• 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]

year2late said:
I was speaking to the Trayvon Martin case - did you have any pre-trial stance?
Click to expand...

Only that we didn't have any facts. And yet the left was screaming racism from the rooftops.

I should add I am a Paramedic and have seen the media absolutely misreport stories for over a decade. Its amazing how piss-poor the standards for journalists are these days.

In the end a hispanic/Jewish guy was exonerated by women, and yet it was still white racists fault. :roll:

The left exposed its bias for all in that trial.
 
Samhain said:
In that case, did they sue the guy who wrote the guidelines to heat coffee to 180F, or did they sue the corporation?
...
Click to expand...



Just an FYI: there are 3 defendants who work/worked for Catholic Health Ministries who are also named in suit.
from Facts#

73-77 on page 11
73 Defendant Stanley Urban is the current Chair and Defendants Robert Ladenburger and Mary Mollison are former Chairs of Catholic Health Ministries (“CHM”), an unincorporated foreign entity that required MHP to adhere to the Directives.

74. The decision that MHP would adhere to Defendant USCCB’s Directives was made by CHM in the Eastern District of Michigan.

75. CHM is not an incorporated entity under the laws of any state in the United States or any foreign country.

76. As Chairs of the unincorporated entity CHM, Defendants Urban, Ladenburger and Mollison are personally and/or vicariously liable for the acts and omissions of CHM.

77. In 2000, CHM was established as a public juridic person by an agency within the Vatican under “canon law,” a recognized foreign legal system.
Click to expand...

https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/assets/complaint_final_1.pdf
 
Last edited:
US Conservative said:
Only that we didn't have any facts. And yet the left was screaming racism from the rooftops.

I should add I am a Paramedic and have seen the media absolutely misreport stories for over a decade. Its amazing how piss-poor the standards for journalists are these days.

In the end a hispanic/Jewish guy was exonerated by women, and yet it was still white racists fault. :roll:

The left exposed its bias for all in that trial.
Click to expand...

Gotchya, you had (wink wink) no opinion or discussion of the facts available in the Trayvon Martin case before the trial.

By the way, did you see any opinions or discussions regarding the Trayvon Martin case from the Right?
 
year2late said:
Gotchya, you had (wink wink) no opinion or discussion of the facts available in the Trayvon Martin case before the trial.

By the way, did you see any opinions or discussions regarding the Trayvon Martin case from the Right?
Click to expand...

Not really, it was clear the facts of the case were unknown-but the left was still flailing their arms about screaming racism (in that high falsetto voice they have) ;)
 
Samhain said:
And that institution would be MHP and the hospital coalition, who is absent from the suit.

However, the suit focuses on Directive 45, which states that they should not perform abortions. However, they never mention directive 47, which states:



So they are binding this whole lawsuit on the Directives, yet they fail to mention this one which lets the Doctors and the Hospital determine the appropriate course of action, even if it results in the death of an unborn child. Kinda throws a monkey wrench into the entire suit.

Additionally, in the suit, they don't mention at any time what the opinion of the actual doctors and nurses at the hospital on the three separate occasions were. They mention that doctors were consulted, but they never give their opinion, instead they focus on administration officials opinions.
Click to expand...
Don't you think that information will come out at trial?
 
US Conservative said:
Not really, it was clear the facts of the case were unknown-but the left was still flailing their arms about screaming racism (in that high falsetto voice they have) ;)
Click to expand...

And the Right expressed no opinions and there were no arms flailing......:lamo
 
year2late said:
Don't you think that information will come out at trial?
Click to expand...

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.
 
US Conservative said:
Western medicine is based on the Judeo-Christian ethic. This is well known and well documented. So as far as medicine is concerned, it certainly holds more credibility over your insane example.
Click to expand...

I smell a creationist.
 
Jack Hays said:
In the eyes of the SCOTUS one religious expression can absolutely have more credibility than another. The SCOTUS takes no position on the relative merits of religions per se.:peace
Click to expand...

Citation?
 
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...

sangha said:
That's not true at all. You have engaged in the wild ass speculation that the facts alleged in the suit may not be true.
Click to expand...

And that could certainly be the case. This wouldn't be the first person to trump up something that wasn't even remotely close to the truth.
 
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...

Jack Hays said:
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.:peace
Click to expand...

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.)
 
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...

Samhain said:
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-act...c-Health-Care-Services-fifth-edition-2009.pdf
Click to expand...

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.
 
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...

Samhain said:
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.
Click to expand...

There are other reasons which I have listed.
 
Maenad said:
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.)
Click to expand...


Not, at all. I think you are crystal clear here, and right on.
 
Maenad said:
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.)
Click to expand...


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:
AGENT J said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Samhain said:
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.
Click to expand...


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:
AGENT J said:
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.
Click to expand...

I'm sure the court will appreciate the benefit of your insight. You should contact them.:peace
 
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...

AGENT J said:
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.
Click to expand...

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:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom