fearlessly proclaiming the truth & the other truth! voice of the teknoshamanic institute
Futile Means Out of Money
Published on March 24, 2005 By kingbee In Politics

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papers report that this is the first time in the United States a court has allowed life-sustaining treatment to be withdrawn from a pediatric patient over the objections of the child's parent.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


Comments (Page 1)
4 Pages1 2 3  Last
on Mar 24, 2005
hmm  stuff wont go into the forums unless its bumped i guess.  another damn conspiracy im sure.
on Mar 24, 2005
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
on Mar 24, 2005
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!!!
on Mar 24, 2005
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...
on Mar 24, 2005
Bush must have signed that law before he found GOD.
on Mar 24, 2005
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...
on Mar 24, 2005
Bush is the king of hypocrits. But, we already knew that. He's a pandering, lying, killing, SOB who ought to be impeached.
on Mar 24, 2005
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.
on Mar 24, 2005
"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.
on Mar 24, 2005
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?
on Mar 24, 2005
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
on Mar 24, 2005
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.
on Mar 24, 2005
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.
on Mar 24, 2005
" 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.
on Mar 24, 2005
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).
4 Pages1 2 3  Last