Page 45 of 57 FirstFirst ... 35434445464755 ... LastLast
Results 441 to 450 of 568

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

  1. #441
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Between Athens and Jerusalem
    Last Seen
    05-18-16 @ 07:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    33,522

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ethanUNC View Post
    You are a doctor?
    No, a PA.

  2. #442
    Sayonara!
    Maenad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    By the water.
    Last Seen
    07-09-14 @ 10:18 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    3,259

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

    Quote Originally Posted by sangha View Post
    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
    Quote Originally Posted by Maenad View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Hays View Post
    It doesn't, but I'm betting that the 2,000-year-old Catholic Church will be more credible before the SCOTUS than aorta worship.
    I think an MD from a Catholic hospital would be credible, particularly if he was a non Catholic MD, which most are. You are not required to be a Catholic to work at a Catholic hospital. However, those hospitals do promote their 'sacred mission of healing.' I'm interested in how this one plays out simply because the suit is against the bishops and not against the doctor or the hospital.

    I, personally, believe it will come down to these things:

    1) Was the mother's life in danger?
    2) Was a therapeutic abortion needed to save the life of the mother?
    3) If a therapeutic abortion was needed to save the life of the mother, why was one not done?
    4) If it is hospital policy not to do a therapeutic abortion to save the live of the mother, why was she not transferred to a facility that would do a therapeutic abortion to save the life of the mother.

    IMO, the ACLU has an overall shaky case here. Obviously, the mother didn't die without a therapeutic abortion. And beyond that the child was delivered safely before the mother left the hospital. So, IMO, in reality a therapeutic abortion would not have changed anything. The mother is alive and well, and the baby died as it would had the pregnancy been terminated. I'm just not seeing this as a winning scenario. I do know that once a case gets to SCOTUS level, what happens with it is a craps shoot. The reason for the appeal may not even be addressed. Some other point of law may prevail in the SCOTUS' decision.

    I don't think a religious based business can be forced by the courts to act outside the parameters of that religion. But I think a religious based business CAN be forced to send the person to a business that is willing to perform the service if it is a critical life saving service. (And this has nothing to do with gay wedding cakes. That bakery was not a religious based business, it was just a bakery, so the outcome may be different. That, of course, will confuse a lot of people.)
    Redneck, hillbilly, fundie, Bible thumper, cracker, split tails, geezer, loon, xenophobe, islamaphobe, and homophobe are not words of tolerance.

  3. #443
    Sayonara!
    Maenad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    By the water.
    Last Seen
    07-09-14 @ 10:18 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    3,259

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

    Quote Originally Posted by sangha View Post
    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
    Quote Originally Posted by Maenad View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Samhain View Post
    In that case, did they sue the guy who wrote the guidelines to heat coffee to 180F, or did they sue the corporation?

    Futhermore, please point to the Directive that drove the results of this case. http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-acti...ition-2009.pdf
    McDonalds bore the liability. FYI: That store had been cited 3 times by the health department for the coffee being too hot. But they did nothing to change it. That was why McDonalds lost. After the case was over, the plaintiff settled with McDonalds for an undisclosed amount. I think she mainly went in just wanting her medical bills paid. But judges make remittitur a habit, so pretty much everyone starts out asking for the moon and 6 or 7 stars.
    Redneck, hillbilly, fundie, Bible thumper, cracker, split tails, geezer, loon, xenophobe, islamaphobe, and homophobe are not words of tolerance.

  4. #444
    Sayonara!
    Maenad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    By the water.
    Last Seen
    07-09-14 @ 10:18 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    3,259

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

    Quote Originally Posted by sangha View Post
    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
    Quote Originally Posted by Maenad View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Samhain View Post
    If it gets that far, yes. But if they had a doctor's statement that (s)he didn't do X because of Directive Y, then they would need to put that in the suit to establish the role of the defendant. They are missing that piece, which is why its weak.
    There are other reasons which I have listed.
    Redneck, hillbilly, fundie, Bible thumper, cracker, split tails, geezer, loon, xenophobe, islamaphobe, and homophobe are not words of tolerance.

  5. #445
    Sage
    j-mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    30,323

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Maenad View Post
    I think an MD from a Catholic hospital would be credible, particularly if he was a non Catholic MD, which most are. You are not required to be a Catholic to work at a Catholic hospital. However, those hospitals do promote their 'sacred mission of healing.' I'm interested in how this one plays out simply because the suit is against the bishops and not against the doctor or the hospital.

    I, personally, believe it will come down to these things:

    1) Was the mother's life in danger?
    2) Was a therapeutic abortion needed to save the life of the mother?
    3) If a therapeutic abortion was needed to save the life of the mother, why was one not done?
    4) If it is hospital policy not to do a therapeutic abortion to save the live of the mother, why was she not transferred to a facility that would do a therapeutic abortion to save the life of the mother.

