Have we discussed this? Catholic hospital defense is fetus is not a person in a wrongful death suit

Two Peas is Closing
Click here to visit our final product sale. Click here to visit our FAQ page regarding the closing of Two Peas.

Posted 1/25/2013 by freecharlie in NSBR Board
1 2 >
 

freecharlie
What happens in NSBR, stays in NSBR

PeaNut 109,127
September 2003
Posts: 22,066
Layouts: 4
Loc: Colorado

Posted: 1/25/2013 9:59:42 PM
Catholic hospitals and other medical places refuse to offer certain procedures and medication because they interfere with procreation. The belief is that life begins at conception and that a fetus is a person.

Until named in a wrongful death lawsuit that dealt with twin fetuses. The lawyers in the case argue that there can be no wrongful death because the fetuses are not people.


What say the peas?


CANON CITY -- A Catholic hospital in Canon City has argued in court documents that it is not liable for the deaths of two 7-month-old fetuses because those fetuses are not people.

So far, courts have side with the hospital.

But that defense contradicts church teaching that human life is sacred from the moment of conception. At least one prominent abortion foe called the hospital's claims morally untenable.

The issue of whether a fetus is a person was raised in a lawsuit filed by Jeremy Stodghill, whose 31-year-old wife, Lori, died in 2006 at St. Thomas More Hospital in Canon City.

Lori Stodghill was 7 months pregnant with twins at the time. The suit claims the hospital failed to perform an emergency cesarean section to save the fetuses.

According to published reports, a brief filed by the hospital, owned by Englewood -based Catholic Health Initiatives, said that the fetuses are not covered by state's Wrongful Death Act.

"Under Colorado law, a fetus is not a 'person' and plaintiff's claims for wrongful death must therefore be dismissed," the hospital argued.

A state district court and an appeals court agreed with the hospital. The case, originally filed in 2007, is currently on appeal to the Colorado Supreme Court.

Southern Baptist ethicist Richard Land said the hospital failed to live up to its pro-life principles.

"There's a difference between being legal and being right," Land said. "Either a fetus is a person or it's not."

Catholic Heath Initiatives, which runs 78 hospitals in 14 states, would not comment on the specifics on the lawsuit. But the organization said in a statement that it follows Catholic teaching.

"First and foremost, our heartfelt sympathies have always been with the Stodghill family as a result of these tragic circumstances," the statement said. "In this case, St. Thomas More, Centura Health and Catholic Health Initiatives, as Catholic organizations, are in union with the moral teachings of the Church."

The three Catholic bishops in Colorado said Thursday that they'd recently learned of the death of Lori Stodghill and her two unborn children and expressed their condolences.

"We wish to extend our solidarity and sympathy to Lori's husband, Jeremy, and her daughter, Elizabeth. Please be assured of our ongoing prayers," said Archbishop Samuel Aquila of Denver, Bishop Michael Sheridan of Colorado Springs, and Bishop Fernando of Pueblo in a statement.

The bishops said they could not comment on ongoing legal disputes. But they said they will review the litigation and policies of Catholic Health Initiatives to ensure they conform with Catholic teaching.

"Catholics and Catholic institutions have the duty to protect and foster human life, and to witness to the dignity of the human person - particularly to the dignity of the unborn," the bishops said. "No Catholic institution may legitimately work to undermine fundamental human dignity."


link to more on 9news


Tribbey: I believe, as long as Justice Dreifort is intolerant toward gays, lesbians, blacks, unions, women, poor people, and the first, fourth, fifth, and ninth amendments, I will remain intolerant toward him! [to Ainsley] Nice meeting you

scrappower
Allons-y Alonso

PeaNut 174,150
October 2004
Posts: 15,754
Layouts: 0

Posted: 1/25/2013 10:09:29 PM
Huh, that is interesting. Seems to go against everything they claim they stand for. I honestly don't know how I feel about it. I thought that murderers could be charged with killing the mother and unborn child, so why not in this case? Guess it is a state law, not national. I guess they can only go by the laws of the state, not make special laws because they are prolife, you know.



IleneTell
StuckOnPeas

PeaNut 434,842
August 2009
Posts: 2,838
Layouts: 654

Posted: 1/25/2013 10:11:39 PM
Legalities aside, it's hypocrisy at its finest.



