In malpractice case, Catholic hospital argues fetuses aren't people

reply to post by Raist


One reason why I did not go into OB/GYN--the rediculous amount of litigation. The woman had a massive pulmonary embolus, died within an hour, and they seriously are blaming the OB/GYN? I found it laughable that part of the suit is that he should have

instructed the frantic emergency room staff to perform a caesarian-section

Seriously? No ER Doc is going to perform a c-section, the babies most likely would have died anyway, and, although it is a sad and tragic situation, not every sad and tragic situation needs a lawsuit except for ambulance chasing lawyers.

Many times in life, sad and horrible things happen that are nobody's fault.

Originally posted by Raist
reply to post by ignorant_ape

 

This is what I was thinking. They want to change the law until it suits them, then they hide behind it.

My beef with all of this is their constant stance on abortion laws and then using those laws when they protect them. It is hypocritical, since they did not settle out of court on a payment.

Raist

Wanting to change a law is different than abiding by it. This should be considered basic common sense, the fact it isn't is actually terrifying for the future. There, i had to say it.

reply to post by NavyDoc


That is true and in many cases I would agree. With this though my problem is with the hospital using a law they are normally against. If they were not using this law they would see changed to protect themselves this thread would not be here.

Caesarian is a dangerous risk no matter how healthy a person is. Sure doctors have gotten better at it than say 50 years ago, but it is still a risk.

Raist

Originally posted by Zcustosmorum
The Catholic belief is ludicrous, so much so that they make their own rules as they go along

This is a very sectarian post especially for me. I was born a Catholic and raised a Catholic and i do believe fetuses are people. I do not believe in abortion. I do not mind gays in fact a close friend of mine is gay and i hope he is able to get married. I believe you should be able to wear condoms. Yet i am still a bead rattling Catholic. So to generalise the whole Catholic faith like that is very inappropriate and offensive.

Not all Catholics believe in all that nonsense. Some of us have our own ethics, we aren't all sheep.

reply to post by Malcher


I understand it is different. But this involves their faith, their entire belief system is now shown to be pushed aside as long as it suits them.

They are against fetuses being killed. Yet as soon as someone tries to get settlement for damages they hide behind the very laws they oppose. They say in one minute abortion is wrong and in the same instance turn the other way and use the law to say that fetuses are not alive. If it is your belief you stand by it. They are fighting tooth and nail to keep from giving brithcontrol pills to employees, but this is okay because it might cost them money.

Was there not just an uproar about Obama care wanting all businesses to provide birthcontrol? Sorry while wanting to change a law and abiding by it might be different, many are willing to ignore the birthcontrol part of the heathcare law yet this is okay. This is hypocrisy at its finest. All they would have had to do is admit there was a problem settle out of court and be done. They would have stood by their belief and not shown a 180 degree turn on this issue.

Raist

reply to post by Raist


I have to say that this is a legal case for wrongful death of the unborn fetuses, ( they are newborns when they are outside the uterus) as they at 7th month of pregnancy could have been saved.

It seems that this is malpractice at its finest.

And regardless of what kind of hosptial (church backed or none) that the mother to be was taken it could happen and has happened before.

reply to post by marg6043


This is true, but the law they are arguing is one dealing with fetuses not being living. If they were just arguing malpractice it would be different. Their argument though is based on the fetuses not being people and therefore not having rights.

If they were simply arguing wrongful death it would be a different story.

Raist

What do you expect? This is Catholicism we're talking about. Jesus said "blessed be the poor, woe unto the rich" and the pope lives in his own city in a palace with multiple armed guards and medieval crowns while preaching how much we need to help the poor.

So, life begins at conception, unless that life is involved in a lawsuit that may result in the Vatican, home of the religion that is based on the teachings of a man who rejected material wealth in favor of helping the needy, having to sell off one of it's GOLD-PLATED DIAMONDS.

