Bush Signed Law That Let Doc Pull Plug On Baby

Futile Means Out of Money

from JoeUser Forums

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Both papers report that this is the first time in the United States a court has allowed life-sustaining treatment to be withdrawn from a pediatric patient over the objections of the child's parent.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'

politics
16,079 views 51 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
hmm  stuff wont go into the forums unless its bumped i guess.  another damn conspiracy im sure.
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
Damn straight it's a conspiracy

Excellent article Kingbee, I hesitate to add an opinion since getting political tends to end in disaster for me at least. But I did appreciate the Bob Dylan quote. I just started Chronicals and seems I'm duty bound to write an article on it soon as.

*Hope this bump helps. *

Dyl xx
Curtains - Customize Windows with additional styles
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
Sorry Kingbee, but all this partisanship where Terri Schiavo is concerned makes me sick. Once Michael Schaivo and the Schindlers dragged the courts and politicians into it, it became a political issue, true. However making it a partisan issue is more braindead than Mrs. Schaivo herself!!!
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
Hrm. The problem I see here is:

"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). " emphasis mine


That doesn't at all sound like "pulling the plug" to me, rather it is just saying a hospital isn't legally obliged to house a patient indefinately. In fact, the part I cite says the hospital has to consult an oversight committee, wait ten days, and help the family find somewhere else to take the patient, no doubt like a hospice.

I'm not seeing the hypocricy here. I believe in all the "right to life" things you are talking about, but I don't believe a hospital is legally obliged to house anyone that is admitted permanently. That isn't what hospitals are for. Having to find somewhere else to house your loved one isn't a "death sentence" is it? The case cited also mentions that this wasn't the first hospital that had given up.

Do you really think that the "National Right to Life" organization would vote in SUPPORT of what you are suggesting? I don't think you thought this through...
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
Bush must have signed that law before he found GOD.
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
Bush must have signed that law before he found GOD.


Again, I would suggest people notice that this was a law co-drafted and supported by

The National Right to Life Committee

Ask yourself if the law Kingbee THINKS he is describing is something that the main opponent to abortion and euthenasia in America would help draft.

People will skim it, though, and see only Kingbee's allusion, whether it is accurate or not. A good way to get lots of hateful "hell yeah"s, even if it really doesn't mean anything...
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
Bush is the king of hypocrits. But, we already knew that. He's a pandering, lying, killing, SOB who ought to be impeached.
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
rather it is just saying a hospital isn't legally obliged to house a patient indefinately


They should be legally obligated to house any patient indefinately. Sure they're gonna try to put the patient elsewhere because the doctors there have given up on what they deem a lost cause. But they should definately be held responsible and accountable.
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
"They should be legally obligated to house any patient indefinately. "


No offense, but that is nuts. How many beds would a hospital have to have. That is what a hopsice or a long-term treatment facility is for.
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
EVERYONE of you is missing a MAJOR point here. Bush may have signed the bill into law...but just who the HELL put that bill in front of him?
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
rather it is just saying a hospital isn't legally obliged to house a patient indefinately


They should be legally obligated to house any patient indefinately. Sure they're gonna try to put the patient elsewhere because the doctors there have given up on what they deem a lost cause. But they should definately be held responsible and accountable.


But they are not obligated legally or otherwise are they? So no they can not be held responcible or accountable. They only have so many beds to go around
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
To me, this is one of those cases where a law is being misinterpreted for political reasons, people UNDERSTAND that they are misinterpreting it, and yet they continue to do so for political effect.

Again, I suggest everone that is tempted to scorn Bush in this case go visit The National Right To Life Committee. Is that the kind of organization that would draft a law in the spirit Kingbee proposes?


This law didn't somehow "cut handicapped people loose". On the contrary it mandated oversight by an ethics committee, a ten day "cooling off" period, and it required the hospital to help find another facility for the patient.

Glass is half empty, as usual.
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
Ask yourself if the law Kingbee THINKS he is describing is something that the main opponent to abortion and euthenasia in America would help draft


whatever i may think i'm describing, in order to permit others to form their own opinions, i provided a distinct link to the texas statute as well as the link included in the portion i quoted from thomas mayo's comment on the law and its apparent effect.

i have no explanation as to the reason why the texas and national right to life groups supported this law because it clearly has a hole large enuff to accomodate a parade of hearses.

People will skim it, though, and see only Kingbee's allusion, whether it is accurate or not. A good way to get lots of hateful "hell yeah"s, even if it really doesn't mean anything...


apparently the texas lawmakers who voted for what is now commonly referred to as the texas 'futile care' law and the governor who signed it--despite not having the benefit of my shoddy characterization on which to shift blame--did little more than skim it themselves.

that's the charitable alternative.

a more cynical person might easily conclude its intent to be little more than a license by and thru which healthcare providers can legally deny disregard not only the wishes of a patient's advocate--they can also disregard the patient's own advance directive. even more appalling, it's not clear to me that a patient who is capable of expressing his or her wishes cant be overruled.

it's pointless to speculate how this will eventually play out but one fact you can't deny is that it has led to the death of one small child. furthermore, if ms schiavo lived in texas, it's almost certain she would now be no more than a memory.
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top
" but one fact you can't deny is that it has led to the death of one small child."


No, again, the fact that the child wasn't moved somewhere else led to the child's death. All the hospital can do is say "We can't keep this bed used on a futile case forever". Go back and read Little Whips post.

This actually mandates that they CAN'T just toss someone out of the curb, that hospitals HAVE to have ethics oversight in these cases, that they HAVE to help the family find somewhere else to go. That is the main focus of the law, and the part you convienently choose to overlook.

" have no explanation as to the reason why the texas and national right to life groups supported this law because it clearly has a hole large enuff to accomodate a parade of hearses. "


I don't claim to know you personally, kingbee. I have, though, been reading your posts long enough to know how insightful and intelligent you are. I believe, devoutly, that you understand exactly why the pro-life organizations co-drafted and supported this, and you are choosing to say the glass is half empty for political statement.

No offense intended, I respect you, I link to your blog, I enjoy reading it. This is way, way to obvious to believe you "just don't get it", though.
Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
Sun Hudson was uninsured, the hospital and taxpayers were footing the bill for these futile measures


i musta forgot the part of the hippocratic oath that deals with caring only for those who have insurance or parents sane enough to declare that if their daughter developed diabetic gangrene, they would authorize having all four of her limbs amputated; and that should she require a heart transplant, they would see it was done (this despite the fact it was michael schiavo--the scumbag adulterer--who paid to have his wife transported to california for a surgical procedure by which doctors hoped to stimulate her brain which they claimed to be unable to afford).
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top
I believe, devoutly, that you understand exactly why the pro-life organizations co-drafted and supported this, and you are choosing to say the glass is half empty for political statement.


in all honesty, i'd very much prefer we lived in a world in which this wasnt an issue. 5 years ago, this would have been all academic to me. since then i saw my sister's husband (and for years prior to their marriage one of my closest friends)suffer and die of an extremely aggressive cancer. during the final week he was alive...and more specifically, during his last 15 minutes of life...if i had been able to pray, i would have been begging for his agony to end immediately. this time last year, i had no idea that 6 months later id be 2000+ miles from home watching a man who told me at my father's funeral i still had a father in him spend 3 weeks in a hospital icu being intubated and trachiotomized only to be into the nursing home where he died once he showed the slightest sign of improvement. coincidentally his benefits ran out.

i dont claim to understand any of this. but i do see a huge divide between what is being said and what is actually done. no matter how much virtue you may want to attribute to politicians or organizations, the fact of the matter is that convening a midnight session of congress to pass a law that is meaningless in effect, but potentially damaging to our individual liberties is unarguably politically pragmatic...and just as clearly morally bankrupt.
Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top
the fact that the child wasn't moved somewhere else led to the child's death


got that right. as it will lead to the deaths of others--there's a 68 year old man in texas for whom, as a direct consequence of chapter 166, life's final lesson is going to be 'dont go broke' --who are no less human than terri schiavo despite their lack of financial resources. catastrophic illness is exactly that.
Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top
"The Gods Must Be Crazy...."


i gotta laff outta that one. not even the people of the kalahari are safe anymore what with fuckin coke bottles fallin outta the sky.
Reply #19 from PolMach Forums Top
I don't know what to think about this issue. All I know is that Bush doesn't do as he preaches... that's the only thing I can decipher from this, and that's enough to convince me that either his preachings or his actions have to be wrong.
Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top
I don't know what to think about this issue. All I know is that Bush doesn't do as he preaches... that's the only thing I can decipher from this, and that's enough to convince me that either his preachings or his actions have to be wrong.




YOU are missing a MAJOR point here. Bush may have signed the bill into law...but just who the HELL put that bill in front of him? Do not lay all this crap at Bush's door.
Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top
".. that's the only thing I can decipher from this"


And that is the problem. People don't understand this law, and they don't understand that this is a right to life law, co-authored by the more fervent right to life group in America.

Not that not understanding the law prevents them from expounding on it...
Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top
But I did appreciate the Bob Dylan quote. I just started Chronicals and seems I'm duty bound to write an article on it soon as.


hey mz z! you're always more than welcome to speak your mind here. i'm eagerly waiting your take on chronicle for a couple reasons but ill go into them when you've posted it.
Reply #23 from JoeUser Forums Top
Bush may have signed the bill into law...but just who the HELL put that bill in front of him?


annas, caiaphas & the sanhedrin maybe? at gunpoint? or you think he was tricked into it?
Reply #24 from JoeUser Forums Top
Bush may have signed the bill into law...but just who the HELL put that bill in front of him?


annas, caiaphas & the sanhedrin maybe? at gunpoint? or you think he was tricked into it?


You "still" don't get it do you. Alright he signed it. Your opinion is it sucks, on the other hand bakerstreet says it's a pro-life bill. Which by the way seems to be the general concensus. All that aside, he signed it but he DIDN'T write it now did he?
Reply #25 from JoeUser Forums Top
this is a right to life law, co-authored by the more fervent right to life group in America.


the hemlock society backed it as well.

my problem with this law has less to do with either group--i've no reason to suspect one of the other was motivated by anything different from any other interest group.

medical professionals like mayo hoped it would provide them with a framework within which they could work to provide humane care without having to worry about becoming victims themselves, as well as a means of preventing an already tragic event from becoming a sideshow attraction on desolation row.

i'd like to believe those who voted for it did so because they honestly believed it was the right thing to do.

in a better world than this, that might be the case. in this one, however, i can't help but see potential for abuse that isnt magically prevented by approval of an ethics committee. ten days goes by pretty quickly when that's all the time you have to keep your home from foreclosure much less find a facility willing to open its doors to a terminal indigent who requires expensive care.

Ms Shiavo's bills are being paid by various sources that do not place the burden of her maintenance on the public...


the couple's award totalled 1 million dollars. somehow (unless it was a net award and i dont know that it was or wasn't, they may have collected only about $660,000) $700,000 wound up in a trust under the control of a bank. jay wolfson asserts the records are in good order and it has already been totally disbursed to provide for terri. since that time, social security and medicaid have had to suffice.

luckily she qualified for both programs. not everyone is so fortunate. as the safety net is rendered more porous and torts are reformed to the point that lawyers once again become esquires only for those who have money to pay for their services in advance, this type of law may easily prove to accomplish exactly what its proponents were trying to prevent.