Imblessedwth6
PeaAddict

PeaNut 307,622
April 2007
Posts: 1,180
Layouts: 0
Loc: Colorado

Posted: 1/25/2013 10:16:02 PM
Just my opinion as someone who is 100% pro-life.
I think its sick that babies are only considered babies when its convenient. When the hospital doesn't want to involve itself in abortion because it ends a life, its a baby, but when the life ends and its their fault its no longer a baby.

scrappower
Allons-y Alonso

PeaNut 174,150
October 2004
Posts: 15,754
Layouts: 0

Posted: 1/25/2013 10:19:46 PM
Oh absolutely hypocrisy....but I think that of many that say they are prolife, but really only for unborn babies not all human life.

But I digress.....

Still though the law is the law and I don't know what could be done really.



Mom X 1
Plus Peanut and Ollie in Heaven

PeaNut 380,257
June 2008
Posts: 6,165
Layouts: 0
Loc: where the Tide Rolls

Posted: 1/25/2013 10:58:19 PM
It's definitely hypocrisy. Goes right along with the whole charge of double murder for a mother and an unborn fetus. It always drives me crazy that the law doesn't recognize the fetus as a baby until it's convenient for a murder charge. If the fetus is considered to be a life in relation to a murder charge, why is it not always considered a life?

I'm sorry it either is or is not a life, you don't get to pick based on the circumstances!


Just for the record, I'm pro-life.


"I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: 'I'm ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don't accept His claim to be God.' That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic-on a level with a man who says he is a poached egg-or else he would be the devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him...or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He did not leave that option open to us. He did not intend to."

C. S. Lewis - Mere Christianity

PierKiss
What if everything is an illusion & nothing exists

PeaNut 82,319
April 2003
Posts: 15,081
Layouts: 39

Posted: 1/25/2013 11:05:19 PM
Jeeze, talk about hypocritical. Either it's a person or it isn't. They are the ones always drawing a line in the sand over this. Pick a side and stick with it. I swear I don't know why I continue on being a catholic....



Just Lizzy
Original Pea #5005

PeaNut 19,817
August 2001
Posts: 20,981
Layouts: 54
Loc: On the rocky shores of life... AKA Mid-Missouri

Posted: 1/25/2013 11:14:55 PM
Sounds like they are hiding behind the law when it suits them. They certainly aren't doing their case against abortion/birth control/etc any good.


Feeder of Denali, Dakota, Shadow & Kai

TinCin
Ancient Ancestor of Pea

PeaNut 29,331
February 2002
Posts: 6,720
Layouts: 0
Loc: Living in the palm of the hand.

Posted: 1/26/2013 12:42:13 AM
I have no problem believing that the Catholic Church is essentially talking out of both sides of their mouth. After all this is the same church that has protected pedophile priests for generations. Make that protected and supplied fresh opportunities for them to have new victims. So I completely can see the church doing that.


PROUD MEMBER OF UAW LOCAL 659 - Home of the Sit-Down Strike!

lucyg819
pearl-clutching nitpicker

PeaNut 201,774
April 2005
Posts: 16,721
Layouts: 15
Loc: gone to chemo with BethAnne

Posted: 1/26/2013 12:50:43 AM

I'm sorry it either is or is not a life, you don't get to pick based on the circumstances!

While I am on the opposite side of the abortion argument from you, I agree with this sentiment.

But I can tell you the reasoning behind filing murder charges over the death of a fetus. It is dependent (at least in California) on the fact that the mother wanted the baby. That makes it a person, so to speak, for the purposes of the homicide charge. I don't know if it's dependent on viability or goes for any fetus or not.

I would like to see the law apply only for viable fetuses. At least unless it's a provable attempt to proactively kill the fetus.


LUCYG
northern california

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts."
--Bertrand Russell



gale w
shiny farmwife

PeaNut 40,275
June 2002
Posts: 23,848
Layouts: 52
Loc: Indiana

Posted: 1/26/2013 1:02:21 AM
I'm pro-life and Catholic and I'm disappointed in the Catholic church over this. I told dh about it and he is as well. They can't have it both ways. Disappointing but sadly, not surprising anymore.


Wash: "A man walks down the street in that hat, people know he's not afraid of anything."
Jayne: "Damn straight."

my blog
my swagbucks referral link

jmgesi
Jeepers PEApers

PeaNut 385,164
July 2008
Posts: 2,325
Layouts: 350
Loc: Northeast

Posted: 1/26/2013 5:47:39 AM
I am absolutely prolife and believe life begins at conception. Regardless of what the law says, i don't think the hospital is right to use this defense. If you believe that God knows every person even before they are conceived, then you can not say that the fetus is not a person.

