Catholic hospital: Fetuses aren't people

[T@T]

Life begins at conception, according to the Catholic Church but when it comes to what's most importaint (money) they change their minds.

Lori Stodghill was 28 weeks pregnant when she went to the emergency room of St. Thomas More Hospital in Canyon City vomiting and short of breath, according to a court document.
She went into cardiac arrest in the lobby.
"Lori looked up at me, and then her head went down on her chest," her husband Jeremy Stodghill, said.
She died at age 31. Her unborn twin boys perished with her. That was New Year's Day 2006.
Stodghill, left behind to raise their then 2-year-old daughter alone, sued the hospital and its owner, Catholic Health Initiatives, for the wrongful deaths of all three.

After about two years of litigation, defense attorneys for the hospital and doctors entered an argument that shocked the widower.
They said that under state law, an embryo is not "person," until it is born alive, according to court documents. The Stodghill's twins were deceased, when they were removed from their mother's lifeless body.

The court agreed with the argument, and Stodghill lost the suit. The court also ruled against Stodghill in the case of his wife for other legal reasons.
The hospital and doctors sued him for over $118,000 legal fees and attempted to garnish his wages, according to a legal document filed on his behalf.
The defendants offered to forget the fees, if Stodghill dropped his appeal. He refused and filed for bankruptcy to avoid having to pay the claim, which he says he can't afford as he struggles to raise his now 9-year-old daughter Libby.

Hypocritical asshats

http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/26/us/col...html?hpt=hp_t1

[Daradon]

Interesting article. Thanks for sharing.

[sclitheroe]

He wants the church and his state to see them the same way

Sorta the crux of the problem. If he's going to bring civil law to bear against the accused, they are going to defend themselves using the same laws, since those laws govern their practise of medicine just like any other hospital in the state. Not sure what he expected.

And is usually the case in a sensationalized story, there's this little nugget the article glosses over:

The court also ruled against Stodghill in the case of his wife for other legal reasons.

Which of course we're not told, so that we can't build a proper context to the story.

[FlamesAddiction]

I don't see what is hypocritical about saying life begins at conception but that a fetus is not legally a person. A cow is certainly alive, and it's not a person either. It was only in the last century that women weren't legally considered "persons" either.

Being a "person" is a legal distinction more than anything. Being a "life" (whether human or otherwise) is a biological distinction.

[MelBridgeman]

Let's take a step back and actually think about this instead of jumping to conclusions and insults.

1. Do all Catholics agree with the church? And if they don't they are asshats? This is strange thinking
2. Isn't this a good thing? A step in the right direction?
3. Are all Catholics associated with the more extreme ones who fight for abortion laws?
4. Catholics aren't allowed free thought?
5. Lawyers...Lawyers....

[ken0042]

It might be too early in the morning for me- but what is the issue here? Was it that the hospital refused to attempt to save the babies? (Sounds like they did- but the babies were already dead.) Or was it that they refused to do a proceedure that would kill the mother to save them?

[Montag]

Originally Posted by ken0042

It might be too early in the morning for me- but what is the issue here? Was it that the hospital refused to attempt to save the babies? (Sounds like they did- but the babies were already dead.) Or was it that they refused to do a proceedure that would kill the mother to save them?

The issue is summed up in the first sentence of the article pretty well:

Life begins at conception, according to the Catholic Church, but in a wrongful death suit in Colorado, a Catholic health care company has argued just the opposite.

It appears that the Catholic Church feels that life begins at conception when they're arguing abortion issues but have a hypocritical view when it hurts them in the wallet.

[Daradon]

He sued for the wrongful deaths of his unborn children as well as the mother. The hospital (or lawyers, or whatever) argued that there was only one death not three.

The whole thing is pretty confusing, but it's an interesting fight anyway, given the attitudes and platitudes of the Catholic church.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Montag

The issue is summed up in the first sentence of the article pretty well:



It appears that the Catholic Church feels that life begins at conception when they're arguing abortion issues but have a hypocritical view when it hurts them in the wallet.

But then when you read past the first sentence, you can see that the author doesn't understand that being a life does not automatically make you a person. Nowhere does it say that they didn't consider the fetus a life (although it's possible that it wasn't even alive at the time). It's an important distinction because legally, you can take lives as long as those lives are not afforded the right that we give "persons".

Maybe read the whole story.

[sclitheroe]

Originally Posted by Montag

It appears that the Catholic Church feels that life begins at conception when they're arguing abortion issues but have a hypocritical view when it hurts them in the wallet.