Maybe this is the work of one radical lawyer who went againsts the catholic Church's wishes with this arguement. I think it's more likely that the church is showing itself to be an amoral organization that will say and do anything to acheive its agenda, which I am certain did not originate with Jesus.

Just as corrupt as the US government.

reply to post by Raist


I see, I guess that is for the courts to decide between the plaintiff and the defendant.

Its going to be interesting, because as wrongful death he would have won regardless, the other is a matter of opinion depending who the acting judge may be.

reply to post by Raist


Interesting to think that an organization may argue against their stated beliefs and by loosing the case have it become a precedent used to change the law to agree with the said beliefs. Intriguing to think it could be a long term strategy.

I'll add that a 7 month old preterm baby is definitely a person. My niece was born after 6 1/2 months, spent a few days in NICU, but is now a full grown 16 year old, beautiful, intelligent young lady!

Originally posted by Raist
reply to post by Malcher

 

I understand it is different. But this involves their faith, their entire belief system is now shown to be pushed aside as long as it suits them.

They are against fetuses being killed. Yet as soon as someone tries to get settlement for damages they hide behind the very laws they oppose. They say in one minute abortion is wrong and in the same instance turn the other way and use the law to say that fetuses are not alive. If it is your belief you stand by it. They are fighting tooth and nail to keep from giving brithcontrol pills to employees, but this is okay because it might cost them money.

Was there not just an uproar about Obama care wanting all businesses to provide birthcontrol? Sorry while wanting to change a law and abiding by it might be different, many are willing to ignore the birthcontrol part of the heathcare law yet this is okay. This is hypocrisy at its finest. All they would have had to do is admit there was a problem settle out of court and be done. They would have stood by their belief and not shown a 180 degree turn on this issue.

Raist

Faith does not come into this as far as it being a legal matter and it is the attorneys who are bringing forth arguments so really they view what the law states not what a single person or organization wants.

reply to post by marg6043


That I can agree with. This is such a strange way to go about things it seems so odd. It certainly hold interest though.

Raist

reply to post by yamammasamonkey


Yeah, another poster brought up that thought as well. It could very well be a well played out stratagy. It would make a bit of sense since really not much in this whole court case is.

I am not sure if it would help their case to say this is what they are planning but as it sits now I cannot agree with how they are doing it. It seems underhanded and dirty, and this sort of work also does not fit into their beliefs.

Interesting none the less.

Raist

reply to post by Malcher


If the hospital were standing by their beliefs they would have settled without bringing law into it. As it stands they are simply letting the law keep them safe, the same law they oppose.

I guess this could be a plan for the future of rewritting the law as a few others have brought up though.


Also another thing to point out is that honestly this should not have to deal with fetuses being people and thus having rights or not. This should be about wrongful death as has also been brought up. Things are not what they should be in this case; I am starting to think those who brought up the future plan to attack this law are onto something.


Raist

reply to post by NavyDoc
You are spot on. My doctor wanted to be a country doc helping rural women. His first mistake was putting honor ahead of profit. I'm not joking when I said he ended up living in a van down by the river. Although it was more like a small camper/van thing.

I was lucky I had my last son 45 min after walking through the hospital door with no problems. I had one OB/GYN nurse, bless her heart and one very young student nurse who was witnessing her first birth. I had to lend her moral support while my hubby helped the nurse. I swear I thought they were going to ask the janitor to come in to help but the doc made it.

I grew up in the Chicago area and had my first child there. I got excellent top notch care. Moving here was like going back in time 30 years or more. Everyone thinks there are standards in the US but that can depend on the population.

Forget about babies they aren't the future I guess sexual reassignment surgery is what's important to us down here. Cash is the name of the game.

I imagine docs in Cañon City are more accustomed to treating/profiting off prisoners, they don't have babies and they can't complain about the quality of care. Be careful in rural southern CO some places are still a lot like the old wild west.

My heart goes out to the husband/dad in Cañon City but the same thing could happen to a lot of families down here. Visiting doctors are usually in it for the increase in volume/money. They're spreading themselves too thin and people suffer.

