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.

[Sun]

"Your answer was the best we have: "I don't know." The instant brain scientists who think they DO know are a few bulbs short of a chandelier.
Baby Daniel was pronounced "almost" brain dead, not by doctors (who would not use such a term among themselves) but by state bureaucrats. That often means they want to cut him up for his organs. Very profitable business.

"Almost" brain dead doesn't mean anything, medically. "Brain dead" doesn't really mean "dead," either. It means a comatose, unreflexive condition thought -- thought -- to be irreversible.

The tests for it are quite horrible. The patient is banged around brutally (people who have watched it tell me they cringed). The docs try to cause pain, put ice water in the ears, shine bright lights in the eyes and suchlike. (See this site for a detailed discussion, especially the warnings and pitfalls: Testing for death by brain criteria. ) The tests are to insure (as best we can) that the patient is utterly unresponsive in brain function. (For my two cents, the stricter the standards, the better.)

Note that one of the criteria is lack of brain-stem function, meaning that the patient cannot breathe unaided. A patient who can breathe is not "brain dead." Karen Ann Quinlan was not "brain dead." Neither is Sunny von Bulow, possibly the victim of attempted murder by insulin poisoning in a famous case in 1980, who is comatose but is still alive and lovingly tended all these years later.

In the end we don't really know. It is impossible to test a brain from the outside and find "mind" on the inside. Mind is and always has been a mystery. It is certainly possible that "brain dead" patients are aware of their surroundings. Occasionally one of them wakes up and says so. Perhaps such a person was a misdiagnosed case in the first place and the others are truly "mind dead." Perhaps not. We don't know."

T'wit, your post is so informative, I have to bump it. You are so knowledgeable.

I cringed when I read how they test to see if a person is "brain dead."

At the very least, people need to question, question, just like Kate Adamson's husband did.

Quote from Kate Adamson on Bill O'Reilly's show: " I could hear, and see everything going on around me, and I had NO way to commmunicate with anyone."

[robertpaulsen]

"I can't say I wouldn't ever remove life support"

When would you remove life support?

[robertpaulsen]

"Yes, and what was the clinical diagnoses?"

The clinical diagnosis was PVS.

[FreepinforTerri]

You seem to attack people personally when you're presented with an argument that you can't intellectually defend. I haven't attacked you, although it would be quite easy to do so. This will also be my last post to you.

Your saying that baby Daniel "is already dead" is merely a way to salve your conscience for supporting the hospital's decision to kill him. Daniel is very much alive, otherwise there wouldn't be a debate over whether he lives or dies. Rationalizing as such allows people to sleep at night in the face of doing wrong, but they don't change that wrong was done. Enjoy your rationalizations in the meantime, but they won't help you much in the reckoning.

Saying that's its okay to kill little Daniel because "he's already dead" is absurd. It reminds me of those who claim an unborn baby isn't a life. You probably fall into that category as well.

[FreepinforTerri]

I don't have a personal protocol, because any scenarios I could concoct would never exactly match a real-life situation where I'd need to make that type of decision. I'll wait until I have a real situation and all the facts, and then I'll go from there.

[Protagoras]

Your saying that baby Daniel "is already dead"

I never said that. You lied,,,again.

[Protagoras]

Saying that's its okay to kill little Daniel because "he's already dead" is absurd.

Not as absurd as you lying about me having said it.

It reminds me of those who claim an unborn baby isn't a life.

I never said that, are you claiming I did?

You probably fall into that category as well.

Wrong again.

Seek help, you are quite ill.

[FreepinforTerri]

I'm not Catholic and I do beleive life has an inate absolute moral value.

Furthermore your rationale behind killing little Daniel doesn't seem moral as much as it seems economic. You likewise refuse to concede that doctors can be wrong in such cases and that perhaps bureaucrats and hospitals with economic interests might be biased in their diagnoses.

If life indeed is of great value, you can't be so cavalier with decisions of this magnitude. Furthermore, if life is of great value, how can you put a dollar value on it?

[robertpaulsen]

Excuse me, but based on your posts in this thread alone, I cannot envision a scenario where you would remove life support from a patient.

