"American poet Allen Ginsberg....Ginsberg told the camera..."

I believe that the poet Allen Ginsberg died some years ago.
Alan H. Ginsburg is a Florida Businessman.

—R. Wresch, M.D.

Thank you for the correction. It has been changed. -Editors

Doblmier is not truthful when he says Adventists are self critical. This film is not wholly truthful about the Adventist Health Message and in fact paints too rosy a picture of Adventist Health Institutions in the US and the impact of the Adventist Health message. It is not true that Adventists globally live long lifespans and longer lifespans than the general public. For example, HIV/AIDS is quite a problem in some Adventist conferences - and killed over 500,000 adventists limiting lifespan to around 30 to 40 years in some nations. In one conference that I'm think of in particular both the President of the SDA Church in that Country -as well as the Campus Ministries leader within that country - both died within the space of 2 years before the age of 50. This film seems to have confused western medicine which is based on gadgetry, high tech stuff and Western pharmaceuticals with global health and as health itself - and this is quite a dangerous notion.

This film also seems to have overlooked women's health and mental health - and seems to think that health can exist along side the perpetuation of predation on women, genocides, and bigotry -however, the question is how can this be so?

Additionally, there have been several activists in the US who've campaigned against Adventist Hospitals including an Adventist Florida Hospital that charges the uninsured here in America several times more than what they charge the insured here in America - this practice led to the death of a young hispanic boy which an A florida Adventist Hospital refused to treat.

Is this the same Adventist Hospital in Florida featured in the film?

How come the film does not report on the true greed and exploitative side of Adventist Health care in the US and its practice of price gouging? This is the way Latino Activist - KB Forbes described a Florida Adventist Hospital on his organization's website :"Jesus is weeping at a so-called religious hospital system that pulled in over $1 billion in profits between 2003 and 2006, sits on $ 2.3 billion in cash and assets and yet refused to help a dying, uninsured child in his time of need. What compassionate organization would spend $25 million on collection fees in a three year period and yet refuse to help a young boy from getting the care he desperately needed?” http://www.consejohelp.org/2008-17-04.asp

KB Forbes is also quoted in the Washington Post as saying about religiously affiliated hospitals including Adventist hospitals: "It's offensive these hospitals market themselves as providing the healing mission of Christ," said K.B. Forbes, the lead agitator and executive director of Consejo de Latinos Unidos, or Council of United Latinos. "There is nothing healing about charging someone quadruple and then sending the bill collectors after them." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/21/AR200508...

But is not this what the film, The Adventist is donig? - portraying Adventist Health care as providing a healing mission even as Adventist Health Care exploits people here in America?

Martin Doblmeier's film was not designed to foster discussion about Adventist Health care's unchristian and predatory practices.

.

This comment has been removed for its violation of the terms of commenting stated above, namely, "This site is a place for thoughtful conversation and a healthy exchange of ideas and perspective; rants and tirades don't further this mission and are not appropriate." -Website Editors

I am intrigued that the evolution/creation issue didn't make it into the film, or the ordination of women.

Sounds like Doblmeier decided it was more profitable to lean towards the positive than toward the critical. There is room in both directions - but he no doubt filmed what he perceived - a denomination that is a nett positive for its target market

I'm just not part of that market

/Bevin

The vaunted Adventist health system is about to become essentially irrelevant. Obamacare, which is very, very close to passing, will lead, probably in less than a decade, to single payer socialized medicine along the lines of Canada and most of Europe. At that time, all hospitals will be essentially nationalized, although the names on the buildings will not change.

I wonder what effect that will have on Adventists who have taken alot of pride in the medical system. For me, the medical system is very loosely tethered to Adventist identity, but I sense that for others it has great importance. Does anyone have any thoughts on this?

My reaction to the film was that it was somewhat bland as far as documentary filmmaking goes (often feeling like a slick PR production without real human interest). For really challenging and inspiring filmmaking on contemporary Adventism, I think there is more substance, creativity, and honesty in these pieces by young Adventist documentarians working without massive budgets and living within the tensions of Adventist community as actual church members:

http://stainedglassfilms.org/

Having said this, I think the Doblmeier film is a fine introduction for outsiders of the Adventist concern for holistic living and alleviating suffering. Whatever the problems with Adventist health care, the fact that we operate so many hospitals says something about our history and values. I am glad these values proved captivating and relevant to a major non-Adventist filmmaker.

Comment removed for violation of terms. -Ed.

Ron O - you say :"Whatever the problems with Adventist health care, the fact that we operate so many hospitals says something about our history and values"

Given your conclusion, the same thing could be said about Catholic Hospitals and other religious institutions which also have been shown by KB Forbes to engage in price gouging. The Catholic church owns and operates alot of hospitals all over the world -and yet Adventists have problems with Catholic theology - what do these hospitals say about Catholic values and history?

Hi John. I have no particular fear of Catholics and appreciate many aspects of the Catholic tradition so I am happy to applaud Catholic hospitals as also part of a long tradition of Christian concern for alleviating suffering that goes all the way back to the early church. If Catholic or Adventist hospitals are failing to uphold their own highest values that is a valid line of critique. But I see no reason to deny that the values remain a real part of the life of the church and have much to do with why we have Christian hospitals of all kinds in the first place. By the same token, incidentally, I applaud Catholic concern for education. They certainly have a much more developed and rigorous intellectual tradition than we do. I agree with you, though, that the ideal of socialized health care is much closer to the spirit of early Adventism than the market-driven, capitalistic system we have embraced. Conservative, historic Adventists will surely applaud the idea that health and healing should be available to all, regardless of how poor one may be.

