US Catholic Church Does About Face on Abortion

[tay]

well of course there's big money involved.............


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



Lori Stodghill was 31-years old, seven-months pregnant with twin boys and feeling sick when she arrived at St. Thomas More hospital in Cañon City on New Year’s Day 2006. She was vomiting and short of breath and she passed out as she was being wheeled into an examination room. Medical staff tried to resuscitate her but, as became clear only later, a main artery feeding her lungs was clogged and the clog led to a massive heart attack. Stodghill’s obstetrician, Dr. Pelham Staples, who also happened to be the obstetrician on call for emergencies that night, never answered a page. His patient died at the hospital less than an hour after she arrived and her twins died in her womb.

In the aftermath of the tragedy, Stodghill’s husband Jeremy, a prison guard, filed a wrongful-death lawsuit on behalf of himself and the couple’s then-two-year-old daughter Elizabeth. Staples should have made it to the hospital, his lawyers argued, or at least instructed the frantic emergency room staff to perform a caesarian-section. The procedure likely would not have saved the mother, a testifying expert said, but it may have saved the twins.

The lead defendant in the case is Catholic Health Initiatives, the Englewood-based nonprofit that runs St. Thomas More Hospital as well as roughly 170 other health facilities in 17 states. Last year, the hospital chain reported national assets of $15 billion. The organization’s mission, according to its promotional literature, is to “nurture the healing ministry of the Church” and to be guided by “fidelity to the Gospel.” Toward those ends, Catholic Health facilities seek to follow the Ethical and Religious Directives of the Catholic Church authored by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. Those rules have stirred controversy for decades, mainly for forbidding non-natural birth control and abortions. “Catholic health care ministry witnesses to the sanctity of life ‘from the moment of conception until death,’” the directives state. “The Church’s defense of life encompasses the unborn.”


more


In malpractice case, Catholic hospital argues fetuses aren’t people | The Colorado Independent

 

[Serryah]

Actually just read this and as one of the comments on the article said, they can't have it both ways. If this is the defense then congrats, Pro-Choice just won the "debate".

Meanwhile, it also shows that the church in this case really is only after money, or rather, protecting it.

If you are on call, you are ON CALL; a patient dies while you are on call and aren't even there or don't even answer your phone, that is YOUR fault. The man in this case has every right to be suing the doctor and hospital and I really, really hope he wins in the end.

 

[Sal]

the details of the arguments the lawyers involved have already mounted will likely renew debate about Church health care directives and trigger sharp reaction from activists on both sides of the debate looking to underline the apparent hypocrisy of Catholic Health’s defense.

I would say.

That's like arguing both ends against the middle. Well in situation A it's a child, in situation B it's a fetus (non-person).

Interesting.

 

[captain morgan]

Meanwhile, it also shows that the church in this case really is only after money, or rather, protecting it.

Can you blame them?

The mother clearly had serious medical issues that were beyond the control of the hospital - the plaintiffs even recognizing that the mother would likely have died... Considering that the fetus' life is entirely dependent on the Mother, the lawsuit is basically thinly veiled as a money grab (note: the first comment in the article had little to do with blame but focused on the net worth of the organization).

If you are on call, you are ON CALL; a patient dies while you are on call and aren't even there or don't even answer your phone, that is YOUR fault. The man in this case has every right to be suing the doctor and hospital and I really, really hope he wins in the end.

The article doesn't state why the Dr. didn't answer... Perhaps there is a legitimate reason and perhaps there isn't, but being on-call doesn't automatically make you responsible for every accident, pre-existing health condition or circumstances beyond your control.

 

[Sal]

The article doesn't state why the Dr. didn't answer... Perhaps there is a legitimate reason and perhaps there isn't, but being on-call doesn't automatically make you responsible for every accident, pre-existing health condition or circumstances beyond your control.

I'm wondering if there was no one there qualified to make a decision... that is actually the larger issue here... he will likely win because in an ER there must be someone who can make a rapid analysis and decision and where was the back-up? It's quite bizarre actually, issues of the fetus aside.

And even if they had reached him, would it have made a difference. There's more here to the story me thinks.

 

[karrie]

Two things jump out at me about this.

One, not being able to have things both ways applies more to the law here than it does to the church. The law has to prosecute based on the law, not on the opinions of the defendant. An entity hires a lawyer to defend them to maximum effect within the legal system as it stands, not as they wish it to be. If we could all be defended based on how we wish the law worked, no one would need lawyers.

Two, to my understanding of malpractice insurance, once a case is launched against a 'defendant', the whole situation is then out of their hands and the lawyers for their insurance company are the ones calling the shots. Failure to abide by the legal plan and defense laid out can actually result in them then turning around and suing you for screwing up their case. Again, this is a system agreed upon and put in place by society at large, not by the Catholic church.

 

[Sal]

Two things jump out at me about this.

One, not being able to have things both ways applies more to the law here than it does to the church. The law has to prosecute based on the law, not on the opinions of the defendant. An entity hires a lawyer to defend them to maximum effect within the legal system as it stands, not as they wish it to be. If we could all be defended based on how we wish the law worked, no one would need lawyers.

Two, to my understanding of malpractice insurance, once a case is launched against a 'defendant', the whole situation is then out of their hands and the lawyers for their insurance company are the ones calling the shots. Failure to abide by the legal plan and defense laid out can actually result in them then turning around and suing you for screwing up their case. Again, this is a system agreed upon and put in place by society at large, not by the Catholic church.

good points

 

[captain morgan]

I'm wondering if there was no one there qualified to make a decision... that is actually the larger issue here... he will likely win because in an ER there must be someone who can make a rapid analysis and decision and where was the back-up? It's quite bizarre actually, issues of the fetus aside.

If that emergency dept is 24 hrs, there would have been other physicians available; but their availability is also dependent on the work load that is in the hospital at the time (and the severity of the emergencies). In terms of the response time of the Dr's analysis, i can only imagine that the complexity of the patient's condition would have been significant (having to diagnose a a heart attack as a result of a clogged artery to her lung).

How much damage had already occurred to the mother and baby due to the heart attack and possibly restricted oxygen to the fetus? Clearly this would be info that would be required to really make an assessment of the situation in it's entirety, but I have to wonder if it didn't play a role in the legal proceedings.

And even if they had reached him, would it have made a difference. There's more here to the story me thinks.

Gotta agree... One thing I found interesting was that the existing laws define a 'person' one way and the Church defines it on a more broad basis.

“the long-standing rule in Colorado that the term ‘person,’ as is used in the Wrongful Death Act, encompasses only individuals born alive. Colorado state courts define ‘person’ under the Act to include only those born alive."

In my view, this situation has little to do with the sensationalist headline of the Church 'doing an about face on abortion' (like tay will have you believe) but more to do with defending themselves within the existing legal framework of the State of Colorado.

You'll notice that it appears to be the lawyers for the plaintiff that are appealing to the State Supreme Court as they didn't get the verdict they wanted - not the Church appealing; that says to me that this is more about money than anything else.

 

[Sal]

If that emergency dept is 24 hrs, there would have been other physicians available; but their availability is also dependent on the work load that is in the hospital at the time (and the severity of the emergencies). In terms of the response time of the Dr's analysis, i can only imagine that the complexity of the patient's condition would have been significant (having to diagnose a a heart attack as a result of a clogged artery to her lung).

How much damage had already occurred to the mother and baby due to the heart attack and possibly restricted oxygen to the fetus? Clearly this would be info that would be required to really make an assessment of the situation in it's entirety, but I have to wonder if it didn't play a role in the legal proceedings.




Gotta agree... One thing I found interesting was that the existing laws define a 'person' one way and the Church defines it on a more broad basis.

“the long-standing rule in Colorado that the term ‘person,’ as is used in the Wrongful Death Act, encompasses only individuals born alive. Colorado state courts define ‘person’ under the Act to include only those born alive."

In my view, this situation has little to do with the sensationalist headline of the Church 'doing an about face on abortion' (like tay will have you believe) but more to do with defending themselves within the existing legal framework of the State of Colorado.

You'll notice that it appears to be the lawyers for the plaintiff that are appealing to the State Supreme Court as they didn't get the verdict they wanted - not the Church appealing; that says to me that this is more about money than anything else.

yeah really good points!!

