• 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!

Catholic hospital 'risked woman's life by forcing her to deliver 18-week fetus[W:465]

CanadaJohn said:
The hospital, as I understand it, delivered the child who then passed away a short time later. How do you think that happened?

I realize that many here would prefer the tweeze and suction method of ridding the womb of the "parasite" as some call it, but some hospitals, some doctors, believe in making every attempt to save a life, no matter how fragile or unlikely to survive.
Click to expand...

Probably the same way most babies come out: the uterus contracted. The hospital did not induce the delivery at 18 weeks. It is CLEARLY stated in their directives that to do so constitutes an abortion. No abortions are allowed, ever.
 
Jack Hays said:
First Amendment to the US Constitution:


"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.":peace
Click to expand...

your point is what exactly?
 
CanadaJohn said:
There may be a valid point when it comes to the provision of medical care - that's the American passtime, after all - spin the lawsuit lottery wheel - but that's for a court to decide. But when you couch your complaint about medical care with suggestions like "against the Catholic directive", then you cheapen and lose the argument.
Click to expand...

It is not a suggestion; It is a fact. The hospital did not induce labor because they consider it abortion to induce labor when they know the fetus won't survive. Their belief that it is an abortion is a direct result of their religious belief.
 
CanadaJohn said:
No, this has all the odor of a trumped up showcase to push the pro-abortion agenda of forcing all facilities, irrespective of their constitutional rights, to provide abortion on demand.
Click to expand...

The suit does not ask that the hospital be forced to perform abortions.
 
minnie616 said:
They have a birthing center at that hospital so I think they have maternity services.
Click to expand...

Still, if there was no objective sign of labor then sending her home was appropriate. (No contractions, no obvious leakage of amniotic fluid, mucus plug intact.) It should be noted that when there WERE obvious signs of labor they kept her and delivered the baby. And we don't know this person's history of visiting the ER. If she had shown up many times in the past for non emergent issues or with nothing wrong, then being a historical malingerer wouldn't have helped her any. A person complaining subjectively of amniotic fluid leakage when there was none present for the doctor to see would likely have been asked to stay a few hours unless she had a history of coming to the ER for non emergent issues or malingering. All those little stories, like Peter and the Wolf, they read to my generation DID have a point. Sad that they are no longer politically correct. And you know the old joke about what they put on the hypochondriac's tombstone: I told you I was sick!

All we know is one side of this and that is the allegations. And we all know that just because someone gets accused of something it doesn't make them guilty.
 
RogueWarrior said:
I don't know why people are all flustered about the possible imposition of sharia law when there is a christian version just as bad and already in place.[/FONT][/SIZE][/B]
Click to expand...
Oh please....
 
CanadaJohn said:
The hospital, as I understand it, delivered the child who then passed away a short time later. How do you think that happened?

I realize that many here would prefer the tweeze and suction method of ridding the womb of the "parasite" as some call it, but some hospitals, some doctors, believe in making every attempt to save a life, no matter how fragile or unlikely to survive.
Click to expand...

The standard treatment for a woman whose water breaks before viability and who has insufficient amniotic fluid to sustain the fetus is to induced labor and deliver ...not "tweeze and suction" ( your words not mine).

According to the legal complaint they delivered the baby because when they were signing the discharge papers to send her home a third time the feet of baby breached her cervix. The baby was being expelled , and it was only then they attended to the delivery of preemie who died two and half hours later.
 
Last edited:
CanadaJohn said:
Do you know for a fact this didn't happen? Do you know what private and confidential doctor/patient conversations took place at the hospital on each of the occasions on which she visited? As I understand it, her lawsuit, filed by the ACLU, doesn't name the specific doctors involved - why's that? Could it be they have bigger agenda issues to pursue and this woman happens to be a convenient pawn?

As for informing her of "the risks involved in her problematic pregnancy", are you claiming this hospital was her primary prenatal care provider? Where's her own doctor in all of this if her "problematic pregnancy" was so evident for all the world to see? Is he/she being sued for not fully informing her of the risks involved?

No, this has all the odor of a trumped up showcase to push the pro-abortion agenda of forcing all facilities, irrespective of their constitutional rights, to provide abortion on demand.
Click to expand...

Did you read where I emphatically said "IF" (yes if)?

None of us know what really happened. That drama is ultimately to unfold. That is why I said "if" (yes if).

But if they did not disclose the dangers of a dangerous condition because they do not provide abortions... they should rightfully be in a lot of hot water.

I said this on another thread....if you go to a doctor that gives you only information that is pertinent to his interpretation of his religion, I would run for the hills. People interpret their religion and faith in God in many different ways. 5 different Catholics may interpret their faith 5 different ways.

I have also said this before. I am ok with them not providing an abortion. I am not ok with them failing to disclose the dangers to her body with the troubled pregnancy.

I have no clue why the doctors were not name as primary defendants. Perhaps they were direct employees? Do not know. Perhaps there are rules and regulations from the hospital that they were abiding by? Don't know. Perhaps looking for deep pockets? Don't know. Perhaps they are directly mentioned and we do not know it.

I was clearly responding to hypotheticals - as we all are - because very little is known.
 
mak2 said:
Her water broke, she should know...OB aint my thing but I would know to get a second opinion.
Click to expand...

