Author |
Message |
 |
|
 |
Advert
|
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. |
|
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/02/06 22:19:48
Subject: Catholic Hospital Argues State Law Does Not Recognize Foetus As Person
|
 |
5th God of Chaos! (Ho-hum)
Curb stomping in the Eye of Terror!
|
d-usa wrote: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"?
Isn't that what happens all the time?
And yes, your arguement does stand that they were hypocritical...which, they've since reversed.
|
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/02/06 22:26:30
Subject: Catholic Hospital Argues State Law Does Not Recognize Foetus As Person
|
 |
[MOD]
Solahma
|
d-usa wrote: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"?
That is entirely beside the point. Please keep in mind we are talking about liability in the sense of the law of the State of Colorado -- not moral liability or anything else. The only question the case entails is whether or not the State of Colorado considers a foetus to be a person for the purposes of civil law. The idea that simply answering "no it does not" is somehow equivalent to a moral argument that a foetus is not a human being is catastrophically stupid.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/02/06 22:31:51
Subject: Catholic Hospital Argues State Law Does Not Recognize Foetus As Person
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
Hypothetical:
Two people in Colorado are getting a divorce. The man has pictures of his wife sleeping with another guy. He tells his attorney that he still loves his wife and wants a simple "no-fault" divorce. The attorney tells him that under Colorado law and with the evidence he has, he can legally use that evidence and that law for the divorce. The man says he doesn't care and is not going to take advantage if that law.
It's a civil case hat has no obligation to use every available law for the advantage of either party.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/02/06 22:36:29
Subject: Catholic Hospital Argues State Law Does Not Recognize Foetus As Person
|
 |
[MOD]
Solahma
|
Your hypothetical does not pose a legal question. An example of a legal question is "does the State of Colorado consider a foetus to a be a legal person?" A legal question asks a question about what the law is. A policy question, by contrast, considers what the law should be. Sometimes such discussions involve morality. By answering the legal question in this case, counsel for the hospital has made no argument one way or the other about policy or morality.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/02/06 22:41:56
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/02/06 22:39:18
Subject: Catholic Hospital Argues State Law Does Not Recognize Foetus As Person
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
And is a party in a civil lawsuit required to use every legal argument to their advantage or can they decide not to use it if it conflicts with their morals?
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/02/06 22:44:13
Subject: Catholic Hospital Argues State Law Does Not Recognize Foetus As Person
|
 |
[MOD]
Solahma
|
Again, it's beside the point -- unless the question is "should we accept legal liability even if such liability does not exist under the law?" Which is an asinine question that should never come up. This is what I mean by "catastrophically stupid."
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/02/06 22:49:37
Subject: Catholic Hospital Argues State Law Does Not Recognize Foetus As Person
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
So the argument we are having is this:
d-usa: I think it is hypocritical to abandon a core belief of your religion to take advantage of a legal definition of a person even if the legal definition benefits you.
Manchu: I think it is stupid to ignore a legal definition that is beneficial to you even if it conflicts with a core belief of your religion and it is not a moral dilemma to take advantage of it.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/02/06 22:50:44
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/02/06 23:03:08
Subject: Catholic Hospital Argues State Law Does Not Recognize Foetus As Person
|
 |
[MOD]
Solahma
|
No, that is not what I am saying.
I am saying, it is stupid to treat the answer to a legal question as a policy argument or a moral position.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/02/06 23:05:56
Subject: Catholic Hospital Argues State Law Does Not Recognize Foetus As Person
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
Edit: argued the wrong thing.
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2013/02/06 23:07:01
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/02/06 23:06:47
Subject: Catholic Hospital Argues State Law Does Not Recognize Foetus As Person
|
 |
[MOD]
Solahma
|
d-usa wrote:Why does it matter that the law says it is not a person?
Because that is an elemental question at issue in court on this claim.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/02/06 23:07:20
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/02/06 23:11:52
Subject: Catholic Hospital Argues State Law Does Not Recognize Foetus As Person
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
Manchu wrote: d-usa wrote:Why does it matter that the law says it is not a person?
Because that is the only question at issue in court on this issue.
It is not the only question:
The question is: was the hospital negligent and caused the wrongful death of the unborn children?
They have two separate answers:
1) we were not negligent.
2) they are not people anyway.
They decided to use the legal definition of a person to argue that they couldn't be responsible for the death of a non-person. They have the right to argue that. The Catholic Church agreed that it violated their moral beliefs and ordered the attorneys not to use that argument in the future.
Ignoring beneficial laws to uphold personal morals is something that happens every single day.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/02/06 23:17:06
Subject: Catholic Hospital Argues State Law Does Not Recognize Foetus As Person
|
 |
[MOD]
Solahma
|
No, the initial question is: Does plaintiff have a claim? Plaintiff's claim was for wrongful death. Wrongful death claims are only actionable as to legal persons. Plaintiff's claims as regarding the foetuses, which are not legal persons under Colorado law, are therefore not actionable in Colorado. Plaintiff does not have a claim. If plaintiff does not have a claim then defendant cannot have liability.
