Skeptic Friends Network

Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?
Home | Forums | Active Topics | Active Polls | Register | FAQ | Contact Us  
  Connect: Chat | SFN Messenger | Buddy List | Members
Personalize: Profile | My Page | Forum Bookmarks  
 All Forums
 Our Skeptic Forums
 Religion
 Catholic hospital offers convenient defense
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  

Kil
Evil Skeptic

USA
13463 Posts

Posted - 01/24/2013 :  14:16:37  Show Profile  Visit Kil's Homepage  Send Kil an AOL message  Send Kil a Yahoo! Message Send Kil a Private Message  Reply with Quote
In malpractice case, Catholic hospital argues fetuses aren’t people
The lead defendant in the case is Catholic Health Initiatives, the Englewood-based nonprofit that runs St. Thomas More Hospital as well as roughly 170 other health facilities in 17 states. Last year, the hospital chain reported national assets of $15 billion. The organization’s mission, according to its promotional literature, is to “nurture the healing ministry of the Church” and to be guided by “fidelity to the Gospel.” Toward those ends, Catholic Health facilities seek to follow the Ethical and Religious Directives of the Catholic Church authored by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. Those rules have stirred controversy for decades, mainly for forbidding non-natural birth control and abortions. “Catholic health care ministry witnesses to the sanctity of life ‘from the moment of conception until death,’” the directives state. “The Church’s defense of life encompasses the unborn.”

Snip.
But when it came to mounting a defense in the Stodghill case, Catholic Health’s lawyers effectively turned the Church directives on their head. Catholic organizations have for decades fought to change federal and state laws that fail to protect “unborn persons,” and Catholic Health’s lawyers in this case had the chance to set precedent bolstering anti-abortion legal arguments. Instead, they are arguing state law protects doctors from liability concerning unborn fetuses on grounds that those fetuses are not persons with legal rights.

So... This one kind of blows my mind. Sure. They want to mount a defense. But here they are willing to throw their beliefs overboard in favor of winning a lawsuit.

So what do you think? If the law favors a certain defense, counter to the beliefs that they endorse and keep trying to codify into law, are they as hypocritical as they appear to be or simply mounting a fair defense with currently available laws?

I know what I think. I think they are moral hypocrites at the very least.

Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.

Why not question something for a change?

Genetic Literacy Project

H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard

USA
4574 Posts

Posted - 01/24/2013 :  14:20:59   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send H. Humbert a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Kil
So... This one kind of blows my mind.
I wish I could claim surprise, but it follows a pattern of behavior we've come to expect. Do as I say, not do as I do.
I think they are moral hypocrites at the very least.
Gee, ya think?


"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes

"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman

"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie
Go to Top of Page

Machi4velli
SFN Regular

USA
854 Posts

Posted - 01/24/2013 :  16:05:46   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Machi4velli a Private Message  Reply with Quote
At first I wanted to defend it (contrarian tendencies maybe) in the sense that legal liability will do nothing from their view that could help much: obviously paying out very large settlements in medical malpractice is going to have a net negative impact on the number of people this hospital saves (even if we consider fetuses persons).

But the ability to fight for precedent should override even the greater good argument if they are in earnest considering fetuses persons because if precedent were to lead to hurdles for abortion, this should save more "persons" (fetuses) from being "killed" (aborted).

However, we don't need to see some big precedent as being at all a certainty, and if one were set, it's not certain if it would make much difference in the more important (to them) cases on abortion and personhood for fetuses, so conceding that point may well do absolutely nothing, so at least arguing against it and having a good shot at getting out of the malpractice suit may still result in a net positive (as it really seems they're on the winning side with this argument legally). This seems a possible out of the apparent hypocrisy.

"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno

"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking

"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus
Edited by - Machi4velli on 01/24/2013 16:09:22
Go to Top of Page

sailingsoul
SFN Addict

2830 Posts

Posted - 01/24/2013 :  19:10:03   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send sailingsoul a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Please! don't get me started. Remember your talking about The Catholic Church and this is nothing compared to their long list of immoral and disgusting antics.

There are only two types of religious people, the deceivers and the deceived. SS
Go to Top of Page

Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie

USA
4826 Posts

Posted - 01/25/2013 :  09:56:49   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Valiant Dancer's Homepage Send Valiant Dancer a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Kil

In malpractice case, Catholic hospital argues fetuses aren’t people
The lead defendant in the case is Catholic Health Initiatives, the Englewood-based nonprofit that runs St. Thomas More Hospital as well as roughly 170 other health facilities in 17 states. Last year, the hospital chain reported national assets of $15 billion. The organization’s mission, according to its promotional literature, is to “nurture the healing ministry of the Church” and to be guided by “fidelity to the Gospel.” Toward those ends, Catholic Health facilities seek to follow the Ethical and Religious Directives of the Catholic Church authored by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. Those rules have stirred controversy for decades, mainly for forbidding non-natural birth control and abortions. “Catholic health care ministry witnesses to the sanctity of life ‘from the moment of conception until death,’” the directives state. “The Church’s defense of life encompasses the unborn.”

