Catholic Hospital Chain Kills Death Lawsuit by Arguing that a Fetus is NotaPERSON

poeticseraphim · 24-01-2013 07:56PM #1

Catholic Hospital Chain Kills Wrongful Death Lawsuit by Arguing that a Fetus is Not a Person

http://gawker.com/5978597/catholic-hospital-chain-kills-wrongful-death-lawsuit-by-arguing-that-a-fetus-is-not-a-person

They got off ....two twins at seven months died because of medical negligence the obstetrician refused to come in despite being call and being paged. The father sued for wrongful death. Their lawyers argued

CHI's lawyer, Jason Langley, successfully convinced both the Fremont County District Court and the Colorado Court of Appeals to throw out Jeremy's lawsuit on the basis that CHI can not be sued for the wrongful death of a fetus, because it is not a person.

I think this shows that when it comes to money or morals...they stick to their money ...they do not genuinely believe this ****

I do think the wrongful death of a WANTED fetus at seven months should be treated differently from the death of a person. By the way she could not have even have had a legal abortion at this stage.

The father believed the obstetrician should have come and that doctors should have preformed a perimortem (after death) cesarean. That there was a chance the twins or one could have survived.

SAD CASE
Whatever the medical case was ....THEY ARGUED IN A COURT OF LAW THAT THE FETUS IS NOT A PERSON......SUCK IT BISHOPS

A major Catholic health provider has successfully dismantled a wrongful death lawsuit brought against it by arguing — in defiance of its own long-held doctrine — that a dead fetus is not the same as a dead person.

The case involves the 2006 death of 31-year-old Lori Stodghill, a woman seven months pregnant with twin boys, who was brought in to the emergency room at St. Thomas More Hospital in Cañon City, Colorado, on New Year's Day.

According to her husband Jeremy, Lori was vomiting and had shortness of breath — symptoms that would later be attributed to the clogged artery that caused her untimely demise.

After he parked the car, Jeremy returned to the ER to find Lori unconscious. Less than an hour later she would be dead of a massive heart attack, and her twins would die with her.

But Jeremy maintains that it didn't have to end this way.

Despite being paged by the hospital, Dr. Pelham Staples, the on-call obstetrician (who also happened to be Lori's personal obstetrician), never arrived. Instead, he spoke with Jeremy by phone.

"He said, 'Well, what do you want to do? Take the babies? Take the babies?" Jeremy recalled to Westword. "I kept responding, 'I'm not a doctor!'"

ER staff, meanwhile, were unable to detect any fetal heartbeats, and the decision to perform a perimortem Cesarean section fell to doctors at the scene, who decided against it.

A short while later Jeremy, who believes the Cesarean section might have saved his twins, filed a wrongful death lawsuit against the faith-based nonprofit which operates St. Thomas More.

Catholic Health Initiatives is the second-largest faith-based health system in America, and boasts 78 hospitals in 17 different states.

CHI claims to follow the tenets of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops' Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care [PDF], which clearly state that "The Church's defense of life encompasses the unborn."

But when push came to shove, CHI abandoned their beliefs in order to win a malpractice lawsuit.

CHI's lawyer, Jason Langley, successfully convinced both the Fremont County District Court and the Colorado Court of Appeals to throw out Jeremy's lawsuit on the basis that CHI can not be sued for the wrongful death of a fetus, because it is not a person.

[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.

Jeremy's attorneys are now seeking to have their case heard by the Colorado Supreme Court.

Many Catholics are finding themselves in the awkward position of supporting the Stodghills in their battle against the Church, because they believe a win for the plaintiffs would be a win for pro-life advocates.

THESE PEOPLE AND ORGANIZATIONS ARE THE BIGGEST FAKES.

Dyr · 24-01-2013 07:58PM

I think the papist position is that foetuses may or may not be "human" but they should always be treated as if they are.

Unless that's gonna cost god money in court, of course

Where To · 24-01-2013 08:00PM

Tl;Dr

And that's just the title.

Biggins · 24-01-2013 08:01PM

I've a headache after reading the above.
With respect OP, I can estimate your views on various matters but does your words have to come across as so happy gladness ("...SUCK IT BISHOPS") in some aspects while managing to give out about something you consider outrageous ("SAD CASE" & " THESE PEOPLE AND ORGANIZATIONS ARE THE BIGGEST FAKES.") ?

