March 21, 2005 —
The following memo listing talking points on the Terri Schiavo case was circulated among Republican senators on the floor of the Senate.This is an exact, full copy of the document obtained exclusively by ABC News and first reported Friday, March 18, 2005, by Linda Douglass on "World News Tonight with Peter Jennings."
Teri (sic) Schiavo is subject to an
order that her feeding tubes will be disconnected on March 18, 2005 at 1p.m.
The Senate needs to act this week,
before the Budget Act is pending business, or Terri's family will not have a
remedy in federal court.
This is an important moral issue and the
pro-life base will be excited that the Senate is debating this important issue.
This is a great political issue, because
Senator Nelson of Florida has already refused to become a cosponsor and this is
a tough issue for Democrats.
The bill is very limited and defines
custody as "those parties authorized or directed by a court order to withdraw or
withhold food, fluids, or medical treatment."
There is an exemption for a proceeding
"which no party disputes, and the court finds, that the incapacitated person
while having capacity, had executed a written advance directive valid under
applicably law that clearly authorized the withholding or or (sic) withdrawl
(sic) of food and fluids or medical treatment in the applicable circumstances."
Incapacitated persons are defined as
those "presently incapable of making relevant decisions concerning the
provision, withholding or withdrawl (sic) of food fluids or medical treatment
under applicable state law."
This legislation ensures that
individuals like Terri Schiavo are guaranteed the same legal protections as
convicted murderers like Ted Bundy.
The URL for this story is http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Schiavo/story?id=600937
The Republicans don't give a fuck about Terri Schiavo. They only care
about making points with their small but rabid right-to-lifer base. And
Dubya, oh, this is lovely. In 1999, he signed the Texas Futile Care Law.
Here's the relevant portion of that law, from Section 166.046, Subsection (e):
If the patient or the person responsible for the health care decisions of the
patient is requesting life-sustaining treatment that the attending physician has
decided and the review process has affirmed is inappropriate treatment, the
patient shall be given available life-sustaining treatment pending transfer
under Subsection (d). The patient is responsible for any costs incurred in
transferring the patient to another facility. The physician and the health care
facility are not obligated to provide life-sustaining treatment after the 10th
day after the written decision required under Subsection (b) is provided to the
patient or the person responsible for the health care decisions of the patient …
So basically, hospitals can pull the plug for people who are unable to pay, regardless of the wishes of the family. This happened today in Houston, Texas. Apparently if you have insurance, God wants your ass to live but if you're poor, fuck you. Below is the text of the article, which can be found at URL http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/3087387.
By LEIGH HOPPER
Copyright 2005 Houston Chronicle
The baby wore a cute blue outfit with a teddy bear covering his bottom. The 17-pound, nearly 6-month-old boy wiggled with eyes open, his mother said, and smacked his lips.
|
• • • • • "I talked to him, I told him that I loved him. Inside of me, my son is still alive."
Wanda Hudson ,
mother of Sun Hudson • • • • •
|
Then at 2 p.m. Tuesday, a medical staffer at Texas Children's Hospital gently removed the breathing tube that had kept Sun Hudson alive since his birth Sept. 25. Cradled by his mother, he took a few breaths, and died.
"I talked to him, I told him that I loved him. Inside of me, my son is still alive," Wanda Hudson told reporters afterward. "This hospital was considered a miracle hospital. When it came to my son, they gave up in six months. ... They made a terrible mistake."
Sun's death marks the first time a U.S. judge has allowed a hospital to discontinue an infant's life-sustaining care against a parent's wishes, according to bioethical experts. A similar case involving a 68-year-old man in a vegetative state at another Houston hospital is before a court now.
"It's sad this thing dragged on for so long. We all feel it's unfair, that a child doesn't have a chance to develop and thrive," said William Winslade, a bioethicist and lawyer who is a professor at the Institute for the Medical Humanities at the University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston. Paraphrasing the late Catholic theologian and ethicist Richard McCormick, Winslade added, "This isn't murder. It's mercy, and it's appropriate to be merciful in that way. It's not killing, it's stopping pointless treatment."
The hospital's description of Sun — that he was motionless and sedated for comfort — has differed sharply from the mother's. Since February, the hospital has blocked the media from Hudson's invitation to see the baby, citing privacy concerns.
"I wanted y'all to see my son for yourself," Hudson told reporters. "So you could see he was actually moving around. He was conscious."
On Feb. 16, Harris County Probate Court Judge William C. McCulloch made the landmark decision to lift restrictions preventing Texas Children's from discontinuing care. However, an appeal by Hudson's attorney, Mario Caballero, and a procedural error on McCulloch's part prevented the hospital from acting for four weeks.
Texas law allows hospitals to discontinue life-sustaining care, even if a patient's family members disagree. A doctor's recommendation must be approved by a hospital's ethics committee, and the family must be given 10 days from written notice of the decision to try and locate another facility for the patient.
Texas Children's said it contacted 40 facilities with newborn intensive care units, but none would accept Sun. Without legal delays, Sun's care would have ended Nov. 28.
Sun was born with a fatal form of dwarfism characterized by short arms, short legs and lungs too tiny, doctors said. Nearly all babies born with the incurable condition, often diagnosed in utero, die shortly after birth, genetic counselors say.
Sun was delivered full term at St. Luke's Episcopal Hospital, but Hudson, 33, said she had no prenatal care during which his condition might have been discovered.
He was put on a ventilator while doctors figured out what was wrong with him, and Hudson refused when doctors recommended withdrawing treatment.
Texas Children's contended that continuing care for Sun was medically inappropriate, prolonged suffering and violated physician ethics. Hudson argued her son just needed more time to grow and be weaned from the ventilator.
Another case involving a patient on life support — a 68-year-old man in a chronic vegetative state whose family wants to stop St. Luke's Episcopal Hospital from turning off his ventilator — was scheduled to be heard Tuesday by the Houston-based 1st Court of Appeals. But the case was transferred to the 14th Court of Appeals, which promptly issued a temporary injunction ordering St. Luke's not to remove the man's life support. No hearing date has been set.
Chronicle reporter Todd Ackerman contributed to this report.