Bush Signed Law That Let Doc Pull Plug On Baby

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Both papers report that this is the first time in the United States a court has allowed life-sustaining treatment to be withdrawn from a pediatric patient over the objections of the child's parent.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 3)

shadesofgrey

on Mar 25, 2005

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.

This is what I love, no accountability. "But he did it first," is no more of a valid argument in the political arena than it was in grade school. Bush had (and still does have) the power of veto. If he opposed the bill he would have used it. Obvioulsy he didn't oppose it.

drmiler

on Mar 25, 2005

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.

This is what I love, no accountability. "But he did it first," is no more of a valid argument in the political arena than it was in grade school. Bush had (and still does have) the power of veto. If he opposed the bill he would have used it. Obvioulsy he didn't oppose it.

And why should he. The bill is pro-life you can't spin it any other way.

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.

You must have forgot the rest of my post, too...where I mentioned that not a single doctor could offer this child any hope, insured or not. 40, FOURTY different hospitals were approached, asking if they would accept this child, and without exception, the answer was the same, and for the same reasons...his prognosis was death, and he was only alive in the first place due to 6 months worth of heroic and futile measures that neither achieved any results, nor were expected to.

COL Gene

on Mar 25, 2005

As I read the blogs of the Bush supporters it makes it clear that there is simply nothing George W. Bush could EVER DO, no matter how fundamentally wrong, that you would admit was a mistake. How in the hell you can say it wasn't Bush's doing to sign a law in Texas that is totally opposite from the law he signed for Terri Schiavo is beyond belief.

drmiler

on Mar 25, 2005

Could you please explain how you see the 2 as totally opposite. Most especially is the fact that Terri's law is a ONE shot deal, pertaining to Terri only and no one else. YOUR wrong about Bush doing wrong and us not seeing it. The fact is what *you* consider wrong and what *we* consider wrong are different sides of the coin. We're entitled to our opinions just as much as your entitled to yours.

COL Gene

on Mar 25, 2005

If you apply the law Bush Signed in Texas to the Schiavo case, she would have had the tube removed years ago and would not be alive today. Bush is 180 about from what he did in Texas and what he did last week!

bakerstreet

on Mar 25, 2005

"f you apply the law Bush Signed in Texas to the Schiavo case, she would have had the tube removed years ago and would not be alive today. Bush is 180 about from what he did in Texas and what he did last week!"

I'm sorry Col. Gene but that is a lie, and for that you are a liar.

There is no hospital trying to get rid of Terri Schiavo. The hospice she is in has NOT given up on her, and are NOT trying to force her out. If they DID for some oddball reason want to do so, any number of other hospitals and hospices would take her in.

I defy you to make a rational case that this Texas law would somehow "kill" Terri Schiavo. You can't, and you don't give a damn.

I read about you and your life Col. It changed my knee-jerk reaction to you. I thought you were pretty damned 2 dimensional, but I came to find you had a lot of experience behind what you were saying. I differed, but I respected.

I cannot respect the kind of lie you just told, nor can I respect the sort of person who would sacrifice his personal integrity for political effect.

bakerstreet

on Mar 25, 2005

ACTUALLY...

"§ 166.034. ISSUANCE OF NONWRITTEN DIRECTIVE BY COMPETENT
ADULT QUALIFIED PATIENT. (a) A competent qualified patient who
is an adult may issue a directive by a nonwritten means of
communication.
( A declarant must issue the nonwritten directive in the
presence of the attending physician and two witnesses who qualify
under Section 166.003, at least one of whom must be a witness who
qualifies under Section 166.003(2).
(c) The physician shall make the fact of the existence of
the directive a part of the declarant's medical record, and the
names of the witnesses shall be entered in the medical record."

My interpretation of that section is that Terri Schiavo's life would be under NO THREAT AT ALL under this law. The only way I can see that she could be put to death in this frame is if Micheal Schiavo refused to take her anywhere else and the hospital refused to let her stay.

Given that the only directive we have is hearsay, and remembered years after the fact, I don't think it qualifies. I would like to know if Kingbee and the Col feel that the non-written directive we have in this case qualifies under that stipulation.

drmiler

on Mar 25, 2005

So once again we are subject to more BS from the COL.

kingbee

on Mar 26, 2005

I would like to know if Kingbee and the Col feel that the non-written directive we have in this case qualifies under that stipulation.

of course it doesn't. terri schiavo is clearly not currently a competent adult qualified patient nor has she been since she lost consciousness 15 years ago. the section you've quoted would be appropriate to a lucid person who is currently in the care or being seen by a physician

Given that the only directive we have is hearsay, and remembered years after the fact, I don't think it qualifies

when a person testifies to a statement he or she heard directly spoken by the person to whom that statement is attributed, there's no hearsay involved.

it doesnt qualify under this provision for the obvious failure to meet requirement b--statement must be made in the presence of the patient's attending physician.

the appropriate provision (if i'm reading the law correctly) would be:

§ 166.039. PROCEDURE WHEN PERSON HAS NOT EXECUTED OR
ISSUED A DIRECTIVE AND IS INCOMPETENT OR INCAPABLE OF
COMMUNICATION. (a) If an adult qualified patient has not
executed or issued a directive and is incompetent or otherwise
mentally or physically incapable of communication, the attending
physician and the patient's legal guardian or an agent under a
medical power of attorney may make a treatment decision that may
include a decision to withhold or withdraw life-sustaining
treatment from the patient.
( If the patient does not have a legal guardian or an agent
under a medical power of attorney, the attending physician and one
person, if available, from one of the following categories, in the
following priority, may make a treatment decision that may include
a decision to withhold or withdraw life-sustaining treatment:
(1) the patient's spouse;
(2) the patient's reasonably available adult children;
(3) the patient's parents; or
(4) the patient's nearest living relative.
(c) A treatment decision made under Subsection (a) or (
must be based on knowledge of what the patient would desire, if
known.
(d) A treatment decision made under Subsection ( must be
documented in the patient's medical record and signed by the
attending physician.
(e) If the patient does not have a legal guardian and a
person listed in Subsection ( is not available, a treatment
decision made under Subsection ( must be concurred in by another
physician who is not involved in the treatment of the patient or who
is a representative of an ethics or medical committee of the health
care facility in which the person is a patient.
(f) The fact that an adult qualified patient has not
executed or issued a directive does not create a presumption that
the patient does not want a treatment decision to be made to
withhold or withdraw life-sustaining treatment.
(g) A person listed in Subsection ( who wishes to
challenge a treatment decision made under this section must apply
for temporary guardianship under Section 875, Texas Probate Code.
The court may waive applicable fees in that proceeding.

Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 678, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1989. Amended
by Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 291, § 3, eff. Jan. 1, 1998.
Renumbered from § 672.009 and amended by Acts 1999, 76th Leg.,
ch. 450, § 1.03, eff. Sept. 1, 1999.

those who haven't made the effort to examine the text of this law for themselves should know the following terms are expressly defined by the law as follows:

(9) "Irreversible condition" means a condition, injury, or illness:
(A) that may be treated but is never cured or eliminated;
( that leaves a person unable to care for or make decisions for the person's own self; and
(C) that, without life-sustaining treatment provided in accordance with the prevailing standard of medical care, is fatal.
(10) "Life-sustaining treatment" means treatment that, based on reasonable medical judgment, sustains the life of a patient and without which the patient will die. The term includes both life-sustaining medications and artificial life support, such as mechanical breathing machines, kidney dialysis treatment, and artificial nutrition and hydration. The term does not include the administration of pain management medication or the performance of a medical procedure considered to be necessary to provide comfort care, or any other medical care provided to alleviate a patient's pain.

kingbee

on Mar 26, 2005

Like your Schiavo talking points?

they aren't 'my' talking points. i havent seen anything yet that disproves abc's claim they were circulated by the party. maybe someone should find out if "gannon" was in dc that day?

Texas Wahine

on Mar 26, 2005

I hadn't heard about this case. It's very sad. I don't really know what else to say...it's very tragic and unfortunate for that family.

bakerstreet

on Mar 26, 2005

You are missing my point, Kingbee. The "Directive" that has been accepted by the Florida courts is the hearsay one witnessed by her "husband". Such a directive doesn't come anything close to the one described in the section I quoted.

Here, from your own quote above:

"The fact that an adult qualified patient has not
executed or issued a directive does not create a presumption that
the patient does not want a treatment decision to be made to
withhold or withdraw life-sustaining treatment."

If you throw out the hearsay "directive" then the default is NOT death. So, again, given that the statement doesn't hold up to the requirements of the law Bush signed, and that you can't assume a "no treatment" directive in the absense of one, I don't see how this law would have already killed Terro Schiavo, as Col Gene, and I assume, you imply.

kingbee

on Mar 26, 2005

of course not. reread that section. it has no relevance to a person who is unable to issue a directive in the presence of a physician.

A declarant must issue the nonwritten directive in the
presence of the attending physician and two witnesses

kingbee

on Mar 26, 2005

if you read further into the law, youll see there is a provision for such a competent qualified adult patient to attend his or her own ethics hearing should the physician decide he or she was a futile care case.

in other words, this law envisions a scenario in which someone who is terminally ill but competent to speak for him or herself and wished to recieve further treatment could wind up having 10 days to find a new care provider.

sounds like they considered all the angles.

kingbee

on Mar 26, 2005

I don't see how this law would have already killed Terro Schiavo, as Col Gene, and I assume, you imply.

i cant speak for col gene but 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. 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. in the absence of a formal power of attorney, the person next in line is the spouse. the parents could apply to probate court to challenge his decision but if they failed as they did in florida, on what basis could they have asked for a trial in federal court? federal courts do not involve themselves in probate matters.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!