• 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]

No reason why a life-threatening complication from pregnancy should have stopped her from driving around while on pain killers in order to shop for a 2nd opinion! :roll:




No, she went there the next day where she gave birth to the child who died shortly thereafter

If only there was a van with flashing lights and a gurney that could drive her places! 3 times she made it back, surely she might have noticed a trend. :think:
 
Last edited:
If only there was a van with flashing lights and a gurney that could drive her places! 3 times she made it back, surely she might have noticed a trend.

That's right! I forgot that catholic hospitals that oppose abortions provide ambulances bring their patients to hospitals where they do perform abortions! :screwy

And she went back two times, both on the same day.
 
That's right! I forgot that catholic hospitals that oppose abortions provide ambulances bring their patients to hospitals where they do perform abortions! :screwy

And she went back two times, both on the same day.

Ambulances make housecalls buddy, is this news to you? All she had to do is call 911 and say take me to where ever.
 
"The lawsuit alleges that Means' case was among five instances in which Mercy Health Partners had not induced labor in pregnant women whose water broke before their fetuses could survive" .

From:an NBC News article titled:



Catholic hospital's religious rules led to negligent care in miscarriage, ACLU says

“The ACLU is right,” said Art Caplan, director of the division of medical ethics at New York University Langone Medical Center and a frequent NBC News contributor. “At a minimum, patients deserve to know all medically, not theologically, appropriate options. Minimally, patients have the right to know where to get those options. And if no other facility can perform them, patients have a right to expect that a hospital will put aside its theology and do what is medically best for each patient, even if that means violating a deeply held religious view.”

Mercy Health Partners is overseen by parent company Trinity Health, which merged in May with Catholic Health East, a health system that includes 82 hospitals in 21 states. It’s the second-largest non-profit health system in the U.S., according to Moody’s Investors Service.

The lawsuit alleges that Means' case was among five instances in which Mercy Health Partners had not induced labor in pregnant women whose water broke before their fetuses could survive. Joseph O’Meara, the hospital’s vice president of mission services, said that the directives authorized by the Catholic bishops prohibited the hospital from inducing labor.

Catholic hospital's religious rules led to negligent care in miscarriage, ACLU says - NBC News.com
 
I read the article several times. I am not sure I understand why they said the mother's life was 'at risk'. Delivery is painful and usually pain meds are offered and administered. Why not in this case? Help me to understand what put the mother's life at risk.

There is no information such as, was this her first pregnancy? Had she ever delivered before? I might conclude this suit was a result of the abject fear she experienced since she had no clue what level of pain she was in for, and thought she was going to die. But that is only my opinion. There had to be several other places she could have gone to to abort her child. Three trips is a bit strange.

She had two children.

I think she thought the pregnancy could be saved.
Apparently she was not seeking an abortion but wanted help because her water broke 5 months early , she was bleeding and apparently she was experencing pains.

Yes they should have induced labor and delivered the fetus.
Howevre since she was only 18 weeks along the fetus would not survive deliery and apparently the Catholic Church would deem that a "direct abortion" which is against their ethics.

So they sent home twice and would have sent home a third time even though she had two inefections that could have life threatening ,but the fetus was being expeled before they could get her out of the hospital the third time.
 
Last edited:
"The lawsuit alleges that Means' case was among five instances in which Mercy Health Partners had not induced labor in pregnant women whose water broke before their fetuses could survive" .

From:an NBC News article titled:



Catholic hospital's religious rules led to negligent care in miscarriage, ACLU says



Catholic hospital's religious rules led to negligent care in miscarriage, ACLU says - NBC News.com

And? Show this was policy. Show that in EACH of those cases, due regard was not taken, and best practices were not met.

They cant, thats why the best they can hope for is a civil suit against bishops. :)
 
She had two children.

I think she thought the pregnancy could be saved.
Apparently she was not seeking an abortion but wanted help because her water broke 5 months early , she was bleeding and apparently she was experencing pains.

Yes they should have induced labor and delivered the fetus.
Howevre since she was only 18 weeks along the fetus would not survive deliery and apparently the Catholic Church would deem that a "direct abortion" which is against their ethics.

