Canadian Health Care is inferior to Health Care in GAWD FEARIN' Capitalist Texas

Le Jacquelope

Loves Spam
Joined
Apr 9, 2003
Posts
76,445
Does anyone need any further proof of why I love Texas so much?

Baby's Life Hangs on Texas Law
Posted on: Monday, 9 April 2007, 18:00 CDT

By KELLEY SHANNON

AUSTIN, Texas - As 17-month-old Emilio Gonzales lies in a hospital, hooked up to tubes to help him breathe and eat, his mother holds him close and cherishes every movement.

Catarina Gonzales knows her baby is terminally ill and that one day she'll have to let go. But it's not yet time, she and her attorneys contend in their legal clash with hospital officials who say it's best to stop Emilio's life-sustaining treatment.

A Texas law lets the hospital make that life-or-death call. The latest legal dispute over the law - Emilio's case - goes to court again Tuesday, the day his life support is set to end.

"The family has made a unified decision" to keep Emilio living through artificial means, said Joshua Carden, an attorney for the family. "The hospital is making quality of life value judgments. That's a huge source of concern."

Texas is one of the few states with a timetable allowing hospitals to decide when to end life-sustaining treatment, according to studies cited by activist groups. Other states allow hospitals to cut off treatment but do not specify a time frame.

Children's Hospital of Austin has been caring for Emilio since Dec. 28. He's believed to have Leigh's Disease, a progressive illness difficult to diagnose, according to both sides.

The boy cannot breathe on his own and must have nutrition and water pumped into him. He can't swallow or gag or make purposeful movements, said Michael Regier, general counsel for the Seton Family of Hospitals, which encompasses the children's hospital.

Emilio's higher order brain functions are destroyed, and secretions must be vigorously suctioned from his lungs, Regier said.

"The care is very aggressive and very invasive," Regier said.

Though the treatment is expensive, Emilio has health coverage through Medicaid, and the hospital contends money is not part of its decision. Doctors and a hospital ethics panel determined the treatment is causing the boy to suffer without providing any medical benefit, Regier said.

So the hospital invoked the state law that allows it to end life-sustaining treatment in medically futile cases after a 10-day notice to the family. That deadline was voluntarily extended while the hospital and family tried, unsuccessfully as of Monday, to find another facility to care for Emilio.

Catarina Gonzales, 23, who has no other children and cannot have more, denies that her son is nonresponsive, as medical caregivers say, Carden said. She says the boy smiles and turns his head toward voices.

"Every day that her son is alive and she gets to hold him and be next to him moving around is a precious day for her," Carden said.

The 1999 Texas law, signed by then-Gov. George W. Bush, is increasingly under fire from patient advocates, disability rights groups and Texas Right to Life, best known for its anti-abortion efforts.

Those varying interests want to change the so-called futile care law to eliminate the 10-day provision for cutting off life support because they say it's not enough time to transfer a critically ill person to another facility. A state Senate committee plans to hear testimony on proposed changes to the law Thursday.

The powerful Texas Hospital Association and other medical organizations largely support the existing law and say it's not frequently used because families and doctors usually agree on the patient's treatment. Texas Right to Life said it has been involved in more than two dozen similar cases over the past year and a half.

Emilio's situation differs from the case of Terri Schiavo in Florida, who was in a persistent vegetative state and at the center of a legal dispute within her family over whether to remove her feeding tube. Schiavo died after her tube was removed in 2005.

In Emilio's case, the family is united in wanting to keep the boy alive.

Last week, a federal judge refused to intervene and left it to the state court where a lawsuit was pending that seeks to declare the law unconstitutional. An Austin judge will hear arguments Tuesday on whether to block the hospital from cutting off Emilio's life support.

"We feel that the original decision is right, and it's time to proceed," said Regier, the hospital's lawyer.

If the hospital is allowed to go forward, the life support equipment would likely be turned off during the day Wednesday when the family can be present and have the aid of social workers and chaplains, he said.

