In malpractice case, Catholic hospital argues fetuses aren’t people

Lori Stodghill was 31-years old, seven-months pregnant with twin boys and feeling sick when she arrived at St. Thomas More hospital in Cañon City on New Year’s Day 2006. She was vomiting and short of breath and she passed out as she was being wheeled into an examination room. Medical staff tried to resuscitate her but, as became clear only later, a main artery feeding her lungs was clogged and the clog led to a massive heart attack. Stodghill’s obstetrician, Dr. Pelham Staples, who also happened to be the obstetrician on call for emergencies that night, never answered a page. His patient died at the hospital less than an hour after she arrived and her twins died in her womb.

In the aftermath of the tragedy, Stodghill’s husband Jeremy, a prison guard, filed a wrongful-death lawsuit on behalf of himself and the couple’s then-two-year-old daughter Elizabeth. Staples should have made it to the hospital, his lawyers argued, or at least instructed the frantic emergency room staff to perform a caesarian-section. The procedure likely would not have saved the mother, a testifying expert said, but it may have saved the twins.

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.”

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.

I read about this at a different site, and came up with a different conclusion:

There’s something more going on. By arguing that the law says that the twins are not human beings, the hospital forces the court to make a legal decision that is win-win for the hospital: either the court upholds the law and the hospital is held not liable, or the hospital loses (and pays) and unborn children are legally recognized as human beings.

It is certainly true that the law doesn’t recognize any rights for the fetus. That’s not a “should” argument, but an “is” argument. If one wants to set a precedent ultimately strengthening anti-abortion legal arguments, this is the correct way to go about it. Out-of-court settlements and agreed dispositions don’t set precedent.

This may not be what’s going on at all, but I wouldn’t be surprised at all if it is.

You evidently don't get around much in the Catholic blogosphere. Catholic pro-lifers are screeching at the top top of their typeface about this.

Sheesh. Check the evience before you opine, OK?

One other thing: the Trayvon Martin coverage should be a good warning to people not to put too much trust in the media’s account of a case, especially at the outset. This article goes out of its way to talk about how rich the hospital and its parent association are, perhaps to set up a David-vs-Goliath dramatic element. We don’t know, from the article, virtually any of the details about why the doctor didn’t respond, what information the mother gave at the hospital, or whether the hospital has already offered some huge amount and this was rejected.

We also don’t know, unless we have read the pleadings, whether the article is fairly summarizing the hospital’s argument. Personally, I doubt it --- unless I see more evidence.

I would agree with you strongly, Batt, if I thought "the Church" were saying that the unborn twins weren't human --- but, hear me out --- that's not what they're saying.

Or at least, it's not clear from this article.

Having been named in a lawsuit, the hospital is required to respond with a legal argument. Perhaps it would have been better to say “As a Catholic hospital, we absolutely know that life begins at conception, but the law of Colorado does not recognize a fetus as a human being,” but the first half of that statement is not a legal argument and doesn’t, technically speaking, belong in a court pleading.

What if the hospital didn't do anything wrong? If that's the case (and we have only the father’s claim, as relayed by an inflammatory article), then should they just skip legal argument, and pay money to the father regartdless of their own innocense? Is that just?

Based on the information we have, it is entirely possible that the hospital did everything in its power to save the lives and that it bears no fault. It is also possible that the father, wracked with grief (and conceivably even guilt), wants money to soothe his conscience or whatever. We really don’t know. If so, however, the (inevitable) millions paid by the hospital would be money not available for maintaining good treatment standards, hiring excellent doctors and staff, and so on. It would also mean that anyone, no matter how dishonest their claim, could get free money from this hospital.

It comes down to this: facts and law are not the same thing. It is possible to be entirely good and yet legally liable, and also to be thoroughly malicious and yet not break any laws. That these twins were living human beings is a fact, but that Colorado doesn’t recognize this is the law.

This is win-win (or at least, win-draw) for the pro-life cause, ecause if the court "finds" that the babies were "human" --- wich they should --- that sets an enormously important precedent for pro-life; but if not, the hospital can still argue "on the merits" that they didn't do anything wrong. IF that was the case.

We need more information on that, don't we?

Perhaps it would have been better to say “As a Catholic hospital, we absolutely know that life begins at conception, but the law of Colorado does not recognize a fetus as a human being,” but the first half of that statement is not a legal argument and doesn’t, technically speaking, belong in a court pleading.

What an EXCELLENT way to put it! An argument that restates current law isn't an argument stating what current law should be. That said, it's hard to imagine that the potential for scandal wasn't foreseen. This reflects horribly on Catholic healthcare and it's unfortunate that someone in a position of leadership isn't speaking out to clarify.

I lost my first wife to basically the same thing 28 years ago. It was a full blockage and she died instantly. But she was not pregnant. Later a guy I knew who was a paramedic told me even if in the hospital and this happens few ever make it.

I used to work in a health care facility which had a Protestant denominational name. The church had nothing to do with the facility not even in the hired Chaplain. It was a name used to attract business. It was a retirement community and nursing home.

Ok in this article what seems to be the issues as to why the hospital is liable is the fact the Specialist on call did not answer his page. My question would be did he even receive it? We are talking about a communications system that is USUALLY reliable but certainly not 100% and has many factors in it working properly some of which can not be controlled.

Second thing comes to mind is his. Medicine has become so high tech and specialized today that ER Physicians can not risk doing task doctors 40 years ago would not have given second thought in acting. But there wsn't ambulance chasers running adds on TV either. It was before the collapse of ethics in our legal system.

The doctor that delivered me into this world 55 years ago and my sister 60 years ago was was the family doctor me, sis, mom, dad and Mamaw, had as adults till he retired. He was also a General Surgeon and at one point Chief of Staff at the hospital. If you needed an operation he did it. He stopped delivering babies I think in about 1970 as well as doing any surgery. He was also my second wife's primary care and dealt with her onset of quadriplegia.

Had the attending ER docs tried to take the babies in this case even at the dads consent and the attempt failed the legal outcome likely would be the same. Specialized medicine has been a blessing and a curse and it limits doctors as to what they can and can not do even though they may have the skills.

Malpractice happens too. That is where doctors do not do warranted procedures or testing obviously called for due to symptoms. If I was the lawsuit kind my wife and I would be well off today money wise. LOL. Doctors are human though.

http://www.prolifephysicians.org/lifebegins.htm

They don’t want to get rid of abortion - so they stay under the law of men as it is now defined. However, doctors do know when life begins and it is not rocket science. Roe/Wade needs to be addressed to discount that lie. Why doesn’t the CHI have one of those doctors at the link enter into their case. If they really wanted to win, they would. So without checking them out like you did, I can see they are on the side of evil.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.