Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins
Forum Rules and Guidelines

Raw Story: Catholic hospital chain beats malpractice suit by saying fetuses aren’t people

mistertim

By mistertim
in The Tailgate

Recommended Posts

mistertim

mistertim

Posted
Posted

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/01/24/catholic-hospital-chain-beats-malpractice-suit-by-saying-fetuses-arent-people/

A chain of Catholic Hospitals has beaten a malpractice lawsuit by saying that fetuses are not equivalent to human lives. According to the Colorado Independent, in the death of a 31-year-old woman carrying twin fetuses, Catholic Health Initiatives’ attorneys argued that in cases of wrongful death, the term “person” only applies to individuals born alive, and not to those who die in utero.

Lori Stodghill was seven months pregnant with twin boys on the day she died. The Independent reported that on New Year’s Day 2006 in Cañon City, Colorado, Stodghill was admitted to the Emergency Room at St. Thomas More Hospital complaining of nausea, vomiting and shortness of breath. She lost consciousness as she was being wheeled into an exam room and ER staff were unable to resuscitate her.

It was later found that a main artery supplying blood to her lungs was clogged, which led to a massive heart attack. Stodghill never woke up, dying an hour after her admission to St. Thomas. Her twins died in her womb.

Frantic ER personnel had paged Stodghill’s doctor, obstetrician Pelham Staples, but the doctor never answered. A wrongful-death suit filed on the twins’ behalf by Stodghill’s husband, corrections officer Jeremy Stodghill, maintained that Staples should have made it to the hospital or ordered an emergency cesarian section by phone in order to save the 7-month-old fetuses.

Defending attorney Jason Langley argued in a brief he filed on behalf of the hospital chain that the court “should not overturn the long-standing rule in Colorado that the term ‘person,’ as is used in the Wrongful Death Act, encompasses only individuals born alive. Colorado state courts define ‘person’ under the Act to include only those born alive. Therefore Plaintiffs cannot maintain wrongful death claims based on two unborn fetuses.”

This would appear to fly straight in the face of the doctrinal teachings that purportedly govern the hospital chain’s policies. Catholic Health Initiatives is a non-profit conglomerate organization that owns roughly 170 health care facilities in 17 states, with national assets totaling around $15 billion.

Catholic hospitals purportedly base their ethical practices on the Ethical and Religious Directives of the Catholic Church, which were authored by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. These guidelines state that, “Catholic health care ministry witnesses to the sanctity of life ‘from the moment of conception until death. The Church’s defense of life encompasses the unborn.”

Catholic Health Initiatives’ promotional literature states that its mission is to “nurture the healing ministry of the Church” and be guided by “fidelity to the Gospel.” The chain’s refusal to dispense contraceptives, perform abortions or to offer end-of-life services has placed it at odds in business deals attempting to acquire secularly governed hospitals in the past.

I find this not just hypocritical but pathetic, to be honest.

Always hold your ground on your morals and doctrines...until it could potentially affect your profits, then **** all that noise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bang

Bang

Posted
Posted

Surprised?

Think the pope ever comes out and tells people he never really talks to God either?

When you're entire system is based on a fantasy, inconsistencies are to be expected when they are met by the real world.

Now, 2 things can happen.. A/ catholics can figure out the hypocrisy, wise up and decide that these clowns really DON'T know what's best for them...

or B/ pigs will fly.

~Bang

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry

Larry

Posted
Posted

Just in defense of the accused, here.

Having read nothing but the OP, (not even clicking the link), what it says is that the hospital argued that according to this one law, in this one state, a person is specifically defined as someone who has been born.

Now, I certainly don't know, but it's certainly possible that they're right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mistertim

mistertim

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Just in defense of the accused, here.

Having read nothing but the OP, (not even clicking the link), what it says is that the hospital argued that according to this one law, in this one state, a person is specifically defined as someone who has been born.

Now, I certainly don't know, but it's certainly possible that they're right.

That is pretty much what they argued, yes. And it very well may be, as far as I can tell with my limited legal knowledge and understanding, correct. My main gripe is that a Catholic institution that proclaims itself to be beholden to the beliefs and tenets of the Catholic church suddenly decided to throw all that out when it appeared their business might take a big hit and they would lose money. They, at the very least, turned a blind eye and held their noses while their lawyer used an argument to get them out of it that was in direct contradiction with their professed beliefs. Now I'm not saying that it wasn't a valid legal defense; I just think that is beside the point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bang

Bang

Posted
Posted
Maybe we can degrade these specific individuals or this specific hospital without degrading an entire religion, but hey, fire away

Then I guess maybe the church shouldn't hide behind this defense.

When they stand up and disagree with their lawyer's definition of when life begins, and offer to pay the money then i guess painting with a broad brush won't be so appropriate.

But they won't do that,, and i'll bet dollars to donuts they'll still yell about abortion and degrade everyone who disagrees with them.

~Bang

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry

Larry

Posted
Posted

And just curious, is this a one way street? Can the pro-choice crowd have it both ways?

I dunno. You got a story where a pregnant woman was on her way into an abortion clinic, she got attacked by an anti-abortion protester, dies, and the abortion clinic sues for two deaths?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
twa

twa

Posted
Posted

And just curious, is this a one way street? Can the pro-choice crowd have it both ways?

they can obviously try real hard......but I am happy to see all the supporters of legal personhood being granted.

it would be kinda sweet if it was recognised as a result of the appeal...or as a result of the outraged not wishing to be hypocrites :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Major Harris

Major Harris

Posted
Posted
I dunno. You got a story where a pregnant woman was on her way into an abortion clinic, she got attacked by an anti-abortion protester, dies, and the abortion clinic sues for two deaths?

No I don't but I have heard the not a person argument more than once from the pro choice side. Maybe I wasn't as obvious as I intended to be that I was referring to reactions and not situations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Springfield

Springfield

Posted
Posted
including taking a life

I don't disagree with this.

When I say anything, I mean anything. If you have enough money, you can buy anything you want.

---------- Post added January-24th-2013 at 07:55 PM ----------

Money will also make people do things that they wouldn't ordinarily do. Especially when there is a lot of money at risk or to be made. It's the American way!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Springfield

Springfield

Posted
Posted
a lawyer that can simply point out what the law plainly says shouldn't be too expensive,one that could argue convincingly otherwise might be.

iow I fail to see money being the issue here

How is money not an issue? The hospital will have to pay civil damages for the deaths of two unborn children. I fail to see how money isn't the only issue here. Otherwise the hospital would just say "my bad", get the bad press and everyone would be happy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
twa

twa

Posted
Posted
Ok, I know you're a dyed in the wool Conservative on like every issue under the sun, but seriously you don't see a monetary motivation behind this line of hypocritical lawyering?

.the law is rather clear and the controlling factor in this matter,expecting them to argue it says something else seems a reach imo......and pointless besides

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Major Harris

Major Harris

Posted
Posted
Yes, you have.

Now, where do you get "have it both ways" from that?

I really don't know how to make myself clearer.

Pro. Choice being outraged over this is the same hypocricy that the hospital is displaying. Hell, pro choicers should almost side with the hospital here, they certainly espouse the view.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Springfield

Springfield

Posted
Posted
.the law is rather clear and the controlling factor in this matter,expecting them to argue it says something else seems a reach imo......and pointless besides

Ok then, problem solved. Abortion should be legal... because the law says so. I take it from your frame of argument that is the way that you feel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...