• 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]

US Conservative said:
Lie? Where?
Click to expand...

Post #399.

We are just trying to have a discussion about information about the case that has been presented. Most adults on this thread understand there are two sides and we have yet to see the other side.

Grow up.
 
US Conservative said:
...

IF there was premature rupture of membraine, the baby probably needed to be delivered anyway.
Click to expand...

I agree.
IF there were was premature rupture of membrane , the baby probably needed to be delivered anyway.
 
sangha said:
The complaint is that the defendants were negligent, but not because the defendants omitted any information
Click to expand...

declare that Defendants ’negligent acts and/or omissions caused Plaintiff injury.

English doesn't get any clearer than that.
 
Samhain said:
declare that Defendants ’negligent acts and/or omissions caused Plaintiff injury.

English doesn't get any clearer than that.
Click to expand...

That's right. It doesn't get any clearer. The word "omissions" does not necessarily mean "omission of information"
 
sangha said:
That's right. It doesn't get any clearer. The word "omissions" does not necessarily mean "omission of information"
Click to expand...

And what did the defendants omit that caused the Plaintiff injury? Did they forget to pray on those nights?
 
Samhain said:
And what did the defendants omit that caused the Plaintiff injury? Did they forget to pray on those nights?
Click to expand...

I am not understanding your inference. The organization is not just a religious one, but one that delivers health care. Are you trying to insinuate that their only obligation to the patient was a religious one?
 
year2late said:
I am not understanding your inference. The organization is not just a religious one, but one that delivers health care. Are you trying to insinuate that their only obligation to the patient was a religious one?
Click to expand...

I'm pointing out that she is suing parties not present for negligence and omissions. Its a by-proxy charge that will likely be thrown out. We can revisit that point 6 months from now when/if this works its way through pre-trial hearings.
 
Samhain said:
I'm pointing out that she is suing parties not present for negligence and omissions. Its a by-proxy charge that will likely be thrown out. We can revisit that point 6 months from now when/if this works its way through pre-trial hearings.
Click to expand...

The parties not present created the rules that lead to this incident.
McDonalds was on the hook for the temperature of its coffee. It creates the rules to distribute its products. So wouldn't the bishops be on the hook for their rules?
 
Samhain said:
I'm pointing out that she is suing parties not present for negligence and omissions. Its a by-proxy charge that will likely be thrown out. We can revisit that point 6 months from now when/if this works its way through pre-trial hearings.
Click to expand...

So the people that make the rules for the institution are not accountable?

Of course they are.
 
year2late said:
I am not understanding your inference. The organization is not just a religious one, but one that delivers health care. Are you trying to insinuate that their only obligation to the patient was a religious one?
Click to expand...

Not to be picky, but it's his implication you don't understand. An inference would be something you draw from his post. Just sayin'.:peace
 
Jack Hays said:
Not to be picky, but it's his implication you don't understand. An inference would be something you draw from his post. Just sayin'.:peace
Click to expand...

:doh :roll: :lamo
 
year2late said:
Post #399.

We are just trying to have a discussion about information about the case that has been presented. Most adults on this thread understand there are two sides and we have yet to see the other side.

Grow up.
Click to expand...

This is exactly like the Trayvon Martin case where every lefty knew in their bones what happened.
This is exactly like that lesbian waitress.

Liberals, assuming facts not in evidence. :roll:
 
US Conservative said:
This is exactly like the Trayvon Martin case where every lefty knew in their bones what happened.
This is exactly like that lesbian waitress.

Liberals, assuming facts not in evidence. :roll:
Click to expand...

Did you have any pre-trial assumptions?
 
RogueWarrior said:
The parties not present created the rules that lead to this incident.
McDonalds was on the hook for the temperature of its coffee. It creates the rules to distribute its products. So wouldn't the bishops be on the hook for their rules?
Click to expand...

In that case, did they sue the guy who wrote the guidelines to heat coffee to 180F, or did they sue the corporation?

Futhermore, please point to the Directive that drove the results of this case. http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-act...c-Health-Care-Services-fifth-edition-2009.pdf
 
Last edited:
year2late said:
Did you have any pre-trial assumptions?
Click to expand...

US Conservative said:
Just that we dont know that facts of the case and therefor DONT KNOW WHAT HAPPENED.

And that since neither the hospital OR any physician is named that this is not about malpractice-at least to the ACLU.
Click to expand...

I was speaking to the Trayvon Martin case - did you have any pre-trial stance?

And in terms of the hospital/MD not being named....perhaps it is because it was a group making the rules that the hospital/MDs were abiding by.

Samhain said:
In that case, did they sue the guy who wrote the guidelines to heat coffee to 180F, or did they sue the corporation?

Futhermore, please point to the Directive that drove the results of this case. http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-act...c-Health-Care-Services-fifth-edition-2009.pdf
Click to expand...

The guy who wrote them? Lots of people write lots of things. It is the institution that approves the use of the guidelines.

Going after the writer would be like saying "well Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence, the rest of us are not accountable".
 
year2late said:
The guy who wrote them? Lots of people write lots of things. It is the institution that approves the use of the guidelines.
Click to expand...

And that institution would be MHP and the hospital coalition, who is absent from the suit.

However, the suit focuses on Directive 45, which states that they should not perform abortions. However, they never mention directive 47, which states:

47. Operations, treatments, and medications that have as their direct purpose the cure of a
proportionately serious pathological condition of a pregnant woman are permitted when they
cannot be safely postponed until the unborn child is viable, even if they will result in the death of
the unborn child.
Click to expand...

So they are binding this whole lawsuit on the Directives, yet they fail to mention this one which lets the Doctors and the Hospital determine the appropriate course of action, even if it results in the death of an unborn child. Kinda throws a monkey wrench into the entire suit.

Additionally, in the suit, they don't mention at any time what the opinion of the actual doctors and nurses at the hospital on the three separate occasions were. They mention that doctors were consulted, but they never give their opinion, instead they focus on administration officials opinions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom