Mother fights hospital to keep baby on life support (Terri's Legacy)

KTEN.com ^ | June 1, 2006 | Associated Press

[8mmMauser]

DALLAS A mother fighting to keep her baby on life support, despite a hospital's determination that her efforts would be futile, will get two more weeks to find a facility that will take the 10-month-old. A judge had been set to decide tomorrow whether to grant a temporary injunction to stop Children's Medical Center in Dallas from removing Daniel Wayne Cullen the Second from life support. But attorneys for the boy's mother and the hospital agreed yesterday to extend a temporary restraining order for another two weeks.

Attorney Brian Potts, who represents the boy's mother, Dixie Belcher, said he plans to submit the agreement to a judge today.

The baby has had breathing problems since his premature birth and was hospitalized after suffering from a lack of oxygen when he pulled out a breathing tube. He remains on a ventilator.

[8mmMauser]

This follows the cases of Andrea Clark and Mrs. Vo falling under the Texas Futile Care law.

[8mmMauser]

Baby Daniel's Fight ping

Terri June Dailies

8mm

(this includes Ohioan from Florida's ping list, update to May 17.)

[mtbopfuyn]

Let it be an illegal's child and you can bet the plug would never be pulled.

[8mmMauser]

From the Dallas Morning News...

"Something deep down inside is telling me not to unplug my 10-month-old," said Dixie Belcher, Daniel's mother. "I know it's going to take him quite a while to pull out of this, but I know he's my little fighter, and he's got to pull through. He's got to pull through."

Part of the reason Ms. Belcher cannot bring herself to unplug her son is that she has been here before.

Fourteen years ago in a hospital room at Children's Medical Center, she says, she struggled with another doctor's recommendation to remove life support from her 5-month-daughter, Jamie, who also suffered breathing problems.

Mom fighting ruling to end infant's life support Exclusive: 'He's got to pull through'

8mm

[Protagoras]

The article is light on details, but this doesn't look like a Schiavo type case to me.

[robertpaulsen]

I don't understand. If the mother is willing to pay for continued life support, though futile, why won't the hospital agree?

[8mmMauser]

It is more like a futile care case as in the case of Andrea Clark and Mrs. Vo. But like with Terri, it is others making the decision to euthanize someone regardless of the wishes of close relatives.

[8mmMauser]

Don't know that yet. I am sure these details will be forthcoming. Both Andrea Clark and Mrs. Vo faced similar barriers.

[sinkspur]

If the mother is willing to pay for continued life support, though futile, why won't the hospital agree?

Because further care would be futile. Hospitals are under no obligation to continue palliative care when there is no hope for recovery.

In Catholic theology, this child, on a ventilator, is receiving extraordinary means of life support, and there is no moral obligation to extend extraordinary means of care.

If the child could breathe on his own, but with a feeding tube, the hospital would be in a different situation, though it would still likely ask the mother to find a long-term care facility for him.

[sinkspur]

It is more like a futile care case as in the case of Andrea Clark and Mrs. Vo. But like with Terri, it is others making the decision to euthanize someone regardless of the wishes of close relatives.

It is totally unlike any of those cases. If the ventilator was removed, the child would die. Even the Catholic Church would not say there is a moral obligation to extend this child's life.

[sinkspur]

The article is light on details, but this doesn't look like a Schiavo type case to me.

It's not. There is a ventilator involved here, not just a feeding tube.

[Voteamerica]

This law predated Terry, it was signed into law by Gov. George W. Bush as I recall.

[Protagoras]

But like with Terri, it is others making the decision to euthanize someone regardless of the wishes of close relatives.

There are two sides to this question. The hospital has determined the person to already be deceased. (I assume)

The mother, naturally and understandably, does not.

Therefore, the term "euthanize" is already preloaded.

The other question is the one about who is to pay for the continued "life" support. Some think the hospital has the responsibility to continue to pay, for as long as the relatives desire. I am not one of them.

[Protagoras]

I agree, that is the main difference.

[Alberta's Child]

I don't see any indication in the article that anyone is actually paying for this child's care, which presumably means it is the taxpayers who are indirectly picking up the tab.

I hate to see cases like this, but this situation has one enormous difference from the Schiavo case in that Schiavo was capable of breathing on her own, where this child apparently is not.

[8mmMauser]

Yes, that is right. I think it was meant to stop futile medications like maybe antibiotics are doing no more good, but the ethicists have redefined it to rule on "futile life". We just went through all this with Andrea Clark and Mrs. Vo who is still alive.

[joe fonebone]

100% correct, my friend.

[8mmMauser]

It is not enormous. Pulling feeding and water is similar. It kills by dehydration, not a fun way to go, and certainly not permitted for pets.

