• 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]

DiAnna said:
Yes, actually, we do know what happened. The woman was in the throes of a miscarriage, was running a fever, was bleeding, was in excrutiating pain, and was turned away without treatment three times. Your denial of facts which are irrefutable won't change that.
Click to expand...

What irrefutable facts? :) We have heard ONE side of this. Dont get all wound up like the left did with Trayvon Martin and that lesbian waitress.
See below for the definition of irrefutable.


ir·ref·u·ta·ble
ˌirəˈfyo͞otəbəl,iˈrefyə-/Submit
adjective
1.
impossible to deny or disprove.
"irrefutable evidence"
synonyms: indisputable, undeniable, unquestionable, incontrovertible, incontestable, beyond question, beyond doubt, conclusive, definite, definitive, decisive, certain, positive, sure; More
 
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...

Interesting point, and that makes much more sense to me than what my original take on the issue was. If it were medical negligence or wrong doing, she would be suing the hospital and/or doctor(s), and the ACLU wouldn't be involved at all. That answers the questions that were keeping me a little confused about this entire ordeal. So, what this is really about is the ACLU (who claims to stand for civil liberties), not wanting certain organizations to have civil liberties rights.
 
minnie616 said:
Apparently according to the legal complaint the woman was in pain with cramping , her water had broken, the doctors knew by the small amount of amniotic fluid left that the fetus would either be stillborn or would only live a short times ( hours ) but the 18 week fetus still had a heartbeat.

Why didn't they give meds that would induce labor ?

standard care would call for labor to be induced and the fetus delivered.

Is inducing labor when they knew the fetus would not live because there was not enough amniotic fluid considered an abortion and against the Catholic directive?
Click to expand...

See, now you are making major inferences again without knowing what you are talking about. You cant determine standard of care because you dont know many things here-the mothers vitals, the percentage of remaining amniotic fluid, the fetal heart rate, the mothers labs, the fetal position, labs, contractions, and the mothers medical history. Thats critical info you DONT know. You also aren't an Obstetrician-so how on EARTH can you name drop standard of care?
 
CanadaJohn said:
There may be a valid point when it comes to the provision of medical care - that's the American passtime, after all - spin the lawsuit lottery wheel - but that's for a court to decide. But when you couch your complaint about medical care with suggestions like "against the Catholic directive", then you cheapen and lose the argument.
Click to expand...

And thats quite interesting in this case-they aren't suing a physician provider or group, or even the hospital-but the non-medical higher ups.
 
year2late said:
I am. The kind that could die are very important to me. For the record, I am ok with them not providing the service. I AM NOT ok with them refusing to tell her the risks of her condition - which could be deadly. It is simply explaining the risks and options. If (yes if) she was in extreme danger because of the retained failing pregnancy she should have been notified. Hell, on a religious level - if they were gonna play the religion card....why not just send a Priest in to give her the message.:roll:(yes, that was sarcastic)

I am a patient advocate, I believe they should understand the severity of their condition. If they did not inform them, this is in my book the same as the OBGYNs that do not tell their patients of severe anomalies found on testing/ultrasound because they are afraid their patient will seek abortion.

Yes, a patient advocate. All of them.

Why not inform the woman of how bad it could get. They do not have to end her pregnancy, they just need to inform her of the real risks. IF they did not inform her of the risks involved in her problematic pregnancy I hope they are held accountable.
Click to expand...

And if several valid consents are supplied, what then? You DONT KNOW what happened, you know what was put in an article.
How many times have you had a patient/situation reported on in the local news that was NOT EVEN CLOSE to what happened? It happens all the time.
 
ethanUNC said:
I just got an A in my american government class yesterday and I don't remember that line in the constitution. Can you find it for me?
Click to expand...

Free Exercise of Religion and the First Amendment

law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/freeexercise.htm‎
This page includes materials relating to the the free exercise clause and its interpretation by the Supreme Court.:peace
 
CanadaJohn said:
The hospital, as I understand it, delivered the child who then passed away a short time later. How do you think that happened?