Snip.
But when it came to mounting a defense in the Stodghill case, Catholic Health’s lawyers effectively turned the Church directives on their head. Catholic organizations have for decades fought to change federal and state laws that fail to protect “unborn persons,” and Catholic Health’s lawyers in this case had the chance to set precedent bolstering anti-abortion legal arguments. Instead, they are arguing state law protects doctors from liability concerning unborn fetuses on grounds that those fetuses are not persons with legal rights.

So... This one kind of blows my mind. Sure. They want to mount a defense. But here they are willing to throw their beliefs overboard in favor of winning a lawsuit.

So what do you think? If the law favors a certain defense, counter to the beliefs that they endorse and keep trying to codify into law, are they as hypocritical as they appear to be or simply mounting a fair defense with currently available laws?

I know what I think. I think they are moral hypocrites at the very least.


To be morally consistent, they would have to claim that the death of the fetus was "God's Will". Arguing that a fetus is not a person fixes the price of their morality at about $6 million. The doc has some serious splainin to do.

It's usually less.

Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils

Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion
Go to Top of Page

sailingsoul
SFN Addict

2830 Posts

Posted - 01/28/2013 :  09:04:03   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send sailingsoul a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Machi4velli

At first I wanted to defend it (contrarian tendencies maybe) in the sense that legal liability will do nothing from their view that could help much: obviously paying out very large settlements in medical malpractice is going to have a net negative impact on the number of people this hospital saves (even if we consider fetuses persons).
Wouldn't the costs be covered by insurance which I presume they have?

There are only two types of religious people, the deceivers and the deceived. SS
Go to Top of Page

Machi4velli
SFN Regular

USA
854 Posts

Posted - 01/29/2013 :  00:17:18   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Machi4velli a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Not necessarily if you consider court costs, raises in rates on insurance, etc, but in any case, malpractice insurance is very expensive, and this sort of nonsense (suing on behalf of fetuses) doesn't help.

"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno

"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking

"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26007 Posts

Posted - 02/11/2013 :  13:47:24   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
The hospital pleads ignorance. They claim they didn't know about the legal argument being made on their behalf, and that they're going to try to change Colorado's law to match their morality.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

The Rat
SFN Regular

Canada
1342 Posts

Posted - 02/12/2013 :  09:54:21   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit The Rat's Homepage Send The Rat a Private Message  Reply with Quote

A fetus is a person, except when the RCC says it isn't. Clear?


Bailey's second law; There is no relationship between the three virtues of intelligence, education, and wisdom.

You fiend! Never have I encountered such corrupt and foul-minded perversity! Have you ever considered a career in the Church? - The Bishop of Bath and Wells, Blackadder II

Baculum's page: http://www.bebo.com/Profile.jsp?MemberId=3947338590
Go to Top of Page

Kil
Evil Skeptic

USA
13463 Posts

Posted - 02/12/2013 :  10:52:30   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Kil's Homepage  Send Kil an AOL message  Send Kil a Yahoo! Message Send Kil a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Dave W.

The hospital pleads ignorance. They claim they didn't know about the legal argument being made on their behalf, and that they're going to try to change Colorado's law to match their morality.
How convenient. So no lawyer talked with anyone about the defense. Hmmm.

Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.

Why not question something for a change?

Genetic Literacy Project
Go to Top of Page

Machi4velli
SFN Regular

USA
854 Posts

Posted - 02/12/2013 :  11:32:08   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Machi4velli a Private Message  Reply with Quote
I'm inclined to believe that the higher ups didn't know this was the argument being used on their behalf, they aren't going to bother themselves with the details of every malpractice suit. I suspect someone inside is in charge of reading the briefs and raising flags on questionable things and either didn't see a problem with it, or of course maybe he or she did raise the flags and the higher ups ignored it thinking it wouldn't catch any media's ear.

"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno

"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking

"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus
Go to Top of Page

JasonRain
Spammer

Cayman Islands
3 Posts

Posted - 03/07/2013 :  02:12:53   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send JasonRain a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Remember your talking about The Catholic Church and this is nothing compared to their long list of immoral and disgusting antics.

_________________
Removed links

Kil
Go to Top of Page
  Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Jump To:

The mission of the Skeptic Friends Network is to promote skepticism, critical thinking, science and logic as the best methods for evaluating all claims of fact, and we invite active participation by our members to create a skeptical community with a wide variety of viewpoints and expertise.


Home | Skeptic Forums | Skeptic Summary | The Kil Report | Creation/Evolution | Rationally Speaking | Skeptillaneous | About Skepticism | Fan Mail | Claims List | Calendar & Events | Skeptic Links | Book Reviews | Gift Shop | SFN on Facebook | Staff | Contact Us

Skeptic Friends Network
© 2008 Skeptic Friends Network Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 0.39 seconds.
Powered by @tomic Studio
Snitz Forums 2000