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Both papers report that this is the first time in the United States a court has allowed life-sustaining treatment to be withdrawn from a pediatric patient over the objections of the child's parent.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 4)

COL Gene

on Mar 26, 2005

My statements about the law Bush signed in Texas was per legal experts that expressed this position. The law provides for next of kin to choose if there is no directive. Bush and the Congress tried to get the federal Courts to change that state law but it did not work. I do not understand why her spouse did not agree to turn over custody to her parents given the fact he has made a new life with another women. About 80% of Americans do not agree with what Bush and Congress did and I doubt Carl Rove ever believed this would go aginst Bush. If you accept Bush when he says Life is the option, then the law he signed in Texas is a 180 degree turn in his thinking!

drmiler

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.

WRONG! A doctor can NOT make the decision on his own EVER! And they are NOT just tossed into the stree. As usual the left (kingbee in this case) is only reading half of what's there. Allow me to recify that.

§ 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

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

drmiler

on Mar 26, 2005

statements about the law Bush signed in Texas was per legal experts that expressed this position. The law provides for next of kin to choose if there is no directive. Bush and the Congress tried to get the federal Courts to change that state law but it did not work. I do not understand why her spouse did not agree to turn over custody to her parents given the fact he has made a new life with another women. About 80% of Americans do not agree with what Bush and Congress did and I doubt Carl Rove ever believed this would go aginst Bush. If you accept Bush when he says Life is the option, then the law he signed in Texas is a 180 degree turn in his thinking!

Well then, I believe your "legal experts are WRONG! Either way I do not believe they have read the law signed by GW in it's entirety!

kingbee

on Mar 26, 2005

WRONG! A doctor can NOT make the decision on his own EVER! And they are NOT just tossed into the stree. As usual the left (kingbee in this case) is only reading half of what's there.

if you had read the next sentence, youd have seen i said exactly the same thing.

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

talk about only reading half of what's there. as is much more usually the case, drmiler is the very model of an overreactionary reactionary.

drmiler

on Mar 26, 2005

WRONG! A doctor can NOT make the decision on his own EVER! And they are NOT just tossed into the stree. As usual the left (kingbee in this case) is only reading half of what's there.

if you had read the next sentence, youd have seen i said exactly the same thing.

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

talk about only reading half of what's there. as is much more usually the case, drmiler is the very model of an overreactionary reactionary.

Your correct. You contradicted yourself in the space of 2 sentences.

kingbee

on Mar 26, 2005

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:

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.

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!