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2013/02/06 23:23:38
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/02/06 23:25:36
Subject: Catholic Hospital Argues State Law Does Not Recognize Foetus As Person
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
It is up to the plaintiff to choose the argument they want to make. They can argue that the guy doesn't have a claim because no persons died. Or they can argue that the guy doesn't have a claim because they did nothing negligent. They are not legally required to agree with, or even argue, that a fetus is not a person.
It's a civil case. Same as a divorce:
Wife wants half his money and says it is his fault they are getting a divorce. Does she have a claim?
Husband has pictures of her fething the entire office.
Under Colorado law she doesn't have a legal claim for alimony.
Husband does not have to introduce that evidence or argue that she doesn't have a case. It is up to him. He can take liability for the divorce of he wants to.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/02/06 23:26:26
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/02/06 23:30:22
Subject: Catholic Hospital Argues State Law Does Not Recognize Foetus As Person
|
 |
[MOD]
Solahma
|
Once again, you are confusing legal and non-legal questions. Tactical questions are non-legal. The problematic word for you seems to be "argue." All that is meant by "argue" in the sentence "counsel for the hospital argues that Colorado does not recognize a foetus as a legal person" is that counsel is pointing out what the law is. What you are saying is that the hospital should pretend that it is legally liable for a claim that has no basis in the law as a sort of punishment for having a certain moral and/or political stance on what makes something -- beyond but also including in the legal sense -- a person in an era where that stance is not the same thing as the law. Alternatively, you believe that the hospital should pretend it is legally liable for claim that has no basis in law to "prove" that it really does hold that stance. Either way, it's a stupid and bigoted position.
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2013/02/06 23:32:20
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/02/06 23:37:20
Subject: Catholic Hospital Argues State Law Does Not Recognize Foetus As Person
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
And husbands pretend that they are legally liable for a divorce that has no basis in the law.
It happens all the time.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/02/06 23:39:07
Subject: Catholic Hospital Argues State Law Does Not Recognize Foetus As Person
|
 |
[MOD]
Solahma
|
I'm not sure what you think the example of divorce has to do with whether or not, as a threshold question, plaintiff in a civil suit even has a claim. I'm also not sure what you mean by "liable for divorce." Finally, whether people behave stupidly frequently or rarely has no bearing on this discussion.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/02/07 00:07:45
Subject: Catholic Hospital Argues State Law Does Not Recognize Foetus As Person
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
Because it is a situation where the party has a means to show why they are not liable, and chooses not to take advantage of it.
Plaintiff aims to prove that the defendant is liable.
Defendant aims to prove that they are not liable.
Unless there is a law that mandates the hospital to use the legal definition of a fetus/person they can use whatever tactic they want. They are under zero legal obligation to cite the law that gets them off the hook.
I will 100% agree that it is a bad legal tactic.
We will disagree if it is a moral question.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/02/07 02:07:17
Subject: Catholic Hospital Argues State Law Does Not Recognize Foetus As Person
|
 |
[MOD]
Solahma
|
d-usa wrote:They are under zero legal obligation to cite the law that gets them off the hook.
They are not really on the hook in the first place. The idea that they are is an unfortunate byproduct of our adversarial system and its underlying assumption that parties to the action rather than the court are in the best position (for the very reason that they are self-interested) and therefore obligated to persuade the court of what the law is. Is this a good presumption? Arguably, no: as we see in the case of GW filing copyright infringement actions against certain tiny businesses and individuals, parties are sometimes in no position at all to defend themselves. Even so, that's what we have. And the result is that if someone makes a claim against you then you become a defendant regardless of the merits of the claim. And if you do not, for whatever reason, avail yourself of the courts it is likely that they will prevail against you -- again, regardless of the merits of their claim. Our system accounts for frivolous and otherwise baseless claims in the pleading stage of an action. In pleading, the parties contest jurisdiction, venue, standing, and to some extent the elements of the claim. If the claim is not supported by the legally required elements then the claim does not exist insofar as the law is concerned. The defendant is thus retroactively not a defendant at all. Yet the time and expense remain nonetheless. Imagine an alternative system where the claims of prospective plaintiffs were considered by the court to the exclusion of the party against whom the claim is made. In that case, the prospective defendant might never in actuality become a defendant at all. In this case, it is clear that a wrongful death claim is as a matter of law only actionable against legal persons and it is equally clear that the law of the instant jurisdiction does not recognize a foetus as a legal person. Thus, in our hypothetical legal system, no action could arise from the claim and the hospital would never be a defendant in the first place. The costs in our imaginary world be borne solely by the claimant and the court -- at the expense of the prospective defendant having any say as to the merits of the prospective plaintiff's claim. The claimant could therefore simply make up whatever facts or craft whatever legal argument might be necessary to proceed to the action without the court knowing any better. So there are good reasons why we don't do this. The cost of the way we do things, however, is the practical reality that even unproven claims give rise to liability. This is why, in the criminal justice context, it is so crucial to maintain that the accused is innocent until proven guilty. This is also why all attorneys have an ethical responsibility to pursue competent representation. If the client directs counsel to undertake the representation incompetently, the