- Joined
- Nov 12, 2013
- Messages
- 4,597
- Reaction score
- 6,126
- Location
- Atheist Utopia aka Reality
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Hospitals are supposed to inform the patient of his/her diagnosis, treatment and prognosis in terms that the patient understands.
The suit is not based on the hospital not being willing to perform any procedure.
There are laws which require doctors to tell their patients about their condition.
Are you really sure they didn't?
I agree, but that wasn't the question
Are you really sure they didn't?
SO now that your question has been shown to be irrelevant, you're going to move the goalposts.
I answered the question. You did not like the answer.
Nope, wrong
LOL! You've been reduced to chanting "Nuh-uh"!
Your point was that the doctors did not know the condition of the woman's fetus.
Your point was a lie and exposed as such, so now you're pretending that your point is something else
It is a policy decision. And this case is about policy. You are too quick to jump on it when you don't really understand it. This case is not about medical negligence, it is about policy. She is accusing the hospital of acting in accordance with a policy. The same as a Jewish or muslim deli is acting in accordance with a policy when they refuse to serve pork. I realize that it is difficult for someone without a legal background to understand.
I don't care what the Pope says.
The Catholic Health Association of the United States (CHA) was founded in 1915 as the Catholic Hospital Association of the United States and Canada. The association has offices in Washington, D.C. and St. Louis, Missouri. The association is a ministry of the Roman Catholic Church. Comprising more than 600 hospitals and 1,400 long-term care and other health facilities in all 50 states, the association is the largest group of non-profit health care providers in the nation.
Every year, one in six hospitalized patients[quantify] in the United States is cared for in a Catholic health care facility. In addition, thousands of elders[quantify] in the U.S. live and are cared for in Catholic long-term care and other continuum of care facilities.
The association is led by Sister Carol Keehan, a member of the Daughters of Charity, who assumed her duties as president and chief executive officer in 2005.
For example, the directives allow for treatments to cure a grave illness in a pregnant woman even if they result in the death of the child. That issue drew national attention in 2010 with the case of a nun and administrator at a Phoenix hospital who, in her role on the hospital ethics committee, approved an abortion to save the life of a pregnant woman. Phoenix Bishop Thomas Olmsted said the decision meant automatic excommunication for the nun and the hospital could no longer identify itself as Catholic.
Robin Fretwell Wilson, a University of Illinois professor who specializes in family and health law, said a negligence claim would hinge in part on whether the ACLU can establish that the conference has some direct control in this case or in hospitals in general. The bishops have moral authority over local Catholic hospitals but are not involved in the day-to-day business of administration.
"It's so many layers removed," Fretwell Wilson said, that she has "a difficult time buying" that the bishops' conference is legally responsible in this case.
Yes, I am learning that you are not big on facts. LOL. But I do love that you are affording me the opportunity to clear up some things that most people are fairly muddy on.
Catholic hospitals are not US corporations like most other hospitals in the US. Catholic hospitals are a mission of the Catholic church and all are affiliated with the Roman Catholic Church which is based in Vatican City. They are members of The Catholic Health Association of the US:
Catholic Health Association of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
And they operate under the auspecis of the Catholic church. There has been controversy over abortion in the past. And I am not the only one who finds this case to be very weak.
ACLU Sues US Bishops Over Catholic Hospital Ethics - ABC News
Catholic hospitals are definitely expected to adhere to Catholic doctrine as shown above.
Beyond that, a procedure that is needed to save the life of the mother is strictly a medical decision, and the doctor is the one who decides, not the patient.
Your point was that the doctors did not know the condition of the woman's fetus.
Your point was a lie and exposed as such, so now you're pretending that your point is something else
It is a policy decision. And this case is about policy. You are too quick to jump on it when you don't really understand it. This case is not about medical negligence, it is about policy. She is accusing the hospital of acting in accordance with a policy. The same as a Jewish or muslim deli is acting in accordance with a policy when they refuse to serve pork. I realize that it is difficult for someone without a legal background to understand.
Expected by whom?
The Church expects one thing. The law expects another.
When the two conflict, guess which one wins?
You are not big on facts.
To which laws would you be referring?
Your point was that the doctors did not know the condition of the woman's fetus.
Your point was a lie and exposed as such, so now you're pretending that your point is something else
It is a policy decision. And this case is about policy. You are too quick to jump on it when you don't really understand it. This case is not about medical negligence, it is about policy. She is accusing the hospital of acting in accordance with a policy. The same as a Jewish or muslim deli is acting in accordance with a policy when they refuse to serve pork. I realize that it is difficult for someone without a legal background to understand.
Asked and answered
Disingenuous posts are disingenuous
You did not answer. I asked for a citation of the law to back your assertion. I'll give you some time since you are struggling to answer my question. Maybe someone else can help you out.
It is a policy decision. And this case is about policy. You are too quick to jump on it when you don't really understand it. This case is not about medical negligence, it is about policy. She is accusing the hospital of acting in accordance with a policy. The same as a Jewish or muslim deli is acting in accordance with a policy when they refuse to serve pork. I realize that it is difficult for someone without a legal background to understand.
It is about possible medical negligence. You don't send an 18 week pregnant woman home with pain killers after their water breaks. This is always a very bad thing especially for a fetus. Almost guaranteed to lead to a miscarriage. If the catholic hospital really cares about fetuses like they say, it stands to reason that they would do everything possible to save the fetus. And yet they sent her home which seems to me to be a very strange way to try to save a miscarrying fetus. This points to a conclusion that the hospital and staff knew the fetus was dead or doomed. However they should have known it was alive at this point, if they had performed an ultrasound.
