Posted on 02/18/2005 3:36:08 PM PST by FreeMarket1
CRIPPLED CHILD SENTENCED TO DEATH WITHOUT TRIAL
Feb 18, 2005 - FreeMarketNews.com
by Craig McCarthy
In Texas, a baby has been in effect sentenced to die. He is hospitalized with a disease called thanatophoric dysplasia. A website devoted to genetic disorders says that “Infants with this condition are usually stillborn or die shortly after birth from respiratory failure; however, some children have survived into childhood with a lot of medical help.” The child in question, Sun Hudson, is four months old and has obviously survived the danger of stillbirth and has not died shortly after birth. Sun’s mother wants him to live. Doctors at the hospital where Sun was born no longer want to supply him with the “lot of medical help” he needs, and plan to shut off his oxygen supply.
Powerless against the wishes of her son’s doctor, Sun’s mother Wanda found an attorney and went to court to save her son’s life. Without a single evidentiary hearing, Judge William C. McColloch has decided that the hospital has the right to take measures to end the baby’s life, if the hospital happens to want to do so. Free Market News has interviewed the attorney for the child’s mother, Mario Caballero, and reports the facts that have been excluded from every other news account of this story.
This is not about money. Sun Hudson is covered by Texas Medicaid (his mother is penniless) and the hospital is no danger of suffering financially by continuing to treat him. Under Texas law this would not be an issue in any event, as hospitals are prohibited from failing to treat a patient for lack of ability to pay or if there is an emergency condition.
This is not about a condition so rare or horrible that treatment would be inconceivable. Ironically, the website for Texas Children’s Hospital, where Sun is a patient, includes this statement about dysplasia: “This genetics clinic provides diagnosis, treatment and follow-up care for patients from birth to adulthood with abnormalities of skeletal growth and strength. A staff of geneticists with consulting orthopedists, endocrinologists, neurologists and ophthalmologists evaluate patients during their visits for routine, chronic or acute care.”
This is not about right-wing pro-life politics, either. Ms. Hudson’s attorney is a self-described twenty-year legal aid attorney who only opened his solo practice with one staff member in the last year. Attorney Caballero went so far as to state that “I’m not part of the right to life movement; in fact, personally, I’m not quite in that political camp. But in this case it is about someone who is already alive.”
This is about one judge who has by any objective standard allowed no due process to the child who may soon be killed or to the child’s mother. Attorney Caballero subpoenaed hospital records of Medicaid payments for the child’s treatment. The judge quashed the subpoena (meaning that he voided it) and refused to allow the mother to view those hospital records. Caballero subpoenaed the person in charge of records who could testify about the medical bills and payment. Judge McColloch quashed that subpoena. Instead, the judge ruled that the mother, in seeking to save her child’s life from a deliberate cessation of medical treatment, had “no cause of action”.
The judge made that ruling based only on the petitions filed, not allowing the mother’s attorney to conduct any discovery under the normal rules of court procedure.
Before the court was involved, the hospital first gave the mother notice that they intended to evict the child from the hospital. Under Texas law, a hospital must give ten days notice of intent to make Sun leave the hospital despite his medical needs. In this case, they gave Ms. Hudson notice just before the weekend prior to Thanksgiving week.
By the time she found an attorney the next day, he was left with only three working days in which to get into court. During weeks of legal under a supposed agreement by the hospital that it would not remove the child from child support before a court hearing, the hospital changed its mind and informed Caballero that they intended to go ahead and remove child support. Only a temporary injunction temporarily delayed the hospital’s action.
Finally before the probate court, the mother was not given the opportunity to call any witnesses or present any evidence in an evidentiary hearing. Instead, the judge ruled that the hospital may discontinue treatment of the child, based on facts not even alleged by the hospital, specifically that the judge believed the child was suffering “significant pain.”
According to Caballero, when he asked how the judge had reached that finding of fact without ever having heard any testimony or conducting a hearing on the merits of the case, the judge replied, on the record, that he “probably got it from the newspaper.”
