Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/26/us/colorado-fetus-lawsuit/index.html?c=weekend-homepage-t

The argument the catholic hospital is making is that legally life begins at birth so you cannot be responsible for the death of two fetuses that are not "people" yet.

I am changing the title of this thread because it is needlessly misleading flamebait. -- Manchu

I still don't get how it is th fault of the hospital that the mother died.
Did she die in the lobby? If i remember correctly, Cardiac Arrest means HEart attack, how is that the hospitals fault?

Could be for lots of reasons.

Their argument is that they don't even have to defend against the deaths of the two unborn children since they are not alive anyway due to not being born yet.

d-usa wrote:http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/26/us/colorado-fetus-lawsuit/index.html?c=weekend-homepage-t

The argument the catholic hospital is making is that legally life begins at birth so you cannot be responsible for the death of two fetuses that are not "people" yet.

Hmmm... this is a dangerous dance they are beginning here.

I don't really see what the hospital being Catholic has to do with anything. Unless you are making some sort of reference towards the Church's position on abortion, which of course I assume you were at least obliquely and I direct you to St Joeseph's Catholic Hospital in Phoenix.
If I'm off base so be it, I can always go to that New Mexico thread and add my voice to the chorus that's causing your inevitable coronary.

 AustonT wrote:
I don't really see what the hospital being Catholic has to do with anything. Unless you are making some sort of reference towards the Church's position on abortion, which of course I assume you were at least obliquely and I direct you to St Joeseph's Catholic Hospital in Phoenix.
If I'm off base so be it, I can always go to that New Mexico thread and add my voice to the chorus that's causing your inevitable coronary.

So you are okay with Catholic hospitals taking the position that life begins at conception when it comes to reusing to provide birth control or abortions, but insist that life doesn't begin at conception if they kill an unborn baby?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And feel free to go to the thread of people who are raging about a bill that doesn't change a 50 year old law.

I don't really give a feth what the position of the Catholic Church is for when life begins as long as they follow the law. But when they change their position on life based on financial liability then they can go to hell for all I care.

Did the children die as a result of an abortion? The refusal of an abortion?
Oh, they didn't did they. So the legal defense really has nothing to do with the Ethical and Religious Directives of the Catholic Church, and a lot more to do with secular law doesn't it? So if it offends you so much you should probably consult the politicians who will support legislation declaring life begins at conception rather than birth. "The defense of life begins at conception" I see nothing, nor apparently did the courts, that indicates the hospital did anything less than defending the lives in its care. It's not as if the hospital intentionally said, " feth those babies we won't do a c section because they aren't alive." Thier lawyers on the other hand, who probably eat unborn fetuses at least weekly, have no issue at all arguing life begins at birth and the hospital isn't at fault LIKE EVERY OTHER HOSPITAL.

The hospital argued, in legal papers, that fetuses are not alive. In direct opposition to their own directives.

 d-usa wrote:
The hospital argued, in legal papers, that fetuses are not alive. In direct opposition to their own directives.

I wonder if those attorneys would be hired externally (as a non-catholic?)??

So they only hire catholic attorneys when they argue against state laws that say fetuses are not alive?

 d-usa wrote:
So they only hire catholic attorneys when they argue against state laws that say fetuses are not alive?

Hey... I'm trying to make sense in all of this...

No you're really just trying to inflate a non story.

You are right, nothing wrong with fighting laws while arguing that a fetus is a person, then taking advantage of laws that say they are not a person.

The reason d-usa is mad about this is the hypocracy the Catholic Church is demonstating here.

For a very long time, the Church has maintained that life begins at conception and therefore abortion was murder... no matter how inconvenient having a child might be for the mother. The Church even maintains that there are no medical conditions that can cause a pregnncy to kill the mother, so ther is never any justification for a woman to have an abortion. They have even excommunicated a 13-year old girl in Ireland who had an abortion... after a Catholic Priest molested her and got her pregnant.

For them to turn around now and claim otherwise, when standing their moral ground suddenly becomes inconvenient for THEM, is rank hypocracy on their part.

The only reason I'm not more offended is because this sort of thing is commonplace in their operation. They condemn gays, while protecting pedophiliacs in their midst; preaching peace while provoking religious wars; preaching the evils of wealth while accumulating vast treasures... the list goes on and on. D-usa is doubtless less familiar with their history of hypocracy so he is shocked and hurt that the followers of the Prince of Peace could be so selfish.

 d-usa wrote:
You are right, nothing wrong with fighting laws while arguing that a fetus is a person, then taking advantage of laws that say they are not a person.

http://influenceexplorer.com/organization/catholic-health-initiatives/a78a3295a6ec4cba81664a75f5299580?cycle=2010
Do go on.

 AustonT wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
You are right, nothing wrong with fighting laws while arguing that a fetus is a person, then taking advantage of laws that say they are not a person.

http://influenceexplorer.com/organization/catholic-health-initiatives/a78a3295a6ec4cba81664a75f5299580?cycle=2010
Do go on.

