• 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!

In malpractice case, Catholic hospital argues fetuses aren’t people

It may have been Mr Nick's "point" but his words denied the facts about the corporate mission of Catholic Health Initiatives.


I'm only speaking to the issue of who is possibly handling the case
 
So if a doctor had aborted those babies rather than not answering his pager he wouldn't have been charged with anything?


This is not an abortion case. It is an instance of medical malpractice - the doctor was on call, that obligates him to answer emergencies when notified by the hospital AND the hospital had no Plan B in place for those times Plan A (doctor on-call) didn't work.

Aborting the foetuses in this one case might have brought criminal charges as they were viable, (7 months) and had shown no problems during the pregnancy. This was a case of a doctor not answering the phone when he had promised to do so, particularly bad in this one case as the mother was one of his own patients.
 
Ohhh, but many want it to be. I see many thinly veiled bible based laws coming out with regards to abortion.

The Catholic Church isn't going to make a martyr of itself in court. I'm not even religious, but expecting an institution to do anything but cover its own ass is being pretentious.
 
No this is a situation in which an individual is using stupid law and logic against those who apply it.

One doesn't have to agree with a law to use it as defense.

Abortion doctors murder babies violating their oath of "do no harm" and they get away with it by declaring the "fetus" isn't a viable form of life... That apparently is the official stance in law - hence a viable defense.

This is nothing more than a case of "whats good for you is good for me" or "the same laws that apply to you apply to me."

One can't argue that abortions should be legal then turn around and claim the opposite when it suits their desires in litigation.

We are somewhat in agreement, as I said pretty much the same thing. I merely was placing a distinction on what the law says and what is right.

If you don't agree with something yet use it to your advantage none the less, what are you? A hypocrite.

The Catholic Church claims to hold the keys to Truth. An organization (in theory) who claims a Catholic identity acts representativerepresentitive of the Church and the Truth that goes along with it. If thitheoreticallytheorhetically it is suppose to be) than the laws of man are moot. An organizaallegianceing allegience to the Church has a duty to uphold the Truth first and foremost despite the worldly consequences. To do otherwise makes them a what? Hypocrite.

As for the doctor and keeping in the context of the thread; The doctor taking the oath "to do no harm" and then ignoring his duties as a doctor thereby causing significant harm or to put it another way -- giving his word to do one thing and then taking actions that directly contradict what he gave his word to do makes him a what? Hypocrite. (the same applies for what you said with abortion but that is outside the context of this discussion)

Now, third and finally -- The Law. The fact that the case wasn't dismissed outright due to the clarity of what it defines the fetus to be shows that the law isn't concrete, that it is open to interpretation, opinion and argument. This allows for specious and deceptive interpretations to be introduced for consideration. Which is what? A sophism.

All of this brings us back to the conclusion that this entire matter is one of sophistry, engagehypocritearties -- hyporcrite vs. hypocrite. As my original post had stated.
 
Because if harm comes to my unborn child because of the negligence or nefarious activity of another there is a need for justice.

But according to the law a fetus is not a human in the cases of negligence. The child has to be born to gain protected status. It's why Abortions are legal.
 
What if that Doctor was attending to another patient?

I'm replying to a post which drew a comparison between a doctor "on call" and your general individual missing a phone call. Clearly the expectations and responsibilities are not the same.
 
I'm replying to a post that drew a comparison between a doctor "on call" and your general individual missing a phone call. Clearly the expectations and responsibilities are not the same.

And I am making a point you fail to grasp. On call Doctor can get a page but be with another patient. Is the Doctor suppose to up right an leave the patient he or she is with to answer another call?
 
The above bears repeating...over and over and over again. Thus those who CLAIM women who have abortions are MURDERERS...can't back it up...period, using the guise of the law to make his or her argument.

Dayum! Removable Mind scores again!

I want some of those cheeseburgers RM is eating.
 
And I am making a point you fail to grasp. On call Doctor can get a page but be with another patient. Is the Doctor suppose to up right an leave the patient he or she is with to answer another call?

One can take a call without having to "up right and leave" a patient

And doctors are on call when they're not seeing patients.
 
And I am making a point you fail to grasp. On call Doctor can get a page but be with another patient. Is the Doctor suppose to up right an leave the patient he or she is with to answer another call?

Nothing I wrote precludes such. What I wrote specifically speaks to a doctor being on call and how such is different than your average person missing a phone call. Such doesn't say a doctor can never have a justifiable reason for missing a phone call.
 
One can take a call without having to "up right and leave" a patient

And doctors are on call when they're not seeing patients.

Shh... you know nothing.

Being a Doctor on call can mean many different things. You have Interns and Residents who work on call so they can see enough patients to graduate. A Resident is considered a full fledged Doctor. Intern, not so much. A Doctor can also be on call at home. But they tend to get called in a few times a night. So odds are you can be on call and seeing a patient. Specially if you live in a city.

Going to the ER at night is proof of this. You can wait hours before actually seeing a Doctor.
 
Shh... you know nothing.

Being a Doctor on call can mean many different things. You have Interns and Residents who work on call so they can see enough patients to graduate. A Resident is considered a full fledged Doctor. Intern, not so much. A Doctor can also be on call at home. But they tend to get called in a few times a night. So odds are you can be on call and seeing a patient. Specially if you live in a city.

Going to the ER at night is proof of this. You can wait hours before actually seeing a Doctor.

this wasn't an intern or a resident
 
Nothing I wrote precludes such. What I wrote specifically speaks to a doctor being on call and how such is different than your average person missing a phone call. Such doesn't say a doctor can never have a justifiable reason for missing a phone call.

Okay riddle me this Dr. Chuckles. I find being with another patient who's in worse condition is justifiable.
 
this wasn't an intern or a resident

Which is why I went further with it.. but you just picked up two words in it. Way to go, you are 10% closer to learning how to read.
 
Which is why I went further with it.. but you just picked up two words in it. Way to go, you are 10% closer to learning how to read.

none of what you wrote applis to this case

No mstter how you word it, none of your hypotheticals will justify this doctors' negligence
 
none of what you wrote applis to this case

No mstter how you word it, none of your hypotheticals will justify this doctors' negligence

I am not justifying anything. I saying **** happens. There were PLENTY of Doctors at the hospital that day. There was two Doctors sued.
 
Okay riddle me this Dr. Chuckles. I find being with another patient who's in worse condition is justifiable.


I understand you point but I never even implied a disagreement with it
 
Back
Top Bottom