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

[Springfield]

And away we go.

I just came in with the observation that money makes people do funny things. Probably should have just left it at that.

[Major Harris]

I just came in with the observation that money makes people do funny things. Probably should have just left it at that.

I don't disagree whatsoever it's just when you see "abortion" on es, you set up camp

[twa]

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.

it IS legal because the law says so, just as the fetuses are not persons because the law says so....SHOULD BE is a matter of changing the law and present reality.

My desire does not change the current law anymore than if the hospital had asserted the fetuses were persons under it (when they clearly are not)

Reality intrudes

[Springfield]

I don't disagree whatsoever it's just when you see "abortion" on es, you set up camp

I'm really done with abortion arguments on ES. But I wanted to push twa's buttons since I know his stance on the subject and that's the direction that he wanted to take it.

At the heart of the story, it's basically about how one will change their view to suit their monetary needs. It just so happens that personhood is the subject at hand.

[Larry]

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.

No. It isn't. Not even remotely.

[Major Harris]

No. It isn't. Not even remotely.

Ok. I know you and I will never agree so I will leave it at that.

[Larry]

Ok. I know you and I will never agree so I will leave it at that.

You know I will continue to point out facts. So you will try to claim that your failed attempt makes you somehow superior, and pretend that you've won.

The two statements

1). The fetus is a human being, except when it might cost us some money. Then it isn't. And

2). You're a hypocrite.

Are not equivalent. They are not morally equal. They do not employ similar reasoning.

But, feel free to keep trying to pretend that hypocrisy, and pointing out hypocrisy, are the same thing.

[mistertim]

.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

Why would they need to argue anything at all if they believed that line of defense wouldn't be appropriate because of their religious tenets on the matter? They would just say to the lawyer "We're not willing to use that defense because it goes against what we stand for. If you don't have anything else we can use then we'll just have to suck it up and settle". Done.

[Predicto]

Interesting thread. I suspect that our resident Protestants would be outraged if anyone on the Tailgate directed this level of vitriol toward them and their favored institutions and beliefs, or a Protestant church defending itself from a lawsuit using the words of the law under which they are being sued.

To the extent that the thread contains a bit of good ole lawyer bashing, got no problems with that. Carry on.

[twa]

Human being ,nor life matter in this,legal Personhood does....which does not exist for fetuses in this matter (not even 3/4's )

that is the relevant fact and unchangeable no matter what the hospital lawyer would have said. or desired.

---------- Post added January-24th-2013 at 07:57 PM ----------

Why would they need to argue anything at all if they believed that line of defense wouldn't be appropriate because of their religious tenets on the matter? They would just say to the lawyer "We're not willing to use that defense because it goes against what we stand for. If you don't have anything else we can use then we'll just have to suck it up and settle". Done.

do you have a link to them using it as a defense?

I ask because there is no need to present such a defense ....it is a established fact

is stating the fact objectionable?????

[mistertim]

Just because there is a law or statute that could give one side of a lawsuit a way to win doesn't mean they have to use it. The judge can't jump in and say "Well wait a minute, counsel. You have a card you can play here; you have to use it". If the church and governing body of the hospital decided they were unwilling to go against their belief and use that defense then they don't use that law to defend themselves. They tell their lawyer to either find something else they can use for defense or settle.

[Special K]

Canon City should be sued just because it's such a craphole.

Personally, I feel this hospital is compromising its moral principles to get out of what seems like a very legitimate malpractice/wrongful death lawsuit. Seriously, letting 32+ week kids did in a mother's womb, in a hospital, is like developing world country status. Good Lord.

That said, can you blame this lawyer for arguing that? It's like setting a bone in front of a dog and expecting the dog not to eat it. The lawyer is doing his due dilligence in regards to this case, it's just too bad a Catholic hospital can't seem to stand by its prinicples.

[mistertim]

do you have a link to them using it as a defense?

I ask because there is no need to present such a defense ....it is a established fact

is stating the fact objectionable?????

Uh, try the link in the OP. That's the entire premise of the article. That they actively used that as a defense.

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' date='’ 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.”[/quote']

I also see where they might be trying to get a bit slick with their wording too; perhaps so they could try and fight off accusations of hypocrisy later. Saying "the court should not overturn" the rule instead of just saying "our defense is that these weren't people because they weren't born yet". Either way, they were the ones who brought that law into play in the case. Nobody forced them to. If they weren't comfortable using that as their defense they either find another or they settle.

[twa]

The woman died didn't she?....as a person under the law the only thing the kids add are $$ IF they were persons under the law(which they are not).

Nothing prevents a malpractice/wrongful death lawsuit for a legal persons death.

at least till we decide you ain't one.

[mistertim]

Nothing prevents a malpractice or civil lawsuit for anything. And nothing prevents the side being taken to court from saying "we'll settle" if they don't have a defense. Or if their only line of plausible defense directly contradicts their religious beliefs and they decide to stick to those.

