compete" with other facilities - but I don't think of healthcare as a "competition".  The winner in healthcare shouldn't be one facility or another - it should be the patient, and the loser in healthcare shouldn't one facility or another - it should be disease, pain, suffering, and death. 

Nathan - not only did you speculate on the motives of Kettering (which you seem to have semi-backpeddled on) but you are speculating on the motives of O'Reilly, now, too.  She hasn't filed a lawsuit, which I can assure you would make her and her children and her children's children rich.  You know her position on ONE issue, and you've already scornfully referred to her as a "liberal" who wishes to impose her values on others.  Harsh?  Yes.  Quick pull of the trigger?  Absolutely.  Painting a picture of a person with a limited, a very, very limited knowledge of your subject matter?  100 percent for sure. 

Your judgement of others is aparently as sharp as your moral judgement is fuzzy. 

You had said in an earlier post that "I maintain that Adventist institutions should indeed discriminate to protect its values and beliefs. Whether acceptance of government funding has compromised their ability to do so is a different question."  "Ethics" is defined as the study of or the morals, values and beliefs.  Forgive me for conflating the study of the subject matter with the actual subject matter itself.  You are correct in stating that the study of our mission and values wouldn't prohibit serving alcohol to patients, and that it would be inconsistent with our mission and values.  But I would be remiss to not point out that more importantly, keeping a keg of Bud at the nurses' station to dish out to sick people or pre or post surgical patients would be inconsistent with common sense. 

And if you define not putting a price tag on your morals as an "absolutist view" then so be it.  I'm okay with that.

There is more at stake than merely refusal of government monies. 

In the Central Valley of California where I live, Adventists operate a number of the small hospitals, serving rural residents.  Many are already living in poverty because of the recession.  These hospitals, in order to continue to offer their services must accept government funding in either Medi-Cal (Calif. Medicaid) or Medicare.  They would have to close and the nearest hospitals are miles away; plus, these larger hospitals also must accept these same government funds to operate.

Are you suggesting they should close because they accept government funding?  Name a single hospital in the U.S. that refuses government money.  We also do not know how Congress will eventually produce a health reform bill, but we do know that today, the government funding keeps many hospitals afloat.

Years ago, when doctors made house calls and received pay in agricultural produce or similar, there were far fewer medicines and diagnostic tools to treat disease, and the death rate was much higher.   Newer methods of treating disease, brings more costs.  How many average U.S. citizens could afford the $$ for an organ transplant if it is the only thing between life and death?  How many could afford expensive chemo and radiation treatments for cancer without insurance--insurance that is often either government funded or subsidized?

All the universities and colleges, including SDA, are presently receiving millions in government-guaranteed student loans and other funds.  It sounds very pure, but please demonstrate how any SDA institution offering its services to the public could operate sans government funds.

Elaine made my point very eloquently.  Steve, have you ever tried to recruit top executives to run businesses taking in gross revenues of hundreds of millions of dollars with razor thin profit margins and bottom lines?  What's the correct level of compensation?  Who decides how much is too much?  SDA hospital executives are, as I understand it, paid around the 50th percentile of other similarly situated executives.  Relative to others in your business, would you feel overpaid if you were at the 50th pay percentile for what you do?  If the compensation of SDA hospital executives was cut to what you think is the appropriate level, could they continue to recruit well-qualified personnel, particularly when it would necessitate cutting the pay of all other managers and executives as well?  More importantly, would it really impact the overall bottom line or cost of health care?

I guess when you live in a moral fantasy world, you don't have to deal with these kinds of questions.  The truth is, you simply want to demonize the Church for its moral stance on homosexuality.  Suppose the government told hospitals that if they were going to serve flavored beverages, they also had to make alcohol available.  I suspect you wouldn't be too upset if the hospital said, "Okay, we'll just serve water."  Where's the lie?  Would you be fine with Kettering's policy if they didn't accept government money?  Why do we owe anything more to the government than to obey it's laws?  If providing IVF services to gay couples or singles is a moral duty, why does the issue of government funding or mandates make a difference? 