Now... That being said. It is also hypocrisy to say a mother can abuse her baby by drinking or doing drugs while pregnant while pregnant (which it is), but that it is okay to take the baby's life because you do not want him or her.


Jan

Peabay
Happy now?

PeaNut 156,993
July 2004
Posts: 46,562
Layouts: 13
Loc: Connecticut

Posted: 1/26/2013 6:34:51 AM
Wow. I can't believe they are willing to do that in good conscience. One of my many issues with the Catholic Church, which caused us to leave it, was the focus on money. Obviously the money trumps cardinal beliefs.



*maureen*
Bad Wolf

PeaNut 191,892
February 2005
Posts: 6,033
Layouts: 0
Loc: Wheaton

Posted: 1/26/2013 7:14:57 AM
I wish I could say I was surprised but I'm not. Like so much the catholic Church does, it's all about what's the most financially beneficial at the time. It's a big part of why I walked away from being an active member of the church.


Uploaded with iPhone client

catholicone
StuckOnPeas

PeaNut 141,445
April 2004
Posts: 2,897
Layouts: 0

Posted: 1/26/2013 7:49:27 AM
The whole thing is maddening but I want to know why they didn't perform a c-section????

That's what disgusts me the most. What doctor could sit there and NOT fight to save those babies? I want to know what was going on. Was he blocked from performing the c-section because of some bureaucratic BS or was he just like, oh well, mom's dead?

It makes me sick.

catholicone
StuckOnPeas

PeaNut 141,445
April 2004
Posts: 2,897
Layouts: 0

Posted: 1/26/2013 7:59:34 AM
More thoughts...

This is BS. So the church follows the letter of the law when it means they might lose money? But when it comes to protecting children from molestation they skirt the law for as long as possible?

BS. I don't see the hierarchy of the Catholic church as one who gives a damn about protecting children. And that is why I made the difficult and life changing decision years ago to leave the Catholic church. It still hurts. That was my home for so long. But I, in good conscience, cannot raise my children Catholic. (and yes, I kept my original username on two peas)

You will know a tree by its fruit.

Super Soda
BucketHead

PeaNut 269,431
July 2006
Posts: 892
Layouts: 6

Posted: 1/26/2013 8:02:43 AM
A wrongful death lawsuit is likely being handled by attorneys selected by the hospital's insurance carrier. The hospital may not have been paying much attention to how the attorneys were handling the case and the arguments being made. The attorneys were making the arguments they thought would win the case, and much of the control of the case will belong to the insurance company.

The real question is how the church will respond now that it is fully aware of the arguments being made on its behalf (assuming it was not before). But if the church insists on giving up a legally sound argument, it may well lose insurance coverage for this matter, too. Can the hospital afford to pay out-of-pocket damages? And is it more important to stick by its doctrine or ensure financial stability so that it can continue to provide charitable services?

I am no fan of the a Catholic Church, but I can see the deeper issues here.

Peabay
Happy now?

PeaNut 156,993
July 2004
Posts: 46,562
Layouts: 13
Loc: Connecticut

Posted: 1/26/2013 8:10:45 AM

And is it more important to stick by its doctrine or ensure financial stability so that it can continue to provide charitable services?


And that's hypocrisy. They expect everyone else to abide by their doctrines - except when it comes to their own bottom line.



catholicone
StuckOnPeas

PeaNut 141,445
April 2004
Posts: 2,897
Layouts: 0

Posted: 1/26/2013 8:35:42 AM
Yep. This is where the rubber meets the road. If the hierarchy took a stand and said, you know what? We screwed up. We didn't realize our lawyers would use this defense. This is not what we want. Those babies were people and we won't dishonor them, God or ourselves, by going with that defense. We'll settle this matter privately with the family...it would be a miracle. And people would take notice.

