If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Denver Post)   Remember the Catholic hospital with the "fetuses aren't humans" defense against a malpractice suit? Turns out some Bishops wanted to have a word with them   (denverpost.com) divider line 74
    More: Followup  
•       •       •

8141 clicks; posted to Main » on 05 Feb 2013 at 11:50 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



74 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-02-05 11:04:29 AM
"Although CHI didn't try to garnish Stodghill's wages, it did file the motion to be awarded legal fees in the case and later used those fees as a negotiating tool to persuade Stodghill not to appeal the decision, Krulewitch said. His total legal costs are more than $100,000, she said."

Sounds like a great hospital corporation. The Bishops did the right thing (for once).
 
2013-02-05 11:06:33 AM
Who didn't see this coming? It was the only defense to get out of the lawsuit, but also contradicted the church's teachings. All they had to do was get out of the lawsuit (mission accomplished) and then decry the decision to use that defense after the fact, and say they'll never do it again. It doesn't help the people who initially sued, and all the "christians" that were offended by the defense can now say "ohh the church had no idea and is now shunning it, good for them!"
 
2013-02-05 11:14:27 AM
However, one of the co-defendants, a doctor who is not a hospital employee, did pursue garnishment. "Mr. Stodghill filed bankruptcy to stop the garnishment," CHI said.

Although CHI didn't try to garnish Stodghill's wages, it did file the motion to be awarded legal fees in the case and later used those fees as a negotiating tool to persuade Stodghill not to appeal the decision, Krulewitch said.


I dunno. "Gosh, we shouldn't have done that" is kind of meaningless unless it's accompanied by a little bit of real-world action.

But then catholics are the ones who get a clean slate just by saying "oops my bad" to a priest, no matter how many times they cheat on their wives.
 
2013-02-05 11:15:06 AM

scottydoesntknow: Who didn't see this coming? It was the only defense to get out of the lawsuit, but also contradicted the church's teachings. All they had to do was get out of the lawsuit (mission accomplished) and then decry the decision to use that defense after the fact, and say they'll never do it again. It doesn't help the people who initially sued, and all the "christians" that were offended by the defense can now say "ohh the church had no idea and is now shunning it, good for them!"


Until the next time, anyway, when they "use the defense without authorization of the church and have been seriously reprimanded".

In private.
 
2013-02-05 11:15:36 AM

scottydoesntknow: Who didn't see this coming? It was the only defense to get out of the lawsuit, but also contradicted the church's teachings. All they had to do was get out of the lawsuit (mission accomplished) and then decry the decision to use that defense after the fact, and say they'll never do it again. It doesn't help the people who initially sued, and all the "christians" that were offended by the defense can now say "ohh the church had no idea and is now shunning it, good for them!"


Exactly.

Totally skeezy.
 
2013-02-05 11:20:57 AM

scottydoesntknow: Who didn't see this coming? It was the only defense to get out of the lawsuit, but also contradicted the church's teachings. All they had to do was get out of the lawsuit (mission accomplished) and then decry the decision to use that defense after the fact, and say they'll never do it again. It doesn't help the people who initially sued, and all the "christians" that were offended by the defense can now say "ohh the church had no idea and is now shunning it, good for them!"


Might you have a newsletter I could subscribe to?
 
2013-02-05 11:46:28 AM
As this has now been argued before a court, can someone else use the Catholics' own arguments against them, or does that not fly because none of the legal entities involved in this case were "the Catholic Church"?

Is this yet another instance where they get to have their cake (winning a lawsuit) and eat it too (retain status as moral authority)? Will no one rid us of these meddlesome priests?
 
2013-02-05 11:47:03 AM
Although CHI didn't try to garnish Stodghill's wages

So are we just giving up on garnishee?
 
2013-02-05 11:50:02 AM

scottydoesntknow: Who didn't see this coming? It was the only defense to get out of the lawsuit, but also contradicted the church's teachings. All they had to do was get out of the lawsuit (mission accomplished) and then decry the decision to use that defense after the fact, and say they'll never do it again. It doesn't help the people who initially sued, and all the "christians" that were offended by the defense can now say "ohh the church had no idea and is now shunning it, good for them!"


Lawyers used the law and not religious teachings to make a legal argument in court?  Oh, the horror.  I doubt the bishops were aware of the intricacies of the legal arguments beforehand, unless they were some how involved in personally overseeing every element of the litigation, including pleadings that were filed.  And that would be a bit surprising.
 
2013-02-05 11:58:16 AM

Nabb1: Lawyers used the law and not religious teachings to make a legal argument in court? Oh, the horror.


It is a bit horrifying if a large organization proclaiming themselves to be a moral authority is using legal texts that contradict their beliefs to their advantage in ways that would make the munchkin in my college Shadowrun group blush.

I mean, I don't necessarily believe in an anthropomorphic meddling God, but if that what we have to work with, odds are I'd say He's too smart to let people into Heaven on a technicality.
 
2013-02-05 12:04:14 PM
Hypocrites in the Church?

Unpossible!
 
2013-02-05 12:05:12 PM
Glad to see this on Fark. Couldn't find it here when the story first broke.
Anyone got a link to the previous thread?
 
2013-02-05 12:06:29 PM
Are we really acting surprised that the morality of the Roman Catholic Church is just a front?
 
2013-02-05 12:06:59 PM
The language use in courts have little to do with reality. Just tech speak for a particular type of environment. When in Rome...
 
2013-02-05 12:07:07 PM
Catholic Health Initiatives and St. Thomas More Hospital in Cañon City acknowledged Monday it was morally wrong for their attorneys to defend a medical malpractice case in the death of unborn twins by arguing Colorado law doesn't consider fetuses to be persons.

/So in other words, you got caught in blatant hypocrisy to save money, so now you're back peddling. Fair enough.
 
2013-02-05 12:11:05 PM
And if I'm thier lawyer, I make them sign a nice multi-page disclaimer that by hindering what defenses I use the client is agreeing that they may be undermining their own case.

/Anxiously awaits Catholic Hospital's motion for new trial on the basis they used a legal argument they didn't believe in.

//Still waiting.
 
2013-02-05 12:12:14 PM
This is the problem that all bible pounders face......they can't have it both ways.
 
2013-02-05 12:12:17 PM
Farkers, I'm ashamed of you all. Celibate men in their 60s & 70s who enjoy tax free status on prime real estate are the pinnacle of moral superiority! They have every insight into women, sexual deviancies (both the ones chosen and the inherent genetic ones), and poverty. Trust their judgement!

/SOOOOO not helping
 
2013-02-05 12:15:30 PM
Remember, it's only a living human when its convenient for them.
 
2013-02-05 12:17:06 PM
It's almost like they love money more than god.
/it's not almost, it is.
 
2013-02-05 12:20:58 PM

LeroyBourne: It's almost like they love money more than god.
/it's not almost, it is.


The Catholic church has enough assets to cure hunger in nearly all of the third world countries they have missions in.  Instead they prefer to trade food for fealty.
 
2013-02-05 12:24:26 PM
Sounds like the bishops got all bell, book and candle on the lawyers.
 
2013-02-05 12:25:54 PM

red230: Remember, it's only a living human when its convenient for them.


Or when inconvenient for others anyway.  Remember, any woman who seeks an abortion is a baby killer, regardless of her reasons.

Colour me unsurprised that the Church has back-pedaled away from the "fetuses aren't humans under the law", but only AFTER their date in court of course!
 
2013-02-05 12:29:14 PM

Barfmaker: Although CHI didn't try to garnish Stodghill's wages

So are we just giving up on garnishee?


Gods, I hope so. I never considered that a cromulent term.
 
2013-02-05 12:30:47 PM
Did anyone really expect anything different?
 
2013-02-05 12:34:14 PM
It sounds like the bishop needs a good flogging.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-02-05 12:42:13 PM

Citrate1007: This is the problem that all bible pounders face......they can't have it both ways.


Sure they can.  And do.
 