IVF is not treatment, Steve.  Kettering doesn't discriminate against gays in the provision of medical care.  Why do you insist that a conscientious objection to creating children to be raised in a homosexual environment, or even a single parent environment, is immoral and not worthy of constitutional protection? Sounds pretty intolerant to me, particularly when the service is readily available from those who do not hold such objections.   

Take a deep breath,Steve.  Your melodramatic assertion that we've turned health care from a mission to profit-seeking, to political football, and sick people are paying with their lives, is nice melodrama for the Michael Moore, Daily Kos Kool-aid drinkers.  But you should have more self-respect than to pander to such shallow sentimentalism.

Nathan - you mention razor-thin profit margins, when you're actually discussing our hospitals which are non-profit entities.  Also, you need to read just a little beyond the annual report figures to understand that there is nothing razor thin about the margins of our hospitals.  I am completely able comprehend that our hospitals like Loma Linda and Florida Hospital swim in an embarrassment of riches. 

Your "50 percent" understanding is not even close.  Our guys are paid waaaaaaaaaaaay above similarly situated non-profit executives.   Way beyond.  Waywaywaywayway beyond.  If you think my moral compass comes from fantasy land, it may be because that is where you obtain your facts and understanding of figures. 

Your alcohol/water analogy fails to hold, well, water.  You've already stated that you think it's okay that O'Reilly was denied care for no good reason at all, other than to justify denial of such treatment to gays.  In her case, she's now making a 40 minute drive, without traffic, to get treatment.  IVF treatment requires frequent visits to your doctor, even if all goes well, escalating to daily visits over an up to 2 week period.  If pregnancy is achieved, doctor visits again are frequent, escalating to daily visits again.  Then there is the random delivery date, which means O'Reilly needs to make a 40 minute drive when contractions begin to get to her doctor for delivery.  Convenience, not to mention expense and most importantly, patient safety is now an issue (but at least we can still justify not serving gays!) 

If serving water instead of soda/vodka compromises a person in such a way, let me know, and if this fits your definition of "readily available" let me know, too. 

And IVF is medical treatment.  It's administered by a medical doctor.  It's administered to patients who can't otherwise get pregnant.  At some point, a 14 inch needle is inserted through the wall of the vagina.  At some point, it happens again.  In the weeks leading up to that, needles are inserted into the buttocks and thighs, one subcutaneous, the other intramuscular, every day.  When it fails, as it often does, the patient and their family feel the loss, the death of the embryos, just like any mother who loses a pregnancy.  Success means childbirth, parenthood, preschool, report cards, skinned knees, adolescent melodrama, seeing yourself reflected in your child's eyes, and hopefully, someday grandchildren.  Failure means missing out on those things.  Until you've experienced the despair of not having children with the one you love, until you've experienced holding your wife's hand while a very polite doctor inserts a very long needle through her privates into her uterus, you may want to reserve judgement regarding the procedure. 

Nathan, I'm a guy whose personal moral compass points away from homosexual relationships.  I don't choose to sleep with other men, and I hope my kids don't choose same-sex relationships.  However, when you are discussing things like "profit," "government funding," etc. I understand that my personal moral compass cannot and should not take precedence - gays pay taxes, too.  They therefore deserve equal access to treatment at all facilities where tax dollars are utilized. 

Hospitals, as Elaine eloquently pointed out, serve an area - not a church and not a select group whose morals align with theirs.  If a hospital administration chooses to discriminate against a certain segment of taxpaying citizens in the area covered by their Certificate of Need, then that CON needs to be revoked and taxpayer money needs to be blocked and given to a facility with an administration that is willing to serve all citizens in that area. 

I'm not suggesting that the facility close - such an occurrence would never take place.  But a fire sale of the facility to a competing health services administration company, one who is willing to operate the facility without discrimination, would be appropriate.  This way, Adventists can take their moral stand, and Keiser or Baptist Health or another provider can ensure health services are provided, even to the evil gays. 

Moral compass? "I don't drink the Kool Aid, I only serve it." Strange compass! Many things go on in hospitals which are "immoral." If one takes EGW as a moral authority, she thoroughly denounced men working in the field of ob/gyn, for example. Described it as a horrible practice, an evil, if I recall correctly.

Post partum women who request it are routinely provided with medication which will dry up their breast milk so they can't, or won't have to,  nurse their newborn. Considering all that is known nowadays about the benefits of breast feeding, that certainly might be considered  pushing moral boundaries. In the minds of some, it is clearly overstepping them.

Is there something moral about prolonging the life of an elderly person, with a fatal illness, at taxpayer's expense, when those same resources might benefit others who lack simple medication, hygiene, care, and so forth. Simple things that would  enable them to grow to maturity and give something back to society or even to God. 

Perhaps EGW would have denounced the entire SDA medical system as evil and horrible, if she saw it today. A significant number of the staff are certainly not even  Christians, much less SDA. How does an atheist or a devil worshipper do gospel medical missionary evangelism?

The Chinese have a saying about a vendor who hangs up a sheep's head and sells dog meat. Adventist hospitals have been doing that for a long time.

Haha? There are  numerous statements in books such as Medical Ministry and Counsels on Health which clearly point out what concerned her--the inapropriateness of men viewing the secret parts of women. That's what EGW opposed, as stated in her published writings.

That was the issue, at least the one she addressed. Note that she opposed women treating men, presumably for the same reason. It was all about modesty. She plainly stated it was a moral issue when she brought Sinai into the discussion r/t childbirth.  SDA medical work was to be a reforming and educating influence.

Adventist medical training should have refused to train males in the OB/GYN field. It should have also offered special incentives to encourage women into this field of medicine. Of course, the Adventist medical field went rogue long ago 

"In our medical institutions there ought always to be women of mature age and good experience who have been trained to give treatments to the lady patients. Women should be educated and qualified just as thoroughly as possible to become practitioners in the delicate diseases which afflict women, that their secret parts should not be exposed to the notice of men. There should be a much larger number of lady physicians, educated not only to act as trained nurses, but also as physicians. It is a most horrible practice, this revealing the secret parts of women to men, or men being treated by women." CH 364

"I want to say that from the light the Lord has given me, we must remove temptation. We have come out of the Bible order. The women in Bible times were to take care of the women, and in childbirth cases they should be educated to take their position. We want to be fitting for heaven. We do not want to open any door of temptation. We do not want to do this, but to take the position that right is right, and that we can manage this matter if we will. We should have the women educated to do their work intelligently, and we need not speak of the men because they are already provided for. But then men should not take what belongs to the women's work, and that was God's plan." MR#13 115,116

"It is not in harmony with the instruction given at Sinai that gentlemen physicians should do the work of midwives. The Bible speaks of women at childbirth being attended by women, and thus it ought always to be. Women should be educated and trained to act skillfully as midwives and physicians to their sex. It is just as important that a line of study be given to educate woman to deal with women's diseases as it is that there should be gentlemen thoroughly trained to act as physicians and surgeons. And the wages of the women should be proportionate to her services. She should be as much appreciated in her work as the gentleman physician is appreciated in his work." Kress Collection,24

"Our institutions should be especially thorough in giving to women a training that will fit them to act as midwives. There should be in our sanitariums lady physicians who understand well their profession, and who can attend women at the time of childbirth. Light has been given me that women instead of men should take the responsibility in such cases. I was directed to the Bible plan, in which at such times women acted the part of the physician. This plan should be carried out by us; for it is the Lord's plan." MM 61 

"I have written to you the instruction that has been given me regarding the special work to be done by the lady physicians in our sanitariums. It is the Lord's plan that men shall be trained to 16 treat men, and women trained to treat women. In the confinement of women, midwives should take the responsibility of the case. In Bible times it was not considered a proper thing for men to act in this capacity; and it is not the will of God that men should do this work today. Very much evil has resulted from the practice of men treating women, and women treating men. It is a practice according to human devising, and not according to God's plan. Long has the evil been left to grow, but now we lift our voice in protest against that which is displeasing to God." 

