- Joined
- Jul 29, 2012
- Messages
- 3,259
- Reaction score
- 1,313
- Location
- By the water.
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Re: Catholic hospital 'risked woman's life by forcing her to deliver 18-week fetus[W:
Is it medical negligence by a Catholic CARDINAL? That is what the case turns on. How would an abortion have saved the life of a woman who didn't die? This debacle was definitely inconvenient. And medical authorities will differ on whether or not her treatment was appropriate and timely. But think about this a minute. A woman who did not die is suing CLERGY for medical negligence because they didn't do a procedure TO SAVE THE LIFE SHE DID NOT LOSE. What's wrong with this picture? I've seen far worse debacles than this. No one sued a clergyman and no one got money for it. This is a 'cause' trumped up by the ACLU. Nothing more.
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
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.
It is about possible medical negligence. You don't send an 18 week pregnant woman home with pain killers after their water breaks. This is always a very bad thing especially for a fetus. Almost guaranteed to lead to a miscarriage. If the catholic hospital really cares about fetuses like they say, it stands to reason that they would do everything possible to save the fetus. And yet they sent her home which seems to me to be a very strange way to try to save a miscarrying fetus. This points to a conclusion that the hospital and staff knew the fetus was dead or doomed. However they should have known it was alive at this point, if they had performed an ultrasound.
One might say that the first time they sent her home with pain medication, they were hoping the problem takes care of itself. I guess it was presumed that the fetus would be delivered at home, the mother notices the baby is breathing and rushes back to the hospital where it will later die. But that didn't happen.
The pregnant woman goes back to the hospital a second time, in severe pain. The hospital has already determined, as proved by their prior actions, that the fetus is doomed and now the pregnant woman is in severe pain which obviously means that the miscarriage is normal, right? There isn't any bleeding or other signs of complications, is there? Because if there were such signs, one would think that the possibility of a fatal hemorrhage is now considerably greater. And of course the proper action in this case is to send the pregnant woman home with more pain meds? Is that the extent of their care: take 2 aspirin and call me in the morning?
It is alleged the pain reaches a level 10 out of 10 and so the pregnant woman returns to the hospital for third time. At this point, as a layman, some very loud alarm bells would be going off in my head. And yet they were in the process of sending her home for a freaking third time when she delivers a breach baby. I will let you think about that for a second.
A freaking breach baby. Severe level 10 pain. Did anyone do an ultrasound to see the baby FFS, especially at the 3rd visit? If someone had done an ultrasound and somehow didn't notice the miscarrying baby was breach, that is negligence. If an ultrasound was not done even when all the symptoms point towards dangerous complications, that is negligence. If they knew about the breach and still sent or tried to send her home, that is possibly gross negligence. Sending a person home with level 10 pain is negligence.
So yes this lawsuit is about negligence.
Is it medical negligence by a Catholic CARDINAL? That is what the case turns on. How would an abortion have saved the life of a woman who didn't die? This debacle was definitely inconvenient. And medical authorities will differ on whether or not her treatment was appropriate and timely. But think about this a minute. A woman who did not die is suing CLERGY for medical negligence because they didn't do a procedure TO SAVE THE LIFE SHE DID NOT LOSE. What's wrong with this picture? I've seen far worse debacles than this. No one sued a clergyman and no one got money for it. This is a 'cause' trumped up by the ACLU. Nothing more.