A wonky pillar of catholicism?

Posted by: BigH47 on 24 January 2013

A major Catholic health provider in the US has successfully dismantled a wrongful death lawsuit brought against it by arguing — in defiance of its own long-held doctrine — that a dead fetus is not the same as a dead person.

Posted on: 24 January 2013 by sheffieldgraham
Originally Posted by BigH47:

A major Catholic health provider in the US has successfully dismantled a wrongful death lawsuit brought against it by arguing — in defiance of its own long-held doctrine — that a dead fetus is not the same as a dead person.

Just goes to show, money before beliefs or ethics.

With organisations such as this supporting it, is it a wonder Catholicism is the richest faith on this planet? I wonder what the Vatican makes of it.

Just asking.

Posted on: 24 January 2013 by spartacus

Religions...they use it to justify any and everything

Posted on: 24 January 2013 by Donuk

Those who have not seen it, and are interested, view Stephen Fry's demolition of Catholicism on You tube.

 

Posted on: 24 January 2013 by Sloop John B
Originally Posted by Donuk:

Those who have not seen it, and are interested, view Stephen Fry's demolition of Catholicism on You tube.

 

the Pope's pictorial demolition of Stephen Fry on Tumblr, also worth a look. 

Posted on: 24 January 2013 by fatcat

Just read a couple of report/blogs, the OP isn't actually correct. The health provider didn't argue that a dead fetus is not the same as a dead person. A defense lawyer pointed out that the LAW didn't recognise that a dead fetus is the same as a dead person.

 

As Jason Langley, an attorney with Denver-based Kennedy Childs, argued in one of the briefs he filed for the defense, the court “should not overturn the long-standing rule in Colorado that the term ‘person,’ as is used in the Wrongful Death Act, encompasses only individuals born alive. Colorado state courts define ‘person’ under the Act to include only those born alive. Therefore Plaintiffs cannot maintain wrongful death claims based on two unborn fetuses.”


The health provider is described as the lead defendant in the case, indicating other people where also being sued. Maybe the lawyer was representing the other parties,

 

Also, I would expect a hospital to take out insurance against a malpractice lawsuit. if so surely the lawyer would be acting for the insurance company. NOT THE HEALTH PROVIDER.


Reading beyond the headline is always a good idea.


Posted on: 25 January 2013 by naim_nymph

Howard,

 

I bet you wasn't expecting the Spanish Inquisition

 

Debs

Posted on: 25 January 2013 by BigH47

Bring on the comfy chair?

 

 

I'm just using a pillar of british(world) newsreporting:-

 

..never let the facts get in the way of a good story?

 

 

I still think there is enough shit to rub off on the RC church, they are dab hands at hiding behind screens.