kingbee kingbee

Bush Signed Law That Let Doc Pull Plug On Baby

Bush Signed Law That Let Doc Pull Plug On Baby

Futile Means Out of Money

someone shoulda administered the hypocratic oath to george w bush this weekend.   only a few days before he flew from texas to dc to demonstrate the depth of his commitment to getting votes from the pro-lifers, a 6month-old infant had his plug pulled--against the wishes of his mother--thanks to a law bush signed in 1999.
i'm not exactly positive where crawford is in relation to houston, but--even knowing how big texas is from having driven thru there for a month one weekend--the kid was his homeboy.

this appears to be the first time ever this has happened in the us.   (talk about your basic full-birth abortion)

here's part of what one of the law's co-sponsors has to say about it.

Both papers report that this is the first time in the United States a court has allowed life-sustaining treatment to be withdrawn from a pediatric patient over the objections of the child's parent.  (The Dallas paper quotes John Paris, a bioethicist at Boston College, as its source.)  If true, the unique Texas statute under which this saga was played out contributed in no small way to the outcome.  As one of the laws co-authors (along with a roomful of other drafters, in 1999) let me explain.

Under chapter 166 of the Texas Health and Safety Code, if an attending physician disagrees with a surrogate over a life-and-death treatment decision, there must be an ethics committee consultation (with notice to the surrogate and an opportunity to participate).  In a futility case such as Sun Hudson's, in which the treatment team is seeking to stop treatment deemed to be nonbeneficial, if the ethics committee agrees with the team, the hospital will be authorized to discontinue the disputed treatment (after a 10-day delay, during which the hospital must help try to find a facility that will accept a transfer of the patient).  These provisions, which were added to Texas law in 1999, originally applied only to adult patients; in 2003; they were made applicable to disputes over treatment decisions for or on behalf of minors.  (I hasten to add that one of the co-drafters in both 1999 and 2003 was the National Right to Life Committee.  Witnesses who testified in support of the bill in 1999 included representatives of National Right to Life, Texas Right to Life, and the Hemlock Society.  Our bill passed both houses, unanimously, both years, and the 1999 law was signed by then Governor George W. Bush.)

you can read the rest of thomas mayo's ruminating here: Link

and here's a link to the texas statute bush signed: Link scroll down to chapter 166. 

oh, but you who philosophize disgrace
and criticize all fears,
bury the rag deep in your face...
now's the time for your tears.
                          -----bob dylan, 'the lonesome death of hattie carroll'

16,080 views 51 replies
Reply #51 Top
You contradicted yourself in the space of 2 sentences.


i'm gonna go slow here so you don't get lost.

first i said:

i think youre confusing the issue by incorrectly interpreting the statement 'terri schiavo would already be dead if she were in texas' to mean it would have happened solely and automatically as a consequence of a physician deciding to withold further care after which she would be tossed out into the street.


then, in hopes of clearing up that misunderstanding (in the event it was, in fact, a misunderstanding) i said:

as you can see from the section i quoted--which is applicable to a patient unable to communicate his or her own wishes--the decision would be made by the doctor and whomever had power of medical attorney.


if someone tells you the sky is fuschia and you respond by saying...'if you believe the sky is fuschia, perhaps you're mistakenly believing fuschia is a shade of blue. fuschia is actually a shade of pink' you havent contradicted yourself.

and neither did i.