Yes of course, it's the patients job to figure out what the **** is going on, not the doctor's....

I hope she sues the ever loving piss out of them.
 
Maenad said:
Still, if there was no objective sign of labor then sending her home was appropriate. (No contractions, no obvious leakage of amniotic fluid, mucus plug intact.) ... And we don't know this person's history of visiting the ER. ... A person complaining subjectively of amniotic fluid leakage when there was none present for the doctor to see.... .
Click to expand...

According to the legal complaint she was having contractions and told to return when the contractions were 3 minutes apart.
According to the legal complaint her membranes had ruptured ( water broke ) and the amount of fluid left meant that the fetus would not survive or would die soon after being delivered.
 
Maenad said:
Still, if there was no objective sign of labor then sending her home was appropriate. (No contractions, no obvious leakage of amniotic fluid, mucus plug intact.) It should be noted that when there WERE obvious signs of labor they kept her and delivered the baby. And we don't know this person's history of visiting the ER. If she had shown up many times in the past for non emergent issues or with nothing wrong, then being a historical malingerer wouldn't have helped her any. A person complaining subjectively of amniotic fluid leakage when there was none present for the doctor to see
Click to expand...

The doctors saw. From the complaint

16. At the hospital, Plaintiff was given an ultrasound and the pregnancy was dated at 18
weeks. The ultrasound also revealed that the fetus had a heartbeat.
17. Plaintiff’s ultrasound report indicates Plaintiff had an amniotic fluid index of only
3.4 and a condition called oligohydramnios, which refers to a decreased volume of amniotic fluid
due to the premature rupture of membranes.
18. MHP also diagnosed Plaintiff with preterm premature rupture of membrane, a
condition in which a woman’s amniotic sac ruptures with a gestation less than 37 weeks.
19. MHP informed Plaintiff that the fetus was not yet viable.
20. MHP did not inform Plaintiff that in most cases, an amniotic fluid index of 3.4 at 18
weeks of pregnancy, in the context of premature rupture of membranes, means that the fetus will
either not be born alive or will be born alive and die very shortly thereafter.
Click to expand...
 
sangha said:
The doctors saw. From the complaint
Click to expand...

Remember this is from the plaintiff's accusation. Keep in mind, there are two sides to every lawsuit. And it still has to be shown what the bishops had to do with any of it because that is who she is suing. She is NOT suing the doctor or the hospital. It is not a question of medical negligence. Nor is it about what they did or did not tell her. It is about policy.
 
Maenad said:
Remember this is from the plaintiff's accusation. Keep in mind, there are two sides to every lawsuit. And it still has to be shown what the bishops had to do with any of it because that is who she is suing. She is NOT suing the doctor or the hospital.
Click to expand...

Yes, I'm sure the lawyers just made up #'s and claimed that they appear on a report the hospital has in its' files because lawyers are never penalized for making stuff up out of thin air :roll:
 
sangha said:
Yes, I'm sure the lawyers just made up #'s and claimed that they appear on a report the hospital has in its' files because lawyers are never penalized for making stuff up out of thin air :roll:
Click to expand...

You are missing my point. This is not an issue of medical negligence. They are not suing the doctor or the hospital. They are suing the bishops.
 
Maenad said:
You are missing my point. This is not an issue of medical negligence. They are not suing the doctor or the hospital. They are suing the bishops.
Click to expand...

Your point was that the doctors did not know the condition of the woman's fetus.

Your point was a lie and exposed as such, so now you're pretending that your point is something else
 
sangha said:
Serving pork is a medical procedure that hospitals perform?

Who knew? :shrug:
Click to expand...

It is a policy decision. And this case is about policy. You are too quick to jump on it when you don't really understand it. This case is not about medical negligence, it is about policy. She is accusing the hospital of acting in accordance with a policy. The same as a Jewish or muslim deli is acting in accordance with a policy when they refuse to serve pork. I realize that it is difficult for someone without a legal background to understand.
 
sangha said:
Yes, I'm sure the lawyers just made up #'s and claimed that they appear on a report the hospital has in its' files because lawyers are never penalized for making stuff up out of thin air :roll:
Click to expand...

I don't think she's saying that.
 
sangha said:
Your point was that the doctors did not know the condition of the woman's fetus.

Your point was a lie and exposed as such, so now you're pretending that your point is something else
Click to expand...

My point:

Maenad said:
It is a policy decision. And this case is about policy. You are too quick to jump on it when you don't really understand it. This case is not about medical negligence, it is about policy. She is accusing the hospital of acting in accordance with a policy. The same as a Jewish or muslim deli is acting in accordance with a policy when they refuse to serve pork. I realize that it is difficult for someone without a legal background to understand.
Click to expand...
 
Maenad said:
It is a policy decision. And this case is about policy. You are too quick to jump on it when you don't really understand it. This case is not about medical negligence, it is about policy. She is accusing the hospital of acting in accordance with a policy. The same as a Jewish or muslim deli is acting in accordance with a policy when they refuse to serve pork. I realize that it is difficult for someone without a legal background to understand.
Click to expand...

Actually, the case is about medical negligence. Once again, your claims have been proven to be BS.

From the suit:
c. declare that Defendants’ negligent acts were willful, wanton, grossly negligent
and/or reckless;
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom