Posted on 06/01/2006 7:20:27 AM PDT by 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at kten.com ...
Given your biases, why am I not surprised?
Let's start with Dr. Cranford. Do you know of a case, when hired, that he did not provide a diagnosis of PVS for the courts? A trivia question: Although Terri was starved and dehydrated to death, what was Dr. Cranford's self imposed nick name?
What was the medical condition of these patients? Do they have a curable medical condition that the hospital refused to treat? Are they terminal? Do they have a heart condition? Cancer? Are they PVS?
When does this so-called "futility law" kick in? On what type of patient, medically speaking?
OK. He was one who diagnosed Terri as PVS. We are now one-zip, my favor.
Next?
Gee, you didn't even try to answer my trivia question. Don't you know the answer? You can quote it if you want to : )
His nick name is irrelevant.
His self imposed nickname was Dr. Humane Death, was it not? Is there any point in asking any questions if you going to avoid them?
I see someone who's re-enacting the scene from Close Enounters of a Third Kind, trying to communicate with Terri like she's some outer space alien.
Terri was diagnosed PVS. You have not rebutted that with your posts.
It's not a medical "type", it's a economic, ethnic and otherwise vulnerable "type".
I could describe the medical cases for you. Like Sun had dwarfism, Tirhis had lung cancer, etc. Are you not familiar with these cases?
My point is such: This is not about withdrawing futile care and easing patient suffering. It's about money, power, and brute demonstrations of human inequality.
Have you watched the video?
No. I guessed that flashing lights were used.
Yes I watched it. Why?
And you dismiss everything you saw as "reflexive"? The laughter after a joke as merely a coincidence?
Yes, PVS patients laugh but not directly after a joke. You must have some serious delusion going on if you can watch the video and beleive that she wasn't conscious.
Human inequality? I thought the basis was monetary.
So your study is attempting to show that hospitals are reluctant to provide long term care to patients who do not have the ability to pay. Is that correct?
Do you believe this practice to be "unfair"?
Do you think human inequality and money are in no way connected? People who lack money often do not have the resources to fight for their rights.
My study is a comphrensive policy analysis of the intended and unintended consequences of the law. This bill was passed as a measure to prevent individuals from enduring the burden of futile care and marketed as a "merciful". Doctors can "save" patients whose family just doesn't want to let go through an ethics committee hearing removing treatment. So why is it that only poor people have been deemed as recieving "futile care"?
My hypothesis (unstated) is that since the law allows for termination of care due to economic concerns rather than patient characteristics, a disproportionate number of poor Texans will have futility proceedings against them, thus proving that it's not about "futile" care at all, but about the bottom line. The goal of this law was to lower healthcare costs to the state and to hospitals by killing those who can't pay. Period.
I'm willing to be proved wrong. Show me a case where a rich or well-insured individual had an ethics committee remove his/her care out of principal. My research has to be exhaustive so I'm not selective at all in what I report.
You're quite snarky and have an ideology that you're not willing to shake despite your ignorance of this law, its origins, and its true outcomes. So I'm through speaking with you.
With people like you spouting your mixed-up priorities, it's no wonder why Republicans are labeled as heartless.
She could hear? Dr. Cranford stated that she was deaf. Oh, and don't tell me that Terri must have read lips -- she was blind, also.
Do you have the statement of any doctor who says that she wasn't deaf?
"and beleive that she wasn't conscious."
Consciousness is self-awareness. Terri was not conscious, even when she was "awake".
So it's not just my theory! From Texas Right To Life's Elizabeth Graham:
"I was invited to participate in the futility review process at the Houston facility, and it was disgusting and appalling. The attending physician stated that the patient was definitely NOT brain dead, simply brain damaged from a stroke. The paitent is NOT experiencing organ failure, meaning her lungs, heart, kidneys, liver,...everything is working. The patient has a trach collar, but she breathes on her own, and she processes food and hydration appropriately. She is free from infection.
During the meeting, I pointed out that the withdrawal of food and water would effectively starve the patient to death, and the doctors dismissed me as if I did not understand medical science. I am not sure what exactly is scientific about starvation, but the patient's mother agreed and was bewildered at the discussion of withdrawal of treatment including food and water.
Oh yes, did I mention that the patient has NO insurance? The medical folks involved in these cases adamantly avow that financial considerations never enter into the futility decisions; however, I have yet to hear from the family of any patients with good, adequate health insurance. Our Dallas attorney is working on the pediatric case, and the family was granted some additional days because the facility did not follow proper statutory procedure. This patient has only Medicaid."
Your whole hypothesis is that these hospital decisions are based on an ability to pay. If two patients both have the ability to pay and the hospital treats them differently, then you can make your case about "human" inequality.
"The goal of this law was to lower healthcare costs to the state and to hospitals by killing those who can't pay. Period."
Getting a bit hysterical in your description of the law? I think it's a bit more narrowly defined than that. More like "discontinuing artificial life support" which is costing the hospital $2,000 per day.
The hospital is required, by law, to provide free medical care to everyone to stabilize their medical condition. After that, care is provided to those who can pay for it.
You don't agree with that? Do you think medical care should be free to everyone? Or should we have a system whereby health care is provided "to each according to their needs, from each according to their ability to pay"? (Gosh, where did I hear that phrase?)
Then why is she still in a hospital and not at a nursing home? Or at home with her mother? I agree with the doctors -- get her out of there and make room for someone who's sick, for crying out loud.
What is your problem?
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.