John, I read the article at Mother Jones that you provided the link to. I think Forbes' racial rhetoric is over the top, but he is right to bring to light discriminatory pricing practices, and to organize lawsuits and pressure against such predatory practices. It is despicable to try to charge the uninsured, many of whom are poor and/or hispanic, twice what insurance is billed for the same services (though this reflects the collective bargaining power of a large insurance company or collective).

I found this passage, about one of Forbes' affluent backers very interesting:

"Rooney has been at the forefront of a conservative push to promote health savings accounts, with which individuals can set aside tax-free money to pay their own medical bills. Typically, the health accounts are linked to high-deductible insurance policies that provide only “catastrophic” coverage. The idea is that as consumers pay more bills out-of-pocket–and save whatever they don’t spend–they will be more leery of unneeded medical expenses and therefore generate more competition among doctors’ groups and hospitals. Consumers will demand that pricing be more transparent, and good old market forces will be restored to the health care business."

I was just advocating exactly this system--health savings accounts combined with very high deductible health insurance--on another thread on this site. Maybe Mother Jones is turning conservative on us.

There is a good Washington Post article on K.B. Forbes vs. Adventist hospitals here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/21/AR200508....

Highlights:

"At the core of the fight to help the indigent is a Byzantine billing system in which hospitals start with one standard set of prices and then give deep discounts to government purchasers and private insurers. The result: People without insurance are the only ones charged full price, often triple what insured customers pay."

"Hospitals say that negotiating bulk discounts for major buyers is simply the free-market system at work. But advocates for the poor, a well-financed coalition of trial lawyers and a growing number of lawmakers argue the system is so out-of-whack that it amounts to a violation of consumer protection laws."

"It is illegal to charge [uninsured patients] three, four and five times what they charge other people," said Archie Lamb, a Birmingham lawyer handling several of the cases. "It is price gouging, and it is unfair."

"At Florida Hospital, a standard appendectomy costs Medicare about $4,000 and private insurers [pay] $4,572, Lamb said. A patient without insurance would be charged $13,000 to $15,000 for the same surgery, he said."

"Morrison agreed that hospital pricing has become a convoluted, illogical system of shifting costs from one payer to another. But he and other executives contend that the answer is not to squeeze hospitals, but to devise a national solution for treating the uninsured."

"Forbes countered with IRS reports showing comfortable operating margins by Florida Hospital and others in the Adventist system. And although the Adventists were the first hit in Forbes's new assault, he intends to stage similar events in Denver this month to try to embarrass Catholic hospitals."

Very interesting stuff. I had no idea of any of this, and I bet the 85% of white people who have insurance have no idea about any of this, because as long as insurance is paying nobody makes an effort to look into pricing. Insurance is the bitter enemy of functional price system rationing, which is why I advocate outlawing any but extremely high deductible medical insurance: at least $10k and probably closer to 15 or 20k deductible would get everyone, not just KD Forbes, involved in policing crazy pricing policies.

Of course, discriminatory pricing can be fixed very simply:

"In Maryland, there are several Adventist-affiliated hospitals, but a unique state law regulating hospital prices means uninsured patients get the same rates as people with health coverage."

Ron O: I guess I just am opposed to the notion that the term "christian" should be used "loosely" and too liberally to define unchristian practices. One really begins to wonder if religious institutions that exploit the poor in the US can actually be said to be Christian. I don't believe that KB Forbes thinks so and I tend to agree with them. How can religious institutions really be fulfulling a Christian, healing mission when they exploit the uninsured here in America and .embrace Jim Crowism in terms of what they embrace and propp up? I believe I read in one article in connection to KB Forbes - that it eventually took a non-religious for profit hospital to offer the young boy treatment - that the Florida Adventist Hospital denied him - but the boy eventually died. What is the purpose of religious institutions if they are doing a worse job of tending to the uninsured than for profit- non -religious hospitals? I'm glad that you as a conservative Christian are able to appreciate that health and healing should be available to all - however, from my observations - this does not seem to be the prevailing view among most conservative Adventists - at least this is not put into practice by Adventist Healthcare generally and in fact it appears as if most Adventist Hospitals actively oppose this.

Instead of concentrating most of Adventist Hospital mission in overseas lands at the expense of mission here in the US, why is it that Adventist Hospitals have not used their moneys and aid to make it possible to extend treatment to the uninsured without price gouging?

Could not the Adventist Church have done this without waiting for the government to introduce a healthcare debate and changes in the health care system?

And to David Read - I find your comments interesting - I tend to agree with KB Forbes in his description of Adventist Health care as Jim Crow - I briefly forgot that another minority died years ago, because an adventist hospital refused to treat her because of the color of her skin.

Now to learn in the modern age that a young hispanic boy died because a Florida Adventist Hospital refused to treat him because of lack of insurance?

I've watched Loma Linda and it seems to affiliate itself with persons and politicians that have espoused an affinity for the Jim Crow era and sentiments expoused in that era.

John, I agree with your larger point that it is very poor evangelism when Adventist hospitals do no better, and sometimes worse, at caring for the poor and indigent than non-religiously affiliated hospitals.

However, you do your argument a disservice by throwing in false and groundless accusations of racism. And your emotional argument that Vega died because Florida Hospital refused him treatment is wrong. He got the treatment at another hospital and it didn't save him. Boys with brain tumors often die--in America, in Canada, and in Venezuela--and it isn't the fault of the health-care delivery system. In high school, I was forced to read "Death be not Proud," about a boy who died of a brain tumor. It happens all over, including in countries with single payer, universal access health care.

Bevin,

A quick comment on your observation that the ordination of women and creation/science didn't make the cut. You might have noticed a brief mention of the fact that this film as been seven years in the making. While the issues you mention have certainly been around that long, one might argue that they have not come to prominence until the last year or so. That is certainly the case for the creation/evolution conversation.

>>> Morrison agreed that hospital pricing has become a convoluted, illogical system of shifting costs from one payer to another. But he and other executives contend that the answer is not to squeeze hospitals, but to devise a national solution for treating the uninsured

Absolutely. The EMTALA laws today force the hospitals to do work that they are not paid for, and the hospitals have to break even, so this pushes up the costs on the other patients. It pushes up the costs evenly across the insured population (premiums go up), but more so on the sick (deductibles go up). The insurance companies like this, because it gives them a bigger pie to take a slice of.

>>> "At Florida Hospital, a standard appendectomy costs Medicare about $4,000 and private insurers [pay] $4,572, Lamb said. A patient without insurance would be charged $13,000 to $15,000 for the same surgery, he said."

I wonder what percentage of uninsured patients ever pay the bill? My guess - very few. Which makes you wonder why they bother overcharging like that :-)

>>> which is why I advocate outlawing any but extremely high deductible medical insurance: at least $10k and probably closer to 15 or 20k deductible would get everyone, not just KD Forbes, involved in policing crazy pricing policies.

Most people who are not insured can not pay the first 15K$, and so you are back in the same situation we are in today

The hospitals must cut the costs. This means

(a) tort reform - leading to fewer unnecessary procedures. The mega-payouts are rare enough to not be the real problem

(b) improved efficiency - including letting some of the hospitals fail. In general, though, hospitals are very efficient at what they do. They are terrible at choosing what to do.

(c) rationed care to those being covered by the State - we are spending too much on end-of-life treatments that have little bang for the buck

(d) spending a few dollars earlier to save big dollars later - eg: providing cheaper places than ER's to supply care to the uninsured, and spending more on health care and less on sickness care

/Bevin

Bevin:

As to why it would be advantageous to overcharge when you know you're unlikely to collect, if you start at $15k and then settle for $5k, you've recovered your costs while making the patient think he's gotten a great discount. You always want to start a negotiation with plenty of room to come down.

Malpractice is a very small part of health care costs. I agree that everyone should adopt what they have done in Texas and California, capping non-economic damages (pain and suffering, emotional distress, loss of consortium, punitive damages) at $200k. That makes malpractice an insurable risk. But I guarantee you that malpractice premiums plus defensive medicine accounts for far less than 5% of total medical costs.

"Most people who are not insured can not pay the first 15K$, and so you are back in the same situation we are in today."

Not only could the uninsured not pay, but a great many of the insured couldn't or wouldn't pay if they had to pay out of their own pocket, and that's the whole point. The point of any reform should not be to increase the revenue stream but to dry up the revenue stream naturally.

There is no problem with health care, except that we "buy" way, way, way, too much of it. We are either going to have to discipline ourselves and quit buying so much, or a single payer is going to come in and discipline us by making us wait to two or three or four years for "non-emergency" procedures, which is how socialized medicine is rationed in all of the known world.

I guess if I agree with some of John's comments I risk being deleted too. I think the censorship is unfortunate - I don't see how John's postings were any more tirades than at least one of the postings here from some one else.

There were 2 more postings of John that were deleted without any comments with regard to terms of services violations - I don't see how there were any violations -there were many relevant links posted about the injustice of Adventist Healthcare. I see that one of David Read's postings were removed where he dismissed John's charges of racism - yet there were no comments posted about him violating the terms of service.

If one sees that the film seems to be saying that what is wrong is "right" and even subtly endorsing bigotry - what is wrong with saying this?

To "Marj," "John," and anyone else who would like to spend time on attacks and allegations: As stipulated in the commenting guidelines, Spectrum does not tolerate off-topic, attacking comments of any nature. This thread is neither about Jim Crow nor allegations of bigotry or price-gouging. Please stay on point and avoid attacking individuals or organizations. Failure to abide by those guidelines will ensure that your comments will be removed. -Website Editors

It seems from the comments in this thread that many people have not actually seen the film. I think some of the criticisms are therefore unfounded because they fail to understand that it is a film with a very narrow purpose that is clearly stated by the director. That purpose is not to tell the entire story of Adventism or to do a an investigative report on the problems with Adventist healthcare. It is to provide a glimpse of some of the excellent health work being done by a denomination that has an eschatology that some might assume would militate against this kind of long term institutional development and commitment to improving life in this world. In addition, the film was made to fit a 60 minute time slot for PBS television. This is not, in other words, a massive Ken Burns style series intended to tell the Adventist story to the world. Its goals are far more modest. I think it is valid to critique the film within the terms of what it sets out to do. I don't think it is entirely fair to critique it for not being something it never tried to be (or to critique it without first watching it). That said, the issues of being raised here are important and should certainly be talked about, even if it is without reference to Doblmeier's movie.

I agree that this thread got somewhat off topic, and that I helped it get that way by responding to John's posts. Everyone is thinking about health care because of what is happening in Congress.

There have been some interesting questions raised here that need to be addressed somewhere. One of them is whether having the name "Adventist" on a hospital building imposes a duty to act in some sort of recognizably Christian or charitable manner, or whether that name is in fact no impediment to predatory pricing and collections practices.

>>> The point of any reform should not be to increase the revenue stream but to dry up the revenue stream naturally.

You can buy High Deductible Health Plan's for a lot less than you buy a low deductible health plan.

Forcing people to buy them is denying them the right to pay for a service.

>>> There is no problem with health care, except that we "buy" way, way, way, too much of it.

Both for ourselves and for the dying

Personally I am much more opposed to universal healthcare paying for major efforts to keep a neonate alive ($1M+ per life saved) than I am to it paying for abortions ($250 per life lost).

Each $1M neonate saved comes at the expense of hundreds of lives lost that could have been saved had the money been spent more wisely.

/Bevin

Instead of concentrating most of Adventist Hospital mission in overseas lands at the expense of mission here in the US, why is it that Adventist Hospitals have not used their moneys and aid to make it possible to extend treatment to the uninsured without price gouging?

Posted by: John | 16 March 2010 at 11:27

I haven't seen this particular film documentary but it seems to have not included anything about Adventist health care institutions outside North America. In any case, I'm interested to know if there's any truth to the above suppositions. Any comments by those who may know what's really going on? Health ministries directors? Anyone?

Here in the central valley of California there is a concentration of SDA hospitals. It would be difficult to go to a non-SDA hospital or clinic if living in this area.

I cannot compare their CEO's salaries with Florida, as Florida's rival John Hopkins and the Mayo Clinic in that the highest paid CEO of the Florida Adventist Health System received TWICE as much as the combined salaries of the CEOs of those two famous centers.

The Adventist Health Systems here in the valley regularly run full-page ads in the local paper on a weekly basis, more than the two much larger hospitals in Fresno.

It would not be unjustified for the federal government to investigate the huge salaries of non-profit institutions as their property and all are either tax exempt or very low.

The Florida Hospitals have earned their publicity by paying their CEOs such exorbitant salaries. The state and federal government should investigate as their tax-exempt status must be justified. It is apparent that these healthcare facilities have grown so rapidly, now the largest in the state, because of their profitability.

One expects Disney World and all its facilities to make a profit; it is not expected that hospitals should rival entertainment industries. Is this the reputation that Adventist Health Systems wishes to project to the public? Is it possible to remedy?

... it is a film with a very narrow purpose... a glimpse of some of the excellent health work being done by a denomination that has an eschatology that some might assume would militate against this kind of long term institutional development and commitment to improving life in this world.
Posted by: Ron O. | 17 March 2010 at 6:46

In conversation with relatives in Loma Linda who have seen the film, I was left with the impression of an unintended outcome. It provided reinforcement to the notion there's no better form of service for their progenies that the health ministry; an additional rationale for members of a millenarian subculture whose vocational choices have been skewed in favor of the health professions. It is borne out by the fact that advancing the mission of Adventist churches back home, as well as the survival and multiplication of ethnic churches in North America, depend largely on the financial support of numerous health professionals who have migrated to this country.

I can see how people might have left with the feeling that health ministry is the best vocational option. The film painted Adventist health care in a very positive light.

By the same token, there were professionals from other fields that featured prominently in the film (portrayed equally positively). Theologians, chaplains, administrators... the film portrays them as all vitally important to the mission and identity of the Adventist Church.

Perhaps one of the biggest critiques to be made (and Ron O. is right--the film is by no means a comprehensive treatment of Adventism) is that the film ignores an important premise that Ellen White (who also features prominently in the film) advocated: Any vocation, however "secular" can be a ministry and a benefit to God's work.

Because Adventists have tended to emphasize health care and theology (vocational ministry), it has at times given the false impression that other vocations are second rate where the mission of the church is concerned.

How often, for example, do churches honor people who give years of service in plumbing? How often do churches recognize the importance of their food service workers?

By the way, you can now watch several clips from the documentary here: http://spectrummagazine.org/blog/2010/03/17/adventists_clips_documentary

Jared
You are entirely right here.
You are probably to young to remember but they used to have vacations or retreats at our youth camps around the country. They were called Workers retreats.
But the guest list was pretty exclusive.
Doctors
Dentists
Of course Pastors went.
The impression left was that they were all who was really working for the Lord.

To the Website Editors: I believe my tone has been commensurate with that of other here - and that I've often not responded in kind. With my postings I intended to introduce the question as to whether or not Adventist Health care really does serve the mission of Christ -rather than just make this assumption as the film does. I did not think mentioning price gouging or bigotry were off topic. I think the above discussion is healthier because of the introduction of these elements than if they had been left out. Just because someone does not agree with some of the premises of the film does not mean that one is attacking an institution or is off topic. The film is presenting the view point - that these are healing ministries in Christianity - I brought up the issue of whether or not things as they appear in the film are really as they seem. Is not it beneficial in any democracy and in christianity to shed light on injustices where they appear even if its in a hospital so that this can be addressed? I looked at clips of the film and I believe that there are things in there as portrayed that do harm to the cause of justice and that further bigotry - but I can't say specifically what in terms of bigotry since this was previously erased.