Insurance carrier be damned. This is not just a charity hospital. This is the Catholic church.

mdoc
Peaing under the Radar

PeaNut 61,691
January 2003
Posts: 12,447
Layouts: 0
Loc: In the Middle

Posted: 1/26/2013 9:06:45 AM
It sounds hypocritical, but I can see what's going on. Once the suit is tendered to the hospital's insurance carrier for a defense, it's the insurer, not the hospital, that runs the show. If the hospital didn't want that defense, they'd have to defend the suit and pay any judgment themselves.

rosiekat
AncestralPea

PeaNut 216,153
July 2005
Posts: 4,345
Layouts: 27
Loc: Texas

Posted: 1/26/2013 9:30:19 AM
Yes, I suspect you're right, mdoc. But at the end of the day,


I'm pro-life and Catholic and I'm disappointed in the Catholic church over this.


Yeah, that.


Jen


WinoGirl
PeaAddict

PeaNut 511,446
June 2011
Posts: 1,532
Layouts: 0
Loc: Saint Louis

Posted: 1/26/2013 9:52:20 AM
Typical. Their *real* God is the Almighty Dollar. I'm just a wee bit surprised that they are being so openly and obviously hypocritical.

Can't have it both ways.


Fraidyscrapper
She calls me a Fun Sucker

PeaNut 38,100
May 2002
Posts: 13,565
Layouts: 0
Loc: Jersey Strong

Posted: 1/26/2013 10:01:39 AM
I think it's refreshing that the Church, like many women, has a belief that has been challenged by a real-life quandary, and has had to learn to manage her principles with her real life. The Church is acknowledging that she is pro-choice. Fantastic!


"The sharpest criticism often goes hand in hand with the deepest idealism and love of country." - Robert F. Kennedy

moveablefeast
do justice, love mercy

PeaNut 265,707
June 2006
Posts: 12,559
Layouts: 0
Loc: Northern Virginia

Posted: 1/26/2013 10:03:35 AM

If the hierarchy took a stand and said, you know what? We screwed up. We didn't realize our lawyers would use this defense. This is not what we want. Those babies were people and we won't dishonor them, God or ourselves, by going with that defense. We'll settle this matter privately with the family...it would be a miracle. And people would take notice


I agree with this 100%.

What I do wonder, however, is if they have the legal ability to do this, according to the terms of their contract with their insurance carrier. Are they bound in some way to this litigation? Do they even have the legal ability to speak out in this fashion, or to settle the matter privately?


But if the church insists on giving up a legally sound argument, it may well lose insurance coverage for this matter, too. Can the hospital afford to pay out-of-pocket damages? And is it more important to stick by its doctrine or ensure financial stability so that it can continue to provide charitable services?


One of the arguments that the Catholic Church continues to use in its debate over providing contraceptive services under its health insurance is that the government should "let the church be the church". In this case, it is certainly more important to them to stick by their doctrine as opposed to providing legal and oftentimes necessary services to women under their health coverage. They have thrown their full weight behind that controversy based on their concept of the personhood of babies who have not yet been conceived. It is inconsistent that they would not in turn throw their full weight behind the personhood of those babies who died.

I understand that sometimes compromises must be made for the future of the organization - I am an American Anglican and an employee of the church, and I have been living in that space of compromise since 2003. I get it.

I guess my frustration really is that the Catholic church allows for absolutely no compromise for its members - even going so far as to use the body and blood of the Lord as a tool of control - but then allows itself to get caught up in this kind of situation, where they are allowing (even though it may be required under the terms of their insurance contract) someone to argue on their behalf something that is so completely opposed to what they believe, teach, and expect their members to adhere to for fear of their very salvation.

It is a terribly sticky position for them to be in no matter what angle you take.

likescarrots
BucketHead

PeaNut 563,786
August 2012
Posts: 627
Layouts: 0

Posted: 1/26/2013 10:25:23 AM

Posted: 1/26/2013 9:06:45 AM
It sounds hypocritical, but I can see what's going on. Once the suit is tendered to the hospital's insurance carrier for a defense, it's the insurer, not the hospital, that runs the show. If the hospital didn't want that defense, they'd have to defend the suit and pay any judgment themselves.


But it still begs the question - what really did happen? I mean surely some Drs weren't standing around a dead or dying 7 month pregnant woman saying 'nah, those fetus' are not lives we're not going to deliver them'. So why can't their counsel use what really happened in their argument, and if what really happened was that by the time the woman was with Drs the fetus' were unviable, why don't they just use that argument? It just seems like a really weird defense in general, and when representing the catholic church, it seems like a really bad idea.

freecharlie
What happens in NSBR, stays in NSBR

PeaNut 109,127
September 2003
Posts: 22,066
Layouts: 4
Loc: Colorado

Posted: 1/26/2013 11:06:15 AM
t

I want to know why they didn't perform a c-section?
the OB on call never answered the page.


Tribbey: I believe, as long as Justice Dreifort is intolerant toward gays, lesbians, blacks, unions, women, poor people, and the first, fourth, fifth, and ninth amendments, I will remain intolerant toward him! [to Ainsley] Nice meeting you

Edgy Coolness
PeaFixture

PeaNut 365,853
March 2008
Posts: 3,514
Layouts: 0
Loc: Dallas, Texas

Posted: 1/26/2013 12:56:36 PM



freecharlie
Welcome back hockey!

PeaNut 109,127
September 2003
Posts: 18,549
Layouts: 4
Loc: Colorado

Posted: 1/26/2013 11:06:15 AM
t


I want to know why they didn't perform a c-section?


the OB on call never answered the page.



OK, so the OB on call never answered the page, which I ASSume was the OB practice the dead woman was seeing BUT as my Mom pointed out when I was telling her about this thread, she would like to know WHY a Catholic Hospital didn't have an OB on staff?

Also, I went and checked the hospital's website and not only do they have a "womens center" they have a Birthing Center, which should mean like the non-profit I worked for there were staff physicians from each specialty on call 365/24/7 including one that was associated with the birthing center because we had an "I didn't know I was pregnant" types who came in as a diabetic seizure and delivered an 11lb full term baby and most definitely did not have an OB or even prenatal care.









catholicone
StuckOnPeas

PeaNut 141,445
April 2004
Posts: 2,897
Layouts: 0

Posted: 1/26/2013 1:09:08 PM
Guilty guilty guilty.

The OB didn't answer the page and there was no doctor on staff who attempted to perform a c-section?

Give me a break. Even GPs have performed c-sections during their med school rotations. SOMEONE was there who could have tried once they saw the mother was not going to make it. It wouldn't have been pretty but those babies would have had a chance at living.

myboysnme
Living life on the left

PeaNut 69,081
February 2003
Posts: 7,959
Layouts: 1

Posted: 1/26/2013 1:17:46 PM
The church is relying on state law since this is being tried in the courts. Separation of church and state and all that.

I am Catholic and I am one of many in the closet Catholics who do not believe that life begins at conception. I am one of few who will openly state that is my believe, to which some Catholics will spout about how I am not really Catholic or in a state of sin or whatever.

I also believe in birth control, women priests, and the right of women to choose. I am glad the hospital is taking this view. It shows that the Catholic church is not infallible when it comes to its own teachings. and don't fool yourself into thinking that it is.


My choice is to not take it personally - people have opinions. Particularly people here.-Peabay 12/29/11
I know this is assuming, but I'm really starting to think you are one of those "entitled" peas - Dalayney 4/2/12
When someone elects you Queen of Two Peas, then you can make the rules. - Sue_Pea 12/22/13
"Myboysnme,...I bow down to you, oh queen of the scrapping goodness" - Irish Eyes 3/9/14
"Myboysnme -- ... Whoa. I bow to thee." - Jill S 4/26/14









Maryland
Ancient Ancestor of Pea

PeaNut 87,597
May 2003
Posts: 11,075
Layouts: 0

Posted: 1/26/2013 1:28:32 PM
Hypocrisy for sure!

But I was surprised to hear some say the Catholic church focuses on money. I liked the Catholic church because it seem like they did NOT focus on money. That's what bothered me about the Protestant churches, such focus on money and all sermons somehow related to money.

Luvspaper
AncestralPea

PeaNut 24,564
November 2001
Posts: 4,109
Layouts: 0

Posted: 1/26/2013 3:09:01 PM
Having been on the corporate side of a lawsuit, I have to agree that once the case goes to the insurance company to defend, the corporation/hospital/church loses all control over how it is defended. And often the insurance attorneys treat the corporate side with little respect and with no input. You are generally told that you may have NO contact with the plaintiffs and often have to sign a confidentiality clause.

In our final agreement, we were required to sign off on what the insurance company had negotiated on our behalf, even though we disagreed with it. I honestly never realized how this processed happened and became pretty much disgusted with the insurance company. They really weren't looking out for the best interests of either side, but just to limit their exposure to the minimum dollars.

