• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

madman

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 28, 2011
Messages
10,538
Reaction score
7,943
Location
So. California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
rut rohhh!
This cant be good for the business of religion.
I mean, you use the defense of "those fetuses are not persons with legal rights"?


Maybe a "pro-lifer" would like to make an excuse for this.

This should be good.




In malpractice case, Catholic hospital argues fetuses aren’t people | The Colorado Independent

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 died at the hospital less than an hour after she arrived and her twins died in her womb.

[...]

[W]hen 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.

As Jason Langley, an attorney with Denver-based Kennedy Childs, argued in one of the briefs he filed for the defense, 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.”

The Catholic Health attorneys have so far won decisions from Fremont County District Court Judge David M. Thorson and now-retired Colorado Court of Appeals Judge Arthur Roy.

 
Last edited:
A malpractice case deals with the laws on the books. Under the laws fetuses are not given human rights or considered persons.

I'm not Catholic, but regardless they are arguing a court case along the lines of what is currently on the books.
 
A malpractice case deals with the laws on the books. Under the laws fetuses are not given human rights or considered persons.

I'm not Catholic, but regardless they are arguing a court case along the lines of what is currently on the books.

So, the church uses a law that goes against their teaching for defense? Doesn't sound like principle to me.
This is more picking and choosing even though it goes against their principles.

And i wonder why the church is is suing the fed over Obamacare. :confused:
 
So, the church uses a law that goes against their teaching for defense? Doesn't sound like principle to me.
This is more picking and choosing even though it goes against their principles.

And i wonder why the church is is suing the fed over Obamacare. :confused:

It's not principled, but very little is when you get to court.
 
So, the church uses a law that goes against their teaching for defense? Doesn't sound like principle to me.
This is more picking and choosing even though it goes against their principles.

And i wonder why the church is is suing the fed over Obamacare. :confused:

Don't apply the actions of one hospital or one doctor to the entire church, they are trying to cover their own butt in court. Is it not based on principle? I can agree with that. However, if they were to argue that they should be punished because fetuses are people that would also be incorrect because the law doesn't reflect that. Ultimately the ruling will be based by whats on the books today, not based on what the Catholic church may want on the books tomorrow.
 
Don't apply the actions of one hospital or one doctor to the entire church, they are trying to cover their own butt in court. Is it not based on principle? I can agree with that. However, if they were to argue that they should be punished because fetuses are people that would also be incorrect because the law doesn't reflect that. Ultimately the ruling will be based by whats on the books today, not based on what the Catholic church may want on the books tomorrow.

"Dont apply the actions..." Are you serious? Are they not supposed to be following what the Vatican says?

Use the law when it benefits you
use the book when it benefits you
(choose the one that suits you best) :lol:
 
"Dont apply the actions..." Are you serious? Are they not supposed to be following what the Vatican says?

Use the law when it benefits you
use the book when it benefits you
(choose the one that suits you best) :lol:

You misunderstand what I'm saying. Don't apply the actions of one hospital or Catholic doctor upon the entire Catholic church and say that the church is going back on their doctrine.

Nice nitpicking one point to make an out of context statement while ignoring the rest though.
 
You misunderstand what I'm saying. Don't apply the actions of one hospital or Catholic doctor upon the entire Catholic church and say that the church is going back on their doctrine.
ahhh, got ya! so do you disagree with the hospital's defense, right?
 
Forget the whole hypocrisy aspect of this case. It can also be argued that the hospital and the obstetrician were guilty of malpractice in this specific instance for two reasons.

Stodghill’s obstetrician, Dr. Pelham Staples, who also happened to be the obstetrician on call for emergencies that night, never answered a page.

and

the hospital didn't have a back-up plan or surgeon on duty that night.
 
ahhh, got ya! so do you disagree with the hospital's defense, right?

On a legal footing I don't disagree with their defense. What they are arguing is correct as far as the law is concerned.

According to my beliefs on human rights I think the law is wrong and fetuses should be protected to some degree, I would support prosecuting on malpractice cases when fetal life has been harmed. If my beliefs on human rights were law then this hospital and doctor would be held liable for malpractice.
 
On a legal footing I don't disagree with their defense. What they are arguing is correct as far as the law is concerned.

According to my beliefs on human rights I think the law is wrong and fetuses should be protected to some degree, I would support prosecuting on malpractice cases when fetal life has been harmed. If my beliefs on human rights were law then this hospital and doctor would be held liable for malpractice.

So basically,you want a US law based on your religious beliefs even though not everyone believes in your religion? right
 
You misunderstand what I'm saying. Don't apply the actions of one hospital or Catholic doctor upon the entire Catholic church and say that the church is going back on their doctrine.

Nice nitpicking one point to make an out of context statement while ignoring the rest though.

ahhh, got ya! so do you disagree with the hospital's defense, right?


Gentlemen, this is not "one hospital" arguing the defence in this case, it is a large corporation that owns a lot of "health facilities"
from the OP link
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 real kicker in the case, which has seen two courts rule in favour of the corporation, is shown in the plea to the Colorado State Supreme Court
In September, the Stodghills’ Aspen-based attorney Beth Krulewitch working with Denver-based attorney Dan Gerash appealed the case to the state Supreme Court. In their petition they argued that Judges Thorson and Roy overlooked key facts and set bad legal precedent that would open loopholes in Colorado’s malpractice law, relieving doctors of responsibility to patients whose viable fetuses are at risk.
 
So basically,you want a US law based on your religious beliefs even though not everyone believes in your religion? right

Did I ever mention religion? Regardless, all I've mentioned is my position on human rights and the fact that I think because fetuses are humans they should have certain rights (with a right to life being among them).

Not everyone lives their lives in a purely atheistic/secular manner either, why have US law based on secular/atheistic beliefs even though not everyone believes in accordance with that? (especially when doing such may violate human rights)
 
So basically,you want a US law based on your religious beliefs even though not everyone believes in your religion? right

I don't see where he mentioned a religious reason for believing that a "fetus should be protected to some degree". Grasping at straws there...
 
I don't see where he mentioned a religious reason for believing that a "fetus should be protected to some degree". Grasping at straws there...

There are no non-religious reasons for believing that a fetus should be protected by the law.
 
There are no non-religious reasons for believing that a fetus should be protected by the law.
Sure there are.

Do you have any kids? I do. While my wife was pregnant I had all sorts of reasons for wanting my unborn child protected that had nothing at all to do with religion. You would have to be some kind of moron to argue otherwise.
 
Sure there are.

Do you have any kids? I do. While my wife was pregnant I had all sorts of reasons for wanting my unborn child protected that had nothing at all to do with religion. You would have to be some kind of moron to argue otherwise.

And yet, you can't name one non-religious reason why a fetus should be protected by law
 
And yet, you can't name one non-religious reason why a fetus should be protected by law
Because the unborn child in my wife's womb is ours and the loss we would feel should anything happen would be tremendous.
 
Because the unborn child in my wife's womb is ours and the loss we would feel should anything happen would be tremendous.

The laws is not meant to, nor has the power to, assuage your feelings of loss. That's why miscarriages are not illegal
 
The laws is not meant to, nor has the power to, assuage your feelings of loss. That's why miscarriages are not illegal

Then you must not support the existing double-murder laws, both at the individual state and federal level, for murders of pregnant women. Correct?
 
The laws is not meant to, nor has the power to, assuage your feelings of loss. That's why miscarriages are not illegal
Now your saying that a miscarriage is the equivalent to the loss of an unborn child due to negligence or, worse yet, something nefarious.

Wow.
 
Which is you still have not stated a non-religious reason why the law should protect a fetus

Same non-religious reason why there are laws against murder, theft, and negligence.
 
Back
Top Bottom