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

page: 1
27
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 09:46 AM
link   

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


coloradoindependent.com

Lori Stodghill was 31-years old, seven-months pregnant with twin boys and feeling sick when she arrived at St. Thomas More hospital in Cañon City on New Year’s Day 2006. She was vomiting and short of breath and she passed out as she was being wheeled into an examination room. Medical staff tried to resuscitate her but, as became clear only later, a main artery feeding her lungs was clogged and the clog led to a massive heart attack. Stodghill’s obstetrician, Dr. Pelham Staples, who also happened to be the obstetrician on call for emergencies that night, never answered a page. His patient
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 09:46 AM
link   
Wow, talk about making a person feel confused and wondering what is going on. On one hand the normal view hled here is this

“Catholic health care ministry witnesses to the sanctity of life ‘from the moment of conception until death,’” the directives state. “The Church’s defense of life encompasses the unborn.”


Now it has taken a complete 180 on that view at least in this case. Certainly it is due only to this case an the money involved.

On the other hand the courts which have little to say on fetus death are weighing in.

I understand that yes this mother wanted to keep her children while those having abortions do not but to be real it seems we are trying to have our cake and eat it too. What I mean is that we are making it so that the fetus is only life when it suits our needs, if not it is a lump of parasitic flesh.

Regardless of what ones personal feelings are either way on this issue the courst and possibly the highest court in the land are going to be weighing on this. This will have a huge impact and is going to cause voices to raise in anger on both sides. I can only say that I see this as hypocrisy, blatent at that.


The Supreme Court is set to decide whether to take the case in the next few weeks.


Raist

coloradoindependent.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 09:57 AM
link   
The Catholic belief is ludicrous, so much so that they make their own rules as they go along


+7 more 
posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 10:26 AM
link   
While I disagree with the Catholic's position that an unborn fetus is a "person", it's the LAW in this case, not the religion, that determines the status of the fetus. The law in Colorado says that the fetus is not a "person" with rights (which is as it should be, IMO).

When the dead woman's husband brought the law into it by suing, he sanctioned the legal definition and the laws of Colorado.
edit on 1/24/2013 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 11:19 AM
link   
I hope that they decide the fetuses were "alive" and thus covered by wrongful death statutes. This would be an excellent precedent for ending abortion. The catholics should fight the case as they are with the hope of losing and thus winning the huge battle of defining fetuses as persons. They have to fight and receive a ruling in order to set precedent. This could be a great stride towards ending infanticide in the US.



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 11:31 AM
link   
They are not being hypocritical at all. As the above poster points out. Well said. The poster before him points out something important here too. This article is biased.


"But when it came to mounting a defense in the Stodghill case, Catholic Health’s lawyers effectively turned the Church directives on their head. Catholic organizations have for decades fought to change federal and state laws that fail to protect “unborn persons,” and Catholic Health’s lawyers in this case had the chance to set precedent bolstering anti-abortion legal arguments. Instead, they are arguing state law protects doctors from liability concerning unborn fetuses on grounds that those fetuses are not persons with legal rights."


How could they have bolstered anti-abortion legal arguments? The law is the law, and just because we know abortion is wrong does not mean this specific hospital is guilty of wrongdoing.

The point that needs to be argued is whether or not the doctor was actually to blame here. If so, that hospital is likely guilty of malpractice. However no financial settlement will change the fact that these lives were lost.
edit on 24-1-2013 by NarrowGate because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 11:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by DarthMuerte
I hope that they decide the fetuses were "alive" and thus covered by wrongful death statutes. This would be an excellent precedent for ending abortion. The catholics should fight the case as they are with the hope of losing and thus winning the huge battle of defining fetuses as persons. They have to fight and receive a ruling in order to set precedent. This could be a great stride towards ending infanticide in the US.


You make an excellent point there. Is it possible the hospital is fighting the lawsuit under this argument in the hopes of having the state's definition of a "person" overturned?



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 12:11 PM
link   
IN this particular case the "fetuses" in question were 7 months. My twins were born healthy at 7 1/2 months. They spent about 2 weeks in NICU . How can anyone say that a 7 month fetus is not a person? Ever feel a BABY kick in the womb at 7 months? Ever see a live action 3D ultrasound of twins at 7 months?

Life begins at conception and continues to grow and develop until birth.

