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
I know the difference, I just asked where the line is drawn.
>>>> My main problem here is the court-ordered doctor-assisted euthanasia.
This is an interesting point.
Will this be used as a precedent?
Fair enough, Spiff. I'd say it's somewhere between your case and this child's case :) I know that's not helpful. But I will say it's a long, long way from your end of the spectrum.
>>>>I am responding to too many people.
And you have done a fine job doing that too.
Thank you for your insight on this thread.
I truly believe it would be much more difficult with a child involved. At least we could console ourselves that my mother had made such a request and that she had lived a long life. You have my heart felt sympathy. I always pray and ask God to not take my son before me. And now there is my grandson to consider too.
This article rubs me the wrong way, plain and simple. It worries me to no end; I'm afraid that things like this will have a snowball affect.
No hearings from the mother's side. Just a court order.
Oh well, guess I'm just a stubborn girl who thinks people should have a fair say. Silly me.
So, you apparently draw the line when the person can't be "fixed" and if keeping the "unfixed" person alive will cost the "public" a lot of money. There sure are a lot of "unfixed" people walking around right now that you would have sentenced to death.
I'm not saying that in this particular case the parent is necessarily right or wrong - I'm just saying that one has to be EXTREMELY careful where the draw the line on this kind of thing.
We were there when they took my mother off the respirator. But she seemed to have already left us. She was in a coma and showed no brain activity, unlike Terri Schiavo.
You are so right.
You seem to be using some language other than English.
Taking someone off life support is never Euthenasia.
Euthenasia involves killing someone who is surviving on their own.
So9
How do you define a "simple procedure"? Would you doom those children who's lifesaving procedures were not "simple" nor have a 100% guarantee of providing permanent and lasting relief?
How do you define "significant artifical life support?" Would artificial feeding methods fall under that category? How do you know that the child is having significant physical suffering? Should we kill everyone who is having "significant physical suffering" who can't be permanently relieved of that suffering? Where do we draw the line?
I draw the line at who has cash or insurance. Those who can pay are entitled to anything they can find a doctor willing to do.
I don't think charity cases, and that is what all others are, is entitled to anything.
They recieve what the patron, in this case all of us through goverment coercion, is willing to give. And they should damned well be grateful for it.
So9
What is the purpose of life support equipment? I've never really understood.
People on Medicare/Medicaid get damn good care also and who pays for that?
I have to leave this thread, it hurts too much to follow it. God bless this poor child. When God is ready for his angel to come to him, he will call him home. God bless the parents.
What are you talking about? By the admission of this biased article, it's not about money. This child is being covered under state medical insurance which is not being cut off. And the hospital is even paying the woman's attorney's fees. So what else is it about?
Because naturally, I'm biased toward life. But I'm extremely irritated against the courts playing God.
You know, talk about straw men. If you're going to invoke the "playing God" argument, then we have to sit here and debate what medical treatments are "playing God" and which are not. But more importantly, it is not the courts playing God here at all. The hospital's medical staff, the ones with the expertise, made the decision. The court is simply respecting their expertise.
What happens to the entire argument if, two years from now, a cure is found?
Nothing whatsoever. This disorder then changes from a terminal one to a non-terminal one that should be treated. We have to work from the current state of the art in medical knowledge.
"if, two years from now a cure is found?" Treatment and care have now saved the lives of people who have the same illness as my mother. Should we have kept her on life support for 19 years in the hope of a cure?
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.