Again, just because a law is there doesn't mean they are required to use it as a defense.

[twa]

Again, just because a law is there doesn't mean they are required to use it as a defense.

Paging Predicto

:evilg:

[mistertim]

Good call. Predicto got off too easy with his one post and roll on this one.

[twa]

Good call. Predicto got off too easy with his one post and roll on this one.

I'm fairly certain lawyers can be disciplined for incompetence....which ignoring the fact they are not persons in this matter would be

Any lower court ruling recognizing them as persons there would likely be overturned as well.

[AsburySkinsFan]

.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

You completely ignored the question.

What's more is that there is no law that says a hospital MUST fight a law suit using certain arguments.

[twa]

the plain reading of a law is not a argument...tis simply fact

if you want to bash them for not simply paying the relatives off feel free, but expecting them to argue against legal reality is asking a bit much

[Major Harris]

You know I will continue to point out facts. So you will try to claim that your failed attempt makes you somehow superior, and pretend that you've won.

The two statements

1). The fetus is a human being, except when it might cost us some money. Then it isn't. And

2). You're a hypocrite.

Are not equivalent. They are not morally equal. They do not employ similar reasoning.

But, feel free to keep trying to pretend that hypocrisy, and pointing out hypocrisy, are the same thing.

I've won? It all makes sense now. I didn't know anyone won or lost on extreme skins. I didn't think I "won" as I don't view this as any kind of competition. I just think we disagree. But since you do, I now understand why you would argue with a 2x4.

I have no interest in riding the Larry-go-round.

[Larry]

I've won? It all makes sense now. I didn't know anyone won or lost on extreme skins. I didn't think I "won" as I don't view this as any kind of competition. I just think we disagree. But since you do, I now understand why you would argue with a 2x4.

I have no interest in riding the Larry-go-round.

And yet you do have an interest in ignoring the fact that your claim is false, and instead pretending that there's something wrong with the person pointing out this fact.

I'll point it out again: the Catholic Church (well, a part of it) has changed their position on the humanity of a fetus, (something which they have claimed for decades is a fundamental element of their morality and their holiness), when it is to their financial advantage to do so.

No one on the pro-choice side has changed their position in any way. (Well, no one I've seen. There's a lot of people out there, and a lot of them are really stupid. No making absolute claims of non-existence is always risky.).

No one on the pro-life side is pointing at this, and suddenly claiming that a fetus IS a person. Reversing their opinion when it is to their political or financial advantage to do so.

Your attempt to try to claim some kind of equivalence appears to be a simple case of trying to defend dishonesty, by attacking the people who are pointing out the dishonesty.

Which, I suppose, explains your reaction, when someone points out that the claim your making isn't true. Attack the person who points it out.

[Kosher Ham]

I suppose morals and standards are graded on a curve for this hospital.

I actually agree with the hypocrisy take on this particular issue.

My brother and sisters where all born at at a Catholic hospital (We aren't Catholic, was just one of the best hospitals). One of the things that always freaked my Dad out about it was the rule was if choosing between the wife or the child, the child was priority. Fortunately we never faced that. But I recall him talking about it several times.

[Major Harris]

And yet you do have an interest in ignoring the fact that your claim is false, and instead pretending that there's something wrong with the person pointing out this fact.

I'll point it out again: the Catholic Church (well, a part of it) has changed their position on the humanity of a fetus, (something which they have claimed for decades is a fundamental element of their morality and their holiness), when it is to their financial advantage to do so.

No one on the pro-choice side has changed their position in any way. (Well, no one I've seen. There's a lot of people out there, and a lot of them are really stupid. No making absolute claims of non-existence is always risky.).

No one on the pro-life side is pointing at this, and suddenly claiming that a fetus IS a person. Reversing their opinion when it is to their political or financial advantage to do so.

Your attempt to try to claim some kind of equivalence appears to be a simple case of trying to defend dishonesty, by attacking the people who are pointing out the dishonesty.

Which, I suppose, explains your reaction, when someone points out that the claim your making isn't true. Attack the person who points it out.

I never claimed anyone changed their stance. Maybe hypocricy was a poor word choice. I guess you win.

[AsburySkinsFan]

the plain reading of a law is not a argument...tis simply fact

If you want to bash them for not simply paying the relatives off feel free, but expecting them to argue against legal reality is asking a bit much

If you disagree with the law, and are trying to change that very law then yes, it IS hypocritical to employ that very law for you own advantage.

It isn't asking a bit much, it is asking for integrity. The Catholic Church has screamed and fought for years that a fetus is a child, and now this hospital pays a lawyer to win a case by arguing the exact opposite.

Integrity is what causes you to do something even if it costs you.

There is NO law that says you need to argue a case using laws you believe are morally wrong to your advantage.

THAT is the hypocrisy.

But you'll never see that.