U.S. Catholic bishops review lawsuit saying fetuses not people

[Eugene]

Source: Reuters

U.S. Catholic bishops review lawsuit saying fetuses not people

By Keith Coffman

DENVER | Fri Jan 25, 2013 2:03am EST

(Reuters) - Three Colorado bishops said on Thursday they will review a Catholic Church hospital's defense of a lawsuit that argues fetuses do not have legal status - apparently contradicting the Church's teaching on life issues.

The case stems from a malpractice and wrongful death lawsuit filed by Jeremy Stodghill in the 2006 death of his seven-month pregnant wife Lori at a Catholic hospital in Canon City, Colorado. Her twin fetuses also died.

Stodghill filed the suit against Colorado-based Catholic Health Initiatives, which operates hospitals in 14 states, claiming physicians made no effort to save the fetuses by performing a cesarean section.

In its defense, counsel for the hospital said that under Colorado law, a fetus is not a person and that the twins likely would not have survived even with an emergency C-section.

[font size=1]-snip-[/font]

Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/25/us-colorado-fetuses-idUSBRE90O08O20130125

[yellowcanine]

1. Filing in the "Having it Both Ways" Folder

When it comes to the health care law and contraception, the Catholic institutions want to invoke conscience and God's law but when it comes to something which will impact their bottom line they want to invoke state law.

[MADem]

2. Massive kick for the pure and unadulturated irony!!!!! nt

[rurallib]

3. Ya know, sometimes dogma can be just too dogmatic.

[cbayer]

4. Yep, this is a really bizarre twist of events.

The lawyers appear to be using the law to their advantage, but the hypocrisy of this position is rather jaw dropping.

[jberryhill]

5. Lawyers don't decide which defenses to assert

On an issue of whether to assert this defense to liability, the client is free to make the call. But at the very least, the hospital management had to have been informed this defense was being asserted, as no competent lawyer would have failed to explain this to them.

I have seen a lot of apologists try to argue that the lawyers are required to do their best to their client's advantage. But that duty does not negate the duty to inform the client and to take instruction from the client - to explain alternatives and outcomes.

For example, in the criminal context, we all know that it is entirely up to the client to plead guilty, take a deal, or plead not guilty and defend the case. There is no imaginary "lawyer's duty" to tell the client what to do. One has to represent the client in obtaining outcomes the client wants, by means the client approves.

[cbayer]

7. As is their habit, I suspect the church thought that no one would notice

this incredibly hypocritical position and gave the ok to the attorneys. At any rate, some one made the decision that money was more important than principle, imo.

[jberryhill]

8. Oh absolutely

This "lawyers on auto-pilot" excuse holds no water. Advising a high profile client on appearances is part of the job.

[jberryhill]

6. In all fairness to the Church...

They DiD recognize the woman as a person, which is something.

I guess they figured they met us halfway, overall.