Will they give this Catholic facility -- and those who are the Catholic hierarchical liaisons with such entities -- strong, ferverent, and intensive feedback?
Or silence? Tolerance? And by such, silent affirmation that to this Catholic entity, the pre-born are non-entities with no legal rights???
“Crickets of silence from the so-called Catholic “pro-lifers.” “
So are you implying that FR Catholics aren’t pro life?
Seriously?
You're really jumping the gun on that "crickets" accusation. Your behaviour reflects very badly on you.
Quite simply put, this is the first I have heard of "Catholic" Health Initiatives alleged misbehaviour. Alleged because at this moment, I only know about it from you. And frankly, sir, you're an impeached witness.
Now, I'll have a look.
You are the mist hatefull and twisted soul I have ever encountered on CB. No wonder the LSD kicked you out.
Definitions of what’s people are flexible when money is involved. The more money, the more flexible.
I'm Catholic, prolife, and worked in Catholic healthcare most of my adult life. I have no knowledge of this case except what's in the article. The questions that come to my mind are: 1-How was the hospital linked with the attorney representing them? and 2-Does their malpractice policy give them any choice in this matter?
Thanks be to God, I have never been sued. If that were to happen though, I would be assigned an attorney by my malpractice insurance carrier. No doubt my attorney would listen to me and the defense I'd like him to mount on my behalf. But my policy states that the final decision is his NOT mine. If I do not like the defense my assigned attorney decides is the best strategy, I am free to get my own lawyer but his fees won't be covered. Nor will my policy cover any damages if I lose or settle. And if my assigned attorney decides to settle out of court, giving me the appearance of admission of wrongdoing, I have little opportunity to clear my name under my policy. And probably will have to sign something NOT to discuss the case further.
So for me this article raises more questions than it answers. Before I condemn them I'd want to know what, if any, flexibility their policy has for a Catholic defense in situations where a nonCatholic one is judged more likely to succeed. And I'd want to know if they turned down coverage that would have presented a defense consistent with Catholic teaching in this type of case. The article refers to a private legal practice, so I am going on the assumption that the attorneys have been assigned the case by the malpractice insurance carrier covering the hospital or the physician. Nothing in the article leads me to believe the attorneys are employed by the hospital or its parent organization.
Whatever the answers to my questions, I would hope that this hospital and its parent organization would take time to assess some critical areas! 1- Do they have Catholics faithful to the magisterium in critical decision-making positions? 2- Have they secured the BEST (which may not be most cost effective) malpractice coverage for a CATHOLIC facility? By "best" I mean coverage that will contractually agree to a Catholic defense IF such coverage is available to them. 3- Did anyone in the organization go against Catholic teaching to influence the attorney's defense in the direction it's taken? If so, time to relieve these folks of their responsibilities. 4- How do they further a prolife message after this debacle however much or little it was under their direct control?
Finally, I offer my heartfelt prayers for the surviving family, for medical staff that were likely traumatized by inability to save life in this situation, for those responsible for steering this facility in a genuinely Catholic direction, and for the eternal repose of those who died.
Peace be with you.
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.