So they sent home twice and would have sent home a third time even though she had two inefections that could have life threatening ,but the fetus was being expeled before they could get her out of the hospital the third time.

20 weeks is the accepted minimum for viability. But we dont know what other factors were involved.
 
Tamesha Means lawsuit: Catholic hospital 'forced miscarrying woman to deliver 18-week fetus' | Mail Online

[h=1]Catholic hospital 'risked woman's life by forcing her to deliver 18-week fetus that had no chance of survival' because of no abortion policy.[/h]
  • Tamesha Means, 30, of Muskegon, Michigan, filed a lawsuit Friday against the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops
  • It claims Means, then 27 and a mother-of-two, visited the hospital - the only one in her county - three times after her water broke five months early
  • She says she was told to go home before she miscarried on the third visit and was forced to deliver the 18 week fetus feet-first





My question would be this: who was her doctor, and why would he/she not have been involved in this from the beginning? If this was a problem that the hospital could not handle, why would they not have referred her to go to another hospital? This is a situation which makes no sense to me.
 
My question would be this: who was her doctor, and why would he/she not have been involved in this from the beginning? If this was a problem that the hospital could not handle, why would they not have referred her to go to another hospital? This is a situation which makes no sense to me.

Because you are being told the story from one side. As policy, hospitals (and generally religious groups) dont counter to the press, because its headed for court.

The intent here is for a major lawsuit against religious medical institutions, im sure the have been case shopping for some time.
 
My question would be this: who was her doctor, and why would he/she not have been involved in this from the beginning? If this was a problem that the hospital could not handle, why would they not have referred her to go to another hospital? This is a situation which makes no sense to me.



Well, in my case my doctor was oit of town so when I went into premature labor at about 20 weeks gestation DH and I went to the ER for help.

I was hoping my labor could be stopped so I could deliver a healthy baby.

The directives of the hospital is not to inform patients about alternatives


Because of its Catholic affiliation and binding directives, the hospital told Tamesha that there was nothing it could do and did not tell Tamesha that terminating her pregnancy was an option and the safest course for her condition. When Tamesha returned to the hospital a third time in extreme distress and with an infection, the hospital once again prepared to send her home.
While staff prepared her discharge paperwork, she began to deliver. Only then did the hospital begin tending to Tamesha's miscarriage.

The directives prohibit a pre-viability pregnancy termination, even when there is little or no chance that the fetus will survive, and the life or health of a pregnant woman is at risk.

They also direct health care providers not to inform patients about alternatives inconsistent with those directives even when those alternatives are the best option for the patient's health.

https://www.aclu.org/reproductive-f...s-v-united-states-conference-catholic-bishops
 
Practitioners and institutions can have their values and no one should take that away from them, I'd like to hear from her physician in order to have a fair judgement on the case.

What confuses me about this story, is that I haven't been able to find any information on what the real situation was, but it sounds like this hospital wasn't the one she had intended to give birth in, but was just the closest to her home. If I were pregnant, and started bleeding at 18 weeks, I'd sure as hell call my ob-gyn, and get myself to the hospital where my ob-gyn practiced. To me, it sounds like she wasn't being very smart at all. I'd really like to know the entire story, because I don't think this story is exactly as it is being portrayed. Sounds to me like the ACLU just trying to get a religious-based hospital shut down, unless they will start providing abortion on demand.

Tamesha Means went into early labor in 2010 at 18 weeks when her water broke. A friend helped Tamesha by taking her to the closest hospital, Mercy Health Partners, where she was told she was likely to lose the baby.
Quoting the NPR report, Means was “told that the hospital would not do the therapeutic abortion she would get in a non-Catholic facility.”

She was discharged with medication, but returned very ill with a fever, bleeding and in pain. On her third trip, as they were prepping to discharge her, she delivered the premature infant who died after a few hours.

ACLU sues Michigan Catholic hospital for Tamesha Means miscarriage case because no
 
What confuses me about this story, is that I haven't been able to find any information on what the real situation was, but it sounds like this hospital wasn't the one she had intended to give birth in, but was just the closest to her home. If I were pregnant, and started bleeding at 18 weeks, I'd sure as hell call my ob-gyn, and get myself to the hospital where my ob-gyn practiced. To me, it sounds like she wasn't being very smart at all. I'd really like to know the entire story, because I don't think this story is exactly as it is being portrayed. Sounds to me like the ACLU just trying to get a religious-based hospital shut down, unless they will start providing abortion on demand.

Well she did not have a car. That hospital was the only one within 30 miles and they had a birthing center.

Why do think that was not the hospital she intended to give birth at?
 
Well she did not have a car. That hospital was the only one within 30 miles and they had a birthing center.

Why do think that was not the hospital she intended to give birth at?

Because of the comment in the story that I linked. It said her friend took her to the nearest hospital. I haven't seen a single mention of her doctor being involved at all. It sounds like she was treated and released from the ER. If she was treated and released, the first thing she should have done is call her ob/gyn and get him/her involved. Either she was being very stupid, or we're not getting the entire story.
 
Because of the comment in the story that I linked. It said her friend took her to the nearest hospital. I haven't seen a single mention of her doctor being involved at all. It sounds like she was treated and released from the ER. If she was treated and released, the first thing she should have done is call her ob/gyn and get him/her involved. Either she was being very stupid, or we're not getting the entire story.

There was an ambulance, no doubt. I kind of expected no car-none of this is evidence-these are claims by ONE side.

Yup. This is why we have trials.:peace
 
Well she did not have a car. That hospital was the only one within 30 miles and they had a birthing center.

Why do think that was not the hospital she intended to give birth at?

According to lawsuit link when the hospital sent her home they told her come back (a liitle more than week later ) for her regular scheduled doctors appointment. So apparently that was the hospital she was planned to deliver at.
 
According to lawsuit link when the hospital sent her home they told her come back (a liitle more than week later ) for her regular scheduled doctors appointment. So apparently that was the hospital she was planned to deliver at.

Thats a jump as well. Most of the time the ED will schedule a follow up.
 
quote_icon.png
Originally Posted by US Conservative
There was an ambulance, no doubt. I kind of expected no car-none of this is evidence-these are claims by ONE side.

If you read the lawsuit link you posted it says her firend drove her to hospital.
 
Because of the comment in the story that I linked. It said her friend took her to the nearest hospital. I haven't seen a single mention of her doctor being involved at all. It sounds like she was treated and released from the ER. If she was treated and released, the first thing she should have done is call her ob/gyn and get him/her involved. Either she was being very stupid, or we're not getting the entire story.

while I do agree there seems to be holes in the story and things that logically dont quite add up i just want to point out something. And to be be clear and im not claiming you suggested this in any way because you didnt, i just want to point out a parallel point so people dont go crazy.

Even if this lady was a complete moron, a totally idiot that is still ZERO excuse for the hospital not to treat her life with the utmost care and do things based on her safety first and foremost, its wouldnt be any excuse for them to give sub-quality treatment.

again not claiming you said that, your post just made me think about it, i didnt want others focusing on her intelligence or lack there of because in reality its a non issue when it comes to her life.

I can just think of an example of say my gram, stereotypical old lonely lady who believed everything on the news and the doctors said, if she went to the hospital and the doctors told her to go home she just would, she would trust in them. Why because we should be able too.

Before cancer claimed her she survived a burst appendix that was missed and she simply just listened to the doctor, luckily my dad found her on the floor in the bath room in the fetal position and drove her to the hospital and took her right in the "ambulance doors". (not the only time my dad did this by the way lol)

It was was pretty funny seeing a 6' 2" black man carring a fragile old white lady into the direct emergency room and telling them he needs a room now and them think about for oh . . . .about 5 secs and telling him which room is open :)

Anyway just saying we are supposed to be able to trust doctors and hospitals etc and yes I agree it is the smart thing to do double and triple check IMO but thats not an excuse "IF" this hospital actually put her life in danger and has substandard safety practices . . . "IF"
 
Back
Top Bottom