Catholic Hospital Argues State Law Does Not Recognize Foetus As Person

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.

**Paint_To_Redemption**

Someone should show this story to Alanis Morissette.

**Manchu**

How is this story hard?

Plaintiff filed a wrongful death claim regarding a foetus. EDIT: Pardon, two foetuses.

Counsel for defendant argues plaintiff's claim fails because of state law that a foetus is not a person for the purposes of plaintiff's claim.

**whembly**

Manchu wrote:
How is this story hard?

Plaintiff filed a wrongful death claim regarding a foetus.

Counsel for defendant argues plaintiff's claim fails because of state law that a foetus is not a person for the purposes of plaintiff's claim.

The issue is hypocrisy...

In the end... follow the money trail.

**nels1031**

Manchu wrote:
How is this story hard?

Because crucial facts are left out. The patients obesity isn't mentioned, surely that had more to do with the deaths then the hospital. Colorado courts agreed, ruling that her artery blockage was so extreme she would have died anyway. Lets not discuss how a unhealthy lifestyle and/or genetic disposition towards cardiac diseases could affect the womens life and her unborn children. Thats not a story to grab headlines.

Nurses checking for heartbeats for the twins isn't mentioned, why would they be checking for heartbeats if they weren't prepared to do a c-section? No pulses, no life, hence no c-section. Even the expert witnesses on peri-mortem c-section brought forth by the deceased's husband said it wasn't likely they would survive. No gross malpractice there, as ruled by the courts before, so not a story to grab headlines.

The conversation between the doctor and the patients husband isn't mentioned, where its obvious that the doctor was prepared to do, or at least order a c-section. The Colorado courts sided with the doctor, stating there was no proof of wrong doing on the doctors part. Nope not a story there.

The 2008 and 2010 personhood for fetus's amendments that were shot down by Colorado voters isn't mentioned (which the local Church diocese were neutral towards, saying thats its ambiguity would ostensibly help the pro-abortion movement), which maintained that a fetus isn't a person under state law, rendering this lawsuit essentially DOA. The legislature and the voters, not the Church, is the one to say a fetus isn't a person. Not a story.

When you leave out those facts and others, rearrange statements to seem like the Catholic hospital are the ones saying fetuses aren't people rather then state law, pile on emotional sentiments to add substance to the article sorely devoid of hard facts, and then mention how the law that the lawyers have to argue upon contradicts Church doctrine, you can imply hypocrisy or present it as such. Now you have a story to grab headlines.

Meanwhile, more than half a million people of all races/religions, mostly women, marched in Washington to protest abortion on the 40th anniversary of Roe v. Wade. Not a peep from media. But a whiff of supposed Catholic hypocrisy and everyone jumps on their soapbox.

**AlmightyWalrus**

As someone who is pro-choice in the abortion debate I can't see anything wrong with this. Everyone is equal before the Law and all that. It's not hypocrisy to point out that the law doesn't consider foetuses people because that's actually what the law says. It'd be hypocritical if they managed to get the law changed to considering a foetus a person and THEN insisted on a loophole.

**Manchu**

whembly wrote:
The issue is hypocrisy...

There is nothing hypocritical about the hospital's argument.

Plaintiff sues. Hospital responds, you can't sue us because your claim is defective.

NELS1031 wrote:
rearrange statements to seem like the Catholic hospital are the ones saying fetuses aren't people rather then state law

That accurately sums up the "news story" and the thread.

**whembly**

Manchu wrote:
whembly wrote:
The issue is hypocrisy...
There is nothing hypocritical about the hospital's argument.

Plaintiff sues. Hospital responds, you can't sue us because your claim is defective.
NELS1031 wrote:
rearrange statements to seem like the Catholic hospital are the ones saying fetuses aren't people rather then state law
That accurately sums up the "news story" and the thread.

Okay... I agree with you on this... I take it back.

**LordofHats**

NELS1031 wrote:
Manchu wrote:
How is this story hard?

Because crucial facts are left out. The patients obesity isn't mentioned, surely that had more to do with the deaths then the hospital. Colorado courts agreed, ruling that her artery blockage was so extreme she would have died anyway. Lets not discuss how a unhealthy lifestyle and/or genetic disposition towards cardiac diseases could affect the womens life and her unborn children. Thats not a story to grab headlines.

Nurses checking for heartbeats for the twins isn't mentioned, why would they be checking for heartbeats if they weren't prepared to do a c-section? No pulses, no life, hence no c-section. Even the expert witnesses on peri-mortem c-section brought forth by the deceased's husband said it wasn't likely they would survive. No gross malpractice there, as ruled by the courts before, so not a story to grab headlines.

The conversation between the doctor and the patients husband isn't mentioned, where its obvious that the doctor was prepared to do, or at least order a c-section. The Colorado courts sided with the doctor, stating there was no proof of wrong doing on the doctors part. Nope not a story there.

The 2008 and 2010 personhood for fetus's amendments that were shot down by Colorado voters isn't mentioned (which the local Church diocese were neutral towards, saying thats its ambiguity would ostensibly help the pro-abortion movement), which maintained that a fetus isn't a person under state law, rendering this lawsuit essentially DOA. The legislature and the voters, not the Church, is the one to say a fetus isn't a person. Not a story.

When you leave out those facts and others, rearrange statements to seem like the Catholic hospital are the ones saying fetuses aren't people rather then state law, pile on emotional sentiments to add substance to the article sorely devoid of hard facts, and then mention how the law that the lawyers have to argue upon contradicts Church doctrine, you can imply hypocrisy or present it as such. Now you have a story to grab headlines.

Meanwhile, more than half a million people of all races/religions, mostly women, marched in Washington to protest abortion on the 40th anniversary of Roe v. Wade. Not a peep from media. But a whiff of supposed Catholic hypocrisy and everyone jumps on their soapbox.

I'd give you a cookie but I already ate it

**d-usa**

Church fights laws it doesn't like because they state that a fetus is a person (aka: plan B)

Church takes advantage of laws it fights when it financially benefits then and suddenly agrees with laws that they have been arguing against.

That is my problem.

**dogma**

NELS1031 wrote:

Meanwhile, more than half a million people of all races/religions, mostly women, marched in Washington to protest abortion on the 40th anniversary of Roe v. Wade. Not a peep from media. But a whiff of supposed Catholic hypocrisy and everyone jumps on their soapbox.

Nope, not a peep.

I think you're mistaking what a particular person thought was important, for what "the media" (whatever that is) thought was important.

**LordofHats**

d-usa wrote:
Church fights laws it doesn't like because they state that a fetus is a person (aka: plan B)

Church takes advantage of laws it fights when it financially benefits then and suddenly agrees with laws that they have been arguing against.

That is my problem.

So your position is that the courts should issue a judgement in clear contradiction to the law because a Church funded hospital (the Church isn't defending this suit) should just bow out? That seems counter to sense. Even if this was the Church itself fighting the suit it's not necessarily hypocritical. Might just be some smart gaks idea of satire.

**d-usa**

Do I think that the courts should throw it out based on the hospital/church/lawyers being hypocrites? No, and I don't think there is a legal case for that.

Do I think that the church and the hospital (who will use the belief that a fetus is a person when refusing to obey laws) are stupid hypocrites who are using whatever definition of "fetus is a person" that financially benefits them best even if it goes against their core teachings? Yes.

To me it's not about legal cases, it's about that hospital and the system being hypocritical donkey caves.

**gunslingerpro**

d-usa wrote:
Church fights laws it doesn't like because they state that a fetus is a person (aka: plan B)

Church takes advantage of laws it fights when it financially benefits then and suddenly agrees with laws that they have been arguing against.

That is my problem.

Emphasis mine. I think I've found your issue.

You don't have to agree with a law to be protected by it. Application of law confers no moral concurrence.

**LordofHats**

d-usa wrote:
Do I think that the courts should throw it out based on the hospital/church/lawyers being hypocrites? No, and I don't think there is a legal case for that.

Do I think that the church and the hospital (who will use the belief that a fetus is a person when refusing to obey laws) are stupid hypocrites who are using whatever definition of "fetus is a person" that financially benefits them best even if it goes against their core teachings? Yes.

To me it's not about legal cases, it's about that hospital and the system being hypocritical donkey caves.

I think Gungslinger has it.

And again, Church funded hospital != Church. Since all the other attempts by the plaintiff have already been thrown out of the courts, and the plaintiff resorted to suing them over personhood of a fetus, the only option is for the hospital to point out that under state law they can't be sued on those grounds which isn't hypocritical. It's matter of fact. A prosecutor can be opposed to the death penalty, but they can still end up sending people to death row. It's their job, the law is out of their hands, and it doesn't make them hypocritical. It's just the fact of the situation.

This isn't hypocrisy. It's irony. The hospital didn't make this rule the state did. The church, or a hospital funded by, cannot be sued and blamed in a court for something the law says is impossible. To claim that the defendant saying as such is hypocritical is... Not sure what it is but its not right

**dogma**

gunslingerpro wrote:

Emphasis mine. I think I've found your issue.

You don't have to agree with a law to be protected by it. Application of law confers no moral concurrence.

That is correct.

Though, in all fairness, you may be well advised to fall on a moral sword if a part of your larger organization is engaged in defending its legitimacy.

**Kilkrazy**

The hospital didn't have to defend the case.

The question is whether they defended it on the basis that the foetus was non-viable or on the basis that the foetus didn't count. That point needs to be found out clearly in order to make a judgement about possible hypocrisy.

**gunslingerpro**

Kilkrazy wrote:
The hospital didn't have to defend the case.

The question is whether they defended it on the basis that the foetus was non-viable or on the basis that the foetus didn't count. That point needs to be found out clearly in order to make a judgement about possible hypocrisy.

Actually, it doesn't matter either way. In the eyes of the state, and the law, they are the same argument. A fetus is not a person, regardless of viability.

There seems to be a misconception here that legal standing has a direct effect on moral standing. You don't have to state why you're arguing the law, just how it is relevant.

**Manchu**

d-usa wrote:
To me it's not about legal cases, it's about that hospital and the system being hypocritical donkey caves.

Ah. there's your problem. When you talk about things contrary to what they actually are, you are bound to be confused -- even, as is the case here, to the extent of some pretty righteous ignorance. The truth is that this is first of all a legal issue.

The question is: can the plaintiff's claims succeed? As a threshold issue, the facts must support the elements of the claim. Here, the wrongful death in question must be the death of legally cognizable person. Apparently according to Colorado state law, a foetus is not a legally cognizable person. Counsel for defendant is not making a moral argument but rather a legal one. It's not even a complicated argument.

Plaintiff's claim immediately fails on one of three elements: Was there a death? Yes, for the purposes of this part of the discussion, there were two. Next, were these the deaths of people? No, according not to the hospital but to the state of Colorado. Thus, we need not even come to the third question, regarding whether the death was "wrongful."

There is not even the slightest hypocrisy here, as a matter of fact. So let's turn to what Dakka would seemingly rather talk about, the PR aspect.

dogma wrote:
Though, in all fairness, you may be well advised to fall on a moral sword if a part of your larger organization is engaged in defending its legitimacy.

Do optics matter in this case?

Let's take it in two parts:

First, could this case if handled otherwise generate any of the much needed public sympathy regarding Catholic moral and social teaching about abortion? I'd say no. Allowing itself to be sued contrary to the laws of the jurisdiction in which the case arose would not in my opinion persuade anyone who is either ambivalent toward or in favor of "a woman's right to choose." This is a simple one really. Poor lawyering is by definition unpersuasive. Furthermore, we are talking about a hospital rather than the Church in the context of civil law rather than theology or moral philosophy. Legal malpractice in this case (for it surely would be so not to bring up the obvious deficiency in plaintiff's argument) would only serve to prove that such Catholic medical institutions are dangerously out of touch with the society in which they exist and of which they are a part. Hospitals, whether run by orders or diocese or secular investors, will not convince anyone of anything by foolishly accepting legal liabilities contrary to the law itself.

Second, could this case as it is being handled generate anti-Catholic sentiment? This one is a bit tricky. Looking over the thread, one might be tempted to say yes. But I think the problem here is with the word "generate," which connotes novelty. It seems to me that the case as it stands creates nothing new but simply reveals anti-Catholic prejudices that already exist. It seems terribly unreasonable to suggest that a Catholic hospital is hypocritical for making the obvious legal argument available to any other defendant in our society. Suggesting that the law should apply differently to certain otherwise similar members of society is to my mind prima facie evidence of bigotry. Prospective counter-accusations on this note as usual do not justify such prejudices. The Catholic tradition holds some moral positions contrary to the time and place in which it is currently situated; equal treatment under the law is simply not one of them.

Of course, I acknowledge that the bishops themselves often conflate legal and moral issues. Knowing a little bit about how Catholic hospitals run, often with a great deal of hostility from the bishops because they aren't as totally obedient as the bishops would like, I am very hesitant to blame the hospital for any possible hypocrisy on that score.

**whembly**

There's an update to this:
http://www.lifenews.com/2013/02/04/catholic-hospital-reverses-wont-argue-unborn-baby-not-a-person/

After nationwide criticism, a Catholic hospital in Colorado has reversed course and will no longer argue in court in response to a lawsuit filed against it that an unborn child is not a person worthy of legal protection.

Attorneys for St Thomas More Hospital, which is sponsored by Catholic Health Initiatives, cited the statute in legal proceedings in the tragic case of Lori Stodghill and her twin unborn sons, who died at the Cañon City hospital on New Year’s Day of 2006. The law does not consider unborn children to be persons, which contradicts the moral teachings of the Church.

The Catholic bishops of Colorado — Archbishop Samuel Aquila of Denver, Bishop Michael Sheridan of Colorado Springs, and Bishop Fernando Isern of Pueblo — met last week to discuss the case with CHI senior leadership after announcing they would review the circumstances of the case.

CHI officials declared their firm commitment to one of the Church’s most basic moral teachings – that every person is created in the image and likeness of God and that life begins at the moment of conception. The CHI officials reiterated their deeply held belief that Colorado law fails to adequately protect the rights of the unborn, and expressed their commitment to work for laws that respect the rights of the unborn.

Kevin Lofton, CHI’s president and chief executive officer, and other senior executives, expressed their solidarity with Lori Stodghill’s husband, Jeremy, and the couple’s daughter, Elizabeth. The prayers of CHI have been with the Stodghill family throughout this long, heartbreaking ordeal.

The Colorado bishops recognized the exceptional care provided to Lori Stodghill at St. Thomas More Hospital. Two courts of law – the Circuit Court in Fremont County and the Colorado Court of Appeals – have supported the position of CHI and St. Thomas More Hospital that nothing done by doctors, nurses and other staff members would have changed this case’s tragic outcome.

The hospital, run by Catholic Healthcare Initiatives, argued that twin unborn children who died under its care were not human beings. The response came in regard to a wrongful death lawsuit filed against St. Thomas More Medical Center in Canon City by a husband who lost his pregnant wife.

CHI representatives agreed that the unjust law will not be cited in any further legal reviews of this case.

“Lori Stodghill was 28 weeks into her pregnancy when, on New Year’s Day 2006, she began vomiting and feeling short of breath, according to court papers. Her husband, Jeremy, took her to the emergency room of St. Thomas More, where Stodghill collapsed and went into cardiac arrest,” according to an AP report. “Doctors and nurses tried to revive her, but she was declared dead from a pulmonary embolism. No one tried to remove the fetuses via an emergency cesarean section, and they perished, too, court papers said.”

AP continued: “Jeremy Stodghill sued the hospital, some doctors and Catholic Healthcare Initiatives, which owns the company that operates Thomas More. Attorneys for CHI in 2010 filed court papers asking a judge to dismiss the case because the plaintiffs couldn’t prove negligent care killed Lori Stodghill and her fetuses. They also argued that “under Colorado law, a fetus is not a `person,’ and Plaintiff’s claims for wrongful death must therefore be dismissed.”

But today, the hospital and the state’s bishops released a statement acknowledging it was “morally wrong” to argue the unborn children were not people. Both released separate statements saying the hospital system had been unaware of the legal arguments and they pledged to “work for comprehensive change in Colorado’s law, so that the unborn may enjoy the same legal protections as other persons.”

Denver Archbishop Samuel J. Aquila, Colorado Springs Bishop Michael Sheridan and Pueblo Bishop Fernando Isern said: “Catholic healthcare institutions are, and should, be held to the high standard of Jesus Christ himself.”

“Colorado’s bishops have recognized the vital importance of CHI’s ministry of healing, and look forward to continued collaboration in working to overturn unjust laws and in service to the Gospel,” they said.

In the case a trial judge found that previous state court cases required an unborn child to be born alive to have the claim of any legal rights in the state. An appellate court upheld the dismissal and now Stodghill’s attorneys are hoping to take the case to the Colorado Supreme Court.

