Catholic Hospital's Ethical, Unethical Defense

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Thu Jan 24, 2013 2:28 pm

How quickly values and morals can be abandoned when it comes to money.

But when it came to mounting a defense in the Stodghill case, Catholic Health’s lawyers effectively turned the Church directives on their head. Catholic organizations have for decades fought to change federal and state laws that fail to protect “unborn persons, and Catholic Health’s lawyers in this case had the chance to set precedent bolstering anti-abortion legal arguments. Instead, they are arguing state law protects doctors from liability concerning unborn fetuses on grounds that those fetuses are not persons with legal rights.

As Jason Langley, an attorney with Denver-based Kennedy Childs, argued in one of the briefs he filed for the defense, the court “should not overturn 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. Therefore Plaintiffs cannot maintain wrongful death claims based on two unborn fetuses.Catholic hospital argues fetuses aren’t people in malpractice suit - Salon.com

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Thu Jan 24, 2013 3:18 pm

The christian fundamentalists pushing personhood laws are protestant - is there any sectarianism in the states or are they all nice to each other?

YZGI · Post by **YZGI** » Thu Jan 24, 2013 3:26 pm

All the religions get along pretty good around me. I live in a predominately Catholic area but there are a lot of Methodists and Babtist also. Never heard of a problem.

Catholics never cease to amaze me..

Snooz · Post by **Snooz** » Thu Jan 24, 2013 3:32 pm

Considering how loudly they were screaming about providing birth control with health insurance, this is a rather abrupt turnaround.

Wandrin · Post by **Wandrin** » Thu Jan 24, 2013 4:18 pm

I think the doctrine is very clear: life begins at conception except when it is to the church's advantage that it doesn't.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Thu Jan 24, 2013 4:18 pm

Disgusting.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Thu Jan 24, 2013 5:06 pm

I guess as an alternative defense the church could've claimed the fetuses were gay and therefore the church could ethically withhold medical treatment (benefits) from them.

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Thu Jan 24, 2013 7:00 pm

Ahso!;1417759 wrote: How quickly values and morals can be abandoned when it comes to money.

Catholic hospital argues fetuses aren’t people in malpractice suit - Salon.com

Yea, and?

They are arguing a point of law, not morality.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Thu Jan 24, 2013 7:18 pm

tude dog;1417807 wrote: Yea, and?

They are arguing a point of law, not morality.But I thought you weren't talking to me any more...tude dog;1417788 wrote: I pass

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Thu Jan 24, 2013 8:18 pm

Ahso!;1417809 wrote: But I thought you weren't talking to me any more...

Where did I say that?

Originally Posted by tude dog

I pass

Totally different thread having nothing to do with the current discussion.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Thu Jan 24, 2013 8:42 pm

People let loyalty to organization distract them from the original purpose it's supposed to stand for. I noticed it glaringly when they complained about losing federal funds if they held to their principles about funding abortions for employees.

I'll bet you won't hear a peep from the Pope. Not one papal peep.

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Thu Jan 24, 2013 9:03 pm

Accountable;1417814 wrote: People let loyalty to organization distract them from the original purpose it's supposed to stand for. I noticed it glaringly when they complained about losing federal funds if they held to their principles about funding abortions for employees.

I'll bet you won't hear a peep from the Pope. Not one papal peep.

It is a malpractice suit based on Colorado law. The hospital is defending itself according to Colorado law. Apparently Colorado law defines the unborn as fetuses, not the Church.

Using the legal terminology does not reflect their basic moral or ethical teaching.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Thu Jan 24, 2013 9:08 pm

tude dog;1417816 wrote: Using the legal terminology does not reflect their basic moral or ethical teaching.
What did I miss? It's a Catholic hospital, right? The Catholic Church owns and runs it?

A moral institution can't make an argument that runs contrary to their moral principles and expect to keep their moral standing.

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Fri Jan 25, 2013 2:15 am

Accountable;1417817 wrote: What did I miss? It's a Catholic hospital, right? The Catholic Church owns and runs it?

A moral institution can't make an argument that runs contrary to their moral principles and expect to keep their moral standing.

Catholic organizations have for decades fought to change federal and state laws that fail to protect “unborn persons,

They worked to change the law.

and Catholic Health’s lawyers in this case had the chance to set precedent bolstering anti-abortion legal arguments.

There is a quick editorial buried in a news item.

Instead, they are arguing state law protects doctors from liability concerning unborn fetuses on grounds that those fetuses are not persons with legal rights.

No kidding. Playing the hand they were dealt.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Jan 25, 2013 4:25 am

tude dog;1417827 wrote: Catholic organizations have for decades fought to change federal and state laws that fail to protect “unborn persons,

They worked to change the law.Yes they have. Odd that you would present the link that way, but the statement is true.

tude dog;1417827 wrote: There is a quick editorial buried in a news item.Clearly.

tude dog;1417827 wrote: No kidding. Playing the hand they were dealt.
But when it's concerning an organization that is founded upon a certain set of principles, whose purpose of existence is to promote that set of principles, don't you agree that they shouldn't violate those principles when defending/justifying their actions?

If the Catholic Church holds that humans are people even before they are born, then principles would dictate that a wrongful death would/should be declared wrongful regardless of the law, because is is wrongful in the Eyes of God. To say "Sure, it was wrongful death, but we shouldn't have to pay because the law says the person isn't really a person (even though we say (s)he is," is hypocritical. No different than if a priest murdered a slave in 1850 and claimed innocence because it was just a slave.

If the Catholic hospital holds that the death was not wrongful - would not be wrongful even when acknowledging the "personhood" of the babies - then there is an argument that can be made without hiding behind a law that violates their principles, and they should be making that argument.

Right now I see the Catholic Church declaring that matters of principle are subordinate to matters of law. That's not a good message for an institution of morality to send.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Fri Jan 25, 2013 7:38 am

tude dog;1417816 wrote: It is a malpractice suit based on Colorado law. The hospital is defending itself according to Colorado law. Apparently Colorado law defines the unborn as fetuses, not the Church.

Using the legal terminology does not reflect their basic moral or ethical teaching.

In the recent public contraception debate catholics were making the argument that when the question arises of following either their conscience or law and it's a choice they are free to make they choose their conscience.

“Never before, Archbishop Dolan said, “has the federal government forced individuals and organizations to go out into the marketplace and buy a product that violates their conscience. This shouldn’t happen in a land where free exercise of religion ranks first in the Bill of Rights.

Bishops across the country posted similarly dire statements on their Web sites, and at Mass on the following Sundays, priests read the bishops’ letters from their pulpits and wove the religious freedom theme into their homilies. By the bishops’ own count, 147 bishops in the nation’s 195 dioceses have now issued personal letters on religious freedom, which are trickling down to Catholics through their local parish bulletins and diocesan newspapers.

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/heal ... index.html

In the Colorado case we're examining it is clearly an instance of religious freedom and the CHOICE of the catholic hospital is one of law over conscience. If they chose to follow their conscience they would not fight the suit on the grounds they are. Religious Freedom appears to be nothing more than a convenient way in and out of situations for religious institutions.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Jan 25, 2013 8:36 am

Ahso!;1417846 wrote: If they chose to follow their conscience they would not fight the suit on the grounds they are.
Agreed. They would find another way, perhaps by proving that the doctor followed all recommended procedures/precautions.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Fri Jan 25, 2013 12:37 pm

If they win the case then their attempt to change the law will have failed and state law will continue protect doctors from liability concerning unborn fetuses on grounds that those fetuses are not persons with legal rights and the anti-abortionists will still have to argue life begins at conception and try and persuade rather than impose.

If the lose the case they are liable in a wrongful death suit either way it's a bit of a lose lose scenario is it not?

Weld County vote against emergency contraception leaves patients looking elsewhere | The Colorado Independent

They do seem rather set in imposing their religious beliefs on contraception as well as abortion on everybody. You can argue the toss about abortion but surely they can't morally deny a woman the right to chose when she becomes pregnant. Oh forget it they do as part of their doctrine don't they.

Has the doctor explained why he failed to respond?

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Fri Jan 25, 2013 1:53 pm

Accountable;1417834 wrote:

But when it's concerning an organization that is founded upon a certain set of principles, whose purpose of existence is to promote that set of principles, don't you agree that they shouldn't violate those principles when defending/justifying their actions?