Carden argues that Emilio's death by asphyxiation would be painful. He said the law prevents hospital workers from even giving the boy the drugs death row inmates receive to help them as they are executed by lethal injection.

"It's not like he'll just drift quietly off," he said.

Source: Associated Press/AP Online

Judge: Keep baby on life support

STORY HIGHLIGHTS
• NEW: Judge rules baby should be kept on life support
• Hospital invoked Texas law to allows it to end baby's life-sustaining treatment
• The family of 17-month-old Emilio Gonzales wanted to keep the boy alive
• Doctors say treatment causes the boy to suffer without any medical benefit

AUSTIN, Texas (AP) -- A Texas judge Tuesday granted a family's request to keep their critically ill baby alive, ruling that the boy should not be removed from life-support equipment as the hospital had planned.

Children's Hospital of Austin has been caring for 17-month-old Emilio Gonzales since December and says the effort is futile and the child is suffering without medical benefit. It invoked a state law that allows hospitals to end life-sustaining treatment in such cases with 10 days notice to the family.

Emilio's mother, Catarina Gonzales, 23, does not believe her only son is nonresponsive and says the boy smiles and turns his head toward voices.

Probate Judge Guy Herman set a hearing for April 19 for both sides to present evidence in the case.

"I feel very relieved because we have more time," said Jerri Ward, an attorney for the Gonzales family.

Doctors and a hospital ethics panel determined the treatment is causing the boy to suffer without providing any medical benefit, said Michael Regier, general counsel for the Seton Family of Hospitals, which includes the children's hospital.

The boy is believed to have Leigh's Disease, a progressive illness difficult to diagnose. He cannot breathe on his own, must have nutrition and water pumped into him, and cannot swallow or make purposeful movements, Regier said. He said Emilio's higher order brain functions are destroyed.

The boy's family has had difficulty finding another medical facility that will care for the boy, though Gonzales said Tuesday they had several promising leads.

Emilio has health coverage through Medicaid, and the hospital contends money is not part of its decision.

The state Legislature, meanwhile, is considering changing the futile care law.

Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/04/10/baby.care.ap/index.html?section=cnn_latest

© 2007 Cable News Network.

........... So when does America finally realize that Texas needs to be given back to Nazi Germany?
 
LovingTongue said:
What, all the pro-lifers done left Lit forever? :confused:
Naaa, it's news from Texas.

Everyone knows they are all dipshits down there.
 
What are you yapping about now LT? Hmmmmm?

Where were you with the Terry Shaivo case? And what in the hell does this have to do with Canada?

Ishmael
 
Hey! We're not all dipshits down here...okay, most of us are, but Austin has a decent population of open-minded people. It's the oasis in the desert of W stickers and confederate flags.

And that case is weird. I saw an interview with the mom on the local news and she's not all there.
 
rose_trouble said:
Hey! We're not all dipshits down here...okay, most of us are, but Austin has a decent population of open-minded people. It's the oasis in the desert of W stickers and confederate flags.

And that case is weird. I saw an interview with the mom on the local news and she's not all there.
People with dying babies rarely are.
 
Ishmael said:
What are you yapping about now LT? Hmmmmm?

Where were you with the Terry Shaivo case? And what in the hell does this have to do with Canada?

Ishmael
a) I was there the whole time posting that they shouldn't pull Schiavo's life support.

b) You missed the fucking sarcasm as usual. Only in socialist countries is care supposed to be outright denied. That isn't supposed to happen in America.. yet somehow it is. Oh hell, you're too stupid to get it.
 