question arises of whether the representation can ethically continue. Ultimately, a non-attorney defendant may represent itself and in that case is under no obligation regarding competence. It is clear that a party may represent itself incompetently. The question you are intent on answering is whether a party may be under a moral obligation to do so. Put in severe terms, is the law so repugnant to one's morals that one must disregard the law? By insisting on framing the issue in these terms, both you and the bishops are making a grave mistake. This is because the question is properly framed not in moral but rather in legal terms. To wit, must any party accept legal liability that has no basis in law? The question is properly framed in this way because of the very nature of the liability itself: this is legal liability; but for the law, it would not exist. It must therefore be considered in legal terms. We are not talking about moral liability; therefore the question of morality does not arise. Even the issue of why the bishops might enact a policy of not pointing out the law in court is not a moral question. Rather, this is an optical and political matter. Whether because of their own ignorance of the issue actually at stake (i.e., the legal liability) or because of some ill-conceived notion of public relations saaviness, the bishops have chosen to frame the issue morally for the very reason that they wish to get back to your question: is the law so morally repugnant that one must disregard it? The bishops wish to disregard the law on superficially related matters, such as health care insurance. The decision in this instance is therefore not one of morals but of politics. Only when we come to the question of why the bishops might want to disregard certain laws do we even touch on moral issues. Front loading the language of morality in legal issues is, as I said, a grave mistake. The reason is because the bishops are not really in a position to disregard the law. Conceiving of their legal responsibilities and liabilities in this way is antithetical to reality. Moreover, it implies that Catholic institutions are subject to legal liabilities even when they are not. Ask yourself what the effect of erroneously assuming legal liabilities will have on the budget of a hospital. This amoral political approach only has the effect of making Catholic institutions less relevant to society because they have less capacity to serve society. If it is the moral obligation of Catholic institutions to minister to society, then surely any policy which undermines their capacity to do so is not in accord with that obligation.
|
This message was edited 7 times. Last update was at 2013/02/07 02:13:15
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/02/07 02:10:20
Subject: Catholic Hospital Argues State Law Does Not Recognize Foetus As Person
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
Is the hospital legally obligated to exhaust every legal argument to prove in a civil lawsuit that they are not legally liable?
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2013/02/07 02:14:59
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/02/07 02:14:28
Subject: Catholic Hospital Argues State Law Does Not Recognize Foetus As Person
|
 |
[MOD]
Solahma
|
I have already answered that question and explained why it is not relevant.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/02/07 02:27:23
Subject: Catholic Hospital Argues State Law Does Not Recognize Foetus As Person
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
So it is their decision to determine which facts and/or laws they cite to prove why they are not liable? Because just as they are not automatically "on the hook", they are also not automatically "off the hook". They are neutral when the case gets filed. Guy who sues presents his arguments why he thinks the hospital is liable. Hospital presents their arguments why they think they are not liable. Judge/Jury decides who made the better case. Both parties can choose to use any evidence and/or laws to make their case. The hospital is 100% free to not argue that a fetus is not a person and that they are not liable because of that. You can argue that it is a dumb decision all you want. And since that is based on your opinion there is nothing wrong with that opinion. But a dumb legal strategy is still a valid legal strategy and if somebody decided not to use a law that violates their belief as a defense then they are perfectly within their right to do so.
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2013/02/07 02:30:11
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/02/07 03:02:51
Subject: Catholic Hospital Argues State Law Does Not Recognize Foetus As Person
|
 |
[MOD]
Solahma
|
I just don't see this as a matter of "using" laws much less that certain laws only apply to one insofar as one morally agrees with them.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/02/07 03:03:19
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/02/07 03:25:39
Subject: Catholic Hospital Argues State Law Does Not Recognize Foetus As Person
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
Well, "using" might not be the best word. I don't mean to imply any sort of underhandedness on the part of the attorneys when they originally cited these laws. Maybe "invoking" them, or simply saying "they don't have to cite the law" instead of saying "they don't have to use the law" might have been a better use of words on my part. And I do think that the law applies to a fetus even if it dies inside the hospital. They are certainly 100% right when they argued that the fetus is not a person (even if it dies inside a catholic hospital). I just agree with the (now current) decision not to cite a law that they (Catholic Church) disagree with even if it applies.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/02/07 03:26:12
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/02/07 04:54:05
Subject: Catholic Hospital Argues State Law Does Not Recognize Foetus As Person
|
 |
[MOD]
Solahma
|
d-usa wrote:I just agree with the (now current) decision not to cite a law that they (Catholic Church) disagree with even if it applies.
And that's where I'm saying that applicability in this instance is not a matter of choice. The law applies to the hospital based on where the hospital operates rather than whatever moral opinions its staff have. For me, this is the same issue as the bishops saying that this health care law cannot apply to Catholic institutions. They dress it up as a moral issue hoping to stir up people who think the "division of Church and State" is some kind of moral issue. But it's just a legal issue and guess what? The law applies to Catholic institutions just as much to any other.
|
|
|
 |
 |
|