What am i looking at here?

I am familiar with them. My wife worked for a catholic hospital for 6 years, she even served on the ethics comittee for that hospital. So we are very familiar with the directives and beliefs of the catholic health service. The whole arguments about when life begins and ends was something that she had to be involved with frequently. Being on the inside of these kind of decisions she was also very shocked that a catholic hospital would claim that a fetus is not a person. Hospitals have been excommunicated for less.

 Vulcan wrote:
The reason d-usa is mad about this is the hypocracy the Catholic Church is demonstating here.

For a very long time, the Church has maintained that life begins at conception and therefore abortion was murder... no matter how inconvenient having a child might be for the mother. The Church even maintains that there are no medical conditions that can cause a pregnncy to kill the mother, so ther is never any justification for a woman to have an abortion. They have even excommunicated a 13-year old girl in Ireland who had an abortion... after a Catholic Priest molested her and got her pregnant.

For them to turn around now and claim otherwise, when standing their moral ground suddenly becomes inconvenient for THEM, is rank hypocracy on their part.

The only reason I'm not more offended is because this sort of thing is commonplace in their operation. They condemn gays, while protecting pedophiliacs in their midst; preaching peace while provoking religious wars; preaching the evils of wealth while accumulating vast treasures... the list goes on and on. D-usa is doubtless less familiar with their history of hypocracy so he is shocked and hurt that the followers of the Prince of Peace could be so selfish.

I doubt the Church had direct control over the hospital's decision.

 d-usa wrote:
I am familiar with them. My wife worked for a catholic hospital for 6 years, she even served on the ethics comittee for that hospital. So we are very familiar with the directives and beliefs of the catholic health service. The whole arguments about when life begins and ends was something that she had to be involved with frequently. Being on the inside of these kind of decisions she was also very shocked that a catholic hospital would claim that a fetus is not a person. Hospitals have been excommunicated for less.

Just stripped of thier affiliation, only the nun was excommunicated and she's back in good standing.
Also your article neglected to mention that the plaintiff was asked point blank if he wanted to perform and emergency c-section and that when he refused to make a decision a nurse checked for the fetuses heartbeats and found none.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 AustonT wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
You are right, nothing wrong with fighting laws while arguing that a fetus is a person, then taking advantage of laws that say they are not a person.

http://influenceexplorer.com/organization/catholic-health-initiatives/a78a3295a6ec4cba81664a75f5299580?cycle=2010
Do go on.

What am i looking at here?

Well C; off the top of my head an A:B conversation.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 Vulcan wrote:
The reason d-usa is mad about this is the hypocracy the Catholic Church is demonstating here.

For a very long time, the Church has maintained that life begins at conception and therefore abortion was murder... no matter how inconvenient having a child might be for the mother. The Church even maintains that there are no medical conditions that can cause a pregnncy to kill the mother, so ther is never any justification for a woman to have an abortion. They have even excommunicated a 13-year old girl in Ireland who had an abortion... after a Catholic Priest molested her and got her pregnant.

For them to turn around now and claim otherwise, when standing their moral ground suddenly becomes inconvenient for THEM, is rank hypocracy on their part.

The only reason I'm not more offended is because this sort of thing is commonplace in their operation. They condemn gays, while protecting pedophiliacs in their midst; preaching peace while provoking religious wars; preaching the evils of wealth while accumulating vast treasures... the list goes on and on. D-usa is doubtless less familiar with their history of hypocracy so he is shocked and hurt that the followers of the Prince of Peace could be so selfish.

I doubt the Church had direct control over the hospital's decision.

The hospital my wife worked at falls under the control and influence of the diocese.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@AustonT: I don't have any particular opinion on the validity of the lawsuit, or what actually happened to cause the death. I am just ticked at the legal argument that they were not people anyway, despite the previous arguments to the contrary by the church.

It's not a new argument. In the late 90's another Catholic hospital said virtually the same thing. The argument isn't that the fetuses were alive but that they did not constitute people under the law. In fact before the Second Vatican Council in the 60's babies were not recognized as people by Mother Church until baptized. A belief promulgated for centuries.
All that aside it's not the Chruch making the argument, it's a health care provider that has spent exactly $0 working to fight abortions and instead seems more concerned with the Defense budget. A similar organization Catholic Healthcare West has provided recent precedent by announcing they are a healthcare provider first and a Catholic organization second; and the bishops be damned. So your argument is flimsy just like the article it came from, the Church hasn't said a word and the hospital hasn't lobbied for recognition of the start of life at conception.

The lawyers are arguing law not ethics. While the RCC believes that the foetus is a person the lawn doesn't.. Attempting to sue the hospital under said laws is a recipie for disaster. They even offered to drop the fees.

 d-usa wrote:

 AustonT wrote:
I don't really see what the hospital being Catholic has to do with anything. Unless you are making some sort of reference towards the Church's position on abortion, which of course I assume you were at least obliquely and I direct you to St Joeseph's Catholic Hospital in Phoenix.
If I'm off base so be it, I can always go to that New Mexico thread and add my voice to the chorus that's causing your inevitable coronary.