A more honest answer from you, therefore, would be "never". But since that would label you as the fanatic you are, I can understand your reluctance to be honest.

[sinkspur]

I take my guidance from the Church in these matters. You are free to follow whichever compass you choose.

If life had an absolute moral value, no man could ever permit himself to go to war, to possibly lose his life in defense of his country. In that case, life is secondary to guaranteeing freedom for others.

No man could ever choose to lose his life as a martyr in defense of of his beliefs, in your world, since life has an absolute value under all circumstances.

Choosing to remove life support in a situation in which there is no hope of recovery is not devaluing life; in fact, life is honored by allowing a hopelessly ill person to go home to God.

Certainly doctors can be wrong about such things, though they rarely are. And, hospitals have to be motivated by economic interests so that the largest number of people can be served. That's why these decisions are made by committee, so that one man is not arbitrarily making life and death decisions.

[FreepinforTerri]

You couldn't be more wrong. Yes, I am a fanatic and I don't attempt to hide my fanatacism at all. I find it quite narcissistic of you to think that I care enough about your opinion of me to hide anything about my viewpoints. You don't matter that much to me, sweetheart.

I said exactly what I said because it was honest. The answer is not "never." I'm leaving that open to the complexities of any given situation. I'm not going to concoct hypothetical ones because it's fruitless. I can't say "never". I wish I could say "never".

You have a well-deserved reputation for being antagonistic, you know. Go antagonize someone else, though because I refuse to take your bait.

[robertpaulsen]

"Furthermore your rationale behind killing little Daniel doesn't seem moral as much as it seems economic."

"The economic cost of care in the United States for Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU) and Intermediate ICU averages between $1,000 and $2,000 per day". (Lewit, et.al., 1995)

I think I can speak for sinkspur when saying if you, personally, were willing to contribe this amount, we'd both have no objection to little brain-damaged Daniel being kept alive forever. As a matter of fact, I insist you keep him alive forever.

Bear in mind that if the hospital is spending $500,000/year keeping Daniel alive, that's money that is not available to treat other children who have a chance.

[robertpaulsen]

"I can't say "never"."

Since it's merely a matter of degree, then I'd appreciate your keeping your mouth shut when others state the conditions under which they would.

Otherwise you come across as hypocritical.

[HairOfTheDog]

Common sense will prevail. These are good issues that need to be debated, and wrong are those who would say there is no question at all. Ignore the wacky fringes on each end of the spectrum, and most people agree that there is worthwhile effort, and useless effort, and our challenge will always be to try to know which is which. I think it will always be a moving target.

[8mmMauser]

Good for you.

Even though this is a pro life site we can see if faced with the choice between life and death options, certain people on these threads invariably opt for death. They have great company, Margaret Sanger, Peter Singer, Hitler, Dr. Kervorkian, Dr. Death, liberals, democrats, socialists, communists, all cheering on the culture of death with similar perspectives. That is why I posted my sign in earlier posts on this thread.

And they fancy themselves as some kind of conservative at that! Apologies for the bad word imbedded in the text...

Here is my sign again:

[Scotswife]

Sorry I'm delayed in replying - my computer crashed.

"One, "brain death" was an invention (1960s) for the specific purpose of harvesting body organs for transplantion. In other words, there is an ulterior motive for the diagnosis of "brain death." The ulterior motive is not for the good of the patient but for the purposes of the hospital. It is not to be trusted. "

Do you have proof of this? Or is this someone's suspicions?
I know many good doctors who would say that with the advancement of life support technology, it became to be recognized there was a class of patients who showed no brain activity who were being hopelessly kept alive on ventilators.
I have searched for a case where a person qualified as "brain dead" (i.e. met the criteria concerning reflexes, loss of hormonal control, etc.) and have not found a person who emerged from this state.
Not only did our daughter meet the criteria, but her organs were beginning to shut down even though she was still on the ventilator - so we quickly had to make the decision concerning donation before her organs were rendered useless.

"Two, organs for transplantation are worth a great deal of money. By carving up a live "brain dead" patient for his organs, a medical facility can (a) eliminate the cost of care for that person and (b) make a big profit on his organs. Obviously, money now becomes a factor in what should be purely medical decisions. In insurance, this is called a Moral Hazard. The prospect of profit leads hospitals (and especially their so-called "ethics" committees) to cut corners, gloss over moral questions and otherwise make decisions that may actually kill a viable patient."