    IMO, the ACLU has an overall shaky case here. Obviously, the mother didn't die without a therapeutic abortion. And beyond that the child was delivered safely before the mother left the hospital. So, IMO, in reality a therapeutic abortion would not have changed anything. The mother is alive and well, and the baby died as it would had the pregnancy been terminated. I'm just not seeing this as a winning scenario. I do know that once a case gets to SCOTUS level, what happens with it is a craps shoot. The reason for the appeal may not even be addressed. Some other point of law may prevail in the SCOTUS' decision.

    I don't think a religious based business can be forced by the courts to act outside the parameters of that religion. But I think a religious based business CAN be forced to send the person to a business that is willing to perform the service if it is a critical life saving service. (And this has nothing to do with gay wedding cakes. That bakery was not a religious based business, it was just a bakery, so the outcome may be different. That, of course, will confuse a lot of people.)

    Not, at all. I think you are crystal clear here, and right on.
    Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.

    Alexis de Tocqueville

  6. #446
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:43 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,827

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Maenad View Post
    I think an MD from a Catholic hospital would be credible, particularly if he was a non Catholic MD, which most are. You are not required to be a Catholic to work at a Catholic hospital. However, those hospitals do promote their 'sacred mission of healing.' I'm interested in how this one plays out simply because the suit is against the bishops and not against the doctor or the hospital.

    I, personally, believe it will come down to these things:

    1) Was the mother's life in danger?
    2) Was a therapeutic abortion needed to save the life of the mother?
    3) If a therapeutic abortion was needed to save the life of the mother, why was one not done?
    4) If it is hospital policy not to do a therapeutic abortion to save the live of the mother, why was she not transferred to a facility that would do a therapeutic abortion to save the life of the mother.

    IMO, the ACLU has an overall shaky case here. Obviously, the mother didn't die without a therapeutic abortion. And beyond that the child was delivered safely before the mother left the hospital. So, IMO, in reality a therapeutic abortion would not have changed anything. The mother is alive and well, and the baby died as it would had the pregnancy been terminated. I'm just not seeing this as a winning scenario. I do know that once a case gets to SCOTUS level, what happens with it is a craps shoot. The reason for the appeal may not even be addressed. Some other point of law may prevail in the SCOTUS' decision.

    I don't think a religious based business can be forced by the courts to act outside the parameters of that religion. But I think a religious based business CAN be forced to send the person to a business that is willing to perform the service if it is a critical life saving service. (And this has nothing to do with gay wedding cakes. That bakery was not a religious based business, it was just a bakery, so the outcome may be different. That, of course, will confuse a lot of people.)

    well i agree with about 90% of your post. But the bolded part is false "in general" as history proves and this is how it should be.
    a hospital is not in the religious realm no matter who owns it, first and foremost it is a hospital, it is a healthcare faclity and it has a LICENSE and that licence has rules, regulations and laws that govern it just like everybody else. A hospital owned by religious people or org doesnt get special treatment, they have to play by the same rules and laws as everybody.

    Examples of that have been foster care homes and other things of that nature that had to comply with these rules, laws and standards

    laws, individual rights and medical/science regulation/safety standards rank first, it cant be any other way


    They cant refuse people of other religions treatment in the ER simply based on religion
    They cant deny me my legal spouse privileges because i wasn't married by their religious rules, you cant purposeless risk ones life against medical standards when you are a health facility.
    They cant deny homosexual treatment simply based on sexuality
    THey cant deny me the right to have a rabbi visit me
    etc etc etc

    they can choose to not do any elective procedures they want and Im fine with that but once one the procedure is no longer elective and it is needed to save my life or to elevate a large risk to my life based on medical/science facts, regulations and safety standards they have no right at all to deny that.


    SO while i basically agree with you i just wanted to point some extras out, her living doesnt matter and is no argument at all. A healthcare facility must follow the the rules and regulations that protect and save the womans life.

    and it doesnt not just have to be SAVE her life it is also to subdue major risk to her life.

    so my list is a little different but ill start with yours and change it

    I, personally, believe it will come down to these things:

    1) Was the mother's life in danger? and was her health is great risk
    2) Was a therapeutic abortion needed to save the life of the mother? or to subdue great risk to her health
    3) If a therapeutic abortion was needed to save the life of the mother or to subdue great risk to her health , why was one not done? and does this goes against medical science protocols for patient safety.
    4) If it is hospital policy not to do a therapeutic abortion to save the live of the mother, why was she not transferred to a facility that would do a therapeutic abortion to save the life of the mother. I colored this part red because in my opinion it doesnt matter if they have policies that supersede saving/protecting the patients live this policies need removed ASAP and or they need shut down and legal action further taken.

    There is ZERO excuse for any policy (based on religion) to not do a procedure that saves patient lives or subdues great risk to patient lives that would be insane.