I realize that many here would prefer the tweeze and suction method of ridding the womb of the "parasite" as some call it, but some hospitals, some doctors, believe in making every attempt to save a life, no matter how fragile or unlikely to survive.
Click to expand...


And because doctors err on the side of caution, and swear to uphold life I dont think there is a legal issue there-perhaps thats why they did not name the OB or hospital in the suit.
 
RogueWarrior said:
Probably the same way most babies come out: the uterus contracted. The hospital did not induce the delivery at 18 weeks. It is CLEARLY stated in their directives that to do so constitutes an abortion. No abortions are allowed, ever.
Click to expand...

Kindly show us the patient care report/charts that back up your claim.

After you fail to provide the above, explain how you somehow know things not in evidence.
 
ethanUNC said:
I just skimmed through it. Nothing in there says you can't create your own religion.
Click to expand...

No, but it's clear that not all claims pass muster. I'm betting that the 2,000-year-old Catholic Church will be more credible before the SCOTUS than aorta worship.:peace
 
Maenad said:
Still, if there was no objective sign of labor then sending her home was appropriate. (No contractions, no obvious leakage of amniotic fluid, mucus plug intact.) It should be noted that when there WERE obvious signs of labor they kept her and delivered the baby. And we don't know this person's history of visiting the ER. If she had shown up many times in the past for non emergent issues or with nothing wrong, then being a historical malingerer wouldn't have helped her any. A person complaining subjectively of amniotic fluid leakage when there was none present for the doctor to see would likely have been asked to stay a few hours unless she had a history of coming to the ER for non emergent issues or malingering. All those little stories, like Peter and the Wolf, they read to my generation DID have a point. Sad that they are no longer politically correct. And you know the old joke about what they put on the hypochondriac's tombstone: I told you I was sick!

All we know is one side of this and that is the allegations. And we all know that just because someone gets accused of something it doesn't make them guilty.
Click to expand...

Exactly, and if that OB is like any practitioner I know, they were sure to carefully document ALL of this.
 
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...

lizzie said:
Interesting point, and that makes much more sense to me than what my original take on the issue was. If it were medical negligence or wrong doing, she would be suing the hospital and/or doctor(s), and the ACLU wouldn't be involved at all. That answers the questions that were keeping me a little confused about this entire ordeal. So, what this is really about is the ACLU (who claims to stand for civil liberties), not wanting certain organizations to have civil liberties rights.
Click to expand...

I posted an article earlier that spells it out. I think this one is one to watch with a great deal of interest. This will be a landmark case. It will go all the way to the Supreme Court. I think the kicker will be how the hospital handled it. I don't see how the courts can require a hospital to provide any particular service. However, if it is determined that a therapeutic abortion would have been the appropriate treatment, I believe the hospital probably will be held accountable because they didn't transfer her to a facility that does offer that service. And there again, would this have been an emergency if a therapeutic abortion was appropriate? Was the mother's life in danger without an abortion? Lots of things to question, here. There are a lot of things that could go toward the crux of the matter. I think that you and I both know that no hospital offers EVERY service, and there are various 'levels' applied to hospitals regarding even the types of emergencies they see. And they all have policies about how they will care for a patient and get them to the appropriate level of emergency care.

I appreciate your comments about the ACLU. They are very choosy about the cases the take, and they don't take much of a shine to religion.

Businesses and service organizations who do things for religious reasons, really need to be VERY clear to their customers about what services they do and do not provide, so that an informed choice can be made.
 
sangha said:
That doesn't limit what a person can believe in any way
Click to expand...

No, but it describes the changing limits on what religious expressions will be found by the SCOTUS to be protected under the First Amendment.:peace
 
Jack Hays said:
No, but it describes the changing limits on what religious expressions will be found by the SCOTUS to be protected under the First Amendment.:peace
Click to expand...

Where does it say that a belief in an Aortic God can not be considered religious?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom