Every sperm is sacred.....unless.....

Pages

link

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.”

So, Catholic hospital says it runs the place in accordance to church doctrine. Couple gets negligent treatment that results in the miscarriage of their twins. They try to sue for wrongful death (as is prescribed in church doctrine) and their defense attorney says "Nah, that was just pillow talk, baby".

There has never been a better case for the defendants to settle out of court.

The plaintiff sued in a state court, and the defense used a state law as defense. I get it looks hypocritical, but what else is the defense going to do? Not cite the applicable laws?

DrunkenSleipnir wrote:

The plaintiff sued in a state court, and the defense used a state law as defense. I get it looks hypocritical, but what else is the defense going to do? Not cite the applicable laws?

Only if the people the defense is working for legitimately believe in their stated opinions and fear for their immortal souls.

So since they are fighting back on this either the lawyer's bosses don't believe fetuses are people or are confident Jesus will forgive them for abandoning their principles for cash. He's supposed to be a very forgiving guy though, so maybe it is a safe bet.

I suspect that they're fine with paying for the moral costs, just not the financial cost.

LarryC wrote:

I suspect that they're fine with paying for the moral costs, just not the financial cost.

What moral cost? In Catholicism isn't the cost/reward for thwarting/doing God's will a trinary Hell/Purgatory/Heaven deal? Are you suggesting that they are willing to be knocked down a grade there but not willing to pay a malpractice settlement?

Our are you alluding to what I noted about Christ's forgiveness and suggesting that they are willing to say x Hail Mary's (or whatever else there penance is) but not pay a financial cost.

The latter. Christ is more forgiving than a grieving husband. Beyond the obviousness of the material benefits of this reasoning, it's important to note that while the Church and its affiliates are battling for legal states, they haven't won yet and they're doing so for moral reasons. Staying on moral ground is consistent with holding a moral position, but not a related legal or a financial one.

In other words, we might have noted a lack of moral fiber if this suit had not taken place, but since it has, it's consistent to act in manners consistent with a strong legal defense. Offering compensation outside of legal negotiations weakens their defense.

Or, LarryC, they could just admit culpability for the deaths of two people, and pay out accordingly. That would be the moral stance.

After all, by their professed beliefs, they killed two people. Using this dodge in a defense is a cynical lie. Or, if it isn't, their claims that fetuses are people, and that women should be shamed and controlled, are a lie.

Male:

I've been trying to explain how that doesn't follow. It seems obvious that if you start from different assumptions (yours) you would find conclusions based on different assumptions (theirs) inconsistent. That's simply logical. However, you can only really understand the validity of a particular conclusion from the perspective on which it is based. Just because Euclidean Theorems are inconsistent with non-Euclidean ones doesn't mean that the former theorems are BS. They are simply based on different assumptions. If you don't reason from the Catholic perspective, you can't accuse the Church of inconsistency.

I don't think the Hospital or the Church is concerned with your personal moral compass.It seems more sensible to just allow you to steer yourself. Doesn't mean you make sense though. Confirmation bias is very strong here.

LarryC wrote:

Male:

I've been trying to explain how that doesn't follow. It seems obvious that if start from different assumptions (yours) you would find conclusions based on different assumptions (theirs) inconsistent. That's simply logical. However, you can only really understand the validity of a particular conclusion from the perspective on which it is based

I don't think the Hospital or the Church is concerned with your personal moral compass.It seems more sensible to just allow you to steer yourself. Doesn't mean you make sense though. Confirmation bias I ya strong.

I ya strong indeed.

See, the thing here is that Malor is staring with their assumption, that personhood begins at conception, and by applying that to their actions (or inaction in this particular case), they let two people die without making an effort to save them. Now it's possible that there was nothing that could have been done to save the unborn twins, but they're not arguing that. They're arguing that they didn't need to make an effort to save them because they weren't legally persons, which is the opposite of their initial assumption.

No. They never said that embryos are legally persons. They've been arguing that they SHOULD be. Stating that they're not currently is just an acknowledgment of reality.

Further clarification:

"They" did not let people die. The OB on call did not respond when he should have. The Church had no hand in that. The hospital only had a hand in that they employed this person. The legal liabilities in this set up depend on the laws of the land and are not the same everywhere. As far as I can understand it, the moral responsibility in this set up, per Catholic doctrines, lies squarely with the MD.

With all due respect, neither of you show a strong understanding of what the Catholic Church is actually saying on this issue. It's not fair to take the Church to task for things it did not say.

LarryC wrote:

No. They never said that embryos are legally persons. They've been arguing that they SHOULD be. Stating that they're not currently is just an acknowledgment of reality.