Pilotdude5 · 24-01-2013 08:02PM

Well Religious people know they're always right as they have faith in the fact they're always right, right?

My name is URL · 24-01-2013 08:02PM

Biggins wrote: »

I've a headache after reading the above.

I didn't make it past the thread title

Bad Santa · 24-01-2013 08:03PM

Someone should inform all the people in the world that were born two months premature that they don't exist.

I'm sure it would come as somewhat of a surprise to them.

Fr_Dougal · 24-01-2013 08:06PM

As much as I'd like to have a dig at the RC church and all it's failings, you can be sure that it was their insurance company that fought the court case. Nonetheless that doesn't exempt them from hiring an insurer that doesn't follow their beliefs.

3ndahalfof6 · 24-01-2013 08:09PM

When will the penny drop?

poeticseraphim · 24-01-2013 08:13PM

Biggins wrote: »

I've a headache after reading the above.
With respect OP, I can estimate your views on various matters but does your words have to come across as so happy gladness ("...SUCK IT BISHOPS") in some aspects while managing to give out about something you consider outrageous ("SAD CASE" & " THESE PEOPLE AND ORGANIZATIONS ARE THE BIGGEST FAKES.") ?

It is not gladness it is **** you Bishops you disgust me your hypocracy and protection of your assets rather than your fake morals sickens and enrages me.

They can suck cock. I have had it with anyone protecting these people they can suck it and **** right off.

By the way why is it me you criticize first????

Rather than the SCUM?

Forget about what you think of abortion....(because they obviously no longer have an issue with it) ..what about their obvious intent and complete lack of morality??

I am not glad...I AM PISSED OFF..SO THEY CAN SUCK IT

3ndahalfof6 · 24-01-2013 08:17PM

poeticseraphim wrote: »

It is not gladness it is **** you Bishops you disgust me your hypocracy and protection of your assets rather than your fake morals sickens and enrages me.

They can suck cock. I have had it with anyone protecting these people they can suck it and **** right off.

By the way why is it me you criticize first????

Rather than the SCUM?

Forget about what you think of abortion....(because they obviously no longer have an issue with it) ..what about their obvious intent and complete lack of morality??

I am not glad...I AM PISSED OFF..SO THEY CAN SUCK IT

Interesting choice of big lettered words.

Czarcasm · 24-01-2013 08:20PM

poeticseraphim wrote: »

By the way why is it me you criticize first????

I don't think anyone was criticizing you personally OP, I think the criticism was levelled at the way the OP was written like a bastardized facebook post written by an angst riddled 12 year old hoping for reactionary validation.

This distracted from the main point you were trying to make, but you only have yourself to blame for it.

poeticseraphim · 24-01-2013 08:20PM

Expect the same mindless minions to defend it all...oh it's not them..it's those bad lawyers....the freaking Catholic church has priests who are lawyers they can afford any freaking lawyers they want. They have THEIR OWN INSURANCE COMPANY!

They are the client...they must give permission to their lawyer to use or not use arguements they do or don't agree with.

I bet the insurance company told them to use the defense.
The vatican has it's own bank...it has it's own insurance company!

They can use whichever they want...i bet it was a compay connected to the holy seas though.

Ad who cares???

Biggins · 24-01-2013 08:24PM

poeticseraphim wrote: »

It is not gladness it is **** you Bishops you disgust me your hypocracy and protection of your assets rather than your fake morals sickens and enrages me.

They can suck cock. I have had it with anyone protecting these people they can suck it and **** right off.

By the way why is it me you criticize first????

Rather than the SCUM?

Forget about what you think of abortion....(because they obviously no longer have an issue with it) ..what about their obvious intent and complete lack of morality??

I am not glad...I AM PISSED OFF..SO THEY CAN SUCK IT

Take a breath ...breathe out slowly.

I understand your undercurrent view and I agree to some extent but the way your formulated your post is not conducive to your opinion being taken as a valid fully supportable position.