I do agree it is hypocrisy, but I am not sure that the Church at this point has any choice. If they refuse the insurance's defense, they possibility risk loss of all the insurance coverage that they have.


angievp
Ideay pues?

PeaNut 143,106
April 2004
Posts: 7,420
Layouts: 36
Loc: Miami

Posted: 1/26/2013 3:15:49 PM

I do agree it is hypocrisy, but I am not sure that the Church at this point has any choice. If they refuse the insurance's defense, they possibility risk loss of all the insurance coverage that they have.


But that's just it. The Catholic Church is more than a corporation. It has a black and white position on a moral stance; there is no flexibility whatsoever with their views on abortion. A fetus is a person is a person is a person, ad infinitum and for all intents and purposes. Even if it means you don't avail yourself of secular laws in order to NOT pay someone for the loss of a life. Even if they lose their insurance coverage. A moral philosophy loses its power when something as vulgar as money takes precedence over it.

Peabay
Happy now?

PeaNut 156,993
July 2004
Posts: 46,562
Layouts: 13
Loc: Connecticut

Posted: 1/26/2013 3:29:45 PM

Hypocrisy for sure!

But I was surprised to hear some say the Catholic church focuses on money. I liked the Catholic church because it seem like they did NOT focus on money. That's what bothered me about the Protestant churches, such focus on money and all sermons somehow related to money.


I've had such a different experience. I feel like the Catholic Church constantly had its hand out to us when we were there (the annual appeal, the Bishop's appeal, the Cardinal's appeal, the Easter envelope, the Christmas envelope etc...) and the Episcopal church hasn't been nearly as bad. Also, CCD at our Catholic Church is 150.00. It's free at our Episcopal church.



catholicone
StuckOnPeas

PeaNut 141,445
April 2004
Posts: 2,897
Layouts: 0

Posted: 1/26/2013 3:34:05 PM
I read somewhere that the hospital is self insured. Let me go see if I can find it.

ETA:

Here we go. I saw a comment from the Plaintiff's trial attorney, David Woodruff, from the article linked in the OP. Apparently Catholic Health Initiatives is self insured. I will fully admit that I don't know all of the nuances of self insurance and anyone can post anything as a comment on a news article, but a cursory search shows that there is a David Woodruff who practices law in Colorado. Here is the text...



Just to clear up a few facts: I was the lawyer who originally represented Jeremy Stodghill in the trial court, before the appeal. This was a medical malpractice case. Lori Stodghill was 37 weeks pregnant with twin baby boys. She was siting in the examining chair in the ER, being examined by a nurse, when she went into cardiac arrest. A COR-ZERO was called and the code team started CPR on her. They paged the OB-GYN, who was at home watching football, but he did not return the page for over a half hour. They continued doing CPR on her. Unfortunately, they were unaware or simply ignored the fact that CPR is not effective on a woman late in pregnancy, due to the baby's weight upon mom's aorta/vena cava. The "Standard of Care," i.e. the rule for all physicians, is to immediately peform a "perimortem C-section" to remove the babies. This must be done within 4 minutes if CPR is not effective. It is a well known rule, and taught to all doctors, including ER doctors (EMTs have done this at car accident scenes to save the lives of mother & baby). Removing the babies saves their life, and also increases the likelihood that CPR will revive mom. This ER doctor simply did not do a C-section. Instead, he let the babies slowly die inside their mother -- it took about 25 minutes for them to die. By the time the OB-GYN finally returned the page, the babies were probably already dead and it was too late to save anyone.

Catholic Health Initiatives is a corporation and self-insurer. It argued that these babies were not "persons" because it did not want to pay Mr. Stodghill and his 2-year old daughter any money for the death of Lori and her two twins. Their statement that they have "sympathy" and are "praying" for Lori Stodghill is laughable. The Stodghill family was destroyed. Yet for four years, the doctors and Catholic Health Inititatives and their lawyers beat up on Jeremy Stodghill, culminating with this ludicrous argument that his unborn babies were not even "persons."

Anyone who had seen these babies could not look themself in the mirror while claiming these babies were not "persons." They were nearly full term, fully developed 6-pound baby boys. After removing them from their mother's womb at autosy, the coroner laid the boys next to each other with their arms crossed. He took portraits of them so Jeremy could at least have some memory of his sons. The boys looked like every other baby in the nursery, except they were dead because these doctors utterly failed to follow well-established Standard of Care and remove them while they were still alive.