    But not to get ahead of myself this hospital could not have violated any procedures at all, it certainly doesnt seem that way but we could find out thats how it is.
    Last edited by AGENT J; 12-10-13 at 06:00 PM.
    This space is currently owned by The Great Winchester, stay tuned for future messages!
    Make America Great Again!
    Pro-Equal Rights / Pro-Gun Rights / Pro-Human Rights / Pro-Choice

  7. #447
    Guru
    Samhain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Northern Ohio
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 12:34 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    3,888

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

    Quote Originally Posted by AGENT J View Post
    I, personally, believe it will come down to these things:

    1) Was the mother's life in danger? and was her health is great risk
    2) Was a therapeutic abortion needed to save the life of the mother? or to subdue great risk to her health
    3) If a therapeutic abortion was needed to save the life of the mother or to subdue great risk to her health , why was one not done? and does this goes against medical science protocols for patient safety.
    4) If it is hospital policy not to do a therapeutic abortion to save the live of the mother, why was she not transferred to a facility that would do a therapeutic abortion to save the life of the mother. I colored this part red because in my opinion it doesnt matter if they have policies that supersede saving/protecting the patients live this policies need removed ASAP and or they need shut down and legal action further taken.

    There is ZERO excuse for any policy to not to a procedure that saves patient lives or subdues great risk to patient lives that would be insane.

    But not to get ahead of myself this hospital could not have violated any procedures at all, it certainly doesnt seem that way but we could find out thats how it is.
    Some hospitals have policies that have nothing to do with religion, that prevents them from doing "everything" to save a life. Think differences between level 2 and level 3 hospital ERs.

  8. #448
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:43 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,827

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Samhain View Post
    Some hospitals have policies that have nothing to do with religion, that prevents them from doing "everything" to save a life. Think differences between level 2 and level 3 hospital ERs.

    exactly and the bolded is what makes it ok

    you are correct and those policies would be regulated by medical science which is where transport and life flight etc comes in and thats fine. They dont do it because they are incapable or the risk of doing it is greater that the risk of transport to a better equipped facility.

    Ill add "religion" to the previous post so others dont make your assumption. Thank you.
    Last edited by AGENT J; 12-10-13 at 06:04 PM.
    This space is currently owned by The Great Winchester, stay tuned for future messages!
    Make America Great Again!
    Pro-Equal Rights / Pro-Gun Rights / Pro-Human Rights / Pro-Choice

  9. #449
    Traveler

    Jack Hays's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Williamsburg, Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:19 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    54,920
    Blog Entries
    2

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

    Quote Originally Posted by AGENT J View Post
    well i agree with about 90% of your post. But the bolded part is false "in general" as history proves and this is how it should be.
    a hospital is not in the religious realm no matter who owns it, first and foremost it is a hospital, it is a healthcare faclity and it has a LICENSE and that licence has rules, regulations and laws that govern it just like everybody else. A hospital owned by religious people or org doesnt get special treatment, they have to play by the same rules and laws as everybody.

    Examples of that have been foster care homes and other things of that nature that had to comply with these rules, laws and standards

    laws, individual rights and medical/science regulation/safety standards rank first, it cant be any other way


    They cant refuse people of other religions treatment in the ER simply based on religion
    They cant deny me my legal spouse privileges because i wasn't married by their religious rules, you cant purposeless risk ones life against medical standards when you are a health facility.
    They cant deny homosexual treatment simply based on sexuality
    THey cant deny me the right to have a rabbi visit me
    etc etc etc

    they can choose to not do any elective procedures they want and Im fine with that but once one the procedure is no longer elective and it is needed to save my life or to elevate a large risk to my life based on medical/science facts, regulations and safety standards they have no right at all to deny that.


    SO while i basically agree with you i just wanted to point some extras out, her living doesnt matter and is no argument at all. A healthcare facility must follow the the rules and regulations that protect and save the womans life.

    and it doesnt not just have to be SAVE her life it is also to subdue major risk to her life.

    so my list is a little different but ill start with yours and change it

    I, personally, believe it will come down to these things:

    1) Was the mother's life in danger? and was her health is great risk
    2) Was a therapeutic abortion needed to save the life of the mother? or to subdue great risk to her health
    3) If a therapeutic abortion was needed to save the life of the mother or to subdue great risk to her health , why was one not done? and does this goes against medical science protocols for patient safety.
    4) If it is hospital policy not to do a therapeutic abortion to save the live of the mother, why was she not transferred to a facility that would do a therapeutic abortion to save the life of the mother. I colored this part red because in my opinion it doesnt matter if they have policies that supersede saving/protecting the patients live this policies need removed ASAP and or they need shut down and legal action further taken.

    There is ZERO excuse for any policy (based on religion) to not do a procedure that saves patient lives or subdues great risk to patient lives that would be insane.

