Posted on 01/05/2020 3:46:56 AM PST by Morgana
The motion by Cook Children’s Hospital for a new judge in the case of 10-month-old Texas girl on life support was granted just days before her life support was scheduled to be removed on December 10. In a hearing yesterday, according to ABC News, the newly appointed judge, Sandee Bryan Marion of Texas’ Fourth Court of Appeals, “said at the hearing in Fort Worth that she would decide by at least Jan. 2 if Cook Children’s Medical Center could remove life support.” At that hearing, “Attorneys for the hospital and the girl’s mother then agreed that if Marion denies the mother’s request for a temporary injunction to stop the life support removal, the hospital won’t take any action until seven days after the ruling.”
Just weeks ago, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton filed a friend-of-the-court brief with the District Court of Tarrant County, defending Tinslee’s right to life. In that brief, the argument is made that Texas’s 10-Day Rule is unconstitutional and that it violates patients’ right to due process.
Ten Days is Not Enough Time
Texas’s 10-Day Rule is a law that allows families just 10 days to find a new hospital for their family members on life support after the hospital they are currently using decides to remove life support. Ten days is seen by some as a minuscule amount of time to find a new facility for a patient on life support, especially one that is willing to take on seemingly hopeless cases. For Tinslee’s family, being told their baby would be taken off life support in 10 days was devastating, and they needed time to find an adequate facility. The 10-Day Rule, some argue, doesn’t allow for that.
Consider how long it takes the average person to navigate scheduling a surgery, or even coordinate the ordering of a new speciality medication. The health insurance company can deny the request, which leads to an appeal, which leads to more questions than answers, which leads to days and days of phone calls. Now imagine trying to find a facility to take on the life of a fragile human being that another hospital has deemed unworthy. Could all the steps that need to be coordinated, such as patient transport and insurance approval, actually come together in just 10 days? It seems the 10-Day-Rule is more of a media relations show put on to make it appear that patients have choices.
“One of the core principles provided by the United States Constitution is that no person should be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law,” said Paxton. “This unconstitutional statute infringes on patients’ right to life and does not allow patients and families sufficient notice and the opportunity to be heard before physicians override the rights of their patients. Patients must be heard and justly represented when determining their own medical treatment, especially when the decision to end treatment could end their life.”
Patient Rights are Being Undermined
Texas Right to Life board director Rich DeOttee has called the 10-Day Rule “one of the worst laws in the country,” adding that “criminals on death row have more rights than patients at Texas hospitals.”
Tinslee was born prematurely and has a rare heart defect, chronic lung disease, and chronic high blood pressure. She has been in the hospital since she was born, but that doesn’t mean she doesn’t have a right to life. She is a human being with intrinsic value and therefore, her life should be protected. To take her right to life away is unethical.
Cook Children’s has said that they want to remove life support because they believe there is no hope for Tinslee and that she is suffering. Hospital spokesperson Winifred King said that the hospital thinks “every child’s life is sacred” but in the same sentence excluded children with diseases and disabilities, especially those that are chronic, saying “no child should be sentenced to a life of pain.” While it seems compassionate on the surface, in reality, it is a discriminatory and elitist statement made under the assumption that Tinslee, or any other child with a chronic health condition, wouldn’t want to live or that somehow their lives aren’t worth living. Tinslee’s family believes her life is valuable and worthy. They call her a fighter who deserves a chance.
What it comes down to is this: the 10-Day Rule is an unethical act of power masquerading as an act of compassion. It does not allow Tinslee’s parents to care for her in the way they wish to, and it walks a dangerous line of institutional power vs. patient and parental rights. Everyone who loves anyone should be concerned if this law moves into their state.
Pain is joy to one who loves life.
What makes you think the parents are paying for this? Just the length of time it has been makes that pretty obvious to me. If this is a paid hospital stay I will be very surprised.
The hospital should just send the bills to Nancy Flanders. When she starts writing the checks that should solve the problems for everyone.
It would be nice if the article had said WHERE Cook Hospital was located. Tarrant County means zero to most readers (and to me).
I’m a new Texas resident, and I see plenty of Catholic hospitals here in San Antonio. Surely emergency arrangements could be made with one.
Who is paying?
Does the payer have the option to stop paying for the medical care?
This child doesn’t need hospitalization.
She needs skilled nursing or hospice care.
"To keep her alive, doctors and nurses must keep her on a constant stream of painkillers, sedatives, and paralytics. As a result, Tinslee is paralyzed at all times," the hospital told BuzzFeed News. "Even with medication and support, Tinslee has 'dying events' 2–3 times per day. When she is in distress, Tinslee crashes and aggressive medical intervention is immediately necessary, which causes even more pain."
I saw one of her nurse caregivers on video saying that even the act of changing Tinslee’s diaper or rolling to her side to prevent bed sores causes Tinslee to go into respiratory and or cardiac distress if not full out arrest.
”Officials at the hospital have been in talks with Tinslee's family about her poor prognosis for months.”
As I understand, further surgical intervention for her heart defect, even if it would help, is not possible as it would immediately kill the child. She’s already had seven surgeries and three open heart operations. So this is not a case where the hospital and doctors haven’t done everything medically and humanly possible to save her life.
”The cardiac intensive care doctor said that for the first five months of Tinslee's life doctors had hope she might one day at least be able to go home. But Duncan said there came a point when doctors determined they had run out of surgical and clinical options, and that treatment was no longer benefiting Tinslee. ”
”Duncan said last month that the girl would likely die within half a year, and noted the hospital has made 'extraordinary' efforts to find another facility for her. ”
“To take her right to life away is unethical.”
But to subject this poor baby to aggressive and painful medical interventions several times a day when the ultimate outcome – death, is a foregone conclusion, somehow that is unethical?
Cook Children’s is in Ft Worth - county seat of Tarrant County.
Welcome to Texas - please help us keep it RED!
This baby was premature with very serious health issues. She has been in a coma since almost being birthed. The measures to keep her alive are extra-ordinary and even painful to the baby. The mother is a young woman and has been advised of all the facts. Yes, she should have the say on removing life support but seems to be unable to face reality. A resolution is necessary as the fact is this baby is not going to get better.
Just to clarify. As I’ve read and understand, she is not now, nor has she ever been in a coma. But she is heavily medicated with painkillers, sedatives and paralytics, I believe since she went into respiratory arrest in early July.
Speaking of “paying for” if we didn’t “pay for” nonsense stuff like ABORTIONS and sex changes for anyone more so children, then have to “pay for” the sex change reversal. Then have to “pay for” their shrink bill.
Believe you get the picture.
Probably insured, if not, most hospitals are HEAVILY taxpayer supported...this decision should be the parent's if a few extra bucks are spent, so be it....think of the zillions that we waste on freeloaders....
Probably insured, if not, most hospitals are HEAVILY taxpayer supported...this decision should be the parent's if a few extra bucks are spent, so be it....think of the zillions that we waste on freeloaders....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.