SeanH said:
People with dying babies rarely are.
Granted. The hospital, etc. are wanting her to make a rational decision about the future of her child and I don't think she is capable of that, not only because I doubt anyone in her shoes would be, but she also seems to be a little slow, which is probably just making it worse for her. That is why the hospital is trying to make the decision for her, based on what they feel is best for the child.
 
rose_trouble said:
Granted. The hospital, etc. are wanting her to make a rational decision about the future of her child and I don't think she is capable of that, not only because I doubt anyone in her shoes would be, but she also seems to be a little slow, which is probably just making it worse for her. That is why the hospital is trying to make the decision for her, based on what they feel is best for the child.
The point seems to be, the hospital isn't making the decision, the ten day law is.
 
rose_trouble said:
Granted. The hospital, etc. are wanting her to make a rational decision about the future of her child and I don't think she is capable of that, not only because I doubt anyone in her shoes would be, but she also seems to be a little slow, which is probably just making it worse for her. That is why the hospital is trying to make the decision for her, based on what they feel is best for the child.
And to asphyxiate a child - a painful death at the very least - is best for the child?

Do you realize that
a) the oath for doctors is to do no harm?

and

b) we don't even asphyxiate people on death row?


What you're going to have to argue here is involuntary euthanasia.
 
SeanH said:
The point seems to be, the hospital isn't making the decision, the ten day law is.
Oh, the hospital is very much partially at fault.

Just because it's legal for you to choke a baby to death doesn't mean you're morally right to do it.
 
LovingTongue said:
Oh, the hospital is very much partially at fault.

Just because it's legal for you to choke a baby to death doesn't mean you're morally right to do it.
Agreed.
 
LovingTongue said:
a) I was there the whole time posting that they shouldn't pull Schiavo's life support.

b) You missed the fucking sarcasm as usual. Only in socialist countries is care supposed to be outright denied. That isn't supposed to happen in America.. yet somehow it is. Oh hell, you're too stupid to get it.

Yes LT, I did miss the sarcasm. Apparently I wasn't the only one.

And see, even on Shaivo we disagreed. The husband had every right to terminate extraordinary care. My beef was the means of death. If you're going to kill someone (and let's be honest here, pulling life support was a death sentence), kill them and get it over with. Don't stretch it out and call it "Gods will."

Regarding your statement, "Not in America." You can't have it both ways. You can't have the taxpayer picking up the tab without the government getting involved with the decision process. It's a problem without a happy solution for all cases. If the government is footing the bill, then the government is going to have the final say.

Further, according to the article you posted Texas has a timeline whereas other states leave it up to the discretion of the care providing facility. Which is the better solution? If you're going to debate anything perhaps that is the point to discuss.

Ishmael
 
I'm sure we're not hearing the whole story. We never do in these cases. The hospital can't win. If they cut off the life support, they'll be bitched at for being heartless capitalist pigs. If they keep the tubes hooked up, they are ghoulishly keeping the doomed child alive and prolonging his suffering inhumanely.
 
SeanH said:
The point seems to be, the hospital isn't making the decision, the ten day law is.
Yeah, I got the point. The papers here in town are going a little more in depth about the story and apparently, the hospital invoked the law after trying repeatedly to make it clear to the mom that her child was in a lot of pain and that it was only going to get worse. She refused to make any kind of decision about his care and they felt that it was unethical to continue treatment.
 
rose_trouble said:
Yeah, I got the point. The papers here in town are going a little more in depth about the story and apparently, the hospital invoked the law after trying repeatedly to make it clear to the mom that her child was in a lot of pain and that it was only going to get worse. She refused to make any kind of decision about his care and they felt that it was unethical to continue treatment.

sean is once again leading people down the garden path. The law states the care giver has to give the family a 10 day notification, not that they can pull the plug after 10 days. The baby has been hospitalized since Dec. 28th.

Ishmael
 
Ishmael said:
sean is once again leading people down the garden path. The law states the care giver has to give the family a 10 day notification, not that they can pull the plug after 10 days. The baby has been hospitalized since Dec. 28th.

Ishmael
So what happens after the ten day notice is given, retard?
Do you ever get fed up of me making you look like a dick, btw?
 
LovingTongue said:
And to asphyxiate a child - a painful death at the very least - is best for the child?

Do you realize that
a) the oath for doctors is to do no harm?

and

b) we don't even asphyxiate people on death row?


What you're going to have to argue here is involuntary euthanasia.
Yes, I realize that. Jesus, I'm not advocating or arguing for anything. There is really no solution that isn't going to cause the child serious pain. I don't have any answers, I don't think any of us do.
 
Ishmael said:
Yes LT, I did miss the sarcasm. Apparently I wasn't the only one.

And see, even on Shaivo we disagreed. The husband had every right to terminate extraordinary care. My beef was the means of death. If you're going to kill someone (and let's be honest here, pulling life support was a death sentence), kill them and get it over with. Don't stretch it out and call it "Gods will."
She wasn't brain dead. For starters.

Regarding your statement, "Not in America." You can't have it both ways. You can't have the taxpayer picking up the tab without the government getting involved with the decision process. It's a problem without a happy solution for all cases. If the government is footing the bill, then the government is going to have the final say.
And once again you miss the point. The hospital pulled the trigger despite there being no Government around to tell them that they had to.

Further, according to the article you posted Texas has a timeline whereas other states leave it up to the discretion of the care providing facility. Which is the better solution? If you're going to debate anything perhaps that is the point to discuss.

Ishmael
I'd like to know where it's legal to pull a non brain dead child's life support. To say that's a violation of the hippocratic oath is vastly understating things.

"Do no harm" just doesn't mean what it used to.
 
Which do you think is causing more harm? Allowing the child to live, under terrible circumstances in increasing amounts of pain, or ending life support now, causing a painful death? Not advocating, just curious.
 
rose_trouble said:
Which do you think is causing more harm? Allowing the child to live, under terrible circumstances in increasing amounts of pain, or ending life support now, causing a painful death? Not advocating, just curious.
One is subjective. The other - death - is objective.
 
LovingTongue said:
She wasn't brain dead. For starters.


And once again you miss the point. The hospital pulled the trigger despite there being no Government around to tell them that they had to.


I'd like to know where it's legal to pull a non brain dead child's life support. To say that's a violation of the hippocratic oath is vastly understating things.

"Do no harm" just doesn't mean what it used to.

I missed nothing LT. You know me better than that.

The statement was, "higher brain functions." The 'animal' brain can continue to function long after anything we'd identify as human has quit working. In neither the Shaivo case nor this case is there any evidence of higher brain function.

And you are missing the point. In Texas there is a notification law. Apparently that is NOT the case in the other states. The hospital seems to be acting according to the law here.

"Do no harm." Did you miss the paragraph about the child going through 'invasive and aggressive' treatment? Treatment that is bound to inflict pain. Is the removal of that treatment, ie "Doing no harm" by doing nothing humane, or is the infliction of pain, and possibly even further shortening the childs life, "doing harm?" How are we to know and who makes that decision? I don't see the physicians stepping forth and protesting the hospitals decision.

In the first article the attorney for the family states that to allow the child to suffocate is to inflict pain, but to NOT allow the child to suffocate is to also inflict pain. One decision is the infliction of pain through inaction, the other is to inflict pain by aggressive action. One is pain quickly over, the other is pain prolonged. Which is better and which is "doing no harm?" If one were to apply the "cruel and unusual" argument to the case, as the attorney for the family has done, which is the crueler?

Meanwhile, your second C&P tells us that the court has intervened. Could it be that the 10 day law is meant to allow for that eventuality rather than have the family have to rush to the judges house in the middle of the night? I notice that the reporter made the point that GW signed the act into law. Looking at it in the light that the family and their attorneys have at least 10 days to prepare their arguments, is it all that bad a law when compared to the states that have NO such protections at all?

Ishmael
 
Ishmael said:
I missed nothing LT. You know me better than that.
LMAO. You see only what you want to see. That's why you pretend to have people on ignore yet answer what you feel like. Yellow, much?
 
Back
Top