Further clarification:

"They" did not let people die. The OB on call did not respond when he should have. The Church had no hand in that. The hospital only had a hand in that they employed this person. The legal liabilities in this set up depend on the laws of the land and are not the same everywhere. As far as I can understand it, the moral responsibility in this set up, per Catholic doctrines, lies squarely with the MD.

With all due respect, neither of you show a strong understanding of what the Catholic Church is actually saying on this issue. It's not fair to take the Church to task for things it did not say.

Liability is not limited to MD that failed, but to those that employed him as well. Also, we're talking about fetuses that were 7-months old, not embryos. Regardless of how legally correct they are, it's incredibly bad PR for their anti-abortion efforts. People over here prefer their supposed moral leaders to have at least a little integrity.

It shows that, while they're screaming that fetuses should be people, they don't really believe fetuses are people.

No. They never said that embryos are legally persons. They've been arguing that they SHOULD be. Stating that they're not currently is just an acknowledgment of reality.

I have never seen a sign or heard an argument from a pro life supporter saying "Abortion should be murder". I think you are trying to streamline Catholic Church's intent out of their own words.

fangblackbone wrote:
No. They never said that embryos are legally persons. They've been arguing that they SHOULD be. Stating that they're not currently is just an acknowledgment of reality.

I have never seen a sign or heard an argument from a pro life supporter saying "Abortion should be murder". I think you are trying to streamline Catholic Church's intent out of their own words.

They say "Abortion is murder!"

The Church just decided it wasn't in a financial situation right now where these twins make sense. And, fair enough, we wouldn't want to burden them before they're ready for the responsibility, now, would we?

fangblackbone wrote:
No. They never said that embryos are legally persons. They've been arguing that they SHOULD be. Stating that they're not currently is just an acknowledgment of reality.

I have never seen a sign or heard an argument from a pro life supporter saying "Abortion should be murder". I think you are trying to streamline Catholic Church's intent out of their own words.

http://www.catholic.com/tracts/abortion

Christian writers from the first-century author of the Didache to Pope John Paul II in his encyclical Evangelium Vitae ("The Gospel of Life") have maintained that the Bible forbids abortion, just as it forbids murder.
Thus, in 1995 Pope John Paul II declared that the Church’s teaching on abortion "is unchanged and unchangeable. Therefore, by the authority which Christ conferred upon Peter and his successors . . . I declare that direct abortion, that is, abortion willed as an end or as a means, always constitutes a grave moral disorder, since it is the deliberate killing of an innocent human being.

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/re...

For instance, St. Basil in a letter to Bishop Amphilochius (374) clearly pronounces the Church’s teaching: "A woman who has deliberately destroyed a fetus must pay the penalty for murder" and "Those also who give drugs causing abortions are murderers themselves, as well as those who receive the poison which kills the fetus."

Are you trying to claim they are aborting their responsibility? That's the headline right there...

Look guys, children--alive or dead--are very expensive, and the Church just isn't at a place in its life where it can afford one, let alone two.

Stengah:

Liability is not limited to MD that failed, but to those that employed him as well. Also, we're talking about fetuses that were 7-months old, not embryos. Regardless of how legally correct they are, it's incredibly bad PR for their anti-abortion efforts. People over here prefer their supposed moral leaders to have at least a little integrity.

Legal (meaning state-defined) liability is not limited to the MD, but it is not clear that moral responsibility is. The Catholic Church has never had a very strong stance on the moral responsibility and relationship between employers and employees. In this case, speaking of moral responsibility, you're implying that the employer is responsible for the sins of its employees, further implying that if they want to be responsible Catholics, that they ought to do something about that. I don't think you want to do that; and I'm fairly sure the Church simply draws the line at paying for services that violate their moral principles.

So far, I have not seen anything in this case that impugns the Catholic Church's integrity. Other cases, yes, but not this one. Much of the material on this site I'm seeing is just the usual hatchet-job propaganda I hear from iconoclastics with axes to grind. They're not actually talking about Catholic doctrinal positions, but political rhetoric from American Conservative extremists using religion to justify their hate speech and violent actions.

Jayhawker was good enough to provide material. You will note the absence of wrongful death clauses.

LarryC wrote:

Jayhawker was good enough to provide material. You will note the absence of wrongful death clauses.

http://www.catholic.com/tracts/abortion

As the early Christian writer Tertullian pointed out, the law of Moses ordered strict penalties for causing an abortion. We read, "If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely [Hebrew: "so that her child comes out"], but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot" (Ex. 21:22–24).

Bishops will review Catholic hospital's malpractice defense

Denver Archbishop Samuel Aquila, Colorado Springs Bishop Michael Sheridan and Pueblo Bishop Fernando Isern wrote in a joint statement that representatives of CHI assured them Thursday "of their intention to observe the moral and ethical obligations of the Catholic Church."