This ridiculous hypocritical behavior by Catholic Health Initiatives and its lawyers is a ploy to avoid paying any money to the Stodghill family. It is that simple.

David Woodruff, Attorney

TXDancermom
AncestralPea

PeaNut 146,748
May 2004
Posts: 4,306
Layouts: 1

Posted: 1/26/2013 3:45:40 PM
I think it is disgusting - they are a bunch of hypocrites.


lucyg819
pearl-clutching nitpicker

PeaNut 201,774
April 2005
Posts: 16,721
Layouts: 15
Loc: gone to chemo with BethAnne

Posted: 1/26/2013 3:51:05 PM
OMG. Why why why?? Why did the ER doctors not perform the C-section immediately if that is the standard of care and everyone knows it?

What an awful story. Catholicone, thanks for going to the trouble to dig up all that info.


LUCYG
northern california

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts."
--Bertrand Russell



PierKiss
What if everything is an illusion & nothing exists

PeaNut 82,319
April 2003
Posts: 15,081
Layouts: 39

Posted: 1/26/2013 4:11:44 PM
37 WEEKS?!?!?!?!?!?! 37 WEEK OLD FETUSES ARE PEOPLE. That is term!!! I don't care if you are pro-choice or pro-life, at 37 weeks you have a perfectly viable human being(s) on your hands. They probably would have been able to survive had the doctors followed standard protocol (as stated in the article from catholicone above). HOLY SHIT!!!! I am so freaking enraged right now it is isn't even funny. I hope he wins his appeal.

ETA: Isn't what they did essentially a late term abortion? You know, those things that are currently illegal???



IleneTell
StuckOnPeas

PeaNut 434,842
August 2009
Posts: 2,838
Layouts: 654

Posted: 1/26/2013 4:47:39 PM
Wow, this is so sad and terrible... calling them hypocrites doesn't even begin to cover it. They did so many things wrong that it boggles the mind to think that they don't believe they're at fault enough to owe the family any compensation.



Edgy Coolness
PeaFixture

PeaNut 365,853
March 2008
Posts: 3,514
Layouts: 0
Loc: Dallas, Texas

Posted: 1/26/2013 7:10:24 PM
Ugh! The follow-up sickens me. I can't even imagine what level of incompetence that had to be involved in order for that scenario even to occur and I've seen miscarriages in the ER and followed pregnancy cases that the doctor had to "think outside the box" to keep going including a 27 weeker that the doctor literally sewed the mother's cervix closed to keep her from aborting (really not that uncommon.)

The hospital must have had very wiley lawyers if they were able to win the original case with the information Catholicone posted.










I-95
It's all just nonsense anyway!

PeaNut 97,456
July 2003
Posts: 20,385
Layouts: 0
Loc: California, NY & Orlando

Posted: 1/26/2013 7:27:50 PM
O.M.G.

I'm pro-choice, and Catholic. If that were my sister, or daughter, I'd be suing the hell out of the Catholic Church1!

Why, in God's name, did the ER doctor NOT perform a c-section? I'm not in the medical field, and never have been, but I've been pregnant and even I know that if the mother is dying, cut her belly open and get those babies. C-sections have been performed in a lot more primitive places and the baby/ies have been saved. In this particular case, all three should have been saved. If what the attorney said in his statement is really how this whole thing went down, then the Catholic Church should be doubly ashamed. First they let the woman and her two FULL TERM babies DIE, and then they refuse to acknowledge that the babies were people. i shocked and saddened that the Church isn't just opening their vast resources and giving this family some relief. Jeez, sell a freaking painting if they're broke. One little Da Vinci would more than take care of the problem!!

catholicone
StuckOnPeas

PeaNut 141,445
April 2004
Posts: 2,897
Layouts: 0

Posted: 1/26/2013 7:41:56 PM
I have to say that I found one discrepancy between the comment from David Woodruff and all of the news articles about this.

David Woodruff said in his comment that she was 37 weeks pregnant.

The news articles state that she was 28 weeks pregnant.


melissa
O-pea-gyn

PeaNut 4
February 1999
Posts: 15,184
Layouts: 228
Loc: NJ

Posted: 1/26/2013 7:46:23 PM
I knew there had to be more to the story.

I do question how well ER docs know that you need to do a c-section as part of the resuscitation process. Actually, that perimortem c-section is not just about saving the baby or babies, it's a step in possibly resuscitating the mother.

