HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Catholic Hospital Argues ...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 07:38 AM

Catholic Hospital Argues Fetuses Are Not People In Malpractice Suit

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/denver/

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.”

The directives can complicate business deals for Catholic Health, as they can for other Catholic health care providers, partly by spurring political resistance. In 2011, the Kentucky attorney general and governor nixed a plan in which Catholic Health sought to merge with and ultimately gain control of publicly funded hospitals in Louisville. The officials were reacting to citizen concerns that access to reproductive and end-of-life services would be curtailed. According to The Denver Post, similar fears slowed the Sisters of Charity of Leavenworth’s plan over the last few years to buy out Exempla Lutheran Medical Center and Exempla Good Samaritan Medical Center in the Denver metro area.

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

34 replies, 3084 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 34 replies Author Time Post
Reply Catholic Hospital Argues Fetuses Are Not People In Malpractice Suit (Original post)
eridani Jan 2013 OP
Laurian Jan 2013 #1
OneGrassRoot Jan 2013 #2
CincyDem Jan 2013 #3
LisaLynne Jan 2013 #7
1StrongBlackMan Jan 2013 #23
tsuki Jan 2013 #4
marble falls Jan 2013 #5
AlbertCat Jan 2013 #9
marble falls Jan 2013 #11
AlbertCat Jan 2013 #12
marble falls Jan 2013 #14
greiner3 Jan 2013 #16
marble falls Jan 2013 #17
eridani Jan 2013 #27
marble falls Jan 2013 #28
AlbertCat Jan 2013 #30
marble falls Jan 2013 #31
AlbertCat Jan 2013 #33
AlbertCat Jan 2013 #29
marble falls Jan 2013 #32
AlbertCat Jan 2013 #34
SemperEadem Jan 2013 #6
sinkingfeeling Jan 2013 #8
Volaris Jan 2013 #18
siligut Jan 2013 #10
Myrina Jan 2013 #13
valerief Jan 2013 #21
siligut Jan 2013 #25
siligut Jan 2013 #24
mountain grammy Jan 2013 #15
greiner3 Jan 2013 #19
EC Jan 2013 #20
albear Jan 2013 #22
dogknob Jan 2013 #26

Response to eridani (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 07:47 AM

1. Another example of the power of money. It trumps

all, including the self righteous promoters of God and religious doctrine. What hypocrisy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eridani (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 07:50 AM

2. This needs a LOT of attention!

Needs to be blasted far and wide so it's the topic of discussion everywhere.

K&R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eridani (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 08:04 AM

3. Soooooo...let me get this straight.



When a woman is, for whatever reason, seeking to exercise her currently legal right to terminate her pregnancy - she can't go to St. Thomas More Hospital because once she walks in the door...in the view of that hospital...her fetus takes on a life of its own.

When a woman has been admitted to that same hospital expecting to go home in a day or two with a newborn baby (twins in this case?) and, as a result of the negligence/incompetence of that same hospital, she ends having to deal with their death...that's ok because why???

WTF - the fetus only takes on a life of its own based on the woman's "intention". Sheesh.

It will be great to see the duplicity of the the anti-choice position laid out in this one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CincyDem (Reply #3)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 09:03 AM

7. Yep, that about sums it up.

So, like if the woman wanted to terminate the pregnancy, her intention is "wrong" so therefore the fetus becomes a person, but if the woman intends to maintain the pregnancy, then the fetus is NOT a person.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CincyDem (Reply #3)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 10:45 AM

23. Close ...

When a woman is, for whatever reason, seeking to exercise her currently legal right to terminate her pregnancy - she can't go to St. Thomas More Hospital because once she walks in the door...in the view of that hospital...her fetus takes on a life of its own. When a woman has been admitted to that same hospital expecting to go home in a day or two with a newborn baby (twins in this case?) and, as a result of the negligence/incompetence of that same hospital, she ends having to deal with their death...that's ok because why???


All of that is correct; but let's go further:

When a woman seeks the CONTRACEPTION that would prevent the need to lawfully terminate her pregnacy, she can't because, according to this same church, her fetus takes on a life of its own at the point of PRE-conception.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eridani (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 08:09 AM

4. Another reason why superstitions cults should

not be in medicine.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tsuki (Reply #4)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 08:47 AM

5. Sweet weeping Jesus. What's wrong with folks?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marble falls (Reply #5)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 09:22 AM

9. What's wrong with folks?

I dunno..... but they still believe Stone Age mythology!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AlbertCat (Reply #9)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 09:25 AM

11. I'll bite. What stone age mythology do you buy into?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marble falls (Reply #11)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 09:34 AM

12. What stone age mythology do you buy into?

None.... that I know of. I don't believe in anything supernatural. If it's here, it's natural.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AlbertCat (Reply #12)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 09:38 AM

14. No belief system whatsoever - no Gaia or god? Just another independend point on the continuum?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marble falls (Reply #14)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 09:46 AM

16. "Just another independend point on the continuum?"

I've never heard of this argument Grasshopper.

Please enlighten this old Atheist!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to greiner3 (Reply #16)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 09:50 AM

17. No argument. Just a question about your place in the timeline.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marble falls (Reply #17)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 07:47 PM

27. My place in the universe is directly above the center of the earth n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eridani (Reply #27)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 08:39 PM

28. Sounds kinda spiritual.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marble falls (Reply #17)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 09:17 AM

30. your place in the timeline.