[8mmMauser]

So that makes it ok for the staff to snuff the kid, right. You remember I am a Catholic, too, a traditional at that. Aren't you supposed to be a deacon or somthing?

The Pope who died just after Terri thought snuffing people like that was bad. Don't you?

[sinkspur]

We just went through all this with Andrea Clark and Mrs. Vo who is still alive.

Andrea Clark died within days of the Houston hospital reconsidering its decision to evict her, thus proving that the original "futile care" decision was the correct one.

Will you acknowledge that this case is distinctly different from the two you mention above? A ventilator is REQUIRED for this child to breathe.

[sinkspur]

The Pope who died just after Terri thought snuffing people like that was bad. Don't you?

The child will not starve. He will die without the ventilator long before any effects from removing the feeding tube would be felt.

Look up "extraordinary means of life support" in the Catechism. Families and hospitals are under no moral obligation to use extraordinary means to maintain life, and a ventilator is an extraordinary means of life support.

The Church does NOT teach that human life must be maintained at all costs.

[8mmMauser]

Take your pro-death badgering devil's advocacy to someone who cares.

I will not respond further to your baiting. I will not engage in debate designed to attack. I have watched you for too long and am aware of your techinques. But I will ask this:

Are you really a deacon?

[Alberta's Child]

From a medical/ethical standpoint, the difference between removing a feeding tube and shutting off a ventilator is enormous. A person who cannot breathe on his own effectively dies of natural causes, while someone who relies on assistance for feeding/hydration does not. When a hospital removes a feeding tube, they've basically decided to kill the patient as opposed to letting the patient die.

[Xenalyte]

Let's make sure I have this straight.

She doesn't want to unplug her son, who's in state custody due to allegations of neglect.

Her son "responds only to her," according to the mother, and not to any medical personnel.

She already unplugged a daughter years ago for the same problem.

Neglectful mother who tests positive for drug use (and claims not to know her joint was coke-laced - BS!), filthy and dangerous living conditions (including smoking around oxygen equipment), neighborhood allegations of drug dealing, the baby daddy "staying in a motel," two children with the same disorder . . .

Something stinks BADLY about this story.

[BykrBayb]

Hospitals are under no obligation to continue palliative care when there is no hope for recovery.

Your medical advice is almost as trustworthy as your religious guidance, Deacon. Do you even know what palliative care is?

[8mmMauser]

Maybe something does, but I am concerned about the kid about to being snuffed, not the motives of the mom. I just don't like authorities deciding who lives or dies in our America.

[8mmMauser]

Is it a question of whether he is snuffed or how he is snuffed?

[kx9088]

Hospital resources?

[yellowdoghunter]

I saw this story on MSNBC the other day. Very sad, I pray for all involved.

I see the death lovers showed up, good job on ignoring them. Never got an answer on if there is a deacon or a Priest in the house I see.

Anyway, I will continue to pray for all involved. It is a terrible situation.

[sinkspur]

However, euthanasia must be distinguished from the stopping of extraordinary means of health care or other aggressive medical treatment. The patient — or guardian in the case of an unconscious patient — has the right to reject outright or to discontinue those procedures which are extraordinary, no longer correspond to the real situation of the patient, do not offer a proportionate good, do not offer reasonable hope of benefit, impose excessive burdens on the patient and his family, or are simply "heroic." Such a decision is most appropriate when death is clearly imminent and inevitable. Here a person may refuse forms of treatment which at best provide a precarious and burdensome prolonging of life. In these cases, the person would place himself in God's hands and prepare to leave this life, while maintaining ordinary means of health care.

.

[Alberta's Child]

I just don't like authorities deciding who lives or dies in our America.

Then don't go to a hospital . . . it's really that simple.

The moment you put yourself in the hands of someone else to provide -- and pay for -- medical care, you've effectively ceded much of the responsibility and moral authority over what happens to you. I am sure this hospital would be perfectly willing to accommodate the wishes of the mother as far as finding an alternative facility to care for this child. The problem is that a medical facility does not have unlimited resources to care for each and every patient in perpetuity, so very often decisions like this must be made.

For all of the reasons that Sinkspur has outlined in his posts on this thread, the hospital is on solid legal, ethical, and moral grounds in this case.

[BykrBayb]

Okay, you've shown us that you can copy and paste. But do you understand the question, and can you answer it?

[Protagoras]

I just don't like authorities deciding who lives or dies in our America.

In this case, who are the authorities you refer to?

[BykrBayb]

My father-in-law carries an oxygen tank with him. If I take it away, will he die of natural causes?