If the justices agree to hear the case, the Wrongful Death Act would not be considered on appeal. The argument now before the court rests solely on “causation”–that is, whether or not the medical personnel at St. Thomas More Hospital were negligent in caring for the the 31-yearold Lori Stodghill, who was 28 weeks pregnant with her twin unborn sons. The Circuit and Appellate courts have overwhelmingly concluded otherwise.

**sebster**

Does anyone else find the strangest thing about this that the hospital is called St Thomas More? I mean, the guy oversaw six men getting burned at the stake for their religious beliefs. Utopia is a nice book and all, but the guy only ended up a saint because he was eventually on the losing end of the religious split in England. When he was in power he was more than happy to do it to other people.

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.

Oh well that's lovely. "Sorry your wife and unborn child died in our care, how about we don't charge you for that."

I mean fething hell, if anyone really wants to get an understanding of what's wrong with US healthcare, start thinking about all the systems that are in place that led up to a hospital saying 'sorry about your loved ones dying, how about we offer to not charge for it.'

Automatically Appended Next Post:

gunslingerpro wrote:
Emphasis mine. I think I've found your issue.

You don't have to agree with a law to be protected by it. Application of law confers no moral concurrence.

No, but one isn't required to use an legal concept as a defence. The hospital could, for instance, have offered no defence against the idea that the unborn were in fact children, but argued that the weight of the patient and everything else meant the deaths were not the result of hospital procedures. But they didn't do that. Well, not at first they didn't, public outcry eventually shamed them into it.

Now, whether or not that makes them hypocrites is a whole other question, as there's a fair case to be made that just because a hospital has the name of some saint, it doesn't actually mean it works as a genuinely Catholic institution.

**Manchu**

But today, the hospital and the state’s bishops released a statement acknowledging it was “morally wrong” to argue the unborn children were not people.

This is beyond outrageous; it is quite simply moronic. Good thing for the hospital that it's a non-issue in this case:

In the case a trial judge found that previous state court cases required an unborn child to be born alive to have the claim of any legal rights in the state. An appellate court upheld the dismissal and now Stodghill’s attorneys are hoping to take the case to the Colorado Supreme Court.

If the justices agree to hear the case, the Wrongful Death Act would not be considered on appeal.

sebster wrote:
the guy only ended up a saint because he was eventually on the losing end of the religious split in England

Please take your own advice and refrain from speaking from ignorance.

**LordofHats**

sebster wrote:
Does anyone else find the strangest thing about this that the hospital is called St Thomas More? I mean, the guy oversaw six men getting burned at the stake for their religious beliefs. Utopia is a nice book and all, but the guy only ended up a saint because he was eventually on the losing end of the religious split in England. When he was in power he was more than happy to do it to other people.

I hadn't considered it but yes. That is strange

**sebster**

Manchu wrote:
Please take your own advice and refrain from speaking from ignorance.

You gonna claim he wasn't involved in the persecution of protestants?

**Manchu**

Sebster, consider what you yourself would say if one of the OT regulars used that tactic on you. Clearly, I'm taking issue with your inane remark that Thomas More was only beatified because he was on the "loosing end" of the English reformation.

**sebster**

Manchu wrote:
Sebster, consider what you yourself would say if one of the OT regulars used that tactic on you. Clearly, I'm taking issue with your inane remark that Thomas More was only beatified because he was on the "loosing end" of the English reformation.

Fair enough, that was a fairly mediocre, and just generally crude description on my part. Now I see your complaint I see its fair.

**Kilkrazy**

I applaud the hospital administration and their bishops for living up to their religious principles.

**Manchu**

What the civil law is or is not, i.e., what as an officer of the court an attorney is bound to argue, is not a matter of anyone's religious principles.

**d-usa**

If the church holds the law of God to be a higher authority than the law of man, then they should follow the law of God even if it would be more convinient to follow the law of man.

**Manchu**

The civil law and the "law of God," which is itself merely a paltry analogy to the civil law unequal to the task of fleshing out what we mean by moral imperatives in the Christian sense, are not interchangeable or otherwise equivalent. What ought to be the case is a different question from what is the case. In a court of law, we are concerned with what is the law. For those who wish to discuss what ought to be the law, there is lobbying.

**d-usa**

Does the law force a party in a civil lawsuit to use every legal argument available to them? Is it somehow illegal for somebody to say "we know this law would be an advantage for us, but we don't want to argue this in court and take advantage of it"?