OR - organ donation can be a way to bring some good out of a tragic situation.
The doctors working on our case were paid for the procedure - which they were entitled to.
They didn't "save" money on our daughter because our daughter was dead anyway.If they had kept her on life support, her organs would have shut down anyway.
As it is...there is a young girl out there who was 2 years old at the time, who is now alive and active because of the healthy heart she received.
I am not saying there are not instances where corruption may exist in the system...I simply do not buy your assuming the worst of the doctors and their intentions.
We have a family member who participates in organ harvesting, we got to know other doctors in the field...you characterization of them is not accurate.

" For one example in my own extended family, a person was chopped up for organs despite being able to breathe on his own (= not brain dead) and also despite written refusal to donate his organs. They paid no attention to his wishes. "

I'm sorry to hear that. That is a crime and such actions should be prosecuted.

"It is so sloppy and vague that the "PVS" diagnosis mostly seems to be an excuse to euthanize unwanted patients. It ought to be tossed out."

The more I learn about pvs - the murkier it gets.
This is certainly not a reliable diagnosis in which to base life and death decisions.

[FreepinforTerri]

Apparently you forget- this isn't a family saying that Daniel is in a condition where they would choose to deny treatment. Texas bureaucrats (with whom I work closely) decided to give a "get out of jail free card" to hospitals that don't wish to treat certain patients out of economic concerns.

I've never insulted anyone's personal choice to discontinue treatment on this thread or elsewhere, although I do have convictions against denying treatment. And hell yes, I wholeheartedly and vehemently oppose the Advanced Directives Act of 1999 and am currently working on its inevitable reversal.

I see the narcissism continues with you, in that now you feel like you have a right to suggest I keep my mouth shut when I'm not "amen"ing your amoral viewpoints.

Somehow I don't see that happening. :)

[T'wit]

>> I simply do not buy your assuming the worst of the doctors and their intentions.

What I wrote was a warning, not a general condemnation. I don't assume the worst, not at all. I'm not opposed to organ transplants, either.

What I do see is a lowering of standards (ethical as well as medical), a sniff of corruption around the edges of the practice, the cutting of corners, a bit too much enthusiasm for cutting people up for organs before they are really dead.

We run into these things when we examine so-called futile care cases and other threats to the right of life. For instance, they were ready to carve up Haleigh Poutre if she hadn't fooled them and started breathing on her own, taking food, and such. This was a child who'd been battered, even tortured. You'd think she had suffered enough, but in the bureaucrats' eyes, that just made her an unwanted child who was ripe for organ harvest.

[robertpaulsen]

"decided to give a "get out of jail free card" to hospitals that don't wish to treat certain patients out of economic concerns."

"Certain patients"? Could you expand on that for me, being so familiar with the law that you are?

[FreepinforTerri]

"Certain patients"? Could you expand on that for me, being so familiar with the law that you are."

Absolutely! And despite your obvious sarcasm, I'm actually doing my dissertation as a comphrensive policy analysis of this law, so as a matter of fact, I am quite familiar with it.

Let's look at some case studies of individuals who were victims or attempted victims of the futility law:

Sun Hudson- Sun Hudson's mother was quite crazy, claiming that Sun was conceived by the Sun itself. She was also poor and single, and lacked resources to fight.

Spiro Nikolouzos- Immigrant

Yenlang Vo- Immigrant, poor, lacking resources to fight

Tirhas Habtegiris- Immigrant, poor, lacked resources to fight

Daniel Cullen II- Mother is a single, poor, drug addicted and lacks the resources to fight.

Andrea Clark- White woman. Futility proceedings were abandoned after public outcry and court orders were issued.

Besides Mr. Nikolozous, who was able to find a long-term care facility and escape starvation and dehydration, I haven't found any cases yet in my research where upper middle class white people had the futility law used against them but were able to find a facility in time. So I am led to beleive that this law is being disproportionately applied to those with the least ability to put up a fight.