If the Catholic Church holds that humans are people even before they are born, then principles would dictate that a wrongful death would/should be declared wrongful regardless of the law, because is is wrongful in the Eyes of God. To say "Sure, it was wrongful death, but we shouldn't have to pay because the law says the person isn't really a person (even though we say (s)he is," is hypocritical. No different than if a priest murdered a slave in 1850 and claimed innocence because it was just a slave.

If the Catholic hospital holds that the death was not wrongful - would not be wrongful even when acknowledging the "personhood" of the babies - then there is an argument that can be made without hiding behind a law that violates their principles, and they should be making that argument.

Right now I see the Catholic Church declaring that matters of principle are subordinate to matters of law. That's not a good message for an institution of morality to send.

I believe I got ya.

First of all I see a hospital. To be frank I have no idea what it means to be Catholic, Lutheran, Jewish etc. hospital.

I don't know what the charter, set of principals etc of that particular hospital. They may not live up to outsiders, but so what?

I understand I am repeating myself, but obvious to me that for them this is not a time to argue terminology. The article supplied mentioned setting precedents. Well what precedent would be set if the Hospital lost the case?

To me, I don't care what moral, ethical etc, bla bla bla.

On must consider for the long run, there are times to hold them, then others fold them.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Fri Jan 25, 2013 2:12 pm

tude dog;1417884 wrote: I believe I got ya.

First of all I see a hospital. To be frank I have no idea what it means to be Catholic, Lutheran, Jewish etc. hospital.

I don't know what the charter, set of principals etc of that particular hospital. They may not live up to outsiders, but so what?

To me, I don't care what moral, ethical etc, bla bla bla.

.

So the whole debate about abortion and access to contraceptives and a woman's right to choose just passed you by as irrelevant?

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Fri Jan 25, 2013 2:23 pm

The article addresses that as well.

So here’s what we should be talking about instead of Catholic hypocrisy: The gradual takeover of public hospitals by Catholic-sponsored medical centers is a dangerous trend. The Stodghill case is tragic, but also deeply illustrative of why this is so.

The terrible mix of doctors and dogma becomes all too clear in cases like the death of Savita Halappanavar, a woman who died in an Irish hospital — another institution governed by Catholic directives on reproductive care — after its staff denied her an abortion for a non-viable fetus. When claims of fetal personhood can outweigh claims of women’s personhood, we’ve got a serious problem on our hands.

And Catholic strings don’t just limit women’s access to contraception and safe abortion care. They also have major implications for end-of-life care, in-vetro fertilization, sterilization and countless other medical procedures that we just don’t want the Pope’s advice on.

Would it have been preferable for the hospital to comply with Stodghill’s lawsuit and concede the unborn fetuses were people? No, because it would have set a dangerous precedent. And instead of reading gloating blog headlines today, we would be be reading outraged ones.

So instead of that, we have a billion dollar Catholic medical conglomerate with its tail between its legs, following the law (a good law, really) about if and when a something becomes a someone.

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Fri Jan 25, 2013 3:18 pm

gmc;1417885 wrote: So the whole debate about abortion and access to contraceptives and a woman's right to choose just passed you by as irrelevant?

No

Right now I am talking about a malpractice case against a Catholic Hospital having nothing to do with so called women's rights.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Jan 25, 2013 4:27 pm

gmc;1417878 wrote: If they win the case then their attempt to change the law will have failed and state law will continue protect doctors from liability concerning unborn fetuses on grounds that those fetuses are not persons with legal rights and the anti-abortionists will still have to argue life begins at conception and try and persuade rather than impose.

If the lose the case they are liable in a wrongful death suit either way it's a bit of a lose lose scenario is it not? That's pretty much how I see it. So they may as well go down on principle rather than stand tall as hypocrites.

tude dog;1417884 wrote: I believe I got ya.

First of all I see a hospital. To be frank I have no idea what it means to be Catholic, Lutheran, Jewish etc. hospital.

I don't know what the charter, set of principals etc of that particular hospital. They may not live up to outsiders, but so what?

I understand I am repeating myself, but obvious to me that for them this is not a time to argue terminology. The article supplied mentioned setting precedents. Well what precedent would be set if the Hospital lost the case?

To me, I don't care what moral, ethical etc, bla bla bla.

On must consider for the long run, there are times to hold them, then others fold them.

Right. And that makes perfect sense for someone in your position, or for any hospital not run by a religious organization. But the organization that runs that hospital claims moral, ethical etc, bla bla bla as their very foundation, their one and only reason for being. They claim to be willing to close their doors rather than follow a law that violates their moral view in one instance (Obamacare), yet seem to have no problem using an (arguably) more egregious law to protect them in this instance.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Sat Jan 26, 2013 12:36 pm

tude dog;1417893 wrote: No

Right now I am talking about a malpractice case against a Catholic Hospital having nothing to do with so called women's rights.

In other words it has passed you by.

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Mon Jan 28, 2013 1:33 pm

gmc;1417960 wrote: In other words it has passed you by.

I am not anything by passing by.

Thing is, your are expecting something from a particular institution. So it fails in your opinion.

So where is the grief?

To me it is just another Holy Cow, look at the Catholics!

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Mon Jan 28, 2013 2:34 pm

tude dog;1418054 wrote: I am not anything by passing by.

Thing is, your are expecting something from a particular institution. So it fails in your opinion.

So where is the grief?

To me it is just another Holy Cow, look at the Catholics!

I live in a country where we have a welfare state. There is no such thing as a catholic hospital only hospitals. The issue is non existent in the UK I just find it interesting.

If on the other hand your wife or girlfriend is in hospital due to pregnancy and is having problems you may find yourself dealing with a hospital that will refuse an abortion on any grounds whatsoever even if it means the death of the mother and/or unborn children. As a male it might not bother you and your wife or girlfriend may even be of the same mind but basically you have a religious organisation running a hospital making life and death decisions during a pregnancy about what treatment to give based not on medical considerations but religious ones. Your wife and children died but it's god's will in this instance does not seem to be a satisfactory answer for the bereaved husband. I suppose yo could argue he could have gone to non-denominational hospital so it was his fault.

First of all I see a hospital. To be frank I have no idea what it means to be Catholic, Lutheran, Jewish etc. hospital.

Maybe you should think about finding out. Just saying - you live there I don't I don't have to worry about it.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Mon Jan 28, 2013 2:59 pm

The point is you DON'T take your pregnant wife to a Catholic Hospital.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Mon Jan 28, 2013 3:02 pm

Forget about ending life support in a catholic hospital and remember they don't honor DNR.

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Mon Jan 28, 2013 3:28 pm

gmc;1418066 wrote: I live in a country where we have a welfare state. There is no such thing as a catholic hospital only hospitals. The issue is non existent in the UK I just find it interesting.

If on the other hand your wife or girlfriend is in hospital due to pregnancy and is having problems you may find yourself dealing with a hospital that will refuse an abortion on any grounds whatsoever even if it means the death of the mother and/or unborn children. As a male it might not bother you and your wife or girlfriend may even be of the same mind but basically you have a religious organisation running a hospital making life and death decisions during a pregnancy about what treatment to give based not on medical considerations but religious ones. Your wife and children died but it's god's will in this instance does not seem to be a satisfactory answer for the bereaved husband. I suppose yo could argue he could have gone to non-denominational hospital so it was his fault.

Well, far as I know such situations are anything but common.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Mon Jan 28, 2013 5:40 pm

tude dog;1418079 wrote: Well, far as I know such situations are anything but common.

Perhaps more common than you think.

Angela Bonavoglia: Reproductive Crisis? Do Not Proceed to a Catholic Hospital

from the link within the article

An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

As Catholic-owned hospitals merge with or take over other facilities, they impose restrictions on reproductive health services, including abortion and contraceptive services. Our interviews with US obstetrician–gynecologists working in Catholic-owned hospitals revealed that they are also restricted in managing miscarriages.

Catholic-owned hospital ethics committees denied approval of uterine evacuation while fetal heart tones were still present, forcing physicians to delay care or transport miscarrying patients to non–Catholic-owned facilities. Some physicians intentionally violated protocol because they felt patient safety was compromised.

Although Catholic doctrine officially deems abortion permissible to preserve the life of the woman, Catholic-owned hospital ethics committees differ in their interpretation of how much health risk constitutes a threat to a woman's life and therefore how much risk must be present before they approve the intervention.

How many such cases would you need before it is an issue?

I wouldn't have thought it would be confined to catholic hospitals some protestant sects feel the same way about such things and I presume many also sit on ethics committees. Certainly some of the more extreme anti-abortionists for any reason are not catholic

Interesting thread It's something I had never heard of or could imagine happening that a doctor would deliberately let a patient die