• 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]

Woodman909 said:
Agreed. You would never have seen this suit in the press if it was a non-religious based hospital.
Click to expand...

Probably because if it was a non-religious based hospital, the woman would have been immediately admitted and treated instead of repeatedly sending home a woman who was bleeding, running a fever (which means infection had already set it), and whose water had broken, turning her pregnancy into a life-threatening situation.

This woman was the victim of serious medical malpractice, and is damned fortunate to still be alive.
 
AGENT J said:
while I do agree there seems to be holes in the story and things that logically dont quite add up i just want to point out something. And to be be clear and im not claiming you suggested this in any way because you didnt, i just want to point out a parallel point so people dont go crazy.

Even if this lady was a complete moron, a totally idiot that is still ZERO excuse for the hospital not to treat her life with the utmost care and do things based on her safety first and foremost, its wouldnt be any excuse for them to give sub-quality treatment.

again not claiming you said that, your post just made me think about it, i didnt want others focusing on her intelligence or lack there of because in reality its a non issue when it comes to her life.
Click to expand...

I'm not assuming that they didn't treat her with care which they deemed responsible. My point is that she was either being stupid by not following up with her ob/gyn, or something is missing from the story. If you are in an emergency situation, most hospitals are pretty careful about covering their asses, because they don't want to be sued. An emergency is an obvious situation, based on a thorough assessment. If she was in an emergent state, then the hospital should have admitted her, not because she needed an abortion, but because she was about to die.
 
US Conservative said:
I doubt you remember how you got to vegas last month. BTW-pain meds (opiates) aren't given to expectant mothers, before sending them home. :roll:
Click to expand...

Oh really? Well, THIS hospital did exactly that. They gave her painkillers and told her to go home. Three freaking times, until she actually dropped the baby feet first on her final visit there trying to get the help that the hospital was repeatedly denying to her.

I swear, is there anything at all you will not blame this poor woman for in your zeal to shield the hospital from its refusal to treat her when she was miscarrying, and in a life-threatening situation?
 
DiAnna said:
Oh really? Well, THIS hospital did exactly that. They gave her painkillers and told her to go home. Three freaking times, until she actually dropped the baby feet first on her final visit there trying to get the help that the hospital was repeatedly denying to her.

I swear, is there anything at all you will not blame this poor woman for in your zeal to shield the hospital from its refusal to treat her when she was miscarrying, and in a life-threatening situation?
Click to expand...

Really. The CLAIM made by a newspaper says that. This is where you should say you are reserving judgement. :roll:
 
US Conservative said:
Really. The CLAIM made by a newspaper says that. This is where you should say you are reserving judgement. :roll:
Click to expand...

So the answer to my question is no, there is nothing at all you will not blame this poor woman for in your zeal to shield the hospital from its refusal to treat her when she was miscarrying, and in a life-threatening situation. Good to know.
 
lizzie said:
1.)I'm not assuming that they didn't treat her with care which they deemed responsible.

2.) My point is that she was either being stupid by not following up with her ob/gyn, or something is missing from the story.
3.) If you are in an emergency situation, most hospitals are pretty careful about covering their asses, because they don't want to be sued.
4.) An emergency is an obvious situation, based on a thorough assessment.
5.) If she was in an emergent state, then the hospital should have admitted her, not because she needed an abortion, but because she was about to die.
Click to expand...

1.) i know and i didnt mean to imply that
2.) maybe she was being stupid but its meaningless to the negligence and endangerment IF it actually happened
3.) and this one SEEMS to have not too
4.) and thats just it SOME of these hospitals "may be" forgoing that through assessment.
5.) I agree 100% but the abortion only comes up because she was already having a miscarriage and it seems thats what would help save her live, the aboriton is secondary.

The care to save her life is what is primary.
 
DiAnna said:
So the answer to my question is no, there is nothing at all you will not blame this poor woman for in your zeal to shield the hospital from its refusal to treat her when she was miscarrying, and in a life-threatening situation. Good to know.
Click to expand...

We dont know what happened, and your appeal to emotion wont change that.
 
lizzie said:
I'm not assuming that they didn't treat her with care which they deemed responsible. My point is that she was either being stupid by not following up with her ob/gyn, or something is missing from the story. If you are in an emergency situation, most hospitals are pretty careful about covering their asses, because they don't want to be sued. An emergency is an obvious situation, based on a thorough assessment. If she was in an emergent state, then the hospital should have admitted her, not because she needed an abortion, but because she was about to die.
Click to expand...

What makes you think her OB-GYN didn't follow up or maybe was even there and treated her?

The suit she filed indicates that her regular doctor was on the staff of the hospital
 
sangha said:
What makes you think her OB-GYN didn't follow up or maybe was even there and treated her?

The suit she filed indicates that her regular doctor was on the staff of the hospital
Click to expand...

I have no idea what all happened. Information on the story is pretty scant from what I can find.
 
sangha said:
Here's a link to her suit

https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/assets/complaint_final_1.pdf
Click to expand...

Thanks for the link. It appears that in the suit, the ACLU is alleging that the hospital didn't inform her that the best option would be to induce labor and abort. The problem I have with this, is that an 18 week fetus will not automatically die. It could have been delivered and sent to a neonatal intensive care unit, where the chances for survival aren't great, but are at least possible. I'm not sure why this would not have been an option for her. I still don't see why we are not seeing any information regarding her doctor in any of the stories which have been published about it, and I really don't think this is about anything more than the ACLU wanting to force a religious hospital to provide services which are against their own policies.
 
lizzie said:
Thanks for the link. It appears that in the suit, the ACLU is alleging that the hospital didn't inform her that the best option would be to induce labor and abort. The problem I have with this, is that an 18 week fetus will not automatically die. It could have been delivered and sent to a neonatal intensive care unit, where the chances for survival aren't great, but are at least possible. I'm not sure why this would not have been an option for her. I still don't see why we are not seeing any information regarding her doctor in any of the stories which have been published about it, and I really don't think this is about anything more than the ACLU wanting to force a religious hospital to provide services which are against their own policies.
Click to expand...

everything i have ever read says viability will never be lower than 20 weeks due to lung development am i misunderstanding something?
also ending the pregnancy seems to be what would have been best for the woman no matter what, now how to end the pregnancy could be deabted, straight abortion or induced labor for ahild from what i know has ZERO chance of living.

but again correct me if im wrong if im misunderstanding something. Have the been able to keep babies alive at that young age? are there actual devices that can breath for it etc? because this could impact my stances of wanting abortion completely legal and unlimited up to 20 weeks and then limited after that
 
lizzie said:
Thanks for the link. It appears that in the suit, the ACLU is alleging that the hospital didn't inform her that the best option would be to induce labor and abort. The problem I have with this, is that an 18 week fetus will not automatically die. It could have been delivered and sent to a neonatal intensive care unit, where the chances for survival aren't great, but are at least possible. I'm not sure why this would not have been an option for her. I still don't see why we are not seeing any information regarding her doctor in any of the stories which have been published about it, and I really don't think this is about anything more than the ACLU wanting to force a religious hospital to provide services which are against their own policies.
Click to expand...

The youngest preemie to ever survive was 21 weeks and 5 or 6 days gestation.
 
Last edited:
AGENT J said:
everything i have ever read says viability will never be lower than 20 weeks due to lung development am i misunderstanding something?
also ending the pregnancy seems to be what would have been best for the woman no matter what, now how to end the pregnancy could be deabted, straight abortion or induced labor for ahild from what i know has ZERO chance of living.

but again correct me if im wrong if im misunderstanding something. Have the been able to keep babies alive at that young age? are there actual devices that can breath for it etc? because this could impact my stances of wanting abortion completely legal and unlimited up to 20 weeks and then limited after that
Click to expand...

Maybe I am mistaken. It has been many years since I worked in a neonatal unit. I was thinking a couple of them had survived at half-term. Thanks.
 
lizzie said:
Maybe I am mistaken. It has been many years since I worked in a neonatal unit. I was thinking a couple of them had survived at half-term. Thanks.
Click to expand...
no problem i was honestly curious because it would probably definitely impact my stance, i do know the miracle baby (youngest ever) was 21 weeks 5 days and everything i read said 20 weeks would be the earliest because of lung development so i instantly wondered if they meant that could be the youngest born without help.

You almost rocked my world for a second lol ;)
 
Last edited:
lizzie said:
Maybe I am mistaken. It has been many years since I worked in a neonatal unit. I was thinking a couple of them had survived at half-term. Thanks.
Click to expand...

Its generally accepted that 20 weeks (half term) is the minimum. Lungs are the last to develop at 35 weeks or so. That would be amongst the least concerns at 20 weeks though.
 
AGENT J said:
no problem i was honestly curious because it would probably definitely impact my stance, i do know the miracle baby (youngest ever) was 21 weeks 5 days and everything i read said 20 weeks would be the earliest because of lung development so i instantly wondered if they meant that could be the youngest born without help.

You almost rocked my world for a second lol ;)
Click to expand...

Any kid that pre-term would need a lot of help and likely have issues for life.
 
US Conservative said:
Any kid that pre-term would need a lot of help and likely have issues for life.
Click to expand...

yes im aware but im not sure what that has to do with anythign, pre term is anything 37 or earlier which is vastly different than 20

i thought lizzie read something i was unaware of
 
US Conservative said:
Actually preterm is 36 and before. 37 is term.
Click to expand...

LOL ok :shrug: 36 and 6 days and 23 hrs and earlier

since that still doesnt relate to 20 weeks did you have a point to the conversation that was going on or were you just supplying random info?
 
US Conservative said:
The difference matters.
Click to expand...

not to the conversation you involved yourself in so ill ask again did you have a point to the conversation that was going on or were you just supplying random info?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom