NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,151448,00.html

NEW YORK — While Americans were riveted by dramatic events unfolding in Pinellas Park, Fla., a five-month-old Houston baby took his last breath after a hospital let him die despite his mother's objections.

Sun Hudson (search) was born Sept. 25 with thanatophoric dysplasia (search), an incurable and fatal form of dwarfism. Doctors said his tiny lungs would never fully grow and that he would never breathe on his own.

Hudson's mother, Wanda, put up a fight when doctors advised removing Sun from a respirator. She said she did not believe in sickness or death.

But on March 15, a Texas law signed by then-Gov. George W. Bush (search) in 1999 allowed the hospital to go ahead and take Sun off the respirator in defiance of Wanda Hudson's wishes.

While the battle over Terri Schiavo (search) has drawn dozens of outraged protesters to her Florida hospice, Sun's story made nary a bleep on the nation's radar. The few media outlets that picked up his story predictably drew parallels to the Schiavo case, and some experts have charged the president with hypocrisy.

"The Texas statute that Bush signed authorized the ending of the life, even over the parents' protest. And what he's doing here is saying, 'The parents are protesting. You shouldn't stop [treatment],'" John Paris, a medical ethicist at Boston College, told Newsday.

But some experts said the two cases are quite different.

As is true of other state laws, Texas' Advance Directives Act of 1999 (search) privileges the input of the patient's spouse over that of adult children, followed by the parents if there is no written directive.

But ultimately, the decision to extend treatment is made by the doctors and hospital.

"I think her rights were violated," Mario Caballero (search), Wanda Hudson's attorney, told FOX News. "These are decisions that the mother ought to make, and what really happened here is not an ethical issue."

John Robertson, professor of bioethics at the University of Texas School of Law (search), said the Schiavo battle would have played out similarly had it taken place in Texas.

"The Schiavo case does not involve [the question of] if medical treatment is inappropriate," Robertson told FOXNews.com. "It's just, is it a treatment she would have wanted? It's a case of what the patient would have decided."

Doctors at Texas Children's Hospital unanimously agreed that Sun would never breathe on his own, was in pain and would eventually die from his condition. But Wanda Hudson objected, telling doctors that her baby was a gift from the sun and would not die.

"I was told what to do by Sun," she told a judge on Feb. 16. "I don't understand all this legal stuff. But please give Sun time to allow Sun to create Sun."

The doctors brought the case before a hospital ethics committee, which sided with them. But because Wanda Hudson disagreed, they were obligated to seek treatment for Sun elsewhere. Every facility they tried agreed with their prognosis.

"The provision in the statute indicates if doctors think treatment is futile and the relative doesn't want to take the patient off life support, then they can try to make provisions for care in another facility," Maxine Harrington, an associate professor at the Texas Wesleyan University School of Law (search), told FOXNews.com. "They tried about 40 other facilities, and finally petitioned the court to authorize removal of life support."

Harrington agreed that while the Schiavo case was different, her battle would have been as protracted in Texas as it has been in Florida.

"The laws aren't that different," she said.

While Robertson conceded it was probably unfair to label Bush a hypocrite over the Advance Directives Act, the professor added that other contradictions had surfaced this week.

Referring to Bush's backing of an unprecedented House maneuver to prolong Schiavo's life on Monday, he said: "In 1999, as governor, he had more faith in our state court processes than he appeared last week to have in the Schiavo case."
Even Conservative, Fox News turned on Bush. :) Meanwhile (don't have any articles on it, unfortunately), liberals say Bush is also a hypocrite, of course, for increasing how easy it was to get the death penalty in Texas, the state with the most executions than any state in America.

One journalist from CBS News offered his opinion on what the Schiavo case was really about: decreasing the power of the judicial branch.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/24/opinion/courtwatch/main682992.shtml?CMP=OTC-RSSFeed&source=RSS&attr=HOME_682992

We can never forget that george w 'hangman' bush of texas believes that when it comes to the law, we must "err on the side of life."

but don't forget, schiavo can pay for the treatment.

that little kid can't

that was the deciding factor.



the law says that if you can't pay, they pull the plug.

no exceptions.




yep, it's great when the rich bastards make all the laws, ain't it?

What's funny is that since Fox News published this story, the Busheviks can't dismiss it as liberal propaganda.

but don't forget, schiavo can pay for the treatment.

that little kid can't

that was the deciding factor.



the law says that if you can't pay, they pull the plug.

no exceptions.



yep, it's great when the rich bastards make all the laws, ain't it?


Gee I always thought the legislature made the law, not the President or the governor. I must be wrong

Gee I always thought the legislature made the law, not the President or the governor. I must be wrong


Lots of poor people in senates and such arent there?

In any case, culapbility is one hundred percent with the executive unless his or her veto is overruled.

but don't forget, schiavo can pay for the treatment.

that little kid can't

that was the deciding factor.



the law says that if you can't pay, they pull the plug.

no exceptions.




yep, it's great when the rich bastards make all the laws, ain't it?
I didn't get anything about not being able to pay from the article, is there are source you have that is not currently available?

Gee I always thought the legislature made the law, not the President or the governor. I must be wrong


1) he signed it into being. they might write up the laws, but he still has to give it the 'go ahead'

2) i said 'rich bastards'

just because bush falls into that category, doesn't mean he's the only one in that category.

just think: it's texas oil country. the oil men are the only ones with enough $$ to even think about running.

i don't thing we've had a president from humble roots since truman, and he got in because he was vice and the real prez died.

Gee I always thought the legislature made the law, not the President or the governor. I must be wrong

Well the Governor/President has to sign it to become law.
If you sign it, you are saying you agree with it.
(why would you sign something you disagreed with?)

So when Bush signed as Governor that bill in Texas he said he agreed that you can kill if poor.

When Bush Signed as President he said he agreed that the State has no rights if the Federal govt disagrees.

but don't forget, schiavo can pay for the treatment.

that little kid can't

that was the deciding factor.
The story does not state that she couldn't afford it. Besides, since when is money more important than life? Are you trying to tell me the life of a rich adult is worth MORE than the life of a poor infant? The reason that baby deserved to die was because the mother couldn't afford it?! Tell me, if Terri Schiavo couldn't afford her treatment, would you condone pulling the plug?

People criticize euthanasia for religious reasons. That's clearly evident from the protesters swarming around the hospital. On this same religious basis, you can't say the lives of rich people are worth more than the poor.

Once again, I ask does this law have anything to do with not being able to pay? It seems like the law has more to do with the doctors opinion of the situation rather than inability to pay. I'm just being curious, did you read the same article that I read? Is there another one out there?

I didn't get anything about not being able to pay from the article, is there are source you have that is not currently available?


You've not heard? It turns out that while he was governor of texas bush signed a bill allowing hospitals to remove feeding tubes against the wishes of families if they couldnt pay out of pocket for treatment.

You've not heard? It turns out that while he was governor of texas bush signed a bill allowing hospitals to remove feeding tubes against the wishes of families if they couldnt pay out of pocket for treatment.
No I haven't, source?

does anyone know exactly when that bill was passed?

it would go a long way towards helping me find the exact text of the bill

You've not heard? It turns out that while he was governor of texas bush signed a bill allowing hospitals to remove feeding tubes against the wishes of families if they couldnt pay out of pocket for treatment.

If the doctors feel there is no hope for a cure and that it is in the patients bests interests(the baby was in pain) and after they try and fail to find another facility willing to take care of the patient then I dont see the problem.

There are plenty of things like this that go on all the time. Plenty of treatments that arent authorized by medicare/medicaid because they havent shown themselves to be beneficial and the money would be better spent on helping others.

In private parties are will to lift this burden from the govt then there should be more flexibility as a matter of course.

The govt has limitted medical resources, it has to make some determination on how those resources are allocated.

And no one is mentioning that the babies mother didnt sound competent to make descisions for anyone. The whole thing about the baby being from the sun and just let sun be sun?? What the hell is that all about.
"I was told what to do by Sun," she told a judge on Feb. 16. "I don't understand all this legal stuff. But please give Sun time to allow Sun to create Sun."

The shiavo case is different because there are clearly competant people around and they are willing to bear the burden of her care(not that I thinks she should be kept alive in any case).

You've not heard? It turns out that while he was governor of texas bush signed a bill allowing hospitals to remove feeding tubes against the wishes of families if they couldnt pay out of pocket for treatment.

I want to see a credible source before i can put any faith in that...

I feel that kid's situation and Terri Schiavo's are different. Doctors agreed that there was no way to cure/fix or make the kid's life somewhat normal (school,job,marry etc). As far as I heard though there were things that could be done to help Terri that were not being done.

So as far as I have gathered Terri has a chance but the kid didn't.

(if wrong please cite a source so I can see)

but don't forget, schiavo can pay for the treatment.

that little kid can't

that was the deciding factor.

the law says that if you can't pay, they pull the plug.

no exceptions.

yep, it's great when the rich bastards make all the laws, ain't it?

There's also the matter of the laws that the republicans are pushing for to de-fund medicaid and to make it harder to sue for money for medical care.

If those laws were already in effect then Schiavo wouldn't have the money for this care.

I want to see a credible source before i can put any faith in that...

I feel that kid's situation and Terri Schiavo's are different. Doctors agreed that there was no way to cure/fix or make the kid's life somewhat normal (school,job,marry etc). As far as I heard though there were things that could be done to help Terri that were not being done.

So as far as I have gathered Terri has a chance but the kid didn't.

(if wrong please cite a source so I can see)

The only "doctor" who says that there's anything that can be done for Terry is Bill Frist on the basis of a few minutes of edited video tape. All her doctors agree that she's pretty much a lost cause.

Another key difference was that the little boy in Texas had custodians who were actually in favor of his being given all the care possible, whereas Terry's legal custodian says that it's not what she wanted.

The key difference was money and political opportunism.

I want to see a credible source before i can put any faith in that...