Key takeaway from this article. Note the deep pockets that these attorney's are trying to protect


The lead defendant in the case is Catholic Health Initiatives, the Englewood-based nonprofit that runs St. Thomas More Hospital as well as roughly 170 other health facilities in 17 states. Last year, the hospital chain reported national assets of $15 billion. The organization’s mission, according to its promotional literature, is to “nurture the healing ministry of the Church” and to be guided by “fidelity to the Gospel.” Toward those ends, Catholic Health facilities seek to follow the Ethical and Religious Directives of the Catholic Church authored by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. Those rules have stirred controversy for decades, mainly for forbidding non-natural birth control and abortions. “Catholic health care ministry witnesses to the sanctity of life ‘from the moment of conception until death,’” the directives state. “The Church’s defense of life encompasses the unborn.”


Gotta love the slime factor of the law..


But when it came to mounting a defense in the Stodghill case, Catholic Health’s lawyers effectively turned the Church directives on their head. Catholic organizations have for decades fought to change federal and state laws that fail to protect “unborn persons,” and Catholic Health’s lawyers in this case had the chance to set precedent bolstering anti-abortion legal arguments. Instead, they are arguing state law protects doctors from liability concerning unborn fetuses on grounds that those fetuses are not persons with legal rights.


coloradoindependent.com...

Its slippery...



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 12:16 PM
link   
I live in rural southern CO. I don't think this is a catholic thing so much as it's a CO doesn't give a $#%& about rural residents thing. Typically health care south of Pueblo or in outlying areas is hit or miss. Patients often have to travel as far as Denver/Springs to get adequate care. In my county we have "visiting" doctors, no permanent OB/GYN.

Women showing up at the emergency room in labor are stabilized/transported out via flight for life/ambulance. Some women spend their last month with family in Pueblo, those who can't have given birth on the side of the interstate. The solution is babies by appointment.

Women are given a due date/appointment to have labor induced in a hospital up north. Some try to go natural but the long drive in labor can be scary depending on how far out you live.

When I had my last we had midwives, no visiting OB/GYNs. They provided a great service and very successfully cared for many women. I started out with one but got no further than my first visit. She couldn't even prescribe me prenatal vitamins, I bought them over the counter. It was due to insurance. Midwives still practice in the state but they have to practice under the protective umbrella of an OB/GYN clinic or any doctor insured to deliver/give prenatal care. That's how they explained it to me anyway.

I refused to be induced so a friend who was a nurse and one physicians assistant who felt sorry provided minimal care for some of us on the sly. Finally an OB/GYN came to the rescue. I delivered naturally as he ran in the door after driving like a maniac from a small town 40 miles away. Basically he showed up to catch.

He took good care of us but lost his ass. He was literally living in a van down by the river. With so few women having babies the insurance costs ruined him. Lots of women here are low income so he made no profit from those who did pay. Despite this he had the same expenses as big city docs.

Our new improved hospital states they aren't set up for it or can't/won't absorb the insurance costs. Yet they tore down the little country hospital that delivered generations of rural babies.

Unless you live in Aspen, Boulder, Denver, Springs etc. you can forget about having babies locally. Some might claim otherwise but that's not how it works down here.

Funny I'm not far from Trinidad where you can get the best sex change surgeon in the nation possibly the world. I think Trinidad delivers babies but it astounds me that CO is top of the line when it comes to reassigning your sex but extremely lacking in prenatal care/delivery. It's all about money and my county doesn't have enough.

Imo Cañon City is less about medical care and more about prison. I went to a "visiting" dentist who practiced out of Canon city, he about killed me. I don't even want to get started on dentists. Here's a link about our sex change industry in Trinidad. Stanley Biber



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 12:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


I understand it is the law, I guess this is just something that in the case of the Catholic hospital is hard to argue. My main point that while this is the law this is a Catholic church saying the law is right which goes against their belief.

If they truly believe the law is wrong as they normally teach (and in some cases I agree with that stance just not all of them), they would not be using the law on their side. They are basically saying they are against the law unless it helps them.

Raist



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 12:36 PM
link   
reply to post by DarthMuerte
 


I guess that is another way to look at this. While I do not think abortion should be used as a form of birth control, I do think there are times that it has it's place.

Raist



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 12:40 PM
link   
reply to post by NarrowGate
 


My point I was trying to make is that they are against the law unless it protects them. If you have a belief you should always have that belief and not use the law only when it agrees with you. It is not like they say that abortions are okay at times, they are saying that a person cannot even take birth control.

They are always trying to change this law, now all of a sudden they are okay to let this law protect them.