    But not to get ahead of myself this hospital could not have violated any procedures at all, it certainly doesnt seem that way but we could find out thats how it is.
    I'm sure the court will appreciate the benefit of your insight. You should contact them.
    "It's always reassuring to find you've made the right enemies." -- William J. Donovan

  10. #450
    Sayonara!
    Maenad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    By the water.
    Last Seen
    07-09-14 @ 10:18 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    3,259

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

    Quote Originally Posted by sangha View Post
    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
    Quote Originally Posted by Maenad View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by AGENT J View Post
    well i agree with about 90% of your post. But the bolded part is false "in general" as history proves and this is how it should be.
    a hospital is not in the religious realm no matter who owns it, first and foremost it is a hospital, it is a healthcare faclity and it has a LICENSE and that licence has rules, regulations and laws that govern it just like everybody else. A hospital owned by religious people or org doesnt get special treatment, they have to play by the same rules and laws as everybody.

    Examples of that have been foster care homes and other things of that nature that had to comply with these rules, laws and standards

    laws, individual rights and medical/science regulation/safety standards rank first, it cant be any other way


    They cant refuse people of other religions treatment in the ER simply based on religion
    They cant deny me my legal spouse privileges because i wasn't married by their religious rules, you cant purposeless risk ones life against medical standards when you are a health facility.
    They cant deny homosexual treatment simply based on sexuality
    THey cant deny me the right to have a rabbi visit me
    etc etc etc

    they can choose to not do any elective procedures they want and Im fine with that but once one the procedure is no longer elective and it is needed to save my life or to elevate a large risk to my life based on medical/science facts, regulations and safety standards they have no right at all to deny that.


    SO while i basically agree with you i just wanted to point some extras out, her living doesnt matter and is no argument at all. A healthcare facility must follow the the rules and regulations that protect and save the womans life.

    and it doesnt not just have to be SAVE her life it is also to subdue major risk to her life.

    so my list is a little different but ill start with yours and change it

    I, personally, believe it will come down to these things:

    1) Was the mother's life in danger? and was her health is great risk
    2) Was a therapeutic abortion needed to save the life of the mother? or to subdue great risk to her health
    3) If a therapeutic abortion was needed to save the life of the mother or to subdue great risk to her health , why was one not done? and does this goes against medical science protocols for patient safety.
    4) If it is hospital policy not to do a therapeutic abortion to save the live of the mother, why was she not transferred to a facility that would do a therapeutic abortion to save the life of the mother. I colored this part red because in my opinion it doesnt matter if they have policies that supersede saving/protecting the patients live this policies need removed ASAP and or they need shut down and legal action further taken.

    There is ZERO excuse for any policy (based on religion) to not do a procedure that saves patient lives or subdues great risk to patient lives that would be insane.

    But not to get ahead of myself this hospital could not have violated any procedures at all, it certainly doesnt seem that way but we could find out thats how it is.
    Generally a person does not sue and get damages paid for something that might have happened.

    As to what the government can force on religion, I'd say not allowing snake handling is pretty reasonable given the likelihood of someone being injured of killed. But, like it or not, a hospital is a business, even a hospital that is based on a religious foundation. The government really can't change its business model. We all knew the ACLU was just waiting in the grass for a case like this one. As I said before, it will be a landmark case. The sad part of it is that this case is too weak to even be heard. But it will be. Catholic hospitals, even though they follow a business model, are a mission of the Catholic church. I'm not sure how many Catholic hospitals there are in the US. But I know of one in Nashville, and there is one in my hometown here in KY. There are only two hospitals in my hometown. Can you imagine what would happen if the Catholic church decided to shut down every hospital in the US? It could do that. I doubt it will, but that is an option if the government tries to change what services they offer. I think the only foundation for a finding in favor of the plaintiff is that the hospital did not make an effort to transfer the woman to a facility that would do the procedure. And that is not outlandish. We even have an Air Evac Life Team here in western KY. So, a person with a medical emergency that cannot be treated at a hospital in this area can be in Nashville in less than 20 minutes.

    I think it is appropriate to remind posters of the First Amendment of the United States 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.

    Catholic hospitals' mission of healing entails their free exercise of religion. I think all the government can legally do is to say, 'if you won't do the job, send the patient to someone who will.'

    As for life saving: You might research the different levels of emergency care that exist in US hospitals. A hospital that is not equipped to provide a particular level of care will airlift a patient to another facility. Happens all the time.

    Edited to add levels of trauma centers and services provided.

    http://www.acep.org/Content.aspx?id=30428
    Last edited by Maenad; 12-10-13 at 06:18 PM.
    Redneck, hillbilly, fundie, Bible thumper, cracker, split tails, geezer, loon, xenophobe, islamaphobe, and homophobe are not words of tolerance.

Page 45 of 57 FirstFirst ... 35434445464755 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •