US Catholic Church Does About Face on Abortion

[karrie]

You're flawed in stating that the church is actually in any part of this damngrumpy.

The hospital draws its views from the church, and the hospital's insurance company is the one launching a legal argument.

Neither one of those entities is the church.

 

[Goober]

You're flawed in stating that the church is actually in any part of this damngrumpy.

The hospital draws its views from the church, and the hospital's insurance company is the one launching a legal argument.

Neither one of those entities is the church.

It comes down to this at time- If the Hosp was not Catholic- If no one in the Hosp was catholic- but if there was a Catholic within 1000 miles - they would be guilty- OK - a bit much - I will narrow it down to if there was a RC Church within 100 miles. More reasonable now I think. .

People who have this xxxx on for the RC Church will find bad wherever they look. No matter the reason, regardless of how off the wall their thinking is. Logic gets thrown aside as it is in direct opposition to their agenda. Of If the Church did this I would have stayed, or if they did that. Utter BS.

The points brought forwards by yourself, Capt M clearly lay out the law, how the insurance companies lead on these cases.
But it boils down to hatred by some of the RC Church.
I do not agree with all of their (RC)teaching. I do not agree with all of the teachings of my Church (UCC).

 

[damngrumpy]

No Captain Morgan the suit would have gone ahead anyway that is true. The problem
for the church is that it dug itself into a hole generations ago and is totally inflexible.
Kerrie is right its not the church its the insurance company. The hospital is in the realm
of the church by perception. Remember in today's world regardless if true perception
is reality not necessarily reality itself. Therefore everyone will blame the church for
being hypocritical. I do in this case for if the church believes in their concept of right
and wrong they would come forward and contradict the hospital position and that of
the insurance company and take the financial hit. That is what being responsible for
ones word is all about. Now in perception the church is hiding behind the hospital
and the insurance company. They have now appeared to be contradicting what they
stand of in the eyes of the public and causing a measure of confusion. And no they
can't have it both ways.
Churches have to get with the times. Understand people believe some of the Bible
but not all of the Bible. To be clear, the Bible was made up of stories to teach certain
basics for people who were illiterate. The fact is not all the texts were meant to be
taken in their literal sense which leaves them open to interpretation. Forcing people
to believe all of it literally when it contradicts itself in a modern society, means people
lost faith in the over all denominations.

 

[karrie]

they would come forward and contradict the hospital position and that of
the insurance company and take the financial hit. That is what being responsible for
ones word is all about.

To take blame, one would first have to be in the wrong. No matter what legal wrangling the hospital is doing, is it actually, you know for sure, in the wrong on this? Could it have saved their lives?

From my perception, regardless of the legal status of the babies, the courts haven't granted them payment for the death of the mother either. That shows the court is not in the wrong, and expecting a tv like retrieval of babies from a mother whose heart had stopped pumping blood adequately hours before, is a bit ridiculous.

DOn't get me wrong, in his position I'd want that to have happened with all my heart too, but, that doesn't make it viable.

 

[captain morgan]

No Captain Morgan the suit would have gone ahead anyway that is true.

That said, I am left very confused why on Earth that you would invoke historical beliefs of society at that time (incl the Church) like flat earth to punctuate a point that you now suggest would not have stopped any litigation.

Clearly it doesn't matter (my guess anyways) that whatever hospital was went to, the same events probably would be rolled-out and a pending lawsuit along with it.

You have your position on the Church, Pope, etc, and that's fine - in fact, it's entirely your own business, but the broad brush painting to generalize a huge global population is, in my eyes, very narrow in view

The problem for the church is that it dug itself into a hole generations ago and is totally inflexible.
Kerrie is right its not the church its the insurance company.

These are the Churches beliefs. There is no problem for the Church on this, the problem is for those people, generally outside teh RCC, that don't share the same views.

Bear in mind here DG that no one - and I mean no one - is forcing you to adopt Catholic doctrine. You don't like it, certainly don't agree with it and that's just fine and dandy to us Catholics, but all that you are really doing at this point is demanding that a group (RCCs in this case) adopt your philosophy.

let me ask, what gives you the right or authority?