 The Purchase of Land at Loma Linda and Letters from Mrs. E. G. White (1912), page 15, paragraph 4

I didn't mean my "haha" as scoffing at your post, Hansen.  I meant it as a good-natured chuckle at the thought that someone might believe that a professional medical practitioner can't practice his or her trade without titillation or sexual stimulation.  To suggest otherwise is childish, prudish, and silly. 

Again, physician training and certification was an entirely different proposition in 1850.  Any joe-schmoe could hang out a shingle -  in 1850, only Louisiana, Michigan, New Jersey, and Washington DO had laws concerning the licensing of physicians.  Many, many perverts hung out a shingle advertising themselves as a women's physician - in1859, a physician claimed that a quarter of all women suffered from "hysteria" and therefore in need of a constant, regular "pelvic massage" treatment.  It was quite a profitable business, to be sure, and quite reasonably protested by EGW. 

Although many little boys dream of becoming gynecologists, the ones that actually pursue college, medical school, and a ob/gyn fellowship are not these little perverts.  Remember - God created us sans clothing.  If he had a problem with the human body, he'd have created polyester.

Your thorough research of EGW's proclamations of "secret parts" has produced quotes that I find to be markedly similar to her quotes regarding "secret vices."  She displays typical Victorian-era prudishness, and I say this not to mock, but to point out that her writing was at times more reflective of her contemporary attitude towards sex than holy in nature.  Remember, she wrote that death, blindness, and insanity were the result of masturbation, meaning that the population of the world would be severly limited, and every human male that survived past adolescence would be blind and insane. 

Again, the chuckle was intended to be good-natured, not mocking. 

Not sure where you get your ideas from, Steve. You are mistaken, however in your conclusion. EGW was specifically concerned about the moral contamination experienced by male physicians involved in gynecological and obstetrical work.

As for the affinity to her statements regarding secret vice, It has long been a puzzle to me why so many Adventist types make an issue of that. Masturbation, from what I can tell, is a debasing and defiling practice. I know of few people, aside from some sociopathic types, or mental cases, who consider it "ennobling"  or life enhancing.

So as not to drift too far off topic, my point, relative to this thread, is that the moral compass of Adventism, r/t medical work, has been askew for a long time. Since reproductive medicine is so closely related to OB/GYN, and the specific counsel from EGW regarding that subject has been largely ignored, it's a fantasy to think that the church will get it right regarding contemporary issues for which there is no specific counsel.

Nice - cashing a paycheck every two weeks of $135,000 or so.  Praise God indeed!

http://www.charitynavigator.org/__asset__/_etc_/CN_CEO_Compensation_Study_2009_Final.pdf

This study doesn't include Jernigan's $3.5 million salary, but it does give a better idea of the range of non-profit CEO salaries.  I think it lists the average annual salary of mid to large sized non-profit organizations' CEO's as $158,000.

So Jernigan earns in two weeks what the average mid to large non-profit CEO earns in a year.

He earns more in a week than the average American household earns in a year. 

He earns more in a day than it costs to send a kid to one of our private universities for a year. 

He earns more per hour than the average person earns in a month. 

He earns more than 241 times the federal minimum wage.

He earns more than double the salary of the CEO of the Mayo Clinic, Johns Hopkins Medical, Cleveland Clinic, and Duke University Health. 

Still want to cling to your 50% figure, Nathan? 

Hansen, you'll get little argument from me regarding the now-blurry mission of Adventist health care in general. 

My point is that physicians that go through the training programs are not subject to moral contamination from being exposed to female sexual organs throughout the course of their work.  I'd suggest you watch a video of childbirth before you make the assumption that such an event could be titillating in any way, shape or form.  Take my word, you won't find yourself morally contaminated. 

Well, Statefarmsteve, why do you compare Jernigan's salary with mid sized to large non-profits instead of with health care executives similarly situated?  What do you mean by mid-sized to large, and what industries are you including? I'd be interested in the reliability of the source for Jernigan's compensation.  But you cerainly can't compare the entire multi-state hospital system that he oversees with the Mayo Clinic.  He should properly be compared, I think, with executives of large health care networks.  Furthermore, I'm not sure how much, if any, control the Church has over executive compensation in that network. My main point is that you have absolutely no competency or qualifications to decide what is the appropriate salary for anyone except the people you employ and the people you vote for.  But lack of knowledge or qualifications about an industry is, for the Left, the highest justification for controlling it.