2013-02-05 12:42:25 PM

Citrate1007: This is the problem that all bible pounders face......they can't have it both ways.


I'm guessing you weren't around for Lonnie Frisbee or Billy James Hargis? (^_~)

(Or Jim Bakker, if his hairstylist and the rumors about his adventures in federal prison are to be believed...)
 
2013-02-05 12:57:53 PM
Mean the lawyers who used the legal definition in a court case?
All for gun control in the name of the children yet ok with killing 3000 per day with abortion... makes total sense.
 
2013-02-05 12:59:33 PM
They're humans, they're just not people. The law makes a distinction, too - it's legal to kill humans, but illegal to kill people.

/I have no problem with this.
//I also do not care.
 
2013-02-05 01:00:12 PM

scottydoesntknow: Who didn't see this coming? It was the only defense to get out of the lawsuit, but also contradicted the church's teachings. All they had to do was get out of the lawsuit (mission accomplished) and then decry the decision to use that defense after the fact, and say they'll never do it again. It doesn't help the people who initially sued, and all the "christians" that were offended by the defense can now say "ohh the church had no idea and is now shunning it, good for them!"


Except the case is likely not done yet...  It can still go to the state supreme court.  Of course this was just one of two defenses.  The other one being straight causation, which they won on as well.  And if they legally didn't cause the death of the mother, it will be pretty hard to show they legally caused the death of the unborn.  So the people who sued didn't really lose anything by this.

You can say it shows the hypricrisy of the Church, but doesn't it also show the hypricrisy of the laws that treat the unborn in different ways?
 
2013-02-05 01:07:07 PM
Why should an organization in a legal proceeding be judged by its professed morality rather than the law of the land?
 
2013-02-05 01:07:20 PM
Kudos to the Church for being logically consistent and sticking to their guns!
 
2013-02-05 01:07:52 PM
Maybe they should've used the "god works in mysterious ways" defense?
 
2013-02-05 01:09:17 PM

DKinMN: Why should an organization in a legal proceeding be judged by its professed morality rather than the law of the land?


because the Church wants to claim the moral high ground and be a moral authority in this country.  so its fair judge them based on how closely they follow their own moral code.

which in this case is a non-issue, since the Church has decided to follow a tactic that is consistent with their moral code.  good for them!  it might cost them the case tho.
 
2013-02-05 01:11:58 PM

DKinMN: Why should an organization in a legal proceeding be judged by its professed morality rather than the law of the landare


Are you suggesting justice should be blind and the law should apply the same to all? How dare you!

/Catholic bashing is the last acceptable form of bigotry on FARK.  Except for fatties.  I think we can still make fun of them.
 
2013-02-05 01:13:53 PM
FTFA: "Stodghill attorney Beth Krulewitch..."

This woman should have gotten a part in "Oz the Great and Powerful" with a name like that!
 
2013-02-05 01:16:51 PM

Joe Blowme: Mean the lawyers who used the legal definition in a court case?
All for gun control in the name of the children yet ok with killing 3000 per day with abortion... makes total sense.


You might want to go to the doctor and have them look at your brain condition.
 
2013-02-05 01:20:14 PM

ghare: Joe Blowme: Mean the lawyers who used the legal definition in a court case?
All for gun control in the name of the children yet ok with killing 3000 per day with abortion... makes total sense.

You might want to go to the doctor and have them look at your brain condition.


Facts hurt sometimes huh?
 
2013-02-05 01:21:39 PM

Citrate1007: LeroyBourne: It's almost like they love money more than god.
/it's not almost, it is.

The Catholic church has enough assets to cure hunger in nearly all of the third world countries they have missions in.  Instead they prefer to trade food for fealty.


No fealty, no money.

Know Fealty, Know Money.
 
2013-02-05 01:28:01 PM

Joe Blowme: ghare: Joe Blowme: Mean the lawyers who used the legal definition in a court case?
All for gun control in the name of the children yet ok with killing 3000 per day with abortion... makes total sense.

You might want to go to the doctor and have them look at your brain condition.

Facts hurt sometimes huh?


You haven't presented anything but an opinion, and really, DDDDEEEERRRPPPPPPPP isn't an opinion at all.
 
2013-02-05 01:30:56 PM

dragonchild: Nabb1: Lawyers used the law and not religious teachings to make a legal argument in court? Oh, the horror.

It is a bit horrifying if a large organization proclaiming themselves to be a moral authority is using legal texts that contradict their beliefs to their advantage in ways that would make the munchkin in my college Shadowrun group blush.

I mean, I don't necessarily believe in an anthropomorphic meddling God, but if that what we have to work with, odds are I'd say He's too smart to let people into Heaven on a technicality.


I have to give the bishops credit for shutting it down. That's an indication there are still some to whom religion is not just a job.
 
2013-02-05 01:36:09 PM

ghare: Joe Blowme: ghare: Joe Blowme: Mean the lawyers who used the legal definition in a court case?
All for gun control in the name of the children yet ok with killing 3000 per day with abortion... makes total sense.

You might want to go to the doctor and have them look at your brain condition.

Facts hurt sometimes huh?

You haven't presented anything but an opinion, and really, DDDDEEEERRRPPPPPPPP isn't an opinion at all.


Ok, in 2008 there were "A total of 825,564 abortions were reported to CDC for 2008. " So that comes out to little over 2000 per day so i was off for year 2008. But that is only the ones reported and the data does come from the CDC but what do they know right? FACTs, i has them and you are stuck on derp.
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss6015a1.htm
 
2013-02-05 01:51:07 PM

Joe Blowme: Mean the lawyers who used the legal definition in a court case?
All for gun control in the name of the children yet ok with killing 3000 per day with abortion... makes total sense.


Really?

You came here to demonstrate that you don't understand the difference between voluntary and involuntary?

Mission accomplished, I guess...
 
2013-02-05 01:52:01 PM
The lawyers would have had a duty to the court to bring up the correct law no matter what the church said.
 
2013-02-05 01:56:54 PM

ivanovic: The lawyers would have had a duty to the court to bring up the correct law no matter what the church said.


Or, realizing what contesting the suit would mean (abandoning the Church's moral position in favor of the legal one), they could have settled and either avoided the question entirely or held to their own moral teachings. It could be an incredible thing to point to and say: "The Church follows its own teachings even when not doing so is legal and would be advantageous. BAN ABORTION NOW!"

// of course, this would also break with the Church's history, so...
 
2013-02-05 01:58:41 PM

Joe Blowme: FACTs, i has them and you are stuck on derp.


Wooooooow, those are some impressive facts that you has. XD

Since we're sharing facts of dubious relationship to the conversation, here's my contribution: The words 'moron,' 'imbecile,' and 'idiot' were once medical terms. These were all words used to describe a person whose IQ was below 70. More specifically, those who had an IQ between 0 and 25 were idiots, those between 26 and 50 were deemed imbeciles, and those scoring between 51 and 70 were considered morons.
 
2013-02-05 02:00:47 PM

ivanovic: The lawyers would have had a duty to the court to bring up the correct law no matter what the church said.


I would say Honor before Duty, but these are lawyers we're talking about.
 
2013-02-05 02:28:51 PM

Dr Dreidel: ivanovic: The lawyers would have had a duty to the court to bring up the correct law no matter what the church said.

Or, realizing what contesting the suit would mean (abandoning the Church's moral position in favor of the legal one), they could have settled and either avoided the question entirely or held to their own moral teachings. It could be an incredible thing to point to and say: "The Church follows its own teachings even when not doing so is legal and would be advantageous. BAN ABORTION NOW!"

// of course, this would also break with the Church's history, so...


The hospital won on different grounds...
 
2013-02-05 02:38:49 PM

corn-bread: /Anxiously awaits Catholic Hospital's motion for new trial on the basis they used a legal argument they didn't believe in.


Funny, that never stops plaintiff's attorneys for doing the same damn thing.
 
Displayed 50 of 74 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report