When religious beliefs run up against money...

[draco664]

In malpractice case, Catholic hospital argues fetuses aren’t people.

Good to know that their principles have a dollar value...

[Mytical]

Ok, from what I read there..and perhaps I read it wrong there is a couple of things here. One, it is their lawyer making the statement, not the church or the hospital. Two, they are using the law of the land as it stands. Yes, they want to change that law, but it is currently as it is, so they are using it.

[Andara Bledin]

It says specifically that the lawyers are arguing that "state law" protects the doctors, not that they believe state law to be morally correct, only that if the state only recognizes the already-born in wrongful death cases that they should continue to do so in this case.

It's worth noting that other articles that are longer on fact and shorter on misleading headlines note that the doctor did respond to the page, but did not arrive at the hospital. What he did do was speak on the phone with the husband and ask him what he wanted to do. The husband, rather than give any useful answer, just told him "I'm not a doctor," which makes it possible that it's directly his fault that nothing was done before it was too late.

I don't know enough about medical liability, consent, and the laws of Colorado, but it's possible that they either required his consent to perform the surgery prior to the deadly heart attack (which happened an hour later), or they needed him to be not there so that they could make the decision without requiring other consideration. With him there and refusing to make a basic decision, it's likely he's as responsible for what happened as anybody else.

Also, curiously missing from the Colorado article, nurses attempted to determine the status of the babies after the heart attack and prior to declining to perform the perimortem c-section and could find no heartbeats, thus assuming (likely correctly) that it was too late for them by that time.

And, last but not least, it's worth noting that the last attempt in Colorado to get personhood on the ballot by the church couldn't garner enough signatures to make it there, much less get voted on. Considering that he admits to having "no strong feelings on when life begins," I'm willing to wager he's never signed such a petition and only gives a crap now because he's been personally affected. And even so, it still took two years before he actually filed the lawsuit.

Article at Huffington Post. With all the teeth-gnashing angst and hyperbole, but also containing things like facts as opposed to half-assed vague statements.

^-.-^

[HYHYBT]

Even the best face you can put on it still comes across as hypocritical (put mildly) and gets them horrible publicity. If you really insist that fetuses count as people in all other areas, the only consistent alternatives are to make a defense that doesn't rely on the absence of a law declaring them to be (which should be possible if all those other points are accurate) or not to fight it at all.

[Andara Bledin]

I don't agree with their all-or-nothing stance on when a person is legally a person (although by 3rd trimester, I'm on the 'they've become a legally-protected person' side, absent mortal danger to the mother), but if they're going to have to follow the laws even if they don't agree with them, then they get to be shielded by those same laws.

What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

Honestly, the rest of the world expecting them to be held to a different standard after trying to make them do otherwise are the ones that are hypocrites.

^-.-^

[Panacea]

Well, it certainly opens a whole new can of worms in the debate. . . .

[Anthony K. S.]

Well, if it was me ... if I was even still a practicing Catholic ... I would have a really hard time justifying this.

You oppose a law, on the belief that it is morally unacceptable ...

... but as long as that immoral law still exists, it's okay for you to use it to your advantage, even though doing so fundamentally violates the core principles of your faith.

Basically, you oppose immorality, but as long as immorality exists, it's fine for you to benefit from it.

... What a system.

Look, if you oppose something as a matter of principle, then you should oppose it in all circumstances that you can. Including, and perhaps especially, when doing so goes against your own personal interests.


You know, I am reminded of some very wise words ...

"If you don't stick to your values when they're being tested ... They're not values! They're hobbies!" - Jon Stewart, The Daily Show


Now, some people look at this situation and ask :

"Well, as long as this law exists, why can't these Catholics make use of it? Why is it okay for other people to benefit from this law, but not okay for these Catholics to?"

Because those "other people" supported this law and believe in it. Their actions are consistent with their views and beliefs.

What this hospital is doing is not consistent with the views and beliefs that they've espoused.

if they're going to have to follow the laws even if they don't agree with them, then they get to be shielded by those same laws

It's not the same thing.

People are not expected to risk getting arrested or facing other serious consequences for their beliefs. (Although they can, if they choose to.)

It should not be considered a violation of one's principles to follow an immoral law, if you have no real choice but to follow it.

But when you actively seek to take advantage of such a law for your own gain, that's a different matter altogether.

This hospital had a choice. They could have stated that those fetuses were, indeed, people, and should be viewed as such. They could have stood by their fundamental values, in a situation where doing so would go against their best interests.

They didn't do that.

Given the choice between principle and self-interest, they chose the latter.


When people oppose something "on principle," and still seek to gain the benefits from it as long as it exists ...

I'm sorry, but to me, that basically says that they don't have any principles to begin with.

[Andara Bledin]

But when you actively seek to take advantage of such a law for your own gain, that's a different matter altogether.

Are we talking about the same case?

How is using the letter and current intent of the law as a defense in any way, shape, or form actively seeking to take advantage of anything?

Honestly, I'm not sure most of the vitriol in this case isn't impotent anger seeking any possible outlet regardless of how ill-fitting it really is.

^-.-^

[Anthony K. S.]

How is using the letter and current intent of the law as a defense in any way, shape, or form actively seeking to take advantage of anything?

"Active." - Adjective. Meaning to take or perform an action.

"Take advantage of." - Verb. Meaning, in this context, to make use of something for your own benefit.

That's what they're doing. They're making use of a law that can potentially work in their favor.

The fact that they're using the law as a defense doesn't change any of that. But if you want to nitpick diction, be my guest.

Honestly, I'm not sure most of the vitriol in this case isn't impotent anger seeking any possible outlet regardless of how ill-fitting it really is.

I don't really understand why you're acting like the criticism of this hospital is something so inherently absurd.

What people - including some Catholics, I might add - are saying is that if you oppose something as morally wrong, then you should not simultaneously be seeking to benefit from it.

That's not a radical concept.


From a legal standpoint, the wisest course of action for the hospital is, indeed, to argue that this law protects their doctors.

But by doing so, they are seeking to gain a material benefit from the very beliefs that they have vehemently condemned.

Is it really surprising that people have a problem with this? Is it surprising that some Catholics do?

The hospital didn't have to do this. They could, instead, have built their defense on saying that they did everything they could possibly be expected to do, and the patients' deaths were not their fault.

And if they really wanted to stand on their pro-life values, while still maintaining a legal defense for themselves, they could have openly rejected the legal principle that the fetuses weren't people, but still argued that they did everything that they could to save them.

As a legal strategy, that would have been much riskier than using the existing law to shield themselves. But at least that wouldn't have involved compromising their pro-life principles.

They didn't do that. They chose self-interest over principle.

That's what people, including Catholics, have a problem with.

[TheHuckster]

The hospital didn't have to do this. They could, instead, have built their defense on saying that they did everything they could possibly be expected to do, and the patients' deaths were not their fault.

Good luck finding a lawyer who agrees to argue that case.

[Anthony K. S.]

Good luck finding a lawyer who agrees to argue that case.

Did they not have lawyers already?

As long as the clients are the ones paying the bills, the attorneys have to do what they instruct.

And it's not always about money, either.

Contrary to popular stereotype, not all lawyers care exclusively about that, or about winning or losing. Sometimes, attorneys do take on cases pro bono, or simply because they believe in it.

It's not always solely about how likely they think it is that they can win.

[crashhelmet]

Too many people are letting their bias control their emotions in this case.

Blame our society for wanting money anytime something bad happens to us. Just like the lady suing Universal and Prince because they told YouTube to pull her video in the Dancing Baby Lawsuit

They are suing the hospital over a tragic event. The hospital's lawyers are saying "Your Honor, these grounds are false. Based on Colorado State Law, they do not have a valid case. You must dismiss." But everyone else is accusing them of hypocrisy.

The hospital's lawyers are the ones protecting the legal system, not trying to further pervert it.

For those that forgot, I'm Catholic and I believe in fetal personhood, but the laws are the laws. Should this be added to my But Criminals Don't Follow Laws thread? Why have laws if they're not going to be enforced?

Without knowing all the facts of this case, I think the Hospital should take some responsibility and ownership of this. How much, I don't know.