The aim should not be to enforce agreement on the film, if there are differences of opinion. I think the issue of whether or not Adventist Health Institutions are more serving as means of materialism more than vehicles of ministry is a valid question. People watching the film who believe that it is not portraying the situation as it really is may legitimately feel attacked and should have a right to share their point of view without their points of view being labelled as attacks.

It is a very serious issue if uninsured people are not able to access healthcare from Adventist Institutions because of high prices.

This topic of whether or not Adventist Health care is following Jesus's example is relevant to this discussion and has been discussed before I found at this link http://www.atomorrow.com/discus/messages/1780/9422.html

Apparently there are many people who believe that Adventist Health Institutions should be less materialistic and more about following Jesus's example.I believe my tone has been commensurate with that of other here - and that I've often not responded in kind.

John,

As the author of this article, let me respond to your most recent comment. I appreciate that you have noted what appears to be an injustice to you. That is acceptable and appropriate, as far as I'm concerned (though I don't speak for all of Spectrum's editors).

Nevertheless, repetitive, lengthy posts belaboring your point in ways that have the appearance of denigrating or attacking the Adventist health care system, specifically when using multiple aliases to drive home your points, do not work toward the goal of a healthy exchange of ideas.

There are places on the web that entertain denunciations of organizations and institutions. You link to one such place above. Spectrum is not such a place.

Thank you for the concerns you've mentioned. They have been noted. Let's move on.

Just a few reasons that the G.C. has given orders to the Adventist Today booth at their session in Atlanta, that they will not be permitted to sell, advertise, or display the books such as "Fatal Accounts," "Truth Decay." The first one, is a very detailed account of the G.C. auditor's "firing" for dislosing and attempting to prevent knowledge of the financial shenanigans of NAD in the loss of many SDA institutions, including Harris Pine Mills. In order to prevent this information to be made public, an orchestrated attempt was made against the auditor of being "sexually" involved with a woman, not his wife. Which implies that sexual immorality, if and when it occurs, is far worse than robbing God's treasury.

If you want to view "The Adventists" before it airs on PBS (or if it's not scheduled for your PBS station), you can get a copy from Voice of Prophecy by making a donation. Details are at www.vop.com/theadventists. There's also a link there to watch online a "Behind the Scenes" telecast, in which Fred Kinsey and Connie Vandeman Jeffery interview Martin Doblmeier.

Wow! Now I want to see the film!

I've written here responding to the comments even though I ain't seen the film.

Thanks. Great discussion!

I want to see a Ken Burns-style production of the "Movement", however, as well. Might be as exciting as the one on baseball, but there'd be a lot more goofballs covered. It might not even be a Civil War and it's a sure thing more vegelinks would be thrown around.

One thing I have noticed people in the Adventist community seem to have a thoroughly developed capacity to nitpick with each other. Seems to be a big tent of disputers.

Many of us were raised and educated to believe that the Advent Movement is all about "health" an "wholeness" as a work in process. Our ideals have sometimes been let down by what we've seen with our institutions, but there is still room to pursue those ideals in Grace.

Judging by what I was taught as a youth, to me it seems that the only reasons for Adventist health care are: 1) To help make God's character clear to the world within our limited capacity in grace 2) Provide excellent in medical care and "wholeness" care 3) Help people-Adventists survive and prosper.

All too often the last one takes precedence and if taken to the limit defeats the very purpose for our ministry: To be healed in Grace as we participate in the healing ministry of care/prevention.

We do better, it seems to me, in fulfilling the "mission" of "Health"--another word for God--when we see our work as not to create monuments of healing and huge cash flows, but to support access to basic primary care, prevention, and, yes, finally, high-end specialty care. In a sense the entire system seems to be sort on a similar trajectory to what destroyed the Battle Creek work. (Was not Jesus's mission a call not to "institution" but to "relationship"? Is not that what Adventist health care is fundamentally about?

It'll be very interesting to see what comes out of the Congress shortly--and how Adventist institutions adapt to demands for accountability in a health system many Americans view as run amok.

Nic Samojluk

I did watch the screening and it made me feel proud to see the Adventist portrayed in the best possible light; nevertheless, for the sake of transparency, I agree with John that the film producer could have done better by presenting a true to life picture of the work we are doing regarding healthcare. A little bit of investigation would have revealed to Mr. Doblmeier the fact that Dr. Kellogg--who was portrayed in the documentary-- had spoken very forcefully against the killing of the unborn.

James White did fully agree with Kellogg on this. We have done very well in prolonging the life of smokers with our smoking cessation program which adds five years to an ex smoker. This is great, but every time an Adventist physician refuses to perform an abortion, he is adding--not merely five years to the life of a human being--but rather 80 or 90 years. Permit me to post a few paragraphs of what I wrote on my own web site regarding this topic:

"The film included the fact that Dr. Bailey performs approximately five infant heart transplants per year. This is an amazing feat and we need to thank the Lord for this.

What the documentary failed to include is that, according to a Washington Post report, between 1975 and 1982 our Adventist Washington Hospital terminated the lives of 1494 unborn infants through their abortion services to their patients.