Raist



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 12:46 PM
link   
reply to post by jibeho
 


I agree with your view. My first was still born at 22 weeks. He was a little boy with everything he was supposed to have. We had to name him, we had to choose to bury or cremate him. From all of this he was a person. We never got a birth or death certificate though because by law he was not a person. Even at 22 weeks babies have been saved and grown to live normal lives.

I am not saying that there are not cases where the woman should not have the option to have an abortion though. I simply do not agree with it being used as a birth control.


In this case I see the Catholic Church always fighting this law. Yet as soon as the law is on their side they use that same law they oppose. I see this as wrong. If they are against it they should be against it. They should admit that yes there was a mistake instead of using a law they oppose.

Raist



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 12:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Raist
 


one would hope that this " defence " is the shot [ in the foot ] that will be heard in congress and every court and state legliture .

bravo - catholicism you can no longer justify your stance against secular laws [ abortion , contraception etal ] that grant rights that are incompatible with religious dogma

what you SHOULD have done is make an out of court settlement that adhered to your dogmas and accepted that the featuses had the rights your religion claims they have

you cannot have it both ways - and now i hope that every judge and lawmaker will hold you to the standard you have sunk to



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 01:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Morningglory
 


Thanks for bringing in firsthand knowledge. I had no idea that giving birth in CO was that difficult. It certainly does not seem to live up to what I expect healthcare to be in the U.S.

It is interesting about the sex change industry there being number one. I guess everyone has priorities though
I would think that birth and elder care would be the top healthcare myself. Having a father in senior care though I know that eldercare is lacking. I can only assume it lacks across the country. As for giving birth there are two hospitals here, both are pretty good I guess. Certainly the one we used did a good job, I cannot really complain about how things were. My son was born cesarean, and was not breathing at first. They ran him into NICU and in seconds he was crying. He has been a healthy pain in my rear since


Raist



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 01:16 PM
link   
The problem that I have with this whole thing is that they are using the state law of not recognizing the unborn babies in this case a "people' as a defense, and probably a mechanism to, yet again, shove their point of view down our throats.

I'm sorry, as far as I am concerned, you are responsible for what happens in "your house". If you believe that these "unborn fetuses" have rights, and are people, then you should extend them that right in "your house" regardless of what people outside your house believe. You should also be responsible for what happens "in your house" period.

They use their so called to faith deny "artificial birth control" in their house, and fight for the right to do regardless of what state law says using the reasoning that it is "their house" and they have the right to practice their faith in their house regardless of what others do in theirs.

You can't have it both ways.

You want to have a certain belief? Fine...take responsibility for it.



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 01:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by jibeho
IN this particular case the "fetuses" in question were 7 months. My twins were born healthy at 7 1/2 months. They spent about 2 weeks in NICU . How can anyone say that a 7 month fetus is not a person? Ever feel a BABY kick in the womb at 7 months?


My (very limited) understanding of the law in relation to abortion in the states is that it is legal in many states up until the foetus is 'viable' (i.e. can survive outside the womb). This is typically said to be seven months, although has been reported as being as early as 24 weeks in some rare cases... This obviously muddies the waters significantly in regards to the question of whether a particular abortion is legal or not. However, it also seems to indicate, if this woman had been seeking an abortion, that the law could have very well dictated that the foetuses she wa carrying were 'viable' and therefore could not be aborted. This would suggest that they might well have regarded them as 'people'.

I don't know a great deal about the laws involved and even less about the laws in this particular state so... It's hard to say. However, just putting it out there.... Someone will set me straight I'm sure



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 01:21 PM
link   
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



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 01:25 PM
link   
reply to post by ThreeSistersofLoveandLigh
 


Yep I agree for sure.

I have no problem with birth control, the morning after pill or even abortion in cases it is needed (I just do not agree with it being used as birth control). They on the other hand are always saying life at conception working to change laws. Then when the same law they want changed protects them they hide behind it.

If you have a belief stand by it even when it is going to hurt you, or change your belief.

Raist



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 01:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Milkflavour
 


That is the big problem to all of this no matter what. The politicians have muddied the waters in every way they can. They rarely ever read the garbage they sign and take money from lobbyists while ignoring the public for the most part.

The earliest known surviving fetus to live outside the womb was 21 weeks. Doctors are getting pretty good at saving them as early as 27 weeks, the survival rates are rising as science learns new things.

The problem with all of this is the hospital in question should have simply held top their beliefs and paid a determined sum. Instead they are hiding behind laws they would see changed if they could.

Raist



  exclusive video


new topics
top topics
 
27
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join