Restrictions on Reproductive Care at Catholic Hospitals: A Qualitative Study of Patient Experiences and Perspectives

Abstract

Background

Previous studies have shown that many women who would seek care at Catholic hospitals are unaware of the hospital’s religious affiliation. Furthermore, women often do not realize that these institutions operate according to religious beliefs that restrict access to certain reproductive services. Our study aimed to gain patient perspectives on experiences seeking reproductive care at religiously affiliated institutions.

Methods

We conducted a qualitative study using in-depth interviews with 33 women who reported experiences seeking reproductive services at Catholic hospitals. Interview questions focused on women’s experiences with religious restrictions, their attitudes towards religious healthcare, and whether and how they think women should be informed of these restrictions. Interviews were thematically analyzed using Dedoose software, applying both a priori concepts such as patient autonomy, informed decision making, and transparency, as well as new concepts that emerged from the data or denoted unanticipated distinctions within codes.

Results

In this paper, we present three findings. First, women value both patient autonomy and hospital religious freedom. Struggling to reconcile these, many blamed themselves for not anticipating religious restrictions. Second, barriers to information prevent women from researching restrictions ahead of time. Third, women would like more information about these restrictions from both doctors and hospitals.

Conclusion

Public policy that regulates hospitals should require transparency from hospitals and physicians about religious restrictions on care. Informing the public about religious policies and how they affect reproductive care will allow patients to better anticipate differences and make informed decisions about where to seek care.

Keywords:

• Religion and medicine
• reproductive health
• bioethics
• qualitative research
• health policy
• conscientious objection

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge Irma Hasham Dahlquist and Erin Wingo for their contributions.

Disclosure Statement

The authors report no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Funding

The Society for Family Planning supported this research (SFPRF 11-03). The Greenwall Foundation provided support for Dr. Freedman's time (0062905 2014–2017).