This means that while Dr. Bailey was saving five infants per year, our WAH was killing 213 unborn children per year. Do you think that this is something which should have been included in the documentary?"

http://letsfocusonlife.com/?m=201003

"We deviated from the example set by our Adventist pioneers for the sake of profit, and this took place in Hawaii, at our Castle Memorial Hospital back in 1970 when the State of Hawaii legalized the killing of the unborn and the non-Adventists physicians at said medical institution demanded the right to offer abortion services to their patients and threatened to take their patients elsewhere in the event they were denied said alleged right. Management gave in to the pressure, and the church eventually followed suit."

http://letsfocusonlife.com/?p=1832#comments

Do we have the right to feel proud about this negative facet of our healthcare program. In the film, there was a reference to the Hippocratic phrase "Do no harm." As a denomination we were faithful to this wise dictum until our leaders decided to jump the fence and side with the providers of abortion services as if this had nothing to do with the "Do no harm" philosophy.

Mr. Samojluk, you have made your anti-abortion stance well known to the Spectrum community. Abortion is not the focus of this thread. If you care to discuss it further, you may do so here. The Adventists have stated their official position here. This is not the place for a debate on the topic. Thank you. -Website Editors

It makes me ill to see the issue of abortion raised so frequently and so negatively, and by those who have no experience with childbirth or with child rearing. In this particular thread I think it's off-topic.

BTW, I personally am "pro-life" -- but caveat, pro-WHOSE life? Because the intrinsic value of a living, breathing, adult member of society [who may be mentally or physically unable to carry or raise another child at that particular moment] is much greater than that of a zygote. Her decision, in consultation with her doctor, should prevail. Having some stranger dictate her choices with regard to control over her own body just violates her freedoms as granted by our Creator and by our U.S.Constitution.

[Ergo, any reputable hospital should not be censured for providing the means for a professional termination of an unwanted pregnancy. The hospital does not act as the conscience for its patients; it only ensures that the patients will have skilled management of their physical ailments.]

Nic Samojluk
http://letsfocusonlife.com

Dear Website Editors,

I am confused! The topic of the documentary is healthcare. Our church and our hospital managers consider that abortion is an integral part of healthcare, the public considers that abortion belongs with healthcare, and the politicians in Washington are comnvinced that abortion belongs in healthcare; yet you deem that my comments about abortion do not belong here. Can you explain this to me?

http://www.spectrummagazine.org/reviews/film_reviews/2010/03/15/adventis...

Nic Samojluk
http://letsfocusonlife.com

Dear Website Editors,

I did view the screening of the “The Adventist” documentary at the Loma Linda University Church on March 13. At the end of the program, the first man to ask a question wondered whether Mr. Boblmeier had seen anything of a negative nature in the Adventist healthcare program.

I raised my hand and asked the film producer whether he was aware that abortion was part of the healthcare provided by Adventist hospitals.

Neither Mr. Doblmeier nor the presiding pastor objected to my question, yet you do object to my raising the same question here. I do not understand! Is abortion part of the healthcare or is it not? If it is, why are you faulting me for bringing this up?

I wrote an article for another forum entitled “Do We Have the Right to Rock the Boat?” and all the comments generated were positive. I guess it all depends on which side of the fence you are. Here is a sample of said favorable comments I received:

“Yes, Nic, we have that right, remembering that when we exercise our rights, we risk offending and encountering the rights of another.” Lily

“I know you did the right thing, Nic. I would have been proud to stand by your side.” Tammy

“If the Spirit moves you Nic you must trust in the Lord that it WAS the RIGHT time to say something…. otherwise you grieve the Holy spirit.” Newbie

“I agree , I don’t think you did anything wrong. Truth is truth.” Tandi

“I am happy you spoke” Zukusani

From “Do we have the right to rock the boat?”
http://www.thenarrowway.yourlivecommunity.com/do-we-have-the-right-to-ro...

As you can see, it all depends on which side of the fence you are in. It seems that pro-lifers do approve of what I did, while you disapprove. I conclude that you must be happy with the Adventist position on abortion.

Nic Samojluk
http://letsfocusonlife.com

tuningin,

Thanks for your comments. I am not allowed to respond to you, unless the Website Editors decide to lift the ban on discussing abortion in connection with the issue of healthcare. I have appealed to their decision. I am waiting for a response from them. And by the way, I was not talking about zygotes!

I do remember Doblmeier stating, that Adventist are self critical. After reading this blog, it would appear he is "right on" with his statement. Just maybe he is correct in also stating, that we" should be getting back to the work and focusing less on self analysis".

We cannot accept a compliment. Just say thanks! The documentary was positive about Seventh-day Adventists, our history, our lifestyle, our hospital system and our anticipation of the Second Coming. We don’t have to say “But did you notice…” or “Didn’t you hear about…?” If there are things that need to be improved, stop talking and get to work on them. Criticizing just stirs up trouble without positive results. See what you can do to have a positive impact and aim to be the Christian witness God wants us to be, and the kind of Adventist the world hopes to find after seeing the documentary.