[Doctor Stochastic]

In cases of futile care, the question of denying the resources to someone who might survive with treatment arises. From the hospital's POV, they may not want to expend resources on a hopless cause and thus keep another from getting help. There's only a finite amount of "care" available, even when President Rodham puts in her Free Universal Medical Care.

[8mmMauser]

The ones who want to kill the kid. I don't quibble on their titles, only on what they want to do.

[Alberta's Child]

It is a question of how this child is going to die. As I said very clearly in my earlier post (but I'll repeat it anyway) . . . If the ventilator is turned off and the child dies, then the child has effectively died of whatever medical condition caused his hospitalization in the first place. If the child were breathing on his own and the feeding tube was removed, then starvation/dehydration -- not the condition that resulted in his hospitalization -- would be the cause of death.

This might sound very subtle, but it represents a huge distinction in medical ethics.

[sinkspur]

Palliative care (from Latin palliare, to cloak) is any form of medical care or treatment that concentrates on reducing the severity of the symptoms of a disease or slows its progress rather than providing a cure. It aims at improving quality of life, by reducing or eliminating pain and other physical symptoms, enabling the patient to ease or resolve psychological and spiritual problems, and supporting the partner and family.

An acute care hospital does not provide palliative care. Children's Medical Center is an acute care facility.

Hospice and nursing homes provide palliative care.

[Alberta's Child]

Can he function -- with the assistance of that oxygen tank -- pretty much the same way anyone else would at his age?

[BykrBayb]

Then why allow ventilators to be used at all? Why do we allow patients without brain damage to use a ventilator? That is, after all, where the distinction is being made. The excuse for removing the ventilator is the brain damage.

[Protagoras]

The ones who want to kill the kid. I don't quibble on their titles, only on what they want to do.

Some make the case the child is already dead. Unless you have information which is not available in the article, it remains an open question.

Now, who pays the cost associated with this?

It seems as if your emotions have overtaken your ability to consider this in a rational manner.

[8mmMauser]

This might sound very subtle, but it represents a huge distinction in medical ethics.

I am sure it does, but whether one strangles or dehydrates, the kid still is dead even though he does not need to be snuffed. As you can suppose, from years of experience, I am not enamored of medical ethics, but do get concerned about the killing of innocents sanctioned by the state and laws. I guess it is something carried over from abhorring the techniques developed to art form in Hitler's time.

[BykrBayb]

Now, would you care to explain why you said he shouldn't even get palliative care, when that's not even what anyone was talking about? I know it's because you were confused, but go ahead and wiggle out of it. See if you can do it without getting any of your posts removed this time.

[BykrBayb]

He's brain damaged. So he can function as well as anyone else his age with similar brain damage. He can't build a space ship, if that's the criteria. Where would you like to draw the line between the right to live and the duty to die? Shall we make it somewhere below your level of functioning, or above it?

[8mmMauser]

It seems as if your emotions have overtaken your ability to consider this in a rational manner.

Nice try but no cigar. I will not be steered off the topic at hand, that of the laws allowing kids to be killed as in this case. If you have followed my zillions of posts on this topic, you would know. The emotional ones are the ones sobbing over the demise of Dr. Death yesterday.

Dr. Cranford

8mm

[sinkspur]

Receiving palliative care would do the child no good. He is brain damaged.

[robertpaulsen]

Plus, the taxpayers were not paying for Terri's care, so that element was removed from the decision making process.

In this case, the hospital is being asked to pay for the very expensive care of a patient they deem to be futile. Unless the mother can prove their prognosis wrong, or she comes up with the money, I see no reason why the hospital in this specific case should not prevail.

[Alberta's Child]

That's a very good question, and it clearly illustrates how medical ethics addresses this type of situation. The prognosis for the patient is a major element of this. The proscribed -- and even mandated -- level of care for two different patients could be very different if their long-term prognoses are different. A patient will often be put on a ventilator simply because of an uncertain prognosis -- i.e., the medical care provider must always "err" in the favor of preserving the patient's life when there is a reasonable expectation or even some uncertainty that the patient might be restored to good health. A patient whose prognosis is very poor, on the other hand, would not necessarily be given the same level of care.

Here's a good illustration of this . . .

A modern medical facility these days could probably keep a patient "alive" indefinitely, based on the definitions of "alive" commonly used by the medical community. And yet the same hospital that would provide mechanical substites for most bodily functions on a temporary basis for a major surgical procedure would not be expected to do the same thing for a 100 year-old patient (indefinitely) who is brought into the hospital with massive organ failure, multiple infections, etc.

[BykrBayb]

In other words, Doctor, you have no idea what palliative care is. Thank you for your input.

[Alberta's Child]

That's bullsh!t.

There is an enormous distinction between removing someone from a mechanical form of life support that replaces a natural "primary" body function and the deliberate killing of innocent patients.