File this under "Strength of Their Convictions", Or Just Plan Hypocritical

[Katiebee]

This is not going to build confidence and trust in the ethical or even the moral standing of the Church.

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.

Source

[Janus]

This is just frustrating............There are sooo many directions I can go with how angry this makes me.

[MissBarbara]

What exactly does this have to do with the Church, apart from how the company was named?

That was my question as well. And the answer is: nothing.

I clicked through to the source, and I discovered that this isn't a news story, but an opinion piece. Essentially, it's a polemic, using this case (about which it provides virtually no information) to score polemical points.

I also discovered two other things. First, "the church" is not at fault here, the hospital is. The hospital is violating its own mission station, and it's own raison d'etre. Second, it is the lawyers, not "the Church," who are using (abusing?) the Colorado statute to gain a victory for their client. And their client is the hospital, not "the Church." It's lawyers being lawyers, and calling lawyers "hypocrites" is being redundant. (No offense, Toe).

Of course, if the doctor and hospital system are guilty of malpractice and wrongful death, the woman's family should get every penny that they deserve. I hope their appeal is accepted, and that the case is decided on its merits.

[Katiebee]

They are affiliated, the use the church doctrine, they bill themselves as Catholic. The Church suffers by association.

[insatiable]

Guilt by association is one of the lamest guilt ever.

[MissBarbara]

Guilt by association is one of the lamest guilt ever.

I agree. And it's also one of the lamest polemical devices ever.

[Katiebee]

Guilt by association is one of the lamest guilt ever.

guilt by association is valid when the association is active, ongoing, and interactive.

[Katiebee]

Also, guilt by association is provided for in law under strict rules. And I have to remind you that people have been hung for whom they associate with. Rightly or wrongly, you are known by the company you keep. It is one reason why the Republican Party is being hung with the label of extremist.

[watcher1]

If one wants to blame the Catholic Church for anything I think it should be for their long cover up of priests who have molested young boys with the Vatican turning a blind eye to it.  HBO recently aired a two hour documentary on this subject and in the show a Vatican scholar claims to have papers dating back to the 5th Century where priests in Spain had been accused of pedophilia.  Law suits against then seem not to stem this awful sin on our youth.

[Janus]

Also, guilt by association is provided for in law under strict rules. And I have to remind you that people have been hung for whom the associate with rightly or wrongly, you are known by the company you keep. It is one reason why the Republican Party is being hung with the label of extremist.

There are a lot of people in prison because they were with someone when a crime was committed. If you are going to let someone wear your label then that entity is representative of your organization. YOU are the one who signed on to allow your "Good" name to be used and should be held accountable even though it was merely a marketing ploy. If you wrestle with dogs you are going to get fleas.

[MissBarbara]

Also, guilt by association is provided for in law under strict rules. And I have to remind you that people have been hung for whom the associate with rightly or wrongly, you are known by the company you keep. It is one reason why the Republican Party is being hung with the label of extremist.

It depends on who is making the association. In this case, it's you and, it seems, only you. Likewise, you are the one making judgements by "the company you keep."

I read the cited article, and a couple of others on the topic:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2267969/Lori-Stodghill-death-Catholic-hospital-ditches-pro-life-beliefs-argue-fetuses-NOT-people-wrongful-death-suit-involving-unborn-twins.html#axzz2KJvrvJ98

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/01/24/fetuses-not-people-catholic-hospital-says-in-court-case/1863013/


And they all make it clear that it is the hospital and the hospital system who are guilty of contradicting their stated beliefs.

I agree with Watcher: there are many, many areas where, if one is so inclined, one can criticize and condemn the Catholic Church, or level accusations of inconsistency or hypocrisy. Why take the time to invent new ones?

[Katiebee]

Also, guilt by association is provided for in law under strict rules. And I have to remind you that people have been hung for whom the associate with rightly or wrongly, you are known by the company you keep. It is one reason why the Republican Party is being hung with the label of extremist.

It depends on who is making the association. In this case, it's you and, it seems, only you. Likewise, you are the one making judgements by "the company you keep."

I read the cited article, and a couple of others on the topic:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2267969/Lori-Stodghill-death-Catholic-hospital-ditches-pro-life-beliefs-argue-fetuses-NOT-people-wrongful-death-suit-involving-unborn-twins.html#axzz2KJvrvJ98

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/01/24/fetuses-not-people-catholic-hospital-says-in-court-case/1863013/


And they all make it clear that it is the hospital and the hospital system who are guilty of contradicting their stated beliefs.

I agree with Watcher: there are many, many areas where, if one is so inclined, one can criticize and condemn the Catholic Church, or level accusations of inconsistency or hypocrisy. Why take the time to invent new ones?

you have made the case for the Catholic Church to be concerned with branding. When you allow others to use your brand you assume all manner of association, intended or not. The church allowed this organization to associatiate themselves closely with those policies and name to te extent of quoting the vhurche's official doctrine, making the implication that they are a Catholic Church affiliate.

Failure to limit such associations means you approve and accept the association.

Do we have a lawyer in the house? I think that my statements are true and correct in the law, and more I the point if my original post, it is a matter of perception and will give the church bad press.

[MissBarbara]

Also, guilt by association is provided for in law under strict rules. And I have to remind you that people have been hung for whom the associate with rightly or wrongly, you are known by the company you keep. It is one reason why the Republican Party is being hung with the label of extremist.

It depends on who is making the association. In this case, it's you and, it seems, only you. Likewise, you are the one making judgements by "the company you keep."

I read the cited article, and a couple of others on the topic:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2267969/Lori-Stodghill-death-Catholic-hospital-ditches-pro-life-beliefs-argue-fetuses-NOT-people-wrongful-death-suit-involving-unborn-twins.html#axzz2KJvrvJ98

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/01/24/fetuses-not-people-catholic-hospital-says-in-court-case/1863013/


And they all make it clear that it is the hospital and the hospital system who are guilty of contradicting their stated beliefs.

I agree with Watcher: there are many, many areas where, if one is so inclined, one can criticize and condemn the Catholic Church, or level accusations of inconsistency or hypocrisy. Why take the time to invent new ones?

you have made the case for the Catholic Church to be concerned with branding. When you allow others to use your brand you assume all manner of association, intended or not. The church allowed this organization to associatiate themselves closely with those policies and name to te extent of quoting the vhurche's official doctrine, making the implication that they are a Catholic Church affiliate.

Failure to limit such associations means you approve and accept the association.

Do we have a lawyer in the house? I think that my statements are true and correct in the law, and more I the point if my original post, it is a matter of perception and will give the church bad press.

I agree 100% with your assertion, "The church allowed this organization to associate themselves closely with those policies and name to the extent of quoting the church's official doctrine, making the implication that they are a Catholic Church affiliate."

The does appear to be exactly the case here.

BUT, for your accusations of hypocrisy or "guilt by association" to have any merit, you would have to demonstrate that the Church in general or a particular Church official (e.g. the local bishop) approved of or endorsed the legal path chosen by the attorneys in mounting their defense of the hospital. And that clearly is not the case here.

In other words, charging the hospital or the hospital system -- assuming that THEY endorsed the attorneys course of action -- with being hypocritical seem to have some possible merit, if only from a polemical point of view. My objection is solely to your making the leap from the assertions of the attorneys for the hospital to "the Church" in general.

I agree with Farmer Miles's point, just above: "The Catholic Church has an awful lot to answer for, which is exactly why there's no reason to start attributing other misdeeds that they did not commit to them."

[Katiebee]

The problem with claiming to be on the moral high ground by stint in your organization brings the problem if being judged by your own high standards.

While I know and recognize that mere mortals are highly fallible, not achieving to the standard means you will be judged lacking.

[MissBarbara]

The problem with claiming to be on the moral high ground by stint in your organization brings the problem if being judged by your own high standards.

While I know and recognize that mere mortals are highly fallible, not achieving to the standard means you will be judged lacking.

Katie, the only person claiming moral high ground here is you...

[Katiebee]

The problem with claiming to be on the moral high ground by stint in your organization brings the problem if being judged by your own high standards.

While I know and recognize that mere mortals are highly fallible, not achieving to the standard means you will be judged lacking.

Katie, the only person claiming moral high ground here is you...

really? I had thought I was making an observation.

See how perception informs us?

[MissBarbara]

The problem with claiming to be on the moral high ground by stint in your organization brings the problem if being judged by your own high standards.

While I know and recognize that mere mortals are highly fallible, not achieving to the standard means you will be judged lacking.

Katie, the only person claiming moral high ground here is you...

really? I had thought I was making an observation.

See how perception informs us?

Good answer!