Speakeasy forum: Catholic hospital argue that a fetus is not a person

Did I tell you that I changed my mind and I love Obama?

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 underlining is mine.

now that the State Law has actually affected this widower on a personal level, he would now have a reason to become an activist for protecting the unborn........

I don't think he actually had a case against the hospital, but rather should have brought the case against her DOCTOR for neglect......the mother was obese, which is a huge risk for diabetes, preeclampsia (especially after 20 weeks) and other issues (see below) and for NOT answering the call. IF the husband or wife called him while en route to the hospital and he didn't answer that call, isn't HE more at fault than the hospital since he was already aware of her 'condition'?

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/pregnancy-and-obesity/MY01943

Should fetuses be considered as humans and given the same legal protections and rights as those born alive? Should the father be awarded some sum of money for the hospital's failure to act to save them due to their human nature? What do you think?

You are making an assumption that the hospital was at fault for the woman actually dying, Josh. The fact that their attorneys used as a final argument to the court that stipulated state law, you are assuming that it was done strictly to save money rather than save their reputation as a caregiver when they did the best they could with the mother. Those babies could have been dead from lack of oxygen or blood flow due to her obesity issue before the mother actually died in the lobby. Nobody knows the whole story about whether the husband or wife called her doctor, who was already familiar with her case and issues, to meet them at the hospital or if they neglected to think that far ahead and went instead to the hospital hoping he would already be on staff and handy or why the doctor himself ignored the call. In every instance, the hospital's priority would have been the MOTHER and not the fetuses unless the husband told them to save the babies and let the mother die....then they might have done an immediate c-section (which is also dangerous because of obesity issues) and even that might not have saved them because it would have been done in the emergency room.

Regardless of your feelings about the Catholic church it's teaching or any other ill thoughts you may have, was the court decision to dismiss the case based on current state law a proper one?

as you blame the hospital to be. If the hospital had settled, you would have made the assumption they were at fault; the fact that they fought back, as a final argument, under current state law and won, doesn't make you happy either. You don't know what the initial arguments were regarding this long case.......but in any event, the hospital had a priority to save the MOTHER first, THEN the fetuses, Josh. The only way that could have been circumvented is if the HUSBAND said 'let her die and save the kids instead'.

The hospital would have been sued probably successfully if they had made the judgment call ON THEIR OWN to save the fetuses and let the mother die......which is what you seem to be suggesting they 'should' have done according to Josh's set of medical standards just because it is a Catholic Hospital, right? What logic would you use then to justify the mother's death 'at the hands of the hospital'?

You cannot have it both ways, and you seem inclined to think you can. You have completely let off the hook the husband and wife's actions that night and you have let her own OB-GYN off the hook for not answering the call. From all that's been written so far, she was an 'at risk' mother-to-be......and yet her own physician didn't see fit to show up or even call the hospital to give instructions regarding her immediate needs. She also should have had normal procedures applied BEFORE 26 weeks based on that 'at risk' issue and those don't seem to have been in place either.

I honestly don't see where 'wrongful death' can be placed on the hospital when she was in such bad shape that she didn't even make it out of the lobby....it appears to me, at least, that she and her husband waited far too long and didn't prepare the hospital or her doctor ahead of time for their arrival (there ARE cellphones in existence). However, there is still not enough of the story out there to know if they showed up on their own, was an ambulance involved, when was the doctor called and by whom...even if he didn't return the call or show up, etc. Too many unknown answers, Josh......and yet you are so ready to assume based on a final argument to the court that reflects State law.

BTW.....I was raised Catholic......and I honestly don't find any hypocricy in this at all.

...that people are dead and suffering and their might be a way to make it better? The only thing that matters to you is that your ill feelings toward the Catholic church have been reinforced? Sad...sad indeed, Josh.

The only thing that matters to you

sounds to me like you're being judgmental....I think I recall you making a claim about not judging people or maybe you said you TRY not to judge people.

I stand to be corrected.

This means death was caused by lack of oxygen. She supplied oxygen for the growing babies. When hers is cut off, theirs is cut off at the same time. Their need would be less than hers but I can't imagine that more than a very few minutes would be required to retrieve them. Her dead body would need to be moved to a sterile environment, people scrubbed for surgery and several cuts made to gain access to her womb. Unless someone there was expert with a meat cleaver, those babies were not going to make it.

If a law was in your favor, even though you didn't believe it was morally correct, what would you do?

She'd not be denied for being obese but she'd need to be treated quite differently if needing to have her belly cut open to where babies could be retrieved. The procedure will take much longer and will have more risk. It might be that fewer OB's are available on an emergency basis who have the needed experience to properly care for people of larger size. If she was already recognized as being "high risk", perhaps a contingency plan could be put in place. I've known women who were actually admitted to the hospital many weeks before their due date just for the purpose of not needing to face an emergency situation.

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

and from the article:

"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.""

What's not said is who are "Kennedy Childs" and how do they fit in. I presume they are a local law firm that might have been retained in the case to assist due to their experience with Colorado law. I'm only guessing here but, since CHI has a presence in quite a number of states, they may have enlisted the outside services of this law firm. I'll admit that the wording in the quote from Mr. Langley isn't helpful when comparing legality to morality but I'm no expert in lawyer speak. This article is far better than the original, IMO. And James, it does appear that the OB-GYN was on call and not at the hospital. FWIW, none of these people...and yes, I believe the unborn to be people...had a prayer of making it.

Regardless of whatever animosities you may or may not hold for anyone or any entity in this case, would you agree with the court that wrongful death dismissal of Mr. Stodghill's lawsuit (based on Colorado statute) was proper?

and a bonus question

If you disagree with the decision, should an effort be made to change that law and allow litigation on behalf of fetuses that were lost due to accident, malpractice, etc?

That statement is as phony as the one suggesting what the hospital argued in the OP. Look at my last link. It appears that the "damning" statement came from a private law firm in Denver (I looked them up) and no one who gets a W2 from the hospital or CHI. It doesn't even appear to have been argued in court but filed in a brief.

This appears to be a river bottom dredging by CNN. They were able to pull up pyrite and sell it for gold. Those who are already full of hate and bigotry bought up every last ounce of it.