I feel that kid's situation and Terri Schiavo's are different. Doctors agreed that there was no way to cure/fix or make the kid's life somewhat normal (school,job,marry etc). As far as I heard though there were things that could be done to help Terri that were not being done.

So as far as I have gathered Terri has a chance but the kid didn't.

(if wrong please cite a source so I can see)

The only "doctor" who says that there's anything that can be done for Terry is Bill Frist on the basis of a few minutes of edited video tape. All her doctors agree that she's pretty much a lost cause.

Another key difference was that the little boy in Texas had custodians who were actually in favor of his being given all the care possible, whereas Terry's legal custodian says that it's not what she wanted.

The key difference was money and political opportunism.

No I haven't, source?
http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/statutes/docs/HS/content/htm/hs.002.00.000166.00.htm

This is the actual law. The laws on this were originally written in 1989, but Bush added several reforms to it in 1999, which allowed hospitals to refuse to give a person life-sustaining treatment, if the doctor disagrees with the decision, even if an ethics committee reviewed it and disagreed with the doctor. They're required to give the person the option of transferring to other hospitals, but really, that seems next to impossible. If there's no other hospitals found within 10 days, the doctor has the right to pull the plug. And regardless, it still places the power within the doctor's hands. The current law states that a doctor can refuse life-sustaining treatment to anyone, whether there's a living will or not. Whether or not Bush passed this legislation, or just the part dealing with people without living wills isn't clear, however. Because there's also been some reforms on the same law after Bush, too. However, the original idea was proposed by Bush in 1999, and did allow for doctors to refuse treatment, as was the case with Sun Hudson.

Below is an except of the law, which contains a government form, that's given out, explaining it to patients who have had doctors that refuse to maintain life-sustaining treatment.

When There Is A Disagreement About Medical Treatment: The Physician Recommends Against Life-Sustaining Treatment That You Wish To Continue

You have been given this information because you have requested life-sustaining treatment,* which the attending
physician believes is not appropriate. This information is being provided to help you understand state law, your rights, and the resources available to you in such circumstances. It outlines the process for resolving disagreements about treatment among patients, families, and physicians. It is based upon Section 166.046 of the Texas Advance Directives Act, codified in Chapter 166 of the Texas Health and Safety Code.
When an attending physician refuses to comply with an advance directive or other request for life-sustaining treatment because of the physician's judgment that the treatment would be inappropriate, the case will be reviewed by an ethics or medical committee. Life-sustaining treatment will be provided through the review. You will receive notification of this review at least 48 hours before a meeting of the committee related to your case. You are entitled to attend the meeting. With your agreement, the meeting may be held sooner than 48 hours, if possible.
You are entitled to receive a written explanation of the decision reached during the review process.
If after this review process both the attending physician and
the ethics or medical committee conclude that life-sustaining treatment is inappropriate and yet you continue to request such
treatment, then the following procedure will occur:
1. The physician, with the help of the health care facility, will assist you in trying to find a physician and facility willing to provide the requested treatment.
2. You are being given a list of health care providers and referral groups that have volunteered their readiness to consider accepting transfer, or to assist in locating a provider willing to accept transfer, maintained by the Texas Health Care Information Council. You may wish to contact providers or referral groups on the list or others of your choice to get help in arranging a transfer.
3. The patient will continue to be given life-sustaining treatment until he or she can be transferred to a willing provider for up to 10 days from the time you were given the committee's written decision that life-sustaining treatment is not appropriate.
4. If a transfer can be arranged, the patient will be responsible for the costs of the transfer.
5. If a provider cannot be found willing to give the requested treatment within 10 days, life-sustaining treatment may be withdrawn unless a court of law has granted an extension.
6. You may ask the appropriate district or county court to extend the 10-day period if the court finds that there is a reasonable expectation that a physician or health care facility willing to provide life-sustaining treatment will be found if the extension is granted.

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/statutes/docs/HS/content/htm/hs.002.00.000166.00.htm

This is the actual law. The laws on this were originally written in 1989, but Bush added several reforms to it in 1999, which allowed hospitals to refuse to give a person life-sustaining treatment, if the doctor disagrees with the decision, even if an ethics committee reviewed it and disagreed with the doctor. They're required to give the person the option of transferring to other hospitals, but really, that seems next to impossible. If there's no other hospitals found within 10 days, the doctor has the right to pull the plug. And regardless, it still places the power within the doctor's hands. The current law states that a doctor can refuse life-sustaining treatment to anyone, whether there's a living will or not. Whether or not Bush passed this legislation, or just the part dealing with people without living wills isn't clear, however. Because there's also been some reforms on the same law after Bush, too. However, the original idea was proposed by Bush in 1999, and did allow for doctors to refuse treatment, as was the case with Sun Hudson.

Below is an except of the law, which contains a government form, that's given out, explaining it to patients who have had doctors that refuse to maintain life-sustaining treatment.

I wasn't questioning the law, I know that Bush signed a law into existence that made the doctor capable of pulling the plug, but my charge was relating to money. I was contesting the right of doctors to pull the plug if the patient or family thereof cannot pay. That's all.

I still see no "if you can't pay, they pull the plug."