Catholic hospital: dead unborn twins in malpractice case not persons

[Cave Johnson]

Awkward.

One thing you have to give the lads in The Clan Of The Red Beanie. They certainly know how to thrive in what many of their pet politicians call Our Litigious Society. Confronted by the civil law, the boys in the Clan don't reach for Scripture. They don't pray in seclusion for the imminent arrival of the Holy Spirit. They whip out their BlackBerries — and thank the Lord that's all they whip out — and dial up their lawyers, and then they do what the lawyers tell them, regardless of whatever Vatican-based palaver they dish out to the rest of us.

There's a real gem of a case going on in Colorado right now, where a Catholic hospital is alleged to have contributed to the death of a pregnant woman, and of the twins she was carrying, and in defense of its right not to be socked with the mother of all malpractice judgments, Holy Mother Church has discovered its inner Kate Michelman.

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."

Fetuses are precious giftpersons from the baby Jesus unless that principle happens to cost us a buck. Matthew 21: 12-13, beeyotches.

http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/#ixzz2IvQqmpSj

[Beef Supreme]

Originally Posted by blaise

I don't think God's law mentions civil suits in US court.

That doesn't make them any less hypocritical.

[blaise]

Originally Posted by BigChiefTablet

That doesn't make them any less hypocritical.

Yes it does. It's a legal argument.

[Beef Supreme]

Originally Posted by blaise

Yes it does. It's a legal argument.

Legally, they can make their argument and probably win this case. Morally, they are shit out of luck.

Are you familiar with the phrase "the spirit of the law?"

[blaise]

Originally Posted by BigChiefTablet

Legally, they can make their argument and probably win this case. Morally, they are shit out of luck.

Are you familiar with the phrase "the spirit of the law?"

There's nothing immoral about what they're doing. And yes, I'm familiar, but you'd have to explain how that would apply to this.

[jettio]

The quoted article in the opening post stated:

"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."

In actuality, the only way a legal precedent could be established would be for the hospital's lawyer to make the argument that the won at the trial court and then have the plaintiff win the appeal.

If the hospital had conceded based on church teaching, that would have done nothing to change the law.

Maybe Colorado has never ruled on a case arguing mother dies without malpractice, but viable fetuses not being saved was malpractice. Does seem bad that duty OB does not answer page, but if the mother is already dead seems like any surgeon present could have figured that it would be best to perform ceaserian and try to save them.

It may well be that the doctor's and the hospital's malpractice insurers have to pay any judgment and settlement, and therefore have the decision making authority.

[Beef Supreme]

Originally Posted by blaise

There's nothing immoral about what they're doing. And yes, I'm familiar, but you'd have to explain how that would apply to this.

They fight to change the laws to protect the unborn because they believe that is what God's law would have them do. Until it affects their bottom line. Then they are more than happy to go along with the law as written by men.

The Bible may not say anything about civil litigation as it pertains to the United States of America, but I doubt you could make an argument for them following the spirit of God's law since they are following the letter of man's law.

Legally, they are completely within their rights.

[blaise]

Originally Posted by BigChiefTablet

They fight to change the laws to protect the unborn because they believe that is what God's law would have them do. Until it affects their bottom line. Then they are more than happy to go along with the law as written by men.

The Bible may not say anything about civil litigation as it pertains to the United States of America, but I doubt you could make an argument for them following the spirit of God's law since they are following the letter of man's law.

Legally, they are completely within their rights.

No, they're still fighting to change the laws and obeying the laws. Just like before.

[Beef Supreme]

Originally Posted by blaise

No, they're still fighting to change the laws and obeying the laws. Just like before.

Would it be against the law for the Catholic church to treat the two fetuses in this case as human beings?

The prosecution could not make that case, but they shouldn't need to make that case to the Catholic church, now should they?

[blaise]

Originally Posted by BigChiefTablet

Would it be against the law for the Catholic church to treat the two fetuses in this case as human beings?

The prosecution could not make that case, but they shouldn't need to make that case to the Catholic church, now should they?

You understand that this is a civil case, being conducted in a court, right? This is a court case, not a debate over values.

[dirk digler]

Originally Posted by BigChiefTablet

That doesn't make them any less hypocritical.

This is an interesting case and I agree with you they are hypocrites.

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.

"The Church’s defense of life encompasses the unborn," the article quotes.

[Beef Supreme]

Originally Posted by blaise

You understand that this is a civil case, being conducted in a court, right? This is a court case, not a debate over values.

Yeah I understand that. The Catholic church is not required to pursue the defense that the fetuses are not human.

[blaise]

Originally Posted by BigChiefTablet

Yeah I understand that. The Catholic church is not required to pursue the defense that the fetuses are not human.

They're using the legal standard, in a legal case.

[blaise]

Originally Posted by dirk digler

This is an interesting case and I agree with you they are hypocrites.

Not really. Someone is trying to assign legal responsibility. They're just pointing out a legal standard. They don't have to agree with the concept.

[Beef Supreme]

Originally Posted by blaise

They're using the legal standard, in a legal case.

And ignoring their own convictions. Do I need to direct you to Webster on the definition of hypocrisy?

[blaise]

Originally Posted by BigChiefTablet

And ignoring their own convictions. Do I need to direct you to Webster on the definition of hypocrisy?

They're not ignoring any convictions. They still have the same convictions. It's a legal matter, trying to decide legal responsibility. They're using the standards set forth by the jurisdiction they're in.

As far as you googling definitions. It's a free country, you don't have to ask my permission.