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"

Link

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]

Originally Posted by 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?

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/mo...s-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]

Originally Posted by 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

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]

Originally Posted by GatrHeel

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/mo...s-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]

Originally Posted by MichiGator2002

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]

Originally Posted by GatrHeel

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]

Originally Posted by gatorev12

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]

Originally Posted by 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?

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]

Originally Posted by ufrulz2

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]

Originally Posted by GatrHeel

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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