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Both papers report that this is the first time in the United States a court has allowed life-sustaining treatment to be withdrawn from a pediatric patient over the objections of the child's parent.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 2)
4 Pages1 2 3 4 
on Mar 24, 2005
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.
on Mar 24, 2005
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.
on Mar 24, 2005
"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.
on Mar 24, 2005
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.
on Mar 24, 2005
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.
on Mar 25, 2005
".. 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...
on Mar 25, 2005
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.
on Mar 25, 2005
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?
on Mar 25, 2005
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?
on Mar 25, 2005
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.
on Mar 25, 2005
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.


You CAN'T be serious, drmiler. But then again, unfortunately, you probably are serious. That's what's so abysmally sad about you. God forbid you should hold your beloved dubya dummy accountable for fucking anything. Speaks volumes about you, dear boy.

The fact is, Bush DID sign the bill. Are you suggesting that he doesn't even read the bills that are put in front of him? Because if that's what you suggest then, you are worse off then anyone could have guessed. As for bushie, well, he's a hopeless, and morally bankrupt idiot, anyway.
on Mar 25, 2005
Well, thank you, whip. I'm sure I'd do a better job than our bankrupt neocon death cult master. At least, I'd have the common sense to not hire criminals and greedy, self-serving, lobbyists as my advisors.

I would start by revoking the tax cuts to the wealthy, then just take it from there.............
on Mar 25, 2005
Well, thank you, whip. I'm sure I'd do a better job than our bankrupt neocon death cult master. At least, I'd have the common sense to not hire criminals and greedy, self-serving, lobbyists as my advisors.

I would start by revoking the tax cuts to the wealthy, then just take it from there.............


I think you'll find she was being sarcastic. 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?, which means BOTH sides of the fence had a hand in it.
on Mar 25, 2005
I think you'll find she was being sarcastic


are you sure? does that mean i gotta return all those contributions i collected on her behalf? how am i supposed to know who gets how much back? (dammit i knew i shoulda written receipts, but the tom delay 'how to run a campaign' book expressly forbids it.)
on Mar 25, 2005
" but the tom delay 'how to run a campaign' book expressly forbids it."


Did the GOP-haters whip that one up, too? Like your Schiavo talking points?
4 Pages1 2 3 4