Having visited the baby in the hospital, Caballero flatly denies that the child is in pain. After reflection, Caballero asked Judge McColloch to recuse himself from the case. McColloch refused.
This left the mother with only one issue to present to the court, whether or not any other hospital would be willing to admit the child as a patient.
It is not clear what the scope of that question is legally. Should the court consider whether another hospital within city limits has a bed for the child before removing child support, or whether there is another hospital reasonably available in the State of Texas or the rest of the country? ......................Full Article www.FreeMarketNews.com
Hmmm. Im thinking there is more to this story. Im fairly certain that a hospital doesnt have the power to arbitrarily to "pull the plug.."
In other words, the kid has been sentenced to death by God and the State has simply decided not to fight God's decision on the matter since they will inevitably lose.
So9
Yes, but doesn't the State have the ultimate authority over God?
Oh, wait a minute...nevermind. :)
Denote heavy sarcasm.
One of my children had the umbilical cord wrapped tightly around his neck when he was born. Did God sentence him to die and was it wrong for the hospital to "keep him alive" by removing the cord from his neck?
Where do you draw the line?
If this is all there is to the story, then the hospital should be treating the child if the parents want to. It didn't say all kids with this problem are doomed to death. Who in the hell in the hospital has the right to say this kid should be left to die against his parents' wishes?
Agreed. I know we're sensitized to this now thanks to the Terry Schiavo case but it seems to me that delaying God's will through incredible artificial means is bound to cause tragic suffering sometimes.
I was also about to make some comment like, "this is what you get when you let someone else pay for your health care." But the story seems to suggest that money has nothing to do with it.
At some point, someone will have to "pull the plug" because the baby will not be coming off it.
Oh please. Are you truly unable to differentiate between unwrapping the umbilical cord and the continued application of an artificial breathing apparatus?
Just in case you can't, here's an important distinction: the removal of the cord is an act that is finite in duration with permanent positive consequences. In contrast, the child mentioned here will die without the continued, permanent application of artificial life support.
I think that there is a little more to this story. There was a thread here a day or day about it. IIRC, the child's disease doesn't allow for the lungs and ribcage to grow, so as the rest of the body grows, the lung capacity doesn't keep up with the need for oxygen. It seems that the child will slowly suffocate, even with a ventilator. I'll have to go look it up for sure. I can't rely on my memory here.
Well, likewise, who in the hell has the right to tell a hospital what it must and must not do? Must a doctor perform a medical treatment he is not ethically comfortable with?
Perhaps. But that is not my point. I dont think a hospital can just pull the plug the way it is described in this article. Which is why Im inclined to believe there is more to the story..
The first thing I thought of when I saw that headline was "abortion"....
How long should a baby have to suffer life support? Sometimes family members cannot let go, they cling to hope, sometimes false hope.
Indeed, where do you draw the line?
I believe you are correct.
Found the thread: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1345350/posts?page=25
From the article:
"Texas Children's Hospital officials said Sun was born with a fatal genetic defect known as skeletal dysplasia that will not allow his chest cavity and lungs to grow. Sun is slowly suffocating to death because his lungs lack the capacity to support his body, according to hospital officials."
First Florida and Terri,
Now Texas and a baby.
I wonder if there are any type of connections in the hierarchy or affiliates.
Not everything is abortion, and this poor baby is not merely crippled.
More news articles:
http://news.newkerala.com/india-news/?action=fullnews&id=73614
Key quote: "The hospital claims continued treatment is inhumane, but the infant's mother, Wanda Hudson, disputes the doctors' diagnosis."
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/17/national/17brfs.html
Key quote: "Under state law, a hospital must continue care if there is a reasonable probability that another hospital will admit the patient. Ms. Hudson's lawyer, Mario Caballero, argued there was a reasonable chance that another hospital would take Sun, but hospital lawyers said that state officials had contacted almost 40 hospitals and found none willing to care for him."
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.