I don't know what all the offending posts were since they've been deleted. Looks like the censors are pretty active, though. A few comments:
1. There are lots of regular posters on Spectrum who have their favorite rants that pop up on any thread remotely related to their interest. It can be a bit irritating, but I've learned to scroll through those quickly. I'd rather have an open community than a censored one.
2. If this is to be a community, it should be a 2-way street. The Spectrum editors control the stage by picking the topics and posts; most readers don't have that opportunity. Therefore, unless the editors WANT to control the discussion in much the same way as the Adventist Review editors do in their letters section, I think the editors should leave most posts alone. Readers should be able to broaden the discussion to a reasonable extent, since that is the only way they can initiate discussion (assuming they aren't able/invited to write an initial blog article). I think John and David both were well within the bounds of reasonable, focusing on healthcare. They both added to this discussion.
3. Vulgar, profane language should be excluded, IMO.
4. Personal attacks should be extreme to be blocked, and a different standard should apply to public figures and institutions. Your standard appears to be much too "thin-skinned". i.e., it should be OK to say that Adventist Health Systems is racist (if one believes that) or that Obama is a communist devil bent on using healthcare reform to destroy capitalism. It should even be OK to call Alex Carpenter on his occasional arrogance (he's improved a lot, so maybe past comments worked?), or Cliff Goldstein on his sometimes nonpastoral attacks (not sure there's been much change there!). It should be OK to argue with other posters, including telling Elaine she is not a Christian (if that is what you believe), or telling David Read that he doesn't get science. It should not be OK to tell Jared that he is stupid and should go kill himself.
5. I realize the editors call the shots, but they should think more about the community that Spectrum represents, and not become like the old SDA forum on Compuserve where heavy editing made it irrelevant except to those who agreed with the party line.
6. I am a long-time Spectrum subscriber and I've also supported the website with a small donation when asked. Not that this gives me the right to dictate terms, but I hope that perhaps the editors will at least take my opinion seriously: "Lighten up". We are adults here, and can skim over garbage quickly. (Just as many readers will skim over this lengthy post).

I'll be seeing this film tomorrow. Considering the postive spin, does anyone know if AHS sponsored the film financially or provided support in any way other than making people available for interviews and facilities open for filming? If there was financial support, that might help explain the positive spin.

This film will be shown in our church by a pastor who a couple weeks ago preached an old-style sermon against Catholicism. I wonder if he knows that the film company and the film producer are Catholic? Or maybe it is OK to receive compliments from Catholics since we have the truth, just so long as we don't return the compliment?

Saw the film today. Very well done. Couldn't helped but be touched by the sequences involving Dr. Bailey's patients. (Of course, I'm sure that was the intent of the film producer, so I suppose I was manipulated).

I think what struck me more than anything was the contrast between the Adventism portrayed in the video and the Adventism portrayed by many of our evangelists, 3ABN, GYC and the like. If you take the view that a schism has been developing in Adventism over the past few decades and is accelerating with the efforts of Samuel-Koranteng Pipim, GYC, EducateTruth, etc. to purify the church and its institutions, then this film decidely reflects the "open" vision of Adventism as opposed to the sectarian fundamentalist vision of what the church should be. It emphasized the health message but from a modern science/technological medicine point of view (not neglecting lifestyle, but certainly not interviewing at Weimar or Uichi Pines, either). It presents a denomination whose institutions reach out to the public in embracing, nonthreatening ways. It featured Dr. Bailey saying it isn't about a particular religion but about faith. A Florida hospital new building sponsored by a Jew who did so because Florida Hospital didn't proselytize. Female doctors and other representatives of Adventist hospitals wearing earings, necklaces, etc. Interestingly, among others the video used Richard Rice, George Knight, Charles Scriven and Roy Branson (I believe he was the other one I saw, but wouldn't swear to it since I missed the name) to interpret the Adventist history, mission and theology--the very people decried on this forum by fundamentalists. Several on this list are also directly attacked in print as heretics by Pipim and his ilk. So...I'll be interested to see how this film is embraced (or not) by the Adventist church at large, especially the fundamentalists. Adventists--even fundamentalists--love it when non-Adventists say good things about them. Will having a Catholic praise Adventists be too good to pass up? Or will the fundamentalists figure out that what the filmmaker is praising is the very Adventism they are at odds with--in fact, an Adventism some of them believe results from Jesuit infiltration?

RT,

I'll chime in here since you reference me in your comments on "censorship". Thanks for pointing out that it's not OK for people to tell me that I should kill myself. I guess.

You're right. We are adults here. And though we don't always behave that way, it is worth bearing in mind.

In the time that I have been a writer and section editor for Spectrum, I have noted repeated instances of particular readers with proclivities for particular topics looking to insert their hobby-horse issues into whatever posts they can with frequent and gratuitous links to their personal websites.

Spectrum does exist to facilitate conversation on a wide range of topics. It does not exist to provide advertising real estate to people with particular drums to beat. Again, while I cannot speak for all of the web team, the editors are well within their rights to set parameters for conversation, noting other appropriate places to comment on specific topics like creation, abortion, etc.

Setting boundaries is an adult thing to do, actually.

Also, thank you for providing your perspectives on the film--particularly, the diversity of Adventist belief and practice that you note. For me, this is one of the underreported aspects of the Adventist community in the film.

Nic Samojluk
http://letsfocusonlife.com

Jared,

I was not planning to post anything else on this thread; nevertheless, after reading your response to RT on 22 March 2010 at 11:26 I feel that I need to clarify a few things for the benefit of anyone who might read your comments. The reason is very simple: Although you did not make a specific reference to me, yet you seemed to have my past comments in mind when you posted your response.

1. I plead guilty to having a proclivity to certain particular topics. I believe that everybody does; but in my case, the Adventist dramatic shift regarding the abortion issue was the topic of my doctoral dissertation. Is it wrong for me to have a burden for said topic, especially considering that the Adventist pioneers had such strong views about this controversial issue?

2. Yes, I plead guilty to having referenced my comments to my personal website. Is this a violation of one of your Rules? If it is, then you are guilty of the same violation, because in your response to me you included two links as well. Links are designed to save space in a forum. Most readers don’t even click on links. The only people who click on links do so because they want to read more about the topic. This saves space on your thread. What is wrong with this? It is a standard and useful practice in the trade.