By the way, if you think Loma Linda is awash in cash, you are really out to lunch! 

Steve, I really don't need EGW in order to form an opinion on the appropriateness of men serving as midwives. I would think that common sense would inform people to the contrary. Even the potheads on The Farm understood what EGW was saying.

Since you seem determined to contradict specific counsel of EGW on the subject of men in gynecology, have it your way. You agree with what the church practices.

EGW maintained that men and women should not even be trained in the same classes regarding "delicate issues." The context indicates that she was specifically referring to reproductive type matters. If you have any interest in the matter beyond your own imaginings, you might want to read her counsel in MR 13 starting on page 113.

It's a puzzle to me how you can continue to contradict the plain declarations of EGW on the matter related to SDA medical work. EGW had a special vision for SDA medical work which would place it on a level far superior to what the world had to offer.

From a 2004 Filing with the California Health Facilities Financing Authority:

LLUMC has consistently generated operating profits over our three-year review period ranging from $10.7 million to $17.5 million.  LLUMC has a solid balance sheet with good liquidity, sizeable financial resources, and solid proforma debt service coverage. 

Lunch today, Thai take out.  Yummy!

The information source for the salaries in the report are from the companies' filings - not exactly rumors and speculation.

There is a fundamental difference between a non-profit organization and for-profit organization, which is why comparing Jernigan's salary with other similar non-profits, like the Mayo Clinic makes sense (the Mayo Clinic is a multi-state system with about 50,000 employees, but also has a $7bb to $5bb edge in revenues.)  I'm not sure why you feel the comparison is so out of whack.  Could you please elaborate why it's out of whack, along with my lack of education and knowledge?  Mayo Clinic is, like, totally number one in everything when it comes to treating sick people!

Nathan, I'm engaged with you in this conversation with you based on the assumption that we're similarly qualified, educated, and thoughtful individuals.  I'm not trying to elevate my "knowledge or qualifications about(?) an industry" above yours.  I'm also not trying to claim competency with regard to the determination of a person's salary.  If I'm as stupid as you seem to be saying I am, then there's really no point in you engaging in conversation with me, is there?  If I'm so stupid for expressing concern when our CEO gets paid more than a million dollars more per year than the CEO of a similarly sized health system that generates significantly more money and is at the absolute top of the medical world in every notable area of the field, then you shouldn't waste your time.  I'm just a silly willy nilly.  

However, as a member of the SDA church, for whom LLUMC and AHS and AH claim to be the  medical mission and right arm, I believe I have the right to my opinion.  As someone who is often solicited, and always contributes when the SDA hospital foundation comes calling, I believe I have the right to compare their salaries to similarly situated executives, and protest.  It's not my political affiliations or leanings that give me a right or qualifiy or disqualify me from expressing my opinion. 

The boards of the respective non-profits determine the salaries of their CEO's.  Both the boards of the Mayo clinic and AHS contain distinguished giants of industry - but some boards do a better job than others.  In this case, Mayo's board seems more dedicated to their mission of providing the best healthcare in the world and doing so in a fiscally responsible manner, in a manner more consistent with the mission of non-profit organizations.  Our hospital board, in my opinion, is missing the mark not only with regard to the non-profit nature of our hospital mission, but the religious nature, as well.  In the current environment of information access and tough financial times, a religious non-profit organization that doesn't display the highest standards of fiscal responsibility is often accused of hypocrisy, and sometimes rightfully so. 

Hansen - if you equate a OB/GYN MD with a midwife, then so be it.  The two are as similar as the current practice of female reproductive medicine today and gynecology in the 1800's when EGW was writing her commentary. 

