RE: In malpractice case, Catholic hospital argues fetuses aren’t people (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


farglebargle -> RE: In malpractice case, Catholic hospital argues fetuses aren’t people (1/24/2013 3:48:11 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

Both of them are assholes....in this layman's opinion anyway.
The court,no court can afford to strip away the rights of fetus's that by any medical/doctors opinion are viable actual persons...hell I'm struck by how a case can not be made,providing standing ,to sue on behalf of any fetus....and I'm pro choice
but 7 months....isn't that considered "late term" anyway....let's me off my ethical confusion being pro choice and al



edited to add...Tazzy,I'm going to be driving south,for two days probably....I'm just too old(used to do it in one straight drive)...keep me posted ,please ;-)
Thanks,Mike.l.


So, "Viability" is the point where a woman becomes a Slave to the State, because The State has an interest in the viable child, whose interest overrides the woman's, and she can be forced to be a brood mare for The State's Children.

Because, if that's the way it works, THE STATE owns all the children. You, Me. Them. Everybody. Everybody.

Property Rights, people. Because if YOU don't OWN YOURSELF, then someone else does.




DesideriScuri -> RE: In malpractice case, Catholic hospital argues fetuses aren’t people (1/24/2013 4:33:43 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
Talk about fucked up.....
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.”

http://coloradoindependent.com/126808/in-malpractice-case-catholic-hospital-argues-fetuses-arent-people


Lawyers will do what lawyers do.

Someone mentioned the issue of what point the plaintiff was making, that is what was the plaintiff suing over?
    quote:

    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.
    ...
    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.
    ...
    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.”


Langley is using CO law to defend his client. To be honest, this lawsuit isn't against a Church or a religion. I don't know what options were available to the staff at the hospital at that time. It is entirely possible that they could not act without directions from the attending OB. As that OB didn't answer a page, they may not have been allowed to act.

What this comes down to, IMO, is whether or not the hospital is liable because the OB failed to answer a page when he was "on call." If not, then the hospital shouldn't have to defend itself. I do think the OB bears some liability for not answering the page when he was "on call." I can see a malpractice suit ahead. Too many unknowns to really be able to state whether the hospital is liable here nor not, but I would have to think the OB holds some.




Moonhead -> RE: In malpractice case, Catholic hospital argues fetuses aren’t people (1/24/2013 4:44:11 AM)

FR:
Until the kid's been baptised, it obviously isn't a person yet. These are Catholics you're talking about, after all...
[:D]




DesideriScuri -> RE: In malpractice case, Catholic hospital argues fetuses aren’t people (1/24/2013 5:09:34 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead
FR:
Until the kid's been baptised, it obviously isn't a person yet. These are Catholics you're talking about, after all...
[:D]


Not true. They are just heathens up to that point (almost walked out of a church with my newborns when the Catholic priest [wife's demand] stated, "Let's get these heathens baptized" when he went to begin the family-only baptismal service.




Moonhead -> RE: In malpractice case, Catholic hospital argues fetuses aren’t people (1/24/2013 5:15:37 AM)

Heathens aren't people, though. I'm sure that will have come through in the Priest's comment you quite rightly found offensive.
[:D]




DarkSteven -> RE: In malpractice case, Catholic hospital argues fetuses aren’t people (1/24/2013 6:17:23 AM)

This is odd. I know of CHI and have sent in job applications to them. I live close to Englewood, have once visited Canon City... this is in my back yard.

That said, CHI did screw up. I'm nowhere near being a doctor, and I would have ordered a C section especially right after the mother died. But precedent has held that a fetus, viable or not, is not considered a person. Even if corporations are.




tazzygirl -> RE: In malpractice case, Catholic hospital argues fetuses aren’t people (1/24/2013 9:02:38 AM)

quote:

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.


First hand experience...

I keep calling the on call guy
I start calling my bosses, supervisor, charge nurse, Director of Nursing
They start making calls... The Head of the OB Department is called...

But SOMEONE who is trained is in that hospital... even if its just a general surgeon.

Thats why the hospital is included in this lawsuit.




tazzygirl -> RE: In malpractice case, Catholic hospital argues fetuses aren’t people (1/24/2013 9:04:34 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DarkSteven

This is odd. I know of CHI and have sent in job applications to them. I live close to Englewood, have once visited Canon City... this is in my back yard.

That said, CHI did screw up. I'm nowhere near being a doctor, and I would have ordered a C section especially right after the mother died. But precedent has held that a fetus, viable or not, is not considered a person. Even if corporations are.


Yet I have shown precedence that CO has seen fetal demise as a reason to bring suit in these types of cases.




LafayetteLady -> RE: In malpractice case, Catholic hospital argues fetuses aren’t people (1/24/2013 9:45:42 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl


quote:

ORIGINAL: LafayetteLady

But that is Alabama law.  This is Colorado.  While out of state cases can be sited, in state is more important.  Have you found anything in state?  Keep in mind, I agree with you.


I thought that case was Colorado.

Espadero v. Feld, 649 F.Supp. 1480, 1485 (D.Colo.1986)


My mistake tazzy, reading too late at night can cause me to miss things.




tazzygirl -> RE: In malpractice case, Catholic hospital argues fetuses aren’t people (1/24/2013 11:09:44 AM)

lol.. thats ok... I was confused and thought I missed something. Thank you for straightening out my confusion. [;)]




cordeliasub -> RE: In malpractice case, Catholic hospital argues fetuses aren’t people (1/24/2013 2:39:52 PM)

The.....moral and empathetic part of me is sickened by this....

The cynical part of me is sad but then thinks...."well, if we don't want the unborn to be people....we can't have our cake and eat it too."

I agree that the hospital should have been calling and paging and scrambling for anyone who might be able to do SOMETHING.





tazzygirl -> RE: In malpractice case, Catholic hospital argues fetuses aren’t people (1/24/2013 6:40:25 PM)

7 months gestation for twins is about as close to full term as many get. These were not preemies, these were not under viable age. If they had been delivered, there is no reason to suspect they would not survive.




dcnovice -> RE: In malpractice case, Catholic hospital argues fetuses aren’t people (1/24/2013 6:48:04 PM)

quote:

7 months gestation for twins is about as close to full term as many get.

I never knew that! (But then, reproduction ain't my specialty.) Do they outgrow the womb, or is it something more subtle?


quote:

These were not preemies, these were not under viable age. If they had been delivered, there is no reason to suspect they would not survive.

This story gets more heartbreaking the more I learn about it. I can't even begin to imagine what Jeremy Stodghill has been through.




tazzygirl -> RE: In malpractice case, Catholic hospital argues fetuses aren’t people (1/24/2013 7:13:50 PM)

Around 7 months, twins weigh, typically, between 3 and 4 lbs.... combined, thats 6 - 8 lbs.. a full term baby for space.




dcnovice -> RE: In malpractice case, Catholic hospital argues fetuses aren’t people (1/24/2013 7:15:50 PM)

Thanks. Tazzy! That was my guess, but one never knows. [:)]




DesideriScuri -> RE: In malpractice case, Catholic hospital argues fetuses aren’t people (1/24/2013 9:38:31 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
7 months gestation for twins is about as close to full term as many get. These were not preemies, these were not under viable age. If they had been delivered, there is no reason to suspect they would not survive.


My twins were born at 36 weeks. It was an emergency C-section as there was twin-to-twin transfusion. One weight 7#4 and the other was 4#12. 10 days earlier, they were within 1 pound of each other, with the smaller one not gaining any weight in that 1½ weeks. Oddly enough, the bigger one had to spend time in the NICU initially because there was too much fluid in his lungs, and his blood glucose wasn't stabilizing, either. All was right as rain within 48 hours of birth, though, so it was all good. The OB said that 36 weeks is usually considered "full term" for twins.




tazzygirl -> RE: In malpractice case, Catholic hospital argues fetuses aren’t people (1/24/2013 10:15:40 PM)

34 - 38 weeks is considered full term for twins. Just like 38 weeks to 42 weeks is considered full term for singles. Its never an exact science. No window to peek into.




DesideriScuri -> RE: In malpractice case, Catholic hospital argues fetuses aren’t people (1/25/2013 5:16:40 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
34 - 38 weeks is considered full term for twins. Just like 38 weeks to 42 weeks is considered full term for singles. Its never an exact science. No window to peek into.


Then, 36 would be considered full term, no?




cordeliasub -> RE: In malpractice case, Catholic hospital argues fetuses aren’t people (1/25/2013 6:49:49 AM)

Whatever the specific definition is of "full term," even a single baby is viable at 7 months now, often with few complications.

My question would be......if she had WANTED to terminate the pregnancy, would these babies have still been babies? That is the rub. They are either people or they aren't - we can't decide based on convenience without hypocrisy creeping in.




tazzygirl -> RE: In malpractice case, Catholic hospital argues fetuses aren’t people (1/25/2013 10:42:52 AM)

At 7 months? They would have to have had a damn compelling reason to terminate at 7 months. There is only one reason for a late term abortion.

Majority of abortions occur before 24 weeks. There is no hypocrisy here.




Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.0625