Re: Catholic hospital 'risked woman's life by forcing her to deliver 18-week fetus[W:
:lamo "retreat" :lamo That's a good one....
Why don't you see if you can have a rational conversation, here, I'll even start it
Yes, I did say that every woman knew that breaking water resulted in having the baby, you posted information to refute it...Score one for you, although I would say that the condition you pointed out is not the norm.
The fact is you argued as if it were not only the norm, but that it applied in every case. Not only that, but you argued that a woman should know enough that she should disregard what a doctor told her in favor of info that isn't even true.
As for what the woman was told, or not told about by the doctors, nurses, or tech's taking care of her that night, I don't know, and neither do you. Did she refuse to be transported to the other hospital 37 miles away? I don't know. I wasn't there. Were you?
And I asked you if it is reasonable to believe that she was told about the need to induce labor but chose instead to suffer with severe pain even though it would not prevent the need to go through labor? And if it were reasonable to believe that she returned to a hospital where she knew she would not be given the treatment that the hospital told her she needed? And if it were reasonable to believe that in such a circumstance, the hospital would make no note on her records that she refused to be transferred even though she was informed of the need?
Instead of discussing the reasonableness of this occurring, you threw a hissy fit and still you won't discuss how reasonable your supposition is
On the point of the hospital being more than 30 minutes away, I would say that technically that is true if you are doing 60 mph on the highway, but it is possible to travel 37 miles in 30 minutes or less. The article used these terms for distance, as well as saying that her hospital was the only one in the county to make it seem like she had no other options, and clearly she did.
When talking about travelling time, it is SOP to use legal speed limits on the roads that are actually travelled, and not use hypothetical possibilities. There's nothing "dishonest" (the word you used, IIRC) about reporting the distance the way such things are normally reported
My opinion is that if she was in pain, water broke, and she is being sent home, but doesn't believe she should be, then she should have gotten in the car, and told her friend to take her to the other hospital.
Since the doctor sent her home, you have no reason to claim that she did not believe she should have been sent home. You are now engaging in the sort of unproven claims that you criticize the lawsuit for engaging in.
The problem here is that we have an incomplete story, with only her side of things being presented. You have no doc records, no hospital records, no testimony from hospital staff, doctors or otherwise. And yet you jump to conclusions based on incomplete evidence to take a side against the Catholic hospital simply because you think they should be forced to perform abortions...
Now, let's see if you can have a conversation without your usual grating tactics, and act like a normal person.
We are having a discussion using the facts we have available. It is a discussion board. Maybe you haven't noticed, but we do this all the time.
If you want to participate and post speculative scenarios, go right ahead. Nothing wrong with that. Just don't expect that your speculations won't be subjected to arguments which suggest that your scenario is not only unlikely, but a bit bizarre
PS - As far as "acting like a normal person" goes, normal people don't run away the first time their argument is challenged the way you did
PPS - for your edification, I reposting the exchange where you ran away from my question. Please not that I engaged in no name calling, nor did I question your honesty. I merely asked if your supposition (that she had been informed) were a reasonable one
No, I didn't say that. I said that it is possible that the doctors told her that she had a problem, but they could not address it, but she continued to come back instead of driving the 37 minutes to the next hospital. But we don't know yet because all you have is her account of the situation.
The law I cited earlier requires the hospital to arrange a transfer to another hospital when a patient needs a procedure that the hospital does not perform. So now you're arguing that she knew she needed to have labor induced, she wanted to have labor induced, but when told the hospital was going to send her to a hospital that could perform the procedure she wanted, she said "No, I'm not going there. Instead I'm going to go home, suffer severe pain, and come back here where you can't perform the procedure I need"?
Instead of answering any of the questions I posed, you dodged the question with a red herring about water breaking
Is there a woman alive that doesn't know that when their water breaks, that they need to get that baby out?
Now, you do have a point about transportation, however, we need to see how this plays out in court with facts. Remember, all you have is one side of the story here.
So I pointed out that you dodged the question
Umm no, a premature rupture of membranes (PROM) does not mean that they need to get that baby out.
What happens if my water breaks too early? - Parents.com
You're dodging my question. I asked if you really think it's believable that the woman knew she should have labor induced and refused to be transferred to another hospital and the hospital made no note of that on her record? And that when her condition continued to deteriorate, she returned to the hospital that she knew could not treat her properly and then again refused to be transferred to the hospital where she could be properly treated?
Again, I did not name call or say anything about honesty.
And the fact is, you *still* haven't answered my questions about how believable your supposition (and what it infers) is. All you have done is say that it is "possible", but you haven't answered my question as to whether it is believable.
Normal people defend their arguments. You have not done so
