Aclu Sues American Catholic Bishops

[Nihil Obstat]

An abortion is a medical procedure to kill the 'fetus'.  Period. 

 

I'm not an expert, but from what I've read: An abortion is never actually necessary to save the life of a mother.  Even in late stages, if there are issues, a C-section is the safest way to remove the fetus from the womb.  Actually aborting the fetus in a C-section would not decrease risk to the mother.

 

Removing a fellopian tube with an attached embryo ends the life of the embryo, but it's not an abortion.  Giving a mother chemotherapy risks the life of the fetus, but it's not an abortion.

 

The purpose of this lawsuit is to impose the will of the State on the Church and its faithful.  Period.  It's been going on for centuries.  No reason to be surprised.

Yes, thanks for clarifying. Abortions are never lifesaving treatment.

Edited December 3, 2013 by Nihil Obstat

[NotreDame]

Yes, thanks for clarifying. Abortions are never lifesaving treatment.

 

Well, I don't want to go on record calling what I wrote a 'clarification.'  The definition I gave is my definition, although I think it's consistent with the meaning the Church would have for the term (has the church defined the word abortion?)  Abortion rights advocates and "neutral" sources might use different terminology and a number of euphimisms to define "abortion."

 

As for Abortions never being a lifesaving treatment... I'm not an expert, I just can't think of many examples where this is the case.  I think most risky pregnancies actually involve the mother expending a lot of energy to keep the baby alive and not have a miscarriage, not the other way around.  

[mortify ii]

 

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/aclu-sues-us-bishops-catholic-hospital-ethics-21074634

 

3 December, 2013

The American Civil Liberties Union filed a sweeping federal lawsuit against the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops over its ethical guidelines for Roman Catholic hospitals, arguing the directives were to blame for negligent care of a pregnant woman who went into early labor and whose baby died within hours.

The ACLU alleges the bishops were negligent because their religious directives prevented Tamesha Means from being told that continuing her pregnancy posed grave risks to her health and her child was not likely to survive. She was treated at Mercy Health Muskegon, a Catholic hospital in Michigan.

 

(snip)

————

 

 

Doctors have a moral and ethical responsibility to use every means possible to save a person's life, even if survival seems unlikely initially. You exhaust all your possibilities first before sending someone to a hospice. I see patients suffering with brain cancer that are put on medications that have about a 5% cure rate, and even the greedy insurance companies are willing to reimburse these treatments. Apparently according to the ACLU, the most prudent course of action is to simply kill these people since their chance of survival is unlikely and the burden they pose too great. So much for standing up for human rights, eh? To do a thorough critique of their position would require delving into several erroneous modern principles, such as an exaggerated sense of individualism that is not bound by any moral or ethical law, a false of "right" and liberty, and a mistaken notion that ends justify means. All in all we're heading down a slippery slope, and need to pray something miraculous occurs that will wake Americans up.

[Nihil Obstat]

Doctors have a moral and ethical responsibility to use every means possible to save a person's life, even if survival seems unlikely initially.

I do not think this is the case, either in commonly accepted medical ethics or in Catholic morality. We are obligated to make reasonable efforts, but intervention can be rejected if it is too invasive.

[CrossCuT]

As for Abortions never being a lifesaving treatment... I'm not an expert, I just can't think of many examples where this is the case.  I think most risky pregnancies actually involve the mother expending a lot of energy to keep the baby alive and not have a miscarriage, not the other way around.  

 

There can be many cases where treatment to save the mothers life puts the child in danger however neither of us are of the medical field and thus cant really fathom what those reasons are. 

Of course the purpose shouldnt be to kill the baby in order to save the mother, the purpose is to save both by the best means possible but of course, death is natural and we cant save everyone. 

 

Doctors have a moral and ethical responsibility to use every means possible to save a person's life, even if survival seems unlikely initially. You exhaust all your possibilities first before sending someone to a hospice. I see patients suffering with brain cancer that are put on medications that have about a 5% cure rate, and even the greedy insurance companies are willing to reimburse these treatments. Apparently according to the ACLU, the most prudent course of action is to simply kill these people since their chance of survival is unlikely and the burden they pose too great. So much for standing up for human rights, eh? To do a thorough critique of their position would require delving into several erroneous modern principles, such as an exaggerated sense of individualism that is not bound by any moral or ethical law, a false of "right" and liberty, and a mistaken notion that ends justify means. All in all we're heading down a slippery slope, and need to pray something miraculous occurs that will wake Americans up.

 

I do believe the doctors should have informed the woman of everything they knew even if the news wasnt good.

 

 

The example in the article where they talk about the nun on the ethics committee issuing an "abortion" to save a mothers life was confusing to me. If she DID issue an actual abortion, then yes, what she did was wrong. However if she simply decided that the mother be saved via whatever treatment needed (even if it put the child in harms way) would not necessarily be considered an abortion unless it was her intention.

 

But I dont know if it was her intention or not. If she was excommunicated then the church must have believed it was so. 

[NotreDame]

There can be many cases where treatment to save the mothers life puts the child in danger however neither of us are of the medical field and thus cant really fathom what those reasons are. 

 

>>> There can be many cases where treatment to save the mothers life puts the child in danger

 

Yes, I know.  I gave examples of some.  Go re-read the thread.

 

>>> however neither of us are of the medical field and thus cant really fathom what those reasons are.

 

Actually, you know nothing about me, so you don't know what field I'm in or not in.  Putting that aside, I can in many cases fathom what those reasons are or I wouldn't be giving examples of those reasons, as I did.

Edited December 4, 2013 by NotreDame

[CrossCuT]

>>> There can be many cases where treatment to save the mothers life puts the child in danger

 

Yes, I know.  I gave examples of some.  Go re-read the thread.

 

>>> however neither of us are of the medical field and thus cant really fathom what those reasons are.

 

Actually, you know nothing about me, so you don't know what field I'm in or not in.  Putting that aside, I can in many cases fathom what those reasons are or I wouldn't be giving examples of those reasons, as I did.

 

Have some hot cocoa

[Nihil Obstat]

Yeah, I want to call shenanigans too. There are many cases where non-medical people can discuss treatments that could presumably harm an unborn child. Otherwise bioethics would be a much smaller field...

[PhuturePriest]

This article simply reinforces my theory that stupid people strive to attain the highest level of stupidity that their stupid minds can.

 

Their argument in short: "We don't agree with what you believe, so you can't be in charge of things anymore." I love how people that tout tolerance are the worst at it.

[NotreDame]

Their argument in short: "We don't agree with what you believe, so you can't be in charge of things anymore." I love how people that tout tolerance are the worst at it.

 

Very insightful.  Yet even your unfavorable assessment is a bit restrained.  What they really think is: "We don't agree with what you belive, therefore you need to do exactly as we tell you." 

 

Actually, you could probably just boil it down to "You need to do exactly as we tell you", but they don't usually come out and say that until they are 100% in charge.  Give them some time. 

[Cojuanco]

I really doubt the ACLU is going to win this. Even assuming for the sake of argument that abortion was a legitimate course of treatment, that a doctor took another, reasonable alternative course of treatment which turned out to fail does not seem to support medical negligence when at least a substantial minority of qualified experts would sanction the practice.

As to the suit against the USCCB, the claim to me lacks merit, and the defense might even be able to get this shot down on procedural grounds. Even assuming their facts, the USCCB is protected under the First Amendment.

Bottom line, the ACLU are not so much trying to win this suit as to turn Protestant public opinion against Catholic healthcare. It's a chilling effect lawsuit, and a good judge IMO should dismiss the latter claim.

[Cojuanco]

And if they bring up Walker v. City of Birmingham, I would dare to say that we will have a new source of alternate energy, because Martin Luther King's body in his grave would spin so fast Metropolitan Atlanta would have a new source of power.

[Semper Catholic]

Catholics treating women as second class citizens? STOP THE PRESSES!!

[Cojuanco]

Because this is totally what is going on. /snark

[add]

The American Civil Liberties Union filed a sweeping federal lawsuit against the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops over its ethical guidelines for Roman Catholic hospitals.

i guess that they never heard of the Hippocratic Oath

 

if the person at the center of this lawsuit wanted an abortion why did she seek out a catholic hospital, i wonder.  it seams a little odd, doesn't it?

 

i would love to hear "Mercy Health Partners" side of the story.