I'm not contradicting EGW - If OB/GYN today consisted of manually stimulating women in order to cure "hysteria" I'd completely agree with her assertion that the practice today would be a moral hazard.  But today, OB/GYN is not what it was when it was critiqued by her.  It's a rather simple point I'm trying to make. 

Are women better midwives than men?  Probably.  Are midwives underutilized as practitioners?  Absolutely.  A female midwife brings many things to the birthing room that a man can't.  Empathy, for one.  I don't disagree that women are better suited for midwifery.  Is it immoral for a man to be a midwife?  No.  Is it probably a futile pursuit?  Sure, at least from a business perspective.  Women are more comfortable with a woman tending to their womanly needs.  But if my wife were to be diagnosed with cervical cancer or a high-risk pregnancy, we'll be researching OB/GYNs strictly based on their qualifications and skills, with absolutely no regard to their gender - because in light of today's advanced practice, it's absolutely irrelevant. 

I'm sorry if you're offended that I place a ban on male OB/GYN's in the same category as EGW's ban on bicycle riding (a practice which at the time was considered to be a lewd practice for women, who rode wearing inappropriate dress, and for whom the friction of riding was  tantamount to public masturbation, and caused a woman to become excited at the risk of turning them into permanently aroused nymphomaniacs.)

Again, I agree with you that today, we're off track with our Church's medical mission.  It may have gotten there out of some combination of irresponsibility and greed and pride and government sticking its nose where it's not welcome.  But I don't think it was caused by male OB/GYNs. 

Steve, Do you clearly understand the bicycle issue?

 One of the stated issues regarding bicycles was their very high cost, approximately $100. Another stated issue was bicycle racing and vain display. The issues become very clear when one actually reads the material written by EGW on the subject.

Again, the source of your ideas mystifies me, since neither in the case of male  OB/GYNs or bicycles do your remarks make sense when comparing them to the material EGW actually wrote.

Let's make it a point to not discuss things of greater significance.

It's not s matter of intelligence, Steve.  I don't think I'm qualified to answer the salary questions, and certainly cannot do so based upon comparing the much smaller, geographically integrated Mayo Clinic with the hospital system of which Florida Hospital is the flagship.  It is very legitimate to ask the questions, and I would love to hear the reasons for what I agree sounds like exorbitant compensation, especially in a church hospital.  I'm just not prepared to take isolated information from a particular website, and allow it to fuel moral indignation. Before condemning someone or something, I really want to have all the facts, and I especially want to hear the best defense from the accused. When it comes to Loma Linda, given the operating expenses, budget, expansion, and debt of the Institution, 10 million dollars is really a very small margin.  It's also pretty easy to shift bundles of money around to create whatever picture you need to for a particular audience. 

You absolutely have a right to your opinion.  All I am suggesting is that, if you actually sat on the Boards of AHS, Loma Linda, or Florida Hospital, I don't think you would see the issues with the same moral clarity that distance affords you.  I know some of the people on the Board of LLUMC.  And I know them to be deeply committed SDA Christians, passionate about the mission of the institution they govern with little to no compensation.  I do not think they would cheerfully pay above-market rates for executives without some very good reasons.  Nor do I think they do so.  

We can't be experts in everything, so we have to get fragments of information, and then decide what sources to trust.  Before getting too worked up, and condemning others, however, I think it's pretty important to have as much factual information as possible, and hear all sides.  When something done intentionally, by intelligent people (like giving a hospital executive a 3.5 million dollar salary) looks totally outrageous - and it does - I tend to suspect that there is something I'm not understanding.  I want more information before sounding off, and possibly embarrassing myself. Many people, such as our President and the mainstream media, prefer to focus on whether a story advances a larger metanarrative.  If it does, they'll run with it, and if it turns out later to be inaccurate or untrue, they can always print a "correction" in the fine print, emphasizing that, even if some of the details were inaccurate, the larger Truth communicated by the falsehood is what really counts.  

I'm curious, Steve, do you see a difference between your right to voice your opinion when it comes to the the pay of Adventist Heath Care executives, and the right of Adventist traditionalists to voice their opinions regarding the teaching of life origins and development at our SDA colleges and universities?