 

[karrie]

The third thing nagging at me, but I'm not too sure how to word it well.

I wonder what the headlines would read like if after a mere hour in the emergency room, not even enough time to run tests, make a definite diagnosis, figure out what was going on, the medical staff's response was to slice the babies out of their mother the instant she collapsed. They'd have to essentially ignore her, not try to save her, in order to save the babies. Now, regardless of their view on abortion, I'd expect any doctor to focus on the mother's health first. By the time they let her go, stopped trying to resuscitate, it would be too late for the babies.

I know there have been medical ordeals in the past that have ended in caesarean, saving the babies. But they are long, drawn out, where the outcome is certain. This was not like that by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[taxslave]

It is always about the money.

 

[Sal]

The third thing nagging at me, but I'm not too sure how to word it well.

I wonder what the headlines would read like if after a mere hour in the emergency room, not even enough time to run tests, make a definite diagnosis, figure out what was going on, the medical staff's response was to slice the babies out of their mother the instant she collapsed. They'd have to essentially ignore her, not try to save her, in order to save the babies. Now, regardless of their view on abortion, I'd expect any doctor to focus on the mother's health first. By the time they let her go, stopped trying to resuscitate, it would be too late for the babies.

I know there have been medical ordeals in the past that have ended in caesarean, saving the babies. But they are long, drawn out, where the outcome is certain. This was not like that by any stretch of the imagination.

I agree, the whole situation is tragic and bizarre and full of things that make one go hmmmm.

 

[PoliticalNick]

Let me make my position on this quite clear. If the Catholic church believes life begins at conception and that at that moment the fertilized egg becomes a person then they should just settle out of their own pockets and not involve the insurance company at all. It should matter not to them if there is a legitimate legal defense if that defense goes against everything the espouse and claim as gospel truth on the matter. Their failure to stand by their claimed moral views, even if it costs the a million or two, is reprehensible and hypocrisy of the highest form.

Now I didn't really have any respect for the Catholic faith to begin with but this just confirms my suspicion that it is all about money and control of the population for them. As a whole this organization makes Bill Gates look poor and could buy many countries, not one of many, but actually many. As far as I'm concerned they have now shown themselves to be the self-righteous, self-centered, money-hungry a$$holes I always knew they were.

 

[captain morgan]

Let me make my position on this quite clear. If the Catholic church believes life begins at conception and that at that moment the fertilized egg becomes a person then they should just settle out of their own pockets and not involve the insurance company at all.

What makes you think that your morals and ethics trump anyone elses?

By the way, this has nothing to do with abortion, the Church didn't say that abortion was OK in this circumstance... The law suit is about 'wrongful death'.

It should matter not to them if there is a legitimate legal defense if that defense goes against everything the espouse and claim as gospel truth on the matter.

... Not only is it a legitimate defense - it is clearly defined in the Colorado State Laws... What's more, they are not at fault for anything as this was an emergency... The Church didn't go out and solicit the mother to have a heart attack 'cause the hospital had nothing better to do

Their failure to stand by their claimed moral views, even if it costs the a million or two, is reprehensible and hypocrisy of the highest form.

They are standing by them... Again, this was an emergency situation and they are dealing with accusations of 'wrongful death'... If you don't like the definition of such, lobby the Colorado State and have them change the definition of what a person is.

Now I didn't really have any respect for the Catholic faith to begin with

That's clear from your view that the Church should be held to a different standard of the law.

but this just confirms my suspicion that it is all about money

Yeah - It's about a money grab by the husband.

It'd be interesting to know if this emergency just showed-up at their doors and more interesting to determine if the family is Catholic.

and control of the population for them.

You gotta be kidding... Time to get out the tin-foil hats everyone!

As a whole this organization makes Bill Gates look poor and could buy many countries, not one of many, but actually many.

That makes them guilty?

Lemme ask you, what do you think happens when an organization operates and saves cash for a few thousand years?

As far as I'm concerned they have now shown themselves to be the self-righteous, self-centered, money-hungry a$$holes I always knew they were.

Your stripes are showing

 

[Niflmir]

Two things jump out at me about this.

One, not being able to have things both ways applies more to the law here than it does to the church. The law has to prosecute based on the law, not on the opinions of the defendant. An entity hires a lawyer to defend them to maximum effect within the legal system as it stands, not as they wish it to be. If we could all be defended based on how we wish the law worked, no one would need lawyers.

Two, to my understanding of malpractice insurance, once a case is launched against a 'defendant', the whole situation is then out of their hands and the lawyers for their insurance company are the ones calling the shots. Failure to abide by the legal plan and defense laid out can actually result in them then turning around and suing you for screwing up their case. Again, this is a system agreed upon and put in place by society at large, not by the Catholic church.

That's the basic idea. One can try all sorts of defenses in court: "I wasn't there, so I couldn't have murdered her," failing that you try, "I was there, but somebody else murdered her," then "Sure I was holding the gun, but somebody else had already shot her with it."

I am wondering if they should not be estopped from using the defense. If a potential patient uses their mission statement as rationale for choosing the hospital, in that they feel their unborn will receive more care, then an argument can be made that the hospital is estopped from using the laws definition of person. I am always free to make a contract where I do more than the law says I have to. Their mission statement may have some implications.

 

[captain morgan]

That's the basic idea. One can try all sorts of defenses in court: "I wasn't there, so I couldn't have murdered her," failing that you try, "I was there, but somebody else murdered her," then "Sure I was holding the gun, but somebody else had already shot her with it."

I am wondering if they should not be estopped from using the defense. If a potential patient uses their mission statement as rationale for choosing the hospital, in that they feel their unborn will receive more care, then an argument can be made that the hospital is estopped from using the laws definition of person. I am always free to make a contract where I do more than the law says I have to. Their mission statement may have some implications.

Great... The same person can use Walmart's credo 'Satisfaction Guaranteed' (or whatever the hell it is) and simply hove into view demanding that they require mechanical engineering services and holler that the 'guarantee' be honored.

 

[coldstream]

There's never been any ambiguity in the Catholic position on the life.. it is conceived in its full human potential by God, as a sovereign individual and with all of the rights, dignity and integrity that implies.. at conception.

Whatever legal contortions and gymastics this legal team has dreamed up.. for what appears to be an independent health care provider.. nothing will ever cause the Church to deviate from this primary Truth.

 

[karrie]

Their failure to stand by their claimed moral views, even if it costs the a million or two, is reprehensible and hypocrisy of the highest form.

I'm willing to bet that if you read the article, you'll find they stuck by their application of Catholic tenets to their medical practice, and it cost them a much prized merger with another hospital. Which would have amounted to more money than this father could be asking for. So, if it's all about the money, why didn't they fold and take a pass on their views then?

I'll answer you... they were calling the shots then. Now it's their malpractice insurance, not them, that is in court.

 

[damngrumpy]

The position the church finds itself in is a rightful position. They are either admitting
the truth or they are hypocrites. It wasn't that long ago they had to admit the earth
was round. The reason was in ancient time the Pope was considered infallible and
they would not change their policy. In view of the fact we were living in modern times
they had to come clean and admit the Pope is not always right and the earth is round
and circles the sun not the other way around.
Now for this debate. The church again took an inflexible position and insisted they
were right on all matters, that is until the ultimate financial case came calling. When
you so forcefully dig in on a position it leaves no room to be flexible in a negative
situation. Perhaps there can be a full and open discussion about the subject without
both sides using their talking heads to talk past everyone and maintain their inflexible
positions.
If they became more pro choice, which is not totally correct in their position either as
they can be just as inflexible, and if the church was a little less right of center it might
see some people think about returning to the church. I left a long time ago because
the church was too far right and decided to influence how I viewed the world. Now
maybe they will wake up and understand that people in any faith don't totally believe
all of the same thing. Churches in general have to be more socially active and less
dogmatic. Being dogmatic is what got them in this trouble.

 

[captain morgan]

So DG... If the Church had somehow restated their position on abortion - do you then believe that the father wouldn't have launched a lawsuit? Perhaps the Colorado laws wouldn't have had the caveat about the definition of a person?

It really is amazing that regardless of the issue, there are those that twist themselves into pretzels solely for the purpose of vilifying the Catholic Church..... Kinda sad really