The bishops, who said they only recently learned of the case and the deaths of Stodghill and her unborn children, would not otherwise comment on the ongoing legal dispute , but said they will undertake a full review of the litigation and of the CHI policies and practices.

"From the moment of conception human beings are endowed with dignity and with fundamental rights, the most foundational of which is life," the bishops said. "No Catholic institution may legitimately work to undermine fundamental human dignity."

Jayhawker:

I don't think that applies. The overtone there is that the offender is an active attacker: "fighting." In this case, the problem is that the MD simply didn't answer his pager and was not on the scene for the incident.

"From the moment of conception human beings are endowed with dignity and with fundamental rights, the most foundational of which is life," the bishops said. "No Catholic institution may legitimately work to undermine fundamental human dignity."

I think they're concerned about the exact thing CheezePavilion and Stengah have mentioned, and how easy of a hatchet job this would be for enemies of the Church both political and moral. Note that the defense has not stated that the fetuses that died weren't persons - only that the state itself did not recognize their personhood.

The how is that the rhetoric often exaggerates and/or calls into discussion common cultural touchstones that may not actually apply when the principle itself is actually read and examined.

See:

Prophylactics, such as condoms? Designed specifically to prevent conception. Forget about protecting against STDs, or simple family planning. None of that matters. Akin to female birth control prescriptions. Therefore, against God's design, akin to abortion, akin to murder, etc.

From Humanae Vitae:

Lawful Therapeutic Means

15. On the other hand, the Church does not consider at all illicit the use of those therapeutic means necessary to cure bodily diseases, even if a foreseeable impediment to procreation should result there from—provided such impediment is not directly intended for any motive whatsoever. (19)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/reli...

It pays to know the actual principle before you criticize it.

So, the patient died due to a negligent doctor.

The Catholic Health organization mentioned in the article used its lawyers to argue that regardless of the doctor's negligence, the unborn twins couldn't be part of the wrongful death suit because they are not persons "under the law." Technically true, and rulings were made in their favor.

The church champions anti-abortion efforts openly and loudly. Their message? Pro-Choice is Pro-Death. This is common language. Morning-after pill? Abortion. Murder. Female birth control? Against God's design. Akin to abortion. Therefore, akin to murder. Forbidden. Prophylactics, such as condoms? Designed specifically to prevent conception. Forget about protecting against STDs, or simple family planning. None of that matters. Akin to female birth control prescriptions. Therefore, against God's design, akin to abortion, akin to murder, etc.

Catholic Health organization is asked to take responsibility for the wrongful death of a mother and her two unborn children. Well beyond gametes being stopped from coming into contact with each other. Well beyond a discarded blastocyst due to a hardened uterine wall, caused by birth control pills. Well beyond RU-486. Well beyond abortion procedures done in the early stages of pregnancy, where the "unborn" is indistinguishable from a large glob of snot. These were 7-month-old fetuses. Instead of taking responsibility for their negligent staff member to the fullest extent, and standing up for their religious principles, and perhaps making this a non-story, or at the very least, a story where they could say, "We stood by our principles here," they took what advantage they could under the law to abdicate that responsibility.

I'm not sure how there is any other interpretation.

Remove the abortion aspect. Remove that the hospital and staff is Catholic. I'm pro-choice, to simplify my position. But, forget about all of that. This was a soon-to-be mother who suffered a health crisis. The obstetrician on duty didn't respond. The mother and her two unborn children, whom she presumably wanted to have, died because of his negligence. It's a pretty scumbag move to make that argument, no matter who you are or what faith, or lack of faith, backs up your hospital. This man's life is in tatters. He's lost his spouse and the two children he was presumably expecting, and anticipating. It's ugly without the Catholic context.

LarryC wrote:

The how is that the rhetoric often exaggerates and/or calls into discussion common cultural touchstones that may not actually apply when the principle itself is actually read and examined.

See:

Prophylactics, such as condoms? Designed specifically to prevent conception. Forget about protecting against STDs, or simple family planning. None of that matters. Akin to female birth control prescriptions. Therefore, against God's design, akin to abortion, akin to murder, etc.

From Humanae Vitae:

Lawful Therapeutic Means

15. On the other hand, the Church does not consider at all illicit the use of those therapeutic means necessary to cure bodily diseases, even if a foreseeable impediment to procreation should result there from—provided such impediment is not directly intended for any motive whatsoever. (19)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/reli...

It pays to know the actual principle before you criticize it.

He made that statement as a PR retraction after specifically saying condoms could help spread AIDS in Africa. Get on the ground in American Catholic churches and the rhetoric that condoms are a bad idea still stands. It pays to know the culture didn't change just because the Pope said something for the news.

But then, Larry, you're smarter than that, and already knew that.