What question could that be?

I'm here and now in the time line. 1956 - ????

What's so hard or confusing about that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AlbertCat (Reply #30)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 09:21 AM

31. For whatever I said to make you hostile, I am sorry.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marble falls (Reply #31)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 09:27 AM

33. make you hostile

I'm not being hostile. There is no anger in my voice. Just pointing out something.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marble falls (Reply #14)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 09:13 AM

29. I do have a belief system

It's that there is no supernatural anything. It's that the universe and all that is in it is natural and obeys the laws of physics.
This eliminates tons of chaff! Ghosts, spirits, demons, gods, afterlives, angels, fairies, Santa, the Easter Bunny.....

My life is fine without all that stuff some caveman made up in prehistory. So liberating!

FREE YOURSELF FROM ANCIENT SUPERSTITIONS!!!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AlbertCat (Reply #29)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 09:25 AM

32. These things may come out of your belief systam, but they don't make up much of a belief ....

system, not that belief systems have any obligation to be substantive. Seems hostile the way you express it. But hey, hostile is just another attitude, right? Thankyou for sharing. G*d bless!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marble falls (Reply #32)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 09:29 AM

34. Seems hostile the way you express it.

No, not at all! I say it loud with a big smile! It's liberating to eject all that supernatural stuff!

The only condescending and judgmental statement here is:

"but they don't make up much of a belief"

How la-dee-da superior is that? But I forgive you for belittling me and my ideas.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eridani (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 09:02 AM

6. when it comes to their money stream, of course their views don't apply

can't interfere with the money...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eridani (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 09:19 AM

8. Gee, morals are changeable if there's money involved. Typical of the Right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sinkingfeeling (Reply #8)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 09:51 AM

18. yeah. OR, "We only believe in it when it works in our favor."

Fuckers. (And I'm Catholic.) I want to know what IDIOT of a Cannon Lawyer signed off on this argument...
Not that I wish them well in this, far from it. But if I were that guy's boss, and THAT'S the argument he came up with for winning this case, I'd fire his ass. Thomas Moore, these guys AIN'T.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eridani (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 09:25 AM

10. New Years day and the on-call obstetrician never answered her page

Those seven-month old babies most certainly could have been saved but instead, they suffocated along with the mother because Dr. Pelham Staples didn't respond to her page.

I didn't find anything in the NY Wrongful Death Act online that referred to unborn children, but this is from Illinois.

(740 ILCS 180/2.2) (from Ch. 70, par. 2.2)
Sec. 2.2. The state of gestation or development of a human being when an injury is caused, when an injury takes effect, or at death, shall not foreclose maintenance of any cause of action under the law of this State arising from the death of a human being caused by wrongful act, neglect or default.
There shall be no cause of action against a physician or a medical institution for the wrongful death of a fetus caused by an abortion where the abortion was permitted by law and the requisite consent was lawfully given. Provided, however, that a cause of action is not prohibited where the fetus is live-born but subsequently dies.
There shall be no cause of action against a physician or a medical institution for the wrongful death of a fetus based on the alleged misconduct of the physician or medical institution where the defendant did not know and, under the applicable standard of good medical care, had no medical reason to know of the pregnancy of the mother of the fetus.
(Source: P.A. 81-946.)



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eridani (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 09:34 AM

13. So it's a person when they need it to be, and it's not when they don't?

Nice consistency there, Hypocrites, but thanks for a rock-solid statement that we can now use against your GOP toadies' stupid 'personhood amendments'.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Myrina (Reply #13)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 10:25 AM

21. The hypocrisy of the elite. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to valerief (Reply #21)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 11:17 AM

25. Not religion or even money, but it is the elite mindset

Somehow there are two sets of people, the elite and the not-elite. Money has an influence, but it isn't the determining factor. Religion is used and abused at all levels, but again, religion isn't the determining factor.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Myrina (Reply #13)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 11:16 AM

24. Come on, it will just go onto the responsibility of the attorney

The individual is wrong, not the organization. This is how they do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eridani (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 09:40 AM

15. Wait, I thought the fetus is a child until it's born..

after being born, it's only a child if the parents have means or, if it's a Catholic child, only if the parrish priest is a pedophile. I'm sure I read this somewhere in Scalia's or Thomas' sage decisions, or maybe I just dreamed they said it. Thomas spoke the other day, isn't that what he said? I'm really just so fucking confused right now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eridani (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 09:54 AM

19. Medically speaking;

Any fetus is considered an 'obligate parasite;'

"An obligate parasite is a parasitic organism that cannot live independently of its host.."

This definition also goes on to include organisms that feed and/or take vital nutrients from its host; food passing through the placenta, the need to excrete wastes via the host, etc...

Granted, the human condition, empathy, will make most squeamish at this reaching definition, but there you have it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eridani (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 10:11 AM

20. So when it saves them money

all of a sudden the fetus is just a fetus and not a person with rights? That figures.


on edit: Will the "person-hood" people notice it's a bad idea giving person-hood to fetus' - it's bad for business...of course that is the break in their party...the crackpots vs. the money ...GET IT PAUL RYAN...THE FINANCE WONK?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eridani (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 10:42 AM

22. Funny how when things work against you

 

the rightwingnuts change the rules to benefit them. Example no. #12532138345 of their hypocrisy here!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eridani (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 04:30 PM

26. Does this mean "personhood amendments" will be a 2/3 compromise now? n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread