• 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]

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...

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...

j-mac said:
I don't think she's saying that.
Click to expand...

Correct. I was addressing what most seem to think is medical negligence by the doctor. IMO, it was NOT medical negligence. However, the object of the lawsuit has nothing to do with whether the doctor was negligent. This case is about policy.

Gotta go. Got things to do and places to be.
 
minnie616 said:
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.
Click to expand...

So, they delivered the woman's child alive, but the premature child subsequently died - I agree, damn savages. Only in the pro-abortionist's world is a child born with limited ability to survive considered malpractice. Not giving the woman the satisfaction of death on delivery is a crime.
 
Maenad said:
Correct. I was addressing what most seem to think is medical negligence by the doctor. IMO, it was NOT medical negligence. However, the object of the lawsuit has nothing to do with whether the doctor was negligent. This case is about policy.

Gotta go. Got things to do and places to be.
Click to expand...

No the case is about medical negligence which is why they are asking the court to rule that the hospitals actions were negligent
https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/assets/complaint_final_1.pdf
Plaintiff requests that this Court:
a. assert jurisdiction over this matter;
b. declare that Defendants’ negligent acts and/or omissions caused Plaintiff
injury;
c. declare that Defendants’ negligent acts were willful, wanton, grossly negligent
and/or reckless;
Click to expand...
 
CanadaJohn said:
So, they delivered the woman's child alive, but the premature child subsequently died - I agree, damn savages. Only in the pro-abortionist's world is a child born with limited ability to survive considered malpractice. Not giving the woman the satisfaction of death on delivery is a crime.
Click to expand...

I see that now that your lie about how the hospital is being sued because they refused to perform an abortion failed so miserably, you've come up with a new lie that the hospital is being sued because the child died.
 
Maenad said:
Correct. I was addressing what most seem to think is medical negligence by the doctor. IMO, it was NOT medical negligence. However, the object of the lawsuit has nothing to do with whether the doctor was negligent. This case is about policy.

Gotta go. Got things to do and places to be.
Click to expand...

There seems to be a lot of attacking the foundation of religious institutions these days. The muddy water is how the cover up of disdain for religion is promoted.

Have fun.
 
sangha said:
I see that now that your lie about how the hospital is being sued because they refused to perform an abortion failed so miserably, you've come up with a new lie that the hospital is being sued because the child died.
Click to expand...

Is it always necessary to constantly call people liars? Why can't you have a conversation where you argue your points without all the vitriol?
 
j-mac said:
Is it always necessary to constantly call people liars? Why can't you have a conversation where you argue your points without all the vitriol?
Click to expand...

Asks the poster who constantly posts about peoples' lies. :lamo
 
CanadaJohn said:
So, they delivered the woman's child alive, but the premature child subsequently died - I agree, damn savages. Only in the pro-abortionist's world is a child born with limited ability to survive considered malpractice. Not giving the woman the satisfaction of death on delivery is a crime.
Click to expand...

NOWHERE in the lawsuit or the article is there any evidence that the lawsuit seeks damages because the baby died. Which bodily orifice are you pulling this from?
 
Jack Hays said:
A Catholic institution has every right to conduct itself in accordance with Catholic doctrine. For the record I'm agnostic and pro-choice.
Click to expand...

I actually agree, but as the Catholic institution in question is a hospital with doctors who took a Hippocratic oath I would think the patients have every right to have the risks and benefits of treatment and nontreatment explained to them.
 
j-mac said:
There seems to be a lot of attacking the foundation of religious institutions these days. The muddy water is how the cover up of disdain for religion is promoted.

Have fun.
Click to expand...

See it from the other side. If a medical/religious institution by design does not properly inform a woman of her condition and the risks inherent in her condition (including sepsis and death) perhaps it is not the religion that is attacked, perhaps it is the patient.

Happy Holidays.
 
year2late said:
See it from the other side. If a medical/religious institution by design does not properly inform a woman of her condition and the risks inherent in her condition (including sepsis and death) perhaps it is not the religion that is attacked, perhaps it is the patient.

Happy Holidays.
Click to expand...

I understand what you are saying, but you have to prove that, and not just believe it so based on your own prejudices.
 
j-mac said:
I understand what you are saying, but you have to prove that, and not just believe it so based on your own prejudices.
Click to expand...

I have said several times emphatically in prior posts "IF". Is it not obvious that none of us know the complete story?

NONE of us on this thread have the whole truth. We have the truth presented to us by one side.

After having read the suit presented by the ACLU a few posts back, IF it is true, they should be in a lot of scrutiny legally and in terms of medical ethics. They did not have to provide the abortion. They had to inform her of the significant risks she was facing. IF they didn't -due to policy of the institution....that should be a major issue.
 
year2late said:
I have said several times emphatically in prior posts "IF". Is it not obvious that none of us know the complete story?

NONE of us on this thread have the whole truth. We have the truth presented to us by one side.

After having read the suit presented by the ACLU a few posts back, IF it is true, they should be in a lot of scrutiny legally and in terms of medical ethics. They did not have to provide the abortion. They had to inform her of the significant risks she was facing. IF they didn't -due to policy of the institution....that should be a major issue.
Click to expand...

Ok, that's fair....I just think we need to see how this plays out....Many cases are brought in grief...Even against religious hospitals.
 
j-mac said:
Ok, that's fair....I just think we need to see how this plays out....Many cases are brought in grief...Even against religious hospitals.
Click to expand...

Agreed. And her motivation and the ACLU motivation may be quite different.
 
RogueWarrior said:
NOWHERE in the lawsuit or the article is there any evidence that the lawsuit seeks damages because the baby died. Which bodily orifice are you pulling this from?
Click to expand...

See, this is what happens when you foolishly respond to a converstation you weren't party to.

I was responding to the post I quoted. If you can't follow the relevance, don't butt in. My comment wasn't related to the lawsuit, but to Minnie's comments.

Thanks for playing.
 
CanadaJohn said:
I was responding to the post I quoted. If you can't follow the relevance, don't butt in. My comment wasn't related to the lawsuit, but to Minnie's comments.
Click to expand...

BS

The post you quoted said nothing about the baby dying being malpractice. You comment had no relevance to minnie's comments. It was nothing but a lie.
 
sangha said:
No one is claiming that someone who wasn't at the hospital omitted any information
Click to expand...

That's who she's suing for negligence and omission of information; people who weren't at the hospital.
 
year2late said:
I actually agree, but as the Catholic institution in question is a hospital with doctors who took a Hippocratic oath I would think the patients have every right to have the risks and benefits of treatment and nontreatment explained to them.
Click to expand...

The Hippocratic Oath has nothing to do with explaining risks and benefits.:peace
 
Jack Hays said:
A Catholic institution has every right to conduct itself in accordance with Catholic doctrine. For the record I'm agnostic and pro-choice.
Click to expand...
As they say, if you don't like gay marriage, don't have one; if you don't like guns, don't own one; if you don't like Catholic rules on abortion, don't go to Catholic hospitals.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom