Catholic Hospital: Fetuses Aren’t People in Malpractice Lawsuit

[108]

While I don't have a problem with it, as it's the law, just a tad bit inconsistent with their crusade to defend "life" :beat:

Link (http://jezebel.com/5978696/catholic-hospital-conveniently-claims-fetuses-arent-people-in-malpractice-lawsuit?utm_source=Jezebel+Newsletter&utm_campaign=b84a8a57f5-UA-142218-20&utm_medium=email)

The story of How Pre-Humans Are Both People And Not People to the Church begins with a New Year's Day emergency room tragedy involving 31-year-old expectant mother of twins Lori Stoghill. John Tomasic at the Colorado Independent explains,

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.

After Stoghill's death, Lori's husband Jerry filed a wrongful death suit against St. Thomas Moore Hospital in Cañon City, claiming that Dr. Staples should have at least instructed ER personnel to perform an emergency C-section. Jerry's suit states that the hospital's negligence resulted the deaths of three individuals — his wife, and his two unborn but post-viability sons. In response, Catholic Health Initiatives, the nonprofit that runs St. Thomas Moore and 170 other healthcare facilities, claimed that Jerry Stoghill has no grounds to sue them for the loss of three lives, as unborn people aren't technically "persons" under Colorado law.

Not to get all smug Bond villain here but: Well, well, well, Catholic Health Initiatives. Well, well, well. Looks like someone is trying to have things both ways. In recent years, Catholic run health care systems have, in their brave, brave crusade to defend "life," lobbied for the right to deny rape victims Emergency Contraception, advocated laws that would allow health care facilities to let women die rather than receive abortions, and fought Obamacare's inclusion of emergency contraception in its birth control mandate on the farcical grounds that EC causes abortions. But now that the idea that fetuses are people just like me or you or Vin Diesel might cost a religious run facility a metric f@#kton of money, time to run and hide behind a law that is in direct opposition to the Church's endlessly regurgitated worldview.

[MichiGator2002]

It isn't inconsistent at all. Are they supposed to be under a positive moral obligation to ignore the law as it stands, to their detriment? Are FairTaxers also not supposed to itemize their deductions?

[Dreamliner]

'Pre-humans'*

*guffaws

[GatrHeel]

It isn't inconsistent at all. Are they supposed to be under a positive moral obligation to ignore the law as it stands, to their detriment? Are FairTaxers also not supposed to itemize their deductions?

I think the key is whether the hospital is synonymous with, or an extension of, the Catholic Church. If it is, then I think there is some kind of moral obligation to uphold Church doctrine. No matter the context. Or potential consequences.

If, instead, there's a degree of separation between the hospital and the Church, then it isn't inconsistent in my opinion. It'd be exactly what I'd argue if I were on the case. It seems to be sound legal strategy.

I guess we'll be able to tell from the review and what, if anything, it results in.

http://www.bizjournals.com/denver/morning_call/2013/01/catholic-health-initiatives-lawsuit.html

[bluelang]

Isn't this the same hospital that conveniently wanted to ignore the law and take the moral high road when it came time to pay for condoms and birth control?

[108]

Church needs to at least suffer from the PR ramifications of denying their own doctrine when it suited their financial needs.

Honestly, I think this is the worst stance they could take, considering their presumed moral authority

Really sets a bad precedent, and I really can't see how they could be taken seriously again in regards to this matter.

If you believe that a fetus is a child, then at worst, they should settle outside of the court

[Dreamliner]

Church needs to at least suffer from the PR ramifications of denying their own doctrine when it suited their financial needs.

Honestly, I think this is the worst stance they could take, considering their presumed moral authority

Really sets a bad precedent, and I really can't see how they could be taken seriously again in regards to this matter.

If you believe that a fetus is a child, then at worst, they should settle outside of the court

How dare the church presume upon the state!

[gatorev12]

You realize that it was the lawyer for the hospital who likely wrote the argument and submitted it--and very likely (as in--over 99% likely) without anyone from the Hospital or the local Diocese reading it before he did?

[MichiGator2002]

I think the key is whether the hospital is synonymous with, or an extension of, the Catholic Church. If it is, then I think there is some kind of moral obligation to uphold Church doctrine. No matter the context. Or potential consequences.

If, instead, there's a degree of separation between the hospital and the Church, then it isn't inconsistent in my opinion. It'd be exactly what I'd argue if I were on the case. It seems to be sound legal strategy.

I guess we'll be able to tell from the review and what, if anything, it results in.

http://www.bizjournals.com/denver/morning_call/2013/01/catholic-health-initiatives-lawsuit.html

Pointing out that the definition of person under the state limits an opponent's legal theory is not a moral endorsement of that definition.

[GatrHeel]

Pointing out that the definition of person under the state limits an opponent's legal theory is not a moral endorsement of that definition.

From what I understand, defense counsel is doing more than "pointing out". They're relying on it.

Again, the issue (for me) is whether or not the hospital is an extension of the Catholic Church. To embrace the secular definition of person when it's advantageous to do so, but condemn it when it isn't, does contain an element of hypocrisy.

Is it sound legal strategy? Yes.

Is it possible for sound legal strategy to contain an element of hypocrisy? Yes.

[JerseyGator01]

I worked at a Catholic Hospital for three years. They're not an extension of the church based on my experience. Not even close on a day-to-day operational level.

[gatorev12]

Is it sound legal strategy? Yes.

Is it possible for sound legal strategy to contain an element of hypocrisy? Yes.

Is it possible that no one from the Hospital read the Answer? Yes

Is it possible that no one from the Hospital even forwarded the Complaint to the local diocese of the Catholic Church? Yes

Is it possible that the Catholic Church had no idea about this lawsuit even existing because Hospitals affiliated with the Catholic Church don't exactly involve the Catholic Church in the minutia of the business operations? Yes

So, of course, it's possible to cry hypocrisy here...but it's far more likely that absolutely no one in the Catholic Church had any idea about the lawsuit even existing, let alone endorsing the legal strategy employed here.

[GatrHeel]

Is it possible that no one from the Hospital read the Answer? Yes

Is it possible that no one from the Hospital even forwarded the Complaint to the local diocese of the Catholic Church? Yes

Is it possible that the Catholic Church had no idea about this lawsuit even existing because Hospitals affiliated with the Catholic Church don't exactly involve the Catholic Church in the minutia of the business operations? Yes

So, of course, it's possible to cry hypocrisy here...but it's far more likely that absolutely no one in the Catholic Church had any idea about the lawsuit even existing, let alone endorsing the legal strategy employed here.

I think you and I are on the same page here. I don't expect the review (see my post above) to result in any change to the defense's legal strategy.

[ufrulz2]

You realize that it was the lawyer for the hospital who likely wrote the argument and submitted it--and very likely (as in--over 99% likely) without anyone from the Hospital or the local Diocese reading it before he did?

As an attorney, I submit that if I drafted a brief for a large, institutional client such as a hospital and filed it without so much as asking my client to review it, I'd be opening myself up to a lawsuit for malpractice and very likely setting myself up for discipline from the bar for violating the Model Rules of Professional Conduct.

[JerseyGator01]

When I worked at a Catholic Hospital for 3 years, I saw an African bishop more often than the local bishop - once. Enough said.

And no, I've never worked in Africa.

[gatorev12]

As an attorney, I submit that if I drafted a brief for a large, institutional client such as a hospital and filed it without so much as asking my client to review it, I'd be opening myself up to a lawsuit for malpractice and very likely setting myself up for discipline from the bar for violating the Model Rules of Professional Conduct.

As a fellow attorney, I submit to you that everything you suggested was proper and the textbook example of how to handle case management

On a practical level--how many of your clients actually read and review the pleadings you send to them? Particularly if it's a long, complicated brief? (what my post was getting at)

[MichiGator2002]

From what I understand, defense counsel is doing more than "pointing out". They're relying on it.

Again, the issue (for me) is whether or not the hospital is an extension of the Catholic Church. To embrace the secular definition of person when it's advantageous to do so, but condemn it when it isn't, does contain an element of hypocrisy.

Is it sound legal strategy? Yes.

Is it possible for sound legal strategy to contain an element of hypocrisy? Yes.

Even if... so what? You can't be seriously suggesting that they are morally* obligated to pretend the law, right now, is something other than it is, right now, just because they wish it were something else.

*and, y'know, professionally obligated. Not much place for lawyers who just blow off making the strongest legally sustainable case for their clients as they can. I guess maybe you think it is the client who should just screw themselves, though. But... sorry, no. Catholics are as allowed to benefit from irony as anyone else, sorry.

[wargunfan]

It was the state which enacted the law. The hospital, no matter its affiliation, is under no obligation to refuse the protection of the same law in order to damage itself financially. But the secular folks can always be counted on to try to make some connection, no matter how vague, between the church and hypocrisy. This attempt falls far short of connecting the Catholic church to anything at all.

[egator1245]

Sorta the opposite of those professing to be good practicing Catholics like Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi accepting and promoting abortion rights.

[corpgator]

It was the state which enacted the law. The hospital, no matter its affiliation, is under no obligation to refuse the protection of the same law in order to damage itself financially. But the secular folks can always be counted on to try to make some connection, no matter how vague, between the church and hypocrisy. This attempt falls far short of connecting the Catholic church to anything at all.

Then why, if there's no connection, did the get so upset about having to pay for birth control?

[MichiGator2002]

Then why, if there's no connection, did the get so upset about having to pay for birth control?

This is absurd. They are completely within their bounds to protest and advocate new and existing law. Nobody is under any obligation to pretend existing law is something other than what it is, though. I submit any such institution here would trade greater civil exposure for a world in which there was no mixed message or ambiguity and the unborn were recognized as human life for every purpose under the law. But they have no need to pretend they are already in that world.

What seems to be going on here is that people are mad that their own morally questionable law is now actually an obstacle to socking it to the RCC. Like I said, Catholics are in fact allowed to benefit from irony.

[gatorev12]

It was the state which enacted the law. The hospital, no matter its affiliation, is under no obligation to refuse the protection of the same law in order to damage itself financially. But the secular folks can always be counted on to try to make some connection, no matter how vague, between the church and hypocrisy. This attempt falls far short of connecting the Catholic church to anything at all.

Probably the most salient observation in this thread.

[GatrHeel]

This is absurd. They are completely within their bounds to protest and advocate new and existing law. Nobody is under any obligation to pretend existing law is something other than what it is, though. I submit any such institution here would trade greater civil exposure for a world in which there was no mixed message or ambiguity and the unborn were recognized as human life for every purpose under the law. But they have no need to pretend they are already in that world.

What seems to be going on here is that people are mad that their own morally questionable law is now actually an obstacle to socking it to the RCC. Like I said, Catholics are in fact allowed to benefit from irony.

I think you're blending the client with their counsel. Certainly the folks who are up in arms about this are too.

Although I've already said it's unclear (to me) whether the hospital is the equivalent of the Catholic Church, it sounds like you're willing to accept that it is. So let's reduce the argument to a simpler form:

Let's imagine the father sued Pope Benedict personally. You would see nothing inconsistent in the Pope condemning laws that allow abortions Saturday through Thursday, but then embracing such a law on Friday to defend against the lawsuit?

The Church believes the secular laws that define life as not beginning until birth are morally wrong. I would propose that the Church's entire stance concerning life rests, largely, on moral grounds.

You can't pretend that morality wouldn't play a role in the stripped down scenario of the father vs. the Church.

[wargunfan]

I think you're blending the client with their counsel. Certainly the folks who are up in arms about this are too.

Although I've already said it's unclear (to me) whether the hospital is the equivalent of the Catholic Church, it sounds like you're willing to accept that it is. So let's reduce the argument to a simpler form:

Let's imagine the father sued Pope Benedict personally. You would see nothing inconsistent in the Pope condemning laws that allow abortions Saturday through Thursday, but then embracing such a law on Friday to defend against the lawsuit?

The Church believes the secular laws that define life as not beginning until birth are morally wrong. I would propose that the Church's entire stance concerning life rests, largely, on moral grounds.

You can't pretend that morality wouldn't play a role in the stripped down scenario of the father vs. the Church.

You are attempting to set up a strawman by removing the hospital from the equation. We can play all manner of semantic games which ignore the facts of the case. The facts are what they are no matter how desperate one is to make the church a target. I am not a Catholic nor a defender of the Papacy but I refuse to indict the pope or the RCC for a tragedy in which they played no part.

[GatrHeel]

It isn't inconsistent at all. Are they supposed to be under a positive moral obligation to ignore the law as it stands, to their detriment? Are FairTaxers also not supposed to itemize their deductions?

Apparently they have decided they are, indeed, under a moral obligation to do just that.

"In the discussion with the Church leaders, CHI representatives acknowledged that it was morally wrong for attorneys representing St. Thomas More Hospital to cite the state's Wrongful Death Act in defense of this lawsuit. That law does not consider fetuses to be persons, which directly contradicts the moral teachings of the Church," Catholic Health Initiatives said in a statement.

It promised that attorneys for the hospital would not cite the Wrongful Death Act in any future hearings.



http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/04/us/colorado-fetus-lawsuit/index.html?hpt=hp_t3

[gatorev12]

^so much for the arguments about the Church being inconsistent/hypocritical.

[Dreamliner]

Ah, those are some warm memories, when my wife was carrying our 'fetus.' We even gave the undifferentiated mass a pet name.

[wargunfan]

Ah, those are some warm memories, when my wife was carrying our 'fetus.' We even gave the undifferentiated mass a pet name.

And how is your zygote doing?

[Dreamliner]

And how is your zygote doing?

It is about to graduate from UNF. My wife and I are still trying to decide on whether to keep it. We suspect we will.

[wargunfan]

It is about to graduate from UNF. My wife and I are still trying to decide on whether to keep it. We suspect we will.

Congratulations on your post partum position. It is reassuring to a fetus to know that they were "wanted".