If you want to say that American Catholics are crazy and inconsistent and hypocritical, be my guest. I'll defer to your closer familiarity with the people in question. But you're right. The culture didn't change. The Pope didn't say anything particularly new, and it wasn't just for the news. Its grounding in the encyclical is right there. I quoted it for you.

NSMike:

Remove the abortion aspect. Remove that the hospital and staff is Catholic. I'm pro-choice, to simplify my position. But, forget about all of that. This was a soon-to-be mother who suffered a health crisis. The obstetrician on duty didn't respond. The mother and her two unborn children, whom she presumably wanted to have, died because of his negligence.

Let's clarify that some more.

The woman was having a massive heart attack. In general, you want a cardiologist for that. An OB would be of very limited use to a person suffering from a heart problem. Unless the OB was the only MD in the entire area for some reason, he was under no obligation to attend to this problem.

The problem was that he was not available to do, instruct, or oversee an emergency post-mortem CS, which may or may not have saved the twins. It is not clear that they died because he wasn't around, but they certainly never had the chance they otherwise would have.

LarryC wrote:

The woman was having a massive heart attack. In general, you want a cardiologist for that. An OB would be of very limited use to a person suffering from a heart problem. Unless the OB was the only MD in the entire area for some reason, he was under no obligation to attend to this problem.

No argument from me here.

The problem was that he was not available to do, instruct, or oversee an emergency post-mortem CS, which may or may not have saved the twins. It is not clear that they died because he wasn't around, but they certainly never had the chance they otherwise would have.

This is a different argument than the one made in the case. If that was valid under U.S. law, the lawyers would've gone there first. He was paged. He didn't respond. He was negligent in his duties. The only argument the lawyers pursued was that it didn't matter because they were fetuses, not people.

LarryC wrote:

If you want to say that American Catholics are crazy and inconsistent and hypocritical, be my guest. I'll defer to your closer familiarity with the people in question. But you're right. The culture didn't change. The Pope didn't say anything particularly new, and it wasn't just for the news. Its grounding in the encyclical is right there. I quoted it for you.

First of all, the Encyclical is a document entirely devoted to the evils of contraception. It is literally an enumeration of the exact anti-contraception culture the church embraces. Ratzinger's need to call out a specific approval of condom usage is an open admission that there was a need for a change. If it was already allowed, there was no need for a change in policy. There was just a need to say, "Look, we already planned for this contingency. Why are you misinterpreting us?" There was no misinterpretation, because the church's position was pretty damn clear. Secondly, your quote from that document specifically calls out cures for bodily diseases. Prevention is not a cure, nor is AIDS a disease.

And in fact, the paragraph of the Encyclical just before your quote goes into some pretty hefty detail about the church's position on contraception.

"AIDS (acquired immune deficiency syndrome) is the final stage of HIV disease, which causes severe damage to the immune system."

That's from PubMED. I'm an MD. Until you can find some other MD who will tell you that AIDS is not a disease, you can take my expert opinion that it's more appropriate to call it one so that laypeople understand. Technically, it's a constellation of symptoms related to a disease, but that's a largely immaterial distinction vis a vis the meaning of the encyclical.

The Church isn't anti-contraception.

If therefore there are well-grounded reasons for spacing births, arising from the physical or psychological condition of husband or wife, or from external circumstances, the Church teaches that married people may then take advantage of the natural cycles immanent in the reproductive system and engage in marital intercourse only during those times that are infertile, thus controlling birth in a way which does not in the least offend the moral principles which We have just explained. (20)

From the same encyclical. It's not the goal of spacing births that's objected to, nor is the principle of preventing disease.

Just so we're clear, when you say "Catholic Church," you are referring to every Catholic everywhere, because that's what the Catholic Church is. If you want to refer to the American Bishops Conference, you can call them the American Bishops Conference. If you want to refer to the Vatican, you can call them "the Vatican."

The local CBCP (Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines) has long maintained that there are "natural" and effective means of contraception, and has spearheaded efforts to promote these instead of "artificial" means. They won't tell you "no." They'll just direct you to the means approved by the Vatican. Use of a condom to prevent disease in cases where there is no possibility of conception is not discouraged.

Again, your local Catholic culture may be downright crazy. I'll defer to your experience on that.

EDIT:

This is a different argument than the one made in the case. If that was valid under U.S. law, the lawyers would've gone there first. He was paged. He didn't respond. He was negligent in his duties. The only argument the lawyers pursued was that it didn't matter because they were fetuses, not people.

The lawyers didn't say that. They said that Colorado didn't recognize the personhood of the twins, so the case should be a nonstarter. That's totally legal. They didn't say anything about the Catholic Church being okay with that state of affairs.

I'm also not arguing that the MD was not negligent. He totally was. I'm just clarifying that it's not clear that he would have been able to save the twins anyway. Post-mortem CSs are tricky things even in normal pregnancies.

Pages