Not really - the man sued the hospital based on the the beliefs of the Catholic Church, in a legal system that doesn't hold the same beliefs, and lost on the basis of that framework.

It's not like a Catholic hospital operates outside the jurisdiction of the state legal system. And if it did, he'd have to find a Catholic court that upheld the same beliefs, and that had jurisdiction over this hospital, for any of this to work. Sounds like a job for the inquisition.

[Fozzie_DeBear]

I see the hypocrisy...

In the view of Catholic institutions are fetus' worthy of legal protection as people?

Yes AND no?

Can't have it both ways Padre

[ken0042]

I guess I don't see it as hypocritical. Were the fetuses admitted by name? Were they billed as seperate persons? Obviously not- the mother was admitted and would have listed her medical condition as "pregnant with twins."

As sclitheroe said, he sued using a state court that follows state laws. The hospital obviously admitted the mother based on those laws as well.

The fact is the man lost his case, and the hospital chose to suggest a very Christian thing; to forgive and forget the debt. Obviously this is also a bit of a legal manouvre as well; I would even say the latter could be the larger reason it was done.

[killer_carlson]

There is a big difference between religious tenements and civil liability. It is not hypocritical to raise legal defences in a legal venue.

Another example: If a devout radical muslim who practices Shariah beliefs wants to get a divorce in Alberta, they have to deal with Alberta law and precedent. It is entirely appropriate for the lawyers to argue items such as length of seperation and property of the relationship, even if it came after the husband may have decried "I divorce thee" three times - which would signify a Shariah divorce.

Here, the church is saying that for a civil remedy - $$$$ that was sued for - then the civil law has to be applied. The civil law does not recognize the rights of fetuses in this fashion.

That the church and the plaintiff may agree that the law ought to be changed is one factor, however that does not override the substance and circumstances that the plaintiff set out.

This reads to me that the plaintiff gambled that the church would take a theocratic position on a matter of civil law. He lost on a pretty straight forward issue in my mind.

[Mr.Coffee]

I'd like to know what the other "legal reasons" were for the loss in the suit for the wife's death. I don't understand how they just wrote this article and vaguely gloss over this incredibly important aspect of the lawsuit which likely will materially alter everybody's perception as to the law applied and whether or not it was just.

As it stands it appears like this guy got screwed but really what happened here?

[Huntingwhale]

Maybe Jesus changed his mind?

[Daradon]

I have to be honest, I think it is a level of hypocrisy.

Agreed in the legal sense there are two definitions, and this case seems to have gotten them right. As well there is a bit of haziness to the story that makes one wonder.

Fine. Agreed.

But when your advertising yourself as the moral center, you don't get to get off on technicalities. Or at least you don't get to preach anymore.

While legally this all worked out as supposed to, it's just another double standard in Church practice. It's do as I say, don't do as I do. It's we can control your body, but we'll tell you when it doesn't work for us.

It is a very fair and perfect example of how inappropriate and irrelevant the Catholic Church has become.

Peace!

[killer_carlson]

You may hurt your back now that you've taken the moral "cross" off of the Catholic Church's back.

This isn't a technicality at all.

The guy sued for money in Court. The rule of law HAS to apply. The seperation of church and state that so many religion basher demand HAS to apply. The only arguments that apply in that venue are legal arguments. This is not a technicality in any way shape or form.

Had the guy brought this argument up at the Church, or by starting an offshoot branch of faith, essentially arguing for the almighty soul, then he would be in better standing. Instead he wanted the almighty dollar.

And lost.

And it was the right decision.

[Daradon]

Jesus backed up his words, Pontius Pilate hid behind the legal of the time.

Which version of Christianity and faith do you want to defend?

[GGG]

Can a hospital refuse to perform an abortin and is this right to refusal based on religious grounds or moral grounds? If you are allowed to refuse to perform abortion on religious grounds then as an entity should you also be held accountable on that belief.

Although I think that even without the hospital making the argument the court couldnt have awarded a wrongful death judgement to someone who never existed.

So the church was hypocritical in making the arguement but that arguement doesnt change the outcome. And I question how much involvement the church or hospital board would have been involved in what may have just been a run of the mill wrongful death suit.

[Thor]

Well Catholic hospitals have hid behind religious reasons to refuse abortions in cases where having the abortion could have saved the life of the mother, they won't hesitate to throw money and outrage at anyone who sues them for sticking to their religious doctrine...