When you take the political and religious aspects out of this particular case, what the real issue is should become clear.

This should not be about what is legal or what is not. It should be about taking responsibility and facing the consequences, period.

To not be willing to face consequences, trying to point the finger elsewhere to get out of punishment, or to get a lesser punishment because of what one believes, I believe to be the crux of the problems in society today,


If I want to be free to practice as I believe, then as a moral person, I also have to be willing to face the consequences of being free to practice my beliefs regardless of whether or not they are legal, regardless of what other people believe.

Morality should be the willingness to be able to accept the consequences of your actions regardless of whether or not those consequences are comfortable.

This hospital claims to hold life in the highest regard. As stated in their directives:

Catholic health care ministry witnesses to the sanctity of life ‘from the moment of conception until death

The consequence of having this point of view is that it is their responsibility, through their faith based practices, to practice what they preach and do everything that can be done in order to preserve life, born or unborn. It is the same argument that is used as to why this organization will not agree to provide "unnatural birth control", or perform abortions.

They are using what other people recognize as a defense. It equates to pointing the finger at the other guy and placing blame elsewhere so they don't have to take responsibility, and so they don't have to face the consequences of not practicing what they preach, or doing due diligence to preserve life as outlined in their directives.

In this case thy are using the so called immoral practices of others to justify why they shouldn't be responsible, why they should be relieved of the consequence of their belief, which is the death of two (unborn) people.


If you aren't willing to face the consequences, deal with the punishment, then not only should you not be doing what you are doing, you have no business telling other people to act in the same manner you do.

The fact that this "organization" is using other people's beliefs (in this case the state belief or law) to push a political agenda, to push their belief to be considered as the only form of moral thinking is downright evil.

Complete hypocrits.

These hospitals are always saying that they should not be compelled to offer reproductive services, they refuse to do tubuligations unless a hospital committee approves it first, if at all, they don't want to offer insurance for reproductive services or birth control because of their "religious" mission. And then it comes to this, I say hold them accountable. They hold them selves out as standing up for the unborn, They them selvs consider it to be a higher standard, so they should should be held to a higher standard vis-a-vis the unborn.

Let's face it, these hospitals are just ordinary corporations, with doctors who are more businessmen that doctors, they profit from the sick in a market created by denying healthcare to those who are unable to pay.

IMO they should be held to the standard that they want to hold others to. Like I said, hypocrisy is the greatest illness facing this country, from psychopaths on wall street, the banks and government, our foreign relations are based on a cycle of complete hypocrisy and blowback. Lies upon lies. Why should we expect anymore for those that claim to know the word of God.

When the dead woman's husband brought the law into it by suing, he sanctioned the legal definition and the laws of Colorado.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


When the dead woman's husband bought the law into the equation, he did so by his own understanding and hers that was instilled in them by the belief in the Church and their stand on Pro life regardless of the period of gestation the baby was in. This is doctrine that has been taught to Catholics and heavily promoted as a Church standard.

Had that not been the case, and their understanding was the opposite which is what the Church is now claiming by hiding behind the law when it suits them, the couple perhaps could have made a completely different choice with regard to which hospital they went to.
So in my humble opinion, this man should take his "common law" claim as far as he can go.

Cheers

Originally posted by Raist
reply to post by Malcher

 

If the hospital were standing by their beliefs they would have settled without bringing law into it. As it stands they are simply letting the law keep them safe, the same law they oppose.

I guess this could be a plan for the future of rewritting the law as a few others have brought up though.


Also another thing to point out is that honestly this should not have to deal with fetuses being people and thus having rights or not. This should be about wrongful death as has also been brought up. Things are not what they should be in this case; I am starting to think those who brought up the future plan to attack this law are onto something.


Raist

It would be interesting if we all could decide how we want the law to be implemented, there are rules though. For example, you cannot let your auto mechanic represent you as attorney, you should go to the court when you get a summons etc. Although i studied law for only one year it's good to know i learned something.