No matter what the gestation, this is a very sad situation, but I am not convinced it is one that calls for a law suit without knowing all the details.



batya
Making the WWW better, one post at a time.

PeaNut 59,094
December 2002
Posts: 32,845
Layouts: 24
Loc: up on my high horse

Posted: 1/26/2013 7:50:15 PM

But the 'church' is priests and bishops, etc, and I dont imagine a priest worked through all the legal papers.



You don't think an entity as large, rich and international as the Catholic Church has its own legal counsel?


OK. Newbie. This is how it works. If your post consists of 80% sanity, 10% stupidity and 10% all kinds of crazy, we immediately focus on the 20% b/c it discredits the 80%.




batya
Making the WWW better, one post at a time.

PeaNut 59,094
December 2002
Posts: 32,845
Layouts: 24
Loc: up on my high horse

Posted: 1/26/2013 7:52:25 PM
General Counsel for Catholic Church

ETA: When they said the bishops, they were most likely referring to their legal counsel in the link, the US Conference of Catholic Bishops.


OK. Newbie. This is how it works. If your post consists of 80% sanity, 10% stupidity and 10% all kinds of crazy, we immediately focus on the 20% b/c it discredits the 80%.




ilovecookies
PeaFixture

PeaNut 506,197
April 2011
Posts: 3,298
Layouts: 0

Posted: 1/26/2013 7:58:30 PM
Exactly the kind of hypocrisy I expect from the Catholic church.

catholicone
StuckOnPeas

PeaNut 141,445
April 2004
Posts: 2,897
Layouts: 0

Posted: 1/26/2013 7:58:42 PM
Add to that, there are usually legal departments within each diocese and archdiocese.


*maureen*
Bad Wolf

PeaNut 191,892
February 2005
Posts: 6,033
Layouts: 0
Loc: Wheaton

Posted: 1/26/2013 8:02:27 PM

The impression was that the attorneys had gone straight for state law (which is generally what you would expect them to do) and the 'church' was not aware the argument was being used. Yes, someone at the hospital administration should have noticed this. But the 'church' is priests and bishops, etc, and I dont imagine a priest worked through all the legal papers


Come on Nightowl, you can't seriously believe that no one in the church asked what the defense would be since 2010.

batya
Making the WWW better, one post at a time.

PeaNut 59,094
December 2002
Posts: 32,845
Layouts: 24
Loc: up on my high horse

Posted: 1/26/2013 8:06:15 PM

Someone may have gotten carried away and stuck in the statement 'btw, under CO law the fetus isn't a person so we wouldn't have to pay wrongful death even if there had been a way to save the fetuses'.


You don't get "carried away" and haphazardly "stick in a statement" when you write a brief and it's not just one set of eyes looking at it. Words are everything in the law. It's all very carefully constructed.


OK. Newbie. This is how it works. If your post consists of 80% sanity, 10% stupidity and 10% all kinds of crazy, we immediately focus on the 20% b/c it discredits the 80%.




batya
Making the WWW better, one post at a time.

PeaNut 59,094
December 2002
Posts: 32,845
Layouts: 24
Loc: up on my high horse

Posted: 1/26/2013 8:12:03 PM
They thought it was a good argument most likely b/c of the money. Even Catholics on the thread are saying so. It's not a stretch.

It's not like the Catholic Church has not compromised its values and sacrificed those who couldn't speak up for themselves in the past for money.

If so in this case, it would just be another step in the pattern of behavior.


OK. Newbie. This is how it works. If your post consists of 80% sanity, 10% stupidity and 10% all kinds of crazy, we immediately focus on the 20% b/c it discredits the 80%.




catholicone
StuckOnPeas

PeaNut 141,445
April 2004
Posts: 2,897
Layouts: 0

Posted: 1/26/2013 8:20:57 PM
I have no doubt that we don't have all the relevant details. No doubt. But there are two facts here:

1. A c-section was not performed. (Malpractice? Maybe. But that's for the judicial system to decide.)

2. The Catholic institution won its case by lowering the humanity of two fetuses to non-human status. (Unethical and hypocritical? Yep. And that's for the court of public opinion to decide.)
1 2 >
Show/Hide Icons . Show/Hide Signatures
Hide
{{ title }}
{{ icon }}
{{ body }}
{{ footer }}