3. I strongly deny though your suggestion that I have used your forum to advertize my real estate business. If you have evidence for this, please provide the reference! The website I cited is a forum like Spectrum and Adventist Today, devoted to topics of interest to Adventists. In my website I have a link to my real estate business, but 99.99 percent of the material there has nothing to do with my personal business. I do have a website dedicated to my real estate business, but I have never cited said website in your forum.

Jared said nothing about your real estate business. He wrote: "Spectrum ... does not exist to provide advertising real estate to people with particular drums to beat." The term 'real estate' refers to space on the web page not someone's business. It is a term used frequently when discussing areas of a web page. Even if you did not know this, the term 'advertising real estate', when referring to the Spectrum website, should have provided adequate context. You need to read his comments more closely. - website editor

4. You did provide a place for me where I can post comments on abortion, and I thank you for this; nevertheless, that thread has been dead since 24 November 2008 at 6:33. That means that it has been dead for almost a year and a half. You want me to post my comments there? I would be talking to myself. I have done that enough already!

5. You did reject my recent comments on the argument that abortion does not belong in healthcare. I choose to disagree. Doblmeier’s documentary deals with healthcare, and the entire country, including the president and the members of the U.S. Congress agree with me that abortion belongs in healthcare. Our Adventist hospitals have been providing the so called “therapeutic abortions” since the 1960’s. How can you say that this issue does not belong with healthcare?

6. A documentary is supposed to depict reality instead of fiction. This is a fundamental difference between a documentary and a fictional film. The moment someone produces a documentary which depicts only the positive about an institution, it ceases to describe reality and becomes a propaganda tool. I am glad Doblmeier was not in charge of writing the Bible. Had he done so, we would have a sanitized version of David, Moses, Saint Peter, and so on.

7. Doblmeier emphasized the noble work Dr. Bailey has been doing on behalf of infants with his heart transplantation program. He included the fact that Bailey is saving the lives of five children every year. This is great! We are all proud about this. Should he not have also included in this documentary the fact that our Washington Adventist Hospital has been terminating the lives of 40 unborn children for every child which Dr. Bailey is saving? People expect documentaries to depict reality—not fiction!

Amen Nic. Good posts

Hi Everyone,
I have to agree with Mr. Nic: this question of abortion most certainly does fit in as part of a 'healthcare' discussion.
And I agree with RT: allow the members more freedom to decide what gets discussed.

On the ABOUT US page of this website, it says:
Our goal is to foster community through conversation. This website is the online companion to SPECTRUM, a journal established to encourage Seventh-day Adventist participation in the discussion of contemporary issues from a Christian viewpoint, to look without prejudice at all sides of a subject, to evaluate the merits of diverse views, and to foster intellectual and cultural growth.

After the way this subject has been handled, I question if this is REALLY your mission. What Nic has posted is obviously one of the "sides" of this topic that you are unwilling to discuss or even allow others to discuss. This sounds very much like the way it is with liberals in the world....they are all about FREE SPEECH, until they get in control...then they try to squelch the other side.

O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths. Isaiah 3:12.

www.thenarrowwayministries.org
440-224-2227

I agree with Al for agreeing with Nic. Also I agree with Tammy. Liberals are all about FREE SPEECH as long as it's their speech, and not yours. The minute somebody uses their freedom of speech to speak an opposing view, they try with all their might to stamp it out. Even now as we speak, liberals are trying to put a stop to conservative talk radio.

And thank you Tammy for providing that link to:

www.thenarrowwayministries.org

What a nice place. Lots of good info there.

Dear Tuningin,
I'm 53 years old, yet until now I've never heard a professed Christian call a little baby in the womb a 'zygote.'
Two more things:
#1--I'm fairly certain you're misunderstanding 'our Constitution.'
#2--I'm very certain you're misunderstanding 'our Creator.'
(Please re-consider. I'm convinced that some day you'll wish you had.)

I don't think Adventists could ask for a better film to be the way potentially millions of people will learn about Adventists.

It's definitely got a unique angle, because of the life experiences of the producer, but that's all the more reason it's going to be well received by the public.

I agree that it shouldn't be judged for what it never intended to do. I was at the Friday night screening in Loma Linda and the Q&A was very different it appears from Saturday nights.

There were 2 critical comments at the outset but the rest of the comments were very kind.

This is a wondefully interesting discussion due to the overactive censor and the equally responsive limit testing people posting...lol

Makes me happy and thankful that I am a liberal-conservative-fundamental-literal-symbolic-nominal-historic-reforming-lackadaisical-cultural thinking Jesus loving Adventist.

Doctors wearing earrings? In our institutions? Yes, that's a comment from a'fundamentalist.'
Abortions? Very sad. Very important. But I get the feeling that no-one will listen to anyone's pro-life comments. So I'm just putting mine here for posterity. I don't care what people think about our modern 'health' (and dress) message-if it's based on faulty principles, they can praise it till they're blue in the face, I still won't be impressed-be it a Catholic or a Jew praising it.I don't want anyone's praise if they're praising anything that goes against what we were told we ought to do. I haven't seen the documentary, don't think I will anytime soon seeing as I'm not abroad. Just distressed that my church isn't 'my' church anymore. They gave me Ellen White and now they don't want to use her. Why did they bother?(I know, totally off-topic-but not really considering the counsel about our health centres)