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

Major Harris

Major Harris

Posted
Posted
People always get uncomfortable when Larry points out gaping holes in their reasoning, because he has the bad taste to stick to his guns and not let that poster just keep repeating their point as though no one had said anything.

Horrible message board etiquette. :)

I am not uncomfortable. I used a poor choice of words, and, unlike most of you hooligans, admitted it. I have never ever seen Larry stop arguing, and the dude is not always right. He often twists words and makes up an argument that isn't even coming from the other side.....he seriously could argue with plywood. :ols:

For the record, I admit that pointing out hypocrisy does not equate hypocrisy....just a weird argument all around. There is no debating that the hospital is drowning in it.....unless you are twa. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Predicto

Predicto

Posted
Posted
I am not uncomfortable. I used a poor choice of words, and, unlike most of you hooligans, admitted it. I have never ever seen Larry stop arguing, and the dude is not always right. He often twists words and makes up an argument that isn't even coming from the other side.....he seriously could argue with plywood. :ols:

Oh, I know Larry's a bulldog. I've been on the other end of it plenty of times.

Nevertheless, he usually is making a valid point that can help one focus their thinking, even if in the end you don't change your overall view on the issue. I've found that the people who get the most frustrated with him are the ones who absolutely refuse to question their own assumptions and just want to spout their opinions and not be challenged to defend them. Sometimes that guy is me. :)

---------- Post added January-25th-2013 at 04:53 PM ----------

For the record, I admit that pointing out hypocrisy does not equate hypocrisy....just a weird argument all around. There is no debating that the hospital is drowning in it.....unless you are twa. ;)

I find myself in the unusual position of agreeing with twa (and disagreeing with Larry). I just don't feel the hypocricy in this situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Major Harris

Major Harris

Posted
Posted
Oh, I know Larry's a bulldog. I've been on the other end of it plenty of times.

Nevertheless, he usually is making a valid point that can help one focus their thinking, even if in the end you don't change your overall view on the issue. I've found that the people who get the most frustrated with him are the ones who absolutely refuse to question their own assumptions and just want to spout their opinions and not be challenged to defend them. Sometimes that guy is me. :)

---------- Post added January-25th-2013 at 04:53 PM ----------

I find myself in the unusual position of agreeing with twa (and disagreeing with Larry). I just don't feel the hypocricy in this situation.

I think it is.....and I also think that it's ok for the pro choice crowd to point that out, but they also should agree with their stance.

And I was kidding about twa

Link to comment
Share on other sites
twa

twa

Posted
Posted

I find myself in the unusual position of agreeing with twa (and disagreeing with Larry). I just don't feel the hypocricy in this situation.

I can fix that ;)

add

I would consider them hypocrites if they were trying to escape liability by asserting fetuses to be non-persons, instead the law itself is the one asserting it.

hypocritical to me is those trying to impose legal personhood of a dead fetus on the hospital while wishing to deny it to the living......at least the Papists recognise a fetus as something more than a pawn

the notion death magically imbues personhood is as nuts as the taking of a breath or a change of location imbuing it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
PeterMP

PeterMP

Posted
Posted
We could be dealing with a situation where there are really three separate parties: (1) The doctor with his reputation on the line; (2) the insurance company with their money on the line; and (3) the Catholic church with its doctrine on the line. If the doctor and insurance company are not in agreement, I don't think the Catholic church would be able to force them to give up their defenses on the basis of Catholic doctrine. Maybe the hospital could forfeit its insurance coverage, but I don't think there is a good way to sever the doctor from the malpractice suit.

This would seem to me to be reasonable defense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry

Larry

Posted
Posted
I can fix that ;)

add

I would consider them hypocrites if they were trying to escape liability by asserting fetuses to be non-persons, instead the law itself is the one asserting it.

hypocritical to me is those trying to impose legal personhood of a dead fetus on the hospital while wishing to deny it to the living......at least the Papists recognise a fetus as something more than a pawn

the notion death magically imbues personhood is as nuts as the taking of a breath or a change of location imbuing it.

Of course, I don't see a single person "trying to impose legal personhood of a dead fetus". "While trying to deny it to he living", or otherwise.

But you're right. The fictional argument that you've created (to try to divert attention away from the attempt to deny personhood to living fetuses, while trying to impose it, elsewhere) is . . . slightly more bizarre than your usual fictional arguments.

:)

---------- Post added January-25th-2013 at 07:34 PM ----------

The bigger ethical dilemma I see here is the issue of insurance and the competing interests of different defendants.

Doctors and hospitals almost always have malpractice insurance, and that is likely the case here. And as part of a malpractice insurance policy, the lawyers are hired by the insurance company, not by the hospital. So the lawyer's duty is to insurance company, and to try to save the insurance company as much money as possible.

Maybe this hospital was self-insured, or they bought malpractice insurance from a Catholic-run insurance company, but if not, there could be a big conflict of interest between the insurance company and the hospital, which would probably require them to hire separate lawyers.

And there is also the issue of the doctor himself. He is a named defendant in the case, and it is his reputation on the line. But is he a practicing Catholic? Can the Catholic church tell him that he can't pursue all of his available defenses?

We could be dealing with a situation where there are really three separate parties: (1) The doctor with his reputation on the line; (2) the insurance company with their money on the line; and (3) the Catholic church with its doctrine on the line. If the doctor and insurance company are not in agreement, I don't think the Catholic church would be able to force them to give up their defenses on the basis of Catholic doctrine. Maybe the hospital could forfeit its insurance coverage, but I don't think there is a good way to sever the doctor from the malpractice suit.

An interesting argument, but I'd like to channel Satan's Attorney, here, and create a hypothetical counter-argument, simply as a thought exercise.

I will point out that I strongly suspect that when church doctrine conflicts with the doctors medical opinion, that the hospital has no moral problem at all deciding that their position is the one that rules.

Similarly, I somehow suspect that, say, if their insurance company decides that covering contraceptives is a lot cheaper than covering maternity costs, that the church has no trouble at all choosing between their doctrine and their insurance company's money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
twa

twa

Posted
Posted
Of course, I don't see a single person "trying to impose legal personhood of a dead fetus". "While trying to deny it to he living", or otherwise.

.

You don't?

Have you read the law relevant to this suit? .....it deals only with the dead

To argue they should be granted legal personhood only if they die, is if not hypocritical ,then abhorrent

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry

Larry

Posted
Posted
You don't?

Have you read the law relevant to this suit? .....it deals only with the dead

Murder deals only with the dead.

Does that mean that every time you've referred to abortion as murder, you've been trying to claim that fetuses become people at the instant of death?

To argue they should be granted legal personhood only if they die, is if not hypocritical ,then abhorrent

I agree. Making that argument is immoral and dishonest.

And YOU are the ONLY person making it.

But keep pushing it. Wouldn't want people to pay attention to the ACTUAL arguments being made.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
twa

twa

Posted
Posted
Wouldn't want people to pay attention to the ACTUAL arguments being made.

You mean the argument that the church/hospitals opinion on personhood should become legally binding only after death?

they clearly grant personhood before.....should that make it binding on the court,and thus open the avenue of a suit in the persons name ?

Interesting concept

---------- Post added January-25th-2013 at 08:14 PM ----------

Is anyone doing that? Then why say it?

anyone claiming the Hospital is using non-personhood as a defense is doing so ....the LAW denies them personhood,not a defense motion or legal brief

you must separate the issue of personhood and negligence, since the law denies the first the second is impossible under the law

and the hospital obviously does not feel it was malpractice (a matter that is certainly debatable, just not in a court of law obviously)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry

Larry

Posted
Posted
You mean the argument that the church/hospitals opinion on personhood should become legally binding only after death?

Ah, making up a different argument, to run away from the first one you made up?

No, I was referring to your fictional claim that people were trying to grant personhood to a fetus at the instant of its death.

But if you'd like to abandon that dishonesty by coming out with a different argument that no one is trying to make, I'll be happy to point out that your fallback dishonesty is just as dishonest as your previous one.

they clearly grant personhood before.....should that make it binding on the court,and thus open the avenue of a suit in the persons name ?

Interesting concept)

I assume that this argument is as dishonest as the others, but I confess that I can't even figure out what spin you're trying to dish out, here.

You've gone to plaid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
AsburySkinsFan

AsburySkinsFan

Posted
Posted
Don't know if anyone read about this, but the hospital is now backtracking and saying it was "morally wrong" for them to use Colorado's law (the fetus is not a person) in their defense against a wrongful death lawsuit...

http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/04/us/colorado-fetus-lawsuit/index.html?hpt=hp_t3

Thank you! I know Predicto and others were arguing for the law on the books, but in the church we follow a higher authority, I'm glad they recognized this. I just wonder if they're going to revisit the case. (I can't read the article at the lnk)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Special K

Special K

Posted
Posted
Thank you! I know Predicto and others were arguing for the law on the books, but in the church we follow a higher authority, I'm glad they recognized this. I just wonder if they're going to revisit the case. (I can't read the article at the lnk)

The link isn't working?

I didn't read the whole article, but I did read the church stating that it would never allow a defense like that (one that may be legally correct, but wholly against the church's morals) to be used in future hearings.

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...