Maybe with practise at creating forum posts, you might get your future points across better.
All above said with the greatest of genuine respect.

poeticseraphim · 24-01-2013 08:26PM

3ndahalfof6 wrote: »

Interesting choice of big lettered words.

I am female.....so yeah..i dunno....Demi Moore/Gi Jane moment.

After YEARS OF BEING TOLD BY THE CHURCH THAT MY WOMB IS NOT MY OWN AND THAT THE FETUS HAS RIGHTS THAT OVERRIDE MINE...THEY DECIDE OH NO IF IT IMPINGES OUR RIGHT TO WEALTH...THEN NO..IT'S NOT..BUT FOR YOU IT'S DIFFERENT.

I am female.....so yeah..i dunno....Demi Moore/Gi Jane moment...I have been beaten around..I am now out of the cage and pissed off....suck my dick vatican.

And yes my posts are what is interesting here ...

So what do people think of the topic???

Grayson · 24-01-2013 08:27PM

Bambi wrote: »

I think the papist position is that foetuses may or may not be "human" but they should always be treated as if they are.

Unless that's gonna cost god money in court, of course

Nope, they are 100% certain that human life begins at conception and that an embryo is a human being.

It's also why they don't allow contraception because sex is about creating a human life and if you do it with a jonny, you're stopping god's will (God apparently can be defeated by latex).

It's also why men shouldn't masturbate or as my religion teacher (a priest) referred to it as "Spilling the seed of life".

I'm not sure why women shouldn't, it was an all boy school and I'm pretty certain the priests weren't aware that women could enjoy themselves alone.

Nodin · 24-01-2013 08:28PM

poeticseraphim wrote: »

I am female.....so yeah..i dunno....Demi Moore/Gi Jane moment.

After YEARS OF BEING TOLD BY THE CHURCH THAT MY WOMB IS NOT MY OWN AND THAT THE FETUS HAS RIGHTS THAT OVERRIDE MINE...THEY DECIDE OH NO IF IT IMPINGES OUR RIGHT TO WEALTH...THEN NO..IT'S NOT..BUT FOR YOU IT'S DIFFERENT.

I am female.....so yeah..i dunno....Demi Moore/Gi Jane moment...I have been beaten around..I am now out of the cage and pissed off....suck my dick vatican.

And yes my posts are what is interesting here ...

So what do people think of the topic???

See a bit of a problem developing there.

(Btw hi Sinead, loved the 1st album).

Biggins · 24-01-2013 08:33PM

poeticseraphim wrote: »

...So what do people think of the topic???

I think that like some people/organisation to some extent - when the moral rules of others suit, we are happy to go along with them - but when they are in conflict with our own ideology/principles, then there is a conflict.

Alternate version:
* When it suited the hospital to escape from a court room as "Innocent" - it suited them that a foetus was not recognised as a life.

* When it suits them outside a court room, to argue over the supposed sanity of life, in double-standards they wish to come across at "All life is precious - born or pre-born."

Certainly there is possibly very double standards come from an organisation.
(Given the base organisation that it is - this does not surprise many.)

Fr_Dougal · 24-01-2013 08:34PM

poeticseraphim wrote: »

Expect the same mindless minions to defend it all...oh it's not them..it's those bad lawyers....the freaking Catholic church has priests who are lawyers they can afford any freaking lawyers they want. They have THEIR OWN INSURANCE COMPANY!

They are the client...they must give permission to their lawyer to use or not use arguements they do or don't agree with.

I bet the insurance company told them to use the defense.
The vatican has it's own bank...it has it's own insurance company!

They can use whichever they want...i bet it was a compay connected to the holy seas though.

Ad who cares???

Sounds as if you've done your research here. Can you tell me which insurance company the hospital had working for them? And you're incorrect, the hospital would have very little choice in what defence the insurance company used. But let's not allow this get in the way of a good aul rant.

ITS_A_BADGER · 24-01-2013 08:36PM

This can of worms again

poeticseraphim · 24-01-2013 08:36PM

Biggins wrote: »

Take a breath ...breathe out slowly.

I understand your undercurrent view and I agree to some extent but the way your formulated your post is not conducive to your opinion being taken as a valid fully supportable position.

Maybe with practise at creating forum posts, you might get your future points across better.
All above said with the greatest of genuine respect.

