• 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]

Samhain said:
Its in her complaint; None of the Defendants listed in her complaint were at the hospital. She is suing for negligence and omission by proxy.
Click to expand...

The complaint is that the defendants were negligent, but not because the defendants omitted any information
 
US Conservative said:
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, ...
Click to expand...

According to the lawsuit link you posted the ultrasound showed amniotic fluid was 4.3 which meant the fetus would either not be born alive or would only live a short time.

The standard care is inducing labor when the amniotic fluid is that low because of the possibility of an infection setting in.

According to that link she was running a fever the second time came in and the doctor treating her thought she might have an infection. It turns out according to that link that tests after the delivery showed she had 2 infections, that could have caused her harm.
 
minnie616 said:
According to the lawsuit link you posted the ultrasound showed amniotic fluid was 4.3 which meant the fetus would either not be born alive or would only live a short time.

The standard care is inducing labor when the amniotic fluid is that low because of the possibility of an infection setting in.

According to that link she was running a fever the second time came in and the doctor treating her thought she might have an infection. It turns out according to that link that tests after the delivery showed she had 2 infections, that could have caused her harm.
Click to expand...

No, oligohydramnios requires emergent delivery only if there is fetal distress. The indication to deliver MAY have been the combination of low amniotic fluid AND ruptured membranes. There is still an incomplete picture here, NOBODY knows enough to make any judgements.
 
And I stated the standard care of inducing labor was based on the info in the complaint.

As has been noted there may have been other medical reasons why the standard care was not used.

I will be closely following this lawsuit.
 
Fisher said:
Go to a different hospital. If she had time to go to the same one 3 times, she had time to go elsewheres.
Click to expand...

This was in Muskegon, Michigan. Don't know how many hospitals are in that region. Being that I've never even heard of Muskegon, Michigan, I'd bet it's rather small and it wouldn't be too far fetched to assume that it is the only hospital in town.
 
minnie616 said:
And I stated the standard care of inducing labor was based on the info in the complaint.

As has been noted there may have been other medical reasons why the standard care was not used.

I will be closely following this lawsuit.
Click to expand...

So you dont know, neither does anyone else. Thanks.
 
US Conservative said:
So you dont know, neither does anyone else. Thanks.
Click to expand...

I do know that standard care was not followed if the facts in the complaint are true.
I do know that the patient was not informed of her medical options if the facts in the complaint are true.

I do know according to the complaint that she developed two infections and that those infections may have been avoided if standard care had been given.
 
Jack Hays said:
The Hippocratic Oath has nothing to do with explaining risks and benefits.:peace
Click to expand...

Not specifically, but inherent in the oath is a duty to do what is right to the patient as a whole, you need to discuss with them the options in a treatment plan. If you know of a way to treat a patient as a whole and not discuss with them the risks /benefits of treatment, I am all ears.
 
People complain about gays, minorities, being a protected class that cannot be discriminated against. Yet here we have a situation where the religious have protected class status and it almost kills somebody, yet this is acceptable?

There is a real simple fix for all this. Your religion is your personal business and in matters dealing with the public you will follow the rules everybody else has to follow, no more special exceptions.
 
minnie616 said:
I do know that standard care was not followed if the facts in the complaint are true.
I do know that the patient was not informed of her medical options if the facts in the complaint are true.

I do know according to the complaint that she developed two infections and that those infections may have been avoided if standard care had been given.
Click to expand...

And since we have no evidence of whats true, YOU DONT KNOW.
Why is that hard to admit?
 
US Conservative said:
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.
Click to expand...

Do I need to repeat AGAIN??

I posted many times IF.....seriously. This is getting silly. What we have to go with right now is just the article and the text of the lawsuit. Are we unable to have a discussion on those issues?

I take it as a given in a lawsuit there are two sides. And we have heard from one side.

Now, IF what the lawsuit says is true, what do you think?

Or do we have to wait until every case is presented in court and we have seen all the evidence before we comment?
 
year2late said:
Do I need to repeat AGAIN??

I posted many times IF.....seriously. This is getting silly. What we have to go with right now is just the article and the text of the lawsuit. Are we unable to have a discussion on those issues?

I take it as a given in a lawsuit there are two sides. And we have heard from one side.

Now, IF what the lawsuit says is true, what do you think?

Or do we have to wait until every case is presented in court and we have seen all the evidence before we comment?
Click to expand...


If. If. If.

Dont waste your time with conditional statements three if's in. It looks silly.
 
year2late said:
Not specifically, but inherent in the oath is a duty to do what is right to the patient as a whole, you need to discuss with them the options in a treatment plan. If you know of a way to treat a patient as a whole and not discuss with them the risks /benefits of treatment, I am all ears.
Click to expand...

Precisely. The Catholic includes a spiritual dimension in "the patient as a whole." I suspect they saw themselves doing just what you advocate.

Beyond that, the idea that a physician needs to discuss treatment with a patient is relatively recent, and could be debated on the merits.:peace
 
US Conservative said:
If. If. If.

Dont waste your time with conditional statements three if's in. It looks silly.
Click to expand...

So, then you dismiss any debate where all the variables are not know to a certainty? Buh, bye.:lamo
 
Jack Hays said:
Precisely. The Catholic includes a spiritual dimension in "the patient as a whole." I suspect they saw themselves doing just what you advocate.

Beyond that, the idea that a physician needs to discuss treatment with a patient is relatively recent, and could be debated on the merits.:peace
Click to expand...

This is possibly the heart of the issue. The patient as a whole is the patient and non-viable fetus who has a heart that has not stopped beating, but will in the very near future.

So does the patient have the right to know how sick she will possibly become because of the failing pregnancy? I accept that the hospital/doctors do not have to take part in an abortion . I most certainly do not accept that the doctors/hospital does not have the responsibility to tell her how sick she may become. Hell, from a religious standpoint, perhaps she should be taking sacrament of the sick or seeking other religious guidance if she is in physical peril.

If the suit is correct, it does not seem that she knew who much danger she was facing.
 
year2late said:
This is possibly the heart of the issue. The patient as a whole is the patient and non-viable fetus who has a heart that has not stopped beating, but will in the very near future.

So does the patient have the right to know how sick she will possibly become because of the failing pregnancy? I accept that the hospital/doctors do not have to take part in an abortion . I most certainly do not accept that the doctors/hospital does not have the responsibility to tell her how sick she may become. Hell, from a religious standpoint, perhaps she should be taking sacrament of the sick or seeking other religious guidance if she is in physical peril.

If the suit is correct, it does not seem that she knew who much danger she was facing.
Click to expand...

An interesting First Amendment case. :peace
 
US Conservative said:
No, i just dont make wild ass speculations about very specific matters. Welcome to rational thought. ;)
Click to expand...

Welcome to an internet discussion board. A topic was presented with available information and we discuss.
 
US Conservative said:
Where discuss=massive and flawed inference?
Click to expand...

Can we just discuss the case?

If you are unable to discuss the case , why not just let the rest of us do so?
 
sangha said:
That's not true at all. You have engaged in the wild ass speculation that the facts alleged in the suit may not be true.
Click to expand...

That is true. That is just as much as speculation - more so really, unless there is substantial information out there regarding this case from the hospital.

At least I repeatedly acknowledged that the information in the case was an "if it is true".
 
sangha said:
That's not true at all. You have engaged in the wild ass speculation that the facts alleged in the suit may not be true.
Click to expand...

I have said repeatedly that there is very important information NOT present in the articles presented.

And yet every lefty just KNOWS what happened. :roll:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom