Catholic Health Initiatives and St. Thomas More Hospital in Cañon City acknowledged Monday it was morally wrong for their attorneys to defend a medical malpractice case in the death of unborn twins by arguing Colorado law doesn’t consider fetuses to be persons..

JDD,

Hmmm . . . don’t people complain about pregnant women coming to the United States (generally from Mexico) to have their babies here so the babies will be American citizens? If we made sure to demand passports for the unborn, this would not happen.

There’s no Grand Unified Theory that needs satisfaction here. There’s no struggle to stay morally philosophically consistent here.

It is not so much a matter of consistency. It is a matter of unexpected and unanticipated consequences, and of trying to reinterpret laws to mean something other than what the legislators intended when they wrote them.

The intent of a movie seat ticket is to reserve a seat. A baby in the womb does not need a seat.

There’s no Grand Unified Theory that needs satisfaction here. There’s no struggle to stay morally philosophically consistent here. The baby is a human being. It doesn’t need a seat. Sheesh :)

Of course, not only loss of earnings can properly be taken into account. Certain domestic services, such as painting and decorating, that the husband did for nothing, a tradesman will do for money and these are rightly taken into account.

Setting a value on “loss of companionship,” like damages for “pain and suffering” can only result in a purely conventional award and, in jurisdictions where such damages are assessed by judges, tend to be based on a sort of tariff that the courts develop,

Insofar as money can improve one’s amenity of life, I suppose there is something to be said for them.

Michael PS,

This seems right to me. My understanding of wrongful death suits is that they are not civil versions of murder trials. They are largely about compensating the person suing for the loss of the dead person. For instance, a wife who was supported solely by her husband might endeavor to show in court what the future earnings of her husband would have been, and seek that as compensation. Although there are, I believe, attempts sometimes to set a value on loss of companionship and such things, it is based on the relationship the deceased and the survivor had before the loss.

But I would go further. In the Civil Law tradition, going back to the Roman Lex Aquilia, the law will not set a pecuniary value on the life of a free person. The heir may sue for any patrimonial loss he has suffered by reason of the death and most modern codes allow an action by the dependants for loss of dependency, for these are things that can be valued in money.

Now, one can construct a scenario in which patrimonial loss would flow from the death of an unborn child – a gift or legacy to A, but, if he dies without issue, to B. Here, I can imagine a right of action, although the damages would not be easy to assess.

Again, some systems, including Scots law allow a solatium for loss to a spouse or next of kin, but this is a reparation for their injured feelings, not for an injury done to the defunct.

To set a value on the life of an unborn child, so far from respecting their dignity would be to treat them like cattle.

To take a trivial example, we would not want to require a pregnant woman to buy two tickets when she goes to the movies because the tickets say “Admit One.”

A movie theater would be within its rights to insist on such a policy, though. It would be unpopular and counterproductive, but they could do it. They’re not a government, and they certainly aren’t subject to the Bill of Rights the way the government is.

A more salient example – my wife and I can take our kids to Canada so long as we adults have passports, and we have documentation for our kids. But if we wanted to travel to Europe, say, we’d need passports for the youngsters, too. Would it make sense to for a pregnant woman to carry two passports?

I am just saying there are no doubt strange and unexpected consequences to declaring a pregnant woman to have another full-fledged person with full human rights inside her.

Precisely the point. Wheter the baby is born yet is a determinative fact in many areas, so it behooves everyone to think about exactly what that does and should mean.

I am ill over this lawsuit, and the only acceptable outcome will be for the Bishops to drop the hammer and forbid the use of this legal defense.

Sally Thomas,

I gave that as a trivial example, and I did not predict pregnant women would actually be charged two admissions to get into the movies! I sais, “We would not want to require a pregnant woman to buy two tickets when she goes to the movies because the tickets say ‘Admit One.’” However, the Alabama Supreme Court recently ruled that a pregnant woman who used illegal drugs while pregnant could be convicted under a law that forbids giving illegal drugs to children. Now, I have not done enough research to know if that was what the legislature intended, and of course it is not a bad thing to prevent pregnant women from using illegal drugs, since they are not supposed to use them anyway. But what about alcohol? Can a pregnant woman who drinks be charged with serving alcohol to a minor? Can a pregnant woman charged with reckless driving also be charged with child endangerment?

I can’t raise all possible consequences, and it would be difficult for anyone to predict them. I am just saying there are no doubt strange and unexpected consequences to declaring a pregnant woman to have another full-fledged person with full human rights inside her. Certainly the potential for severely restricting the rights of pregnant women is a consequence.