The most respectful i can be with you is limited to being honest with you because I don't actually care what you think. My anger is not aimed at you personally.

I don't even care about my opinion being read at all. I simply wanted to post the story...and that is a copy and post.

I have a fricken post grad...i don't channel much effort in that regard online because it is exhausted by having been in real world academia until right now.
Srry K....me lose brain

My opinion is not the point. The story is. What is YOUR opinion on that.

Biggins · 24-01-2013 08:37PM

ITS_A_BADGER wrote: »

This can of worms again

Himmm... debateable.

I think the OP is trying to show that there is a double-standard being applied somewhere along the line.
(I'm open to be wrong and rightly corrected.)

Biggins · 24-01-2013 08:38PM

poeticseraphim wrote: »

...What is YOUR opinion on that.

See above - and best of luck with the studies.
I hope you succeed in whatever role you hope to gain in the future.

Czarcasm · 24-01-2013 08:38PM

poeticseraphim wrote: »

So what do people think of the topic???

OP honestly, step down off the soap box and behave like a mature adult and you might get more constructive replies to the OP as opposed to replies pleading with you to cool your jets so we can discuss the topic in a rational fashion.

poeticseraphim · 24-01-2013 08:39PM

Fr_Dougal wrote: »

Sounds as if you've done your research here. Can you tell me which insurance company the hospital had working for them? And you're incorrect, the hospital would have very little choice in what defence the insurance company used. But let's not allow this get in the way of a good aul rant.

The one that they themselves chose. What has that got to do with it?

Are you that brainwashed???

humbert · 24-01-2013 08:41PM

It's an example of a hypocritical organisation, they don't actually represent the Catholic church afaik.

Nodin · 24-01-2013 08:42PM

ITS_A_BADGER wrote: »

This can of worms again

Ahh no, its different can of woms. Same brand but different flavour.

Fr_Dougal · 24-01-2013 08:46PM

poeticseraphim wrote: »

The one that they themselves chose. What has that got to do with it?

Are you that brainwashed???

If you crashed your car into the back of another car and someone was injured, made a substantial claim and it went to court, I guarantee you that your insurance company would try and hold the other party somewhat responsible for the accident to reduce the payout. That's how insurance companies work.

Maybe you'll think or do a bit of research in future before you make angry posts.

3ndahalfof6 · 24-01-2013 08:47PM

poeticseraphim wrote: »

I am female.....so yeah..i dunno....Demi Moore/Gi Jane moment.

After YEARS OF BEING TOLD BY THE CHURCH THAT MY WOMB IS NOT MY OWN AND THAT THE FETUS HAS RIGHTS THAT OVERRIDE MINE...THEY DECIDE OH NO IF IT IMPINGES OUR RIGHT TO WEALTH...THEN NO..IT'S NOT..BUT FOR YOU IT'S DIFFERENT.

I am female.....so yeah..i dunno....Demi Moore/Gi Jane moment...I have been beaten around..I am now out of the cage and pissed off....suck my dick vatican.

And yes my posts are what is interesting here ...

So what do people think of the topic???

I think you are in a no win situation, you believed that your womb, while being part of your body, was actually theirs,( you belived what they told you at some point),

but then they move the goal posts and now what is in your womb owns your womb, so they relinquish the responsibility, while putting the burden on your shoulders,

it is very easy to give life but very hard to take it away (depending on the situation), if the right information is given by the right people type and the person who is going to make the decision is of sound mind,

then the decision should never be removed from the mother to be.

ITS_A_BADGER · 24-01-2013 08:49PM

Biggins wrote: »

Himmm... debateable.

Nodin wrote: »

Ahh no, its different can of woms. Same brand but different flavour.

Hmm true i may have skimmed through Ops post, but after reading it now ,My thoughts were it was going to turn into another abortion thread again

Biggins · 24-01-2013 08:49PM

I think some double-standard applies where a Catholic hospital is willing to hire a legal company to represent them using a position (to win at any cost) that actually conflicts with a prior/further core ideology they possess as a religion based/backed structure.

Catholic Hospital Chain Kills Death Lawsuit by Arguing that a Fetus is NotaPERSON

Comments