So you are okay with Catholic hospitals taking the position that life begins at conception when it comes to reusing to provide birth control or abortions, but insist that life doesn't begin at conception if they kill an unborn baby?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And feel free to go to the thread of people who are raging about a bill that doesn't change a 50 year old law.

I don't really give a feth what the position of the Catholic Church is for when life begins as long as they follow the law. But when they change their position on life based on financial liability then they can go to hell for all I care.

Catholic funded hospital. Churches fund schools and hospitals yet have less influence on them than you might think. For a start equal opportunities legislation applies in full, so the staff need not be Catholics. Funding essential services is one of the things they get right. Knocking them for it out of hysteria earns no favours.

 Orlanth wrote:
Funding essential services is one of the things they get right. Knocking them for it out of hysteria earns no favours.

So long as those essential services are not (possibly) contraceptive, you are correct.

 d-usa wrote:
I am familiar with them. My wife worked for a catholic hospital for 6 years, she even served on the ethics comittee for that hospital. So we are very familiar with the directives and beliefs of the catholic health service. The whole arguments about when life begins and ends was something that she had to be involved with frequently. Being on the inside of these kind of decisions she was also very shocked that a catholic hospital would claim that a fetus is not a person. Hospitals have been excommunicated for less.

This, be interested to see if there's an official response to this from the Church.

 Spyral wrote:
The lawyers are arguing law not ethics. While the RCC believes that the foetus is a person the lawn doesn't.. Attempting to sue the hospital under said laws is a recipie for disaster. They even offered to drop the fees.

This is true.

Though, presumably the lawyers are working at the instructions of their employers, who would be the management of the hospital and therefore bound by its Articles and Object (or whatever the equivalent is for US based companies).

If the Articles say the hospital is to be run according to the beliefs of the Roman Catholic Church, the management should not be making an argument on grounds of state law in this specific case. Technically it might be illegal as well as hypocritical.

 Orlanth wrote:
For a start equal opportunities legislation applies in full, so the staff need not be Catholics.

My wife started applying to work in a Catholic school - the application form wanted to know more about her religious activities and qualifications than it did about her teaching qualifications and abilities. After getting half way through the form and being asked about Catholic post graduate qualifications (or something like that, it was a while ago), the inside leg measurement of her priest and so on, she decided not to bother continuing, despite being more than qualified to fill the position that was being advertised.

Just because they are forced by law to look at all applicants, doesn't mean they do all they can to ensure they don't take on non-Catholics by discouraging them at every stage of the application process.

Edit: sorry, OT!

I've worked at a Catholic School for the last 8 years. I actually started working there on a temporary basis, and kinda... stuck around. For the past 4 years I have been Head of Learning, ie Head of a Year group. I was apponted to that position with the school leadership and pupils having full knowledge of me being an atheist. 4 years ago, my year group improved the school's GCSE headline exam results from 37% to 50%. Other people's year groups then got 42% and 51%. My turn again, and I got the results up to 66%. I'd say I've done a pretty good job. The classes I teach have also been amongst the best in the department, whether I have taught science or maths.

However, we now have a new school management. I just moved to another school, taking a £12k pay cut to escape the treatment I have had. I think it is revealing that I had a full line management meeting every week for 12 weeks until I announced I was leaving, and they have been cancelled for each of the five weeks since. Now, I do not believe in God, but I consider myself a "better" Catholic in most ways than the leadeship of the school. A school who have bullied numerous non-Catholic staff.

(I should add that another reason I am being targetted is because I was one of the people who led the staff in pushing out the previous head. We were instructed in a whole staff meeting to fabricate (that exact word) data for the local education authority, and our union rep suspended on an unrelated, trumped up issue (about which another Catholic produced fakes emails, and it was proven, but no action was taken). Me and three others took over as union reps, and when I go only one of us will be left.)

Basically, I know MANY fine Catholic people. I know SOME Catholic organisations that seem benevolent (Catholic Association for Racial Justice, Catholic Children's Society) but my personal impression is that Catholic ORGANISATIONS in general tend to cultivate a culture of authority = right, no matter what, which leads to bullying, deceit and outright wrong. Everything that has been seen at a worldwide level in terms of coverups and intimdation over the paedophilia scandal I have seen repeated at a regional and local level by the Catholic Education Service in this country.

Sadly, it seems a belief in God and the power of confession seems more important to many (not all) Catholics than actually trying to do the right thing when you can so that you do not need to confess and get absolution.

One's beliefs do not neccessarily reflect the law of the state one lives in. Sounds to me as though they are stating that LEGALLY a fetus is not a person (under state law). They say nothing about spiritually or whether the fetus is a person in the eyes of the church.

Oddly enough, they're being protected by the very laws the diocese is opposed to.

That is true, however they are not required by state law to sacrifice their principles.