The hospital is in the realm of the church by perception. Remember in today's world regardless if true perception is reality not necessarily reality itself. Therefore everyone will blame the church for being hypocritical.

Very good point...

I do in this case for if the church believes in their concept of right
and wrong they would come forward and contradict the hospital position and that of
the insurance company and take the financial hit. That is what being responsible for
ones word is all about.

You speak in a manner like the Church begged these folks to bring their emergency to this hospital and later pushed their views on them; nothing of the sort here DG... A medical emergency showed-up unannounced through the doors and the hospital professionals did exactly as they were trained.... Nothing more and nothing less

Let me ask, had the hospital been extra sensitive in not wanting to offend the family (assuming that they weren't Catholic) and denied them medical service - would you feel better about the Church and hospital?

Clearly the danger of being seen as hypocrites would be gone... Would that be the solution in your eyes to absolve the Church and hospital?

Now in perception the church is hiding behind the hospital
and the insurance company. They have now appeared to be contradicting what they
stand of in the eyes of the public and causing a measure of confusion. And no they
can't have it both ways.

That is one possible perception should you choose to bend that far... As has been mentioned numerous times now, the lawsuit is based on wrongful death (nothing to do with abortion) and the hospital, via the insurance company is not liable based on the notion of the State based definition of 'person'

Churches have to get with the times.

That's the choice of the Church and their followers, isn't it?

Forcing people
to believe all of it literally when it contradicts itself in a modern society, means people
lost faith in the over all denominations.

No one is forcing anyone DG.

 

[Niflmir]

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.

You should look up what estoppel means. Here is a good example of estoppel, suppose I tell you that you are free to hunt on my property, so this weekend you do so, only to have the police show up and arrest you because I called them for you trespassing on my property. Here's the legal question, should I actually be able to press charges against you? The answer is no.

A vague statement like "Satisfaction guaranteed" cannot really be the basis for anyone's decision especially stretching it to ridiculous limits like you have. Words do not mean whatever you want them to. Expecting that the Catholic church strives to protect the sanctity of the unborn should be a foregone conclusion for any person.

And yes, people will choose Catholic hospitals and schools simply because of such religious beliefs. So it is not a stretch at all to believe that they should be estopped from using such a defense.

 

[Goober]

You should look up what estoppel means. Here is a good example of estoppel, suppose I tell you that you are free to hunt on my property, so this weekend you do so, only to have the police show up and arrest you because I called them for you trespassing on my property. Here's the legal question, should I actually be able to press charges against you? The answer is no.

A vague statement like "Satisfaction guaranteed" cannot really be the basis for anyone's decision especially stretching it to ridiculous limits like you have. Words do not mean whatever you want them to. Expecting that the Catholic church strives to protect the sanctity of the unborn should be a foregone conclusion for any person.

And yes, people will choose Catholic hospitals and schools simply because of such religious beliefs. So it is not a stretch at all to believe that they should be estopped from using such a defense.

Would that not also depend upon their ability to prove they followed Church Doctrine to a T and dotted the I's as well.

 

[Niflmir]

Would that not also depend upon their ability to prove they followed Church Doctrine to a T and dotted the I's as well.

For the most part, I think in this case it just depends on convincing a Judge that they made a clear statement regarding the personhood and sanctity of the unborn and that this implies to a reasonable individual that the hospital was accepting extra liability above and beyond the law to that effect.

On the other hand, I don't think there was any malpractice and don't think they should need to be making such a silly defense. What does it matter if they were people or not? Either the doctors followed inappropriate procedures or not, is the husband alleging that they should have given up on his wife to save the children? I far as I understood he claimed that a c-section could have save everyone/someone. Were their actions really so grossly inappropriate as to warrant malpractice?

 

[Sal]

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.

I just read the article again, Staples never answered the page (for whatever reason) I think this issue is about qualified medical staff available and that is it. Somehow it has been turned into a sanctity of life issue but he sued for wrongful death that's all. I don't think the denomination of the hospital was in question in Jeremy's mine. The doctor was her obstetrician and he didn't directly sue him either.

I think it was a procedural problem period.

 

[Niflmir]

I just read the article again, Staples never answered the page (for whatever reason) I think this issue is about qualified medical staff available and that is it. Somehow it has been turned into a sanctity of life issue but he sued for wrongful death that's all. I don't think the denomination of the hospital was in question in Jeremy's mine. The doctor was her obstetrician and he didn't directly sue him either.

I think it was a procedural problem period.

I think you have your finger on it.

It may have turned into a sanctity of life issue when the guy's lawyers tried to imply, "Oh, yeah, the unborn are people too, so the malpractice led to three wrongful deaths!" Otherwise I cannot imagine why the hospital would just come right out and point out that the law doesn't recognize them as people.

 

[captain morgan]

You should look up what estoppel means. Here is a good example of estoppel, suppose I tell you that you are free to hunt on my property, so this weekend you do so, only to have the police show up and arrest you because I called them for you trespassing on my property. Here's the legal question, should I actually be able to press charges against you? The answer is no.

A vague statement like "Satisfaction guaranteed" cannot really be the basis for anyone's decision especially stretching it to ridiculous limits like you have. Words do not mean whatever you want them to. Expecting that the Catholic church strives to protect the sanctity of the unborn should be a foregone conclusion for any person.

And yes, people will choose Catholic hospitals and schools simply because of such religious beliefs. So it is not a stretch at all to believe that they should be estopped from using such a defense.

I appreciate the definition of estoppel - I am vaguely familiar with the term although I must admit that I have to reach a long ways back in my memory.

Here's where I see the difference and the logic behind my Walmart scenario... To start, what you posted was this:

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.

Tow important considerations here:

1. Choice
2. An agreement/contract or implied understanding.

To start, we don't have all the details, but I will assume that as this was an emergency, the family (or ambulance?) chose the closest facility. Secondly, part of the charge was that the on-call physician did not respond to the call that (presumably) resulted in the wrongful deaths of the mother and fetus.


Estoppel would entail (from my foggy recollection) that an informed agreement (without duress) was made either on the spot (duress?) or that that this was the hospital in which they were slated to have the child delivered. Your suggested use of estoppel would be of no legal merit unless the family had entered into an agreement for the reasons you mentioned with that hospital and a specific physician (traditionally speaking) which would add to the confusion - was the on-call the Dr that was the (contracted) physician?.


Further, a mission statement is not an implied contract with an individual entity more than it is a statement of direction, belief, goals, etc.. In effect, this is why I leaned on the Walmart scenario, "Lowest Price (or) Satisfaction Guaranteed" while not a formal mission statement remain published statements by the entity. Although one might be able to challenge these statements in Court, much like a mission statement, there still needs to be a clear relationship that would imply a binding tie between the parties.

In the case outlined by the OP, I don't believe that this relationship existed other than the notion that it was the closest and best suited facility to deal with an emergency.

 

[karrie]

Estoppel doesn't apply.

Nowhere is it implied in the church's anti-abortion stance that if a woman goes into medical distress, the solution will be to remove her fetus without serious medical consideration. In fact, their anti-abortion stance kind of implies the opposite if you really think about it.

Also, the church is not the one mounting the legal defense, presumably the malpractice insurance is. I see no reason why anyone would attempt to strip them of their right to the legal defense of their choosing based on who their client is.

 

[CDNBear]

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

The hospital draws its views from the church, and the hospital's insurance company is the one launching a legal argument.

Neither one of those entities is the church.

Bingo.

Anyone making anything of this, is an idiot.

 

[coldstream]

In Washington today 100s of thousands (the record was 400,000 in 2011) will march in the Catholic March for Life, marking the 40th Anniversary of Roe v Wade (the SCOTUS ruling legalizing abortion), joined by millions around the country over the weekend. They will be joined by almost every cardinal, major metropolitan bishop, prelate.. with thousands of priests and religious... AND they will be almost COMPLETELY ignored by the mainstream press.

And yet this private legal issue... which in no way speaks for the Church.. and without Church sanction.. is posited as a major news item, presumably as proof of Catholic hypocrisy. What is shows is the bigotry and fanaticism of the pro abortion movement in attempting to silence all pro Life voices... as the pro Death movement is coming under much more organized and effective challenges.. legal and political.

 

[PoliticalNick]

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

Never said they did.

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'.

I'm not sure where I mentioned abortion. This is about the long-standing position of the catholic church that life begins at conception....until they get sued and it suits them to have it be different.

... Not only is it a legitimate defense - it is clearly defined in the Colorado State Laws...

According to the state law is actualy a perfect defense. That said if the RCC want to stand by their position of life begins at conception they are free to not go to court and just make a settlement.

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

They are not at fault for her heart attack....they are at fault of being great big hypocrites!

They are standing by them...

No they aren't. It suits them at this time to argue that life does NOT begin at conception, as soon as they win according to state laws they will again argue that life DOES begin at conception. I surprised you cannot see a problem with this.

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.

Why would I? I don't live in Colorado.

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

I hold them to keep their moral views and standards at all times, not change for convenience. If they want to use this law to avoid a payout they just prove they are hypocrites. I couldn't have any less respect for the Catholic church than I do now. This is just funny as it proves to many others what I have known for a long time. The church is corrupt and all about money.

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

That is what you get in today's litigious society.

That makes them guilty?

The only thing they are guilty of is showing themselves as hypocrites and changing up one the long-standing, hard-core tenets of their church for the convenience of money.

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

Just what happened to their mission of charitable works and vows of poverty?

 

[petros]

I'm not sure where I mentioned abortion. This is about the long-standing position of the catholic church that life begins at conception....until they get sued and it suits them to have it be different.

The Church isn't being sued. A hospital is.

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

When did the lawyer for the hospital become Pope? What kind of people? Natural people or legal people? What makes a human a people?

 

[PoliticalNick]

The Church isn't being sued. A hospital is.

A hospital that is owned and operated by the catholic church according to their tenets and principles.

When did the lawyer for the hospital become Pope? What kind of people? Natural people or legal people? What makes a human a people?

The lawyer most likely works for the malpractice insurance company like Karrie points out. My point is the church run hospital has the option to just pay up and keep their pro-life position intact and not use the insurance company to fight it.

 

[petros]

A hospital that is owned and operated by the catholic church according to their tenets and principles.

The lawyer most likely works for the malpractice insurance company like Karrie points out. My point is the church run hospital has the option to just pay up and keep their pro-life position intact and not use the insurance company to fight it.

A business like any other business.

Do you think they make patients say Grace before they get an intravenous?

In a legal case the hospital's lawyer (probably a sharp Jew) is simply going by legal definition of a Person.

It's not coming from the Vatican as a Papal decree.

 

[PoliticalNick]

A business like any other business.

Do you think they make patients say Grace before they get an intravenous?

In a legal case the hospital's lawyer (probably a sharp Jew) is simply going by legal definition of a Person.

It's not coming from the Vatican as a Papal decree.

How many times do I have to say it? The law is clear that the fetus was not a 'person' and therefore there was no 'wrongful death'. That doesn't preclude the church run hospital that will NOT perform abortions because they hold the view life begins at conception from making a settlement because based on their tenets and viewpoint the fetus WAS a person and therefore a wrongful death did occur. By choosing this course of action which utilizes a law they disagree with and fight against to their advantage they show themselves as hypocrites of epic proportion.

 

[petros]

How many times do I have to say it? The law is clear that the fetus was not a 'person' and therefore there was no 'wrongful death'. That doesn't preclude the church run hospital that will NOT perform abortions because they hold the view life begins at conception from making a settlement because based on their tenets and viewpoint the fetus WAS a person and therefore a wrongful death did occur. By choosing this course of action which utilizes a law they disagree with and fight against to their advantage they show themselves as hypocrites of epic proportion.

It's a hospital. A business. They are owned by but not run by the Church.