One might say that the first time they sent her home with pain medication, they were hoping the problem takes care of itself. I guess it was presumed that the fetus would be delivered at home, the mother notices the baby is breathing and rushes back to the hospital where it will later die. But that didn't happen.
The pregnant woman goes back to the hospital a second time, in severe pain. The hospital has already determined, as proved by their prior actions, that the fetus is doomed and now the pregnant woman is in severe pain which obviously means that the miscarriage is normal, right? There isn't any bleeding or other signs of complications, is there? Because if there were such signs, one would think that the possibility of a fatal hemorrhage is now considerably greater. And of course the proper action in this case is to send the pregnant woman home with more pain meds? Is that the extent of their care: take 2 aspirin and call me in the morning?
It is alleged the pain reaches a level 10 out of 10 and so the pregnant woman returns to the hospital for third time. At this point, as a layman, some very loud alarm bells would be going off in my head. And yet they were in the process of sending her home for a freaking third time when she delivers a breach baby. I will let you think about that for a second.
A freaking breach baby. Severe level 10 pain. Did anyone do an ultrasound to see the baby FFS, especially at the 3rd visit? If someone had done an ultrasound and somehow didn't notice the miscarrying baby was breach, that is negligence. If an ultrasound was not done even when all the symptoms point towards dangerous complications, that is negligence. If they knew about the breach and still sent or tried to send her home, that is possibly gross negligence. Sending a person home with level 10 pain is negligence.
So yes this lawsuit is about negligence.
I answered the question. You did not like the answer.
You did?
It is about possible medical negligence. You don't send an 18 week pregnant woman home with pain killers after their water breaks. This is always a very bad thing especially for a fetus. Almost guaranteed to lead to a miscarriage. If the catholic hospital really cares about fetuses like they say, it stands to reason that they would do everything possible to save the fetus. And yet they sent her home which seems to me to be a very strange way to try to save a miscarrying fetus. This points to a conclusion that the hospital and staff knew the fetus was dead or doomed. However they should have known it was alive at this point, if they had performed an ultrasound.
One might say that the first time they sent her home with pain medication, they were hoping the problem takes care of itself. I guess it was presumed that the fetus would be delivered at home, the mother notices the baby is breathing and rushes back to the hospital where it will later die. But that didn't happen.
The pregnant woman goes back to the hospital a second time, in severe pain. The hospital has already determined, as proved by their prior actions, that the fetus is doomed and now the pregnant woman is in severe pain which obviously means that the miscarriage is normal, right? There isn't any bleeding or other signs of complications, is there? Because if there were such signs, one would think that the possibility of a fatal hemorrhage is now considerably greater. And of course the proper action in this case is to send the pregnant woman home with more pain meds? Is that the extent of their care: take 2 aspirin and call me in the morning?
It is alleged the pain reaches a level 10 out of 10 and so the pregnant woman returns to the hospital for third time. At this point, as a layman, some very loud alarm bells would be going off in my head. And yet they were in the process of sending her home for a freaking third time when she delivers a breach baby. I will let you think about that for a second.
A freaking breach baby. Severe level 10 pain. Did anyone do an ultrasound to see the baby FFS, especially at the 3rd visit? If someone had done an ultrasound and somehow didn't notice the miscarrying baby was breach, that is negligence. If an ultrasound was not done even when all the symptoms point towards dangerous complications, that is negligence. If they knew about the breach and still sent or tried to send her home, that is possibly gross negligence. Sending a person home with level 10 pain is negligence.
So yes this lawsuit is about negligence.
And in the framework of a medical institution, hospital rules and regulations that may require physicians to act in such a way.
Can you point to those regulations? You said they may have been "professionally obligated" but professional obligations are not laws or even regs. So, as wrong as you or I may believe that is, there is no legal recourse. Which could be why the woman is going after the bishops, and not the doc, or hospital.
They are apparently going after rules and regulations that may be required that could lead to the harm or suffering of a patient.
If as a nurse my hospital tells me I have to do a procedure a certain way, and I follow procedure...if the way in which the procedure was performed causes harm, I may be totally off the hook.
By the way, is there anything preventing her from going after the doctors as well in a second lawsuit?
I will be interested to see both sides of this as more information is available.
They are apparently going after rules and regulations that may be required that could lead to the harm or suffering of a patient.
If as a nurse my hospital tells me I have to do a procedure a certain way, and I follow procedure...if the way in which the procedure was performed causes harm, I may be totally off the hook.
By the way, is there anything preventing her from going after the doctors as well in a second lawsuit?
I will be interested to see both sides of this as more information is available.
"May be" is the operative here. An oath is not a law or a reg. Neither is "procedure".
If she goes after the doc, then there is more to consider.
But, o agree it will be interesting.
But to stay accredited and receive medicare (etc)monies, they need to comply with a certain standard of practice. If they fall outside of a standard of practice that is not accepted - and their own policies prevent them from accepted practices being followed...they could be in danger of losing accreditation.
And again, it is not the performance of an abortion that may be at issue, it would be how best to handle a woman in medical distress.
It will be interesting to see what the policies are from "up above"are translated at the hospital level and inevitably by the doctors.
Interesting to follow.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?