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. Suns 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 sons doctor, Suns mother Wanda found an attorney and went to court to save her sons life. Without a single evidentiary hearing, Judge William C. McColloch has decided that the hospital has the right to take measures to end the babys life, if the hospital happens to want to do so. Free Market News has interviewed the attorney for the childs 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 Childrens 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. Hudsons 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 Im not part of the right to life movement; in fact, personally, Im 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 childs mother. Attorney Caballero subpoenaed hospital records of Medicaid payments for the childs 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 childs 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 mothers 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 hospitals 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
That's rather selfish, isn't it? Shouldn't the physical welfare of the child trump her feelings?
Yes, I know, that's easy for me to say, as I'm not the one grieving over my dying child. But that's partly the point. The mother is simply incapable of making the right decision here. Her little boy is suffering terribly and someone needs to step in.
Certainly we would step in if the baby were otherwise healthy and she were physically abusing it... well, I believe the hospital is making the case that keeping the baby alive is tantamount to that.
Finally, it is simply NOT the case that the hospital is playing God by letting this baby die naturally. He is only being kept alive through signficant artificial means. No, 4mycountry, they are playing God now by keeping the baby alive.
Right or wrong, I would be doing the same as her. And she needs support. There is no logical thinking when it comes to wanting to save your baby.
Now return to the mother, and ask yourself whether it might be just a wee bit selfish for her to insist that this child remain suffering due to the artificial intervention of the hospital.
If you're still not convinced, ask yourself what you would do if that baby were perfectly healthy, but the mother was causing him an equivalent amount of pain through physical abuse.
Just wondering why doctors can't remove his ribs and replace them with artificial ones that can be enlarged or replaced as he grows?
Do you know that? Or are you going by the article?
Because I've seen a lot of misreporting of the information in Terri's case.
*If* you know that....ok. But it is VERY hard to separate the emotion from the logic. The mother only knows, I want my baby. And she is post pardum.
You can't expect her to think logically. She is hormonal and instinctive right now.
Is saving a baby's life not ethical?
As would many of us if faced with the same situation. Agreed.
And she needs support.
Yes, what she needs is grief counseling. Her child is dying and she needs to let go.
There is no logical thinking when it comes to wanting to save your baby.
Indeed and that's why in rare cases such as this it is ethical for the doctors to go against the wishes of the parent.
(All I have said here is predicated on the facts as I understand them; if I am wrong I may have to change my mind.)
In that case, maybe we should get rid of pacemakers, heart surgeons and organ transplants...
And exactly how do you know that?
That is not what is happening here. The baby's life cannot be saved; it can only be sustained through artificial means.
Consider Spiff's example above, whose child had its umbilical cord wrapped around its neck. Of course it is ethical in that case to fix the problem---a simple procedure provides permanent and lasting relief.
Not so here. Not only is this child going to die without significant artificial life support, but that life support is causing significant physical suffering.
Your thought process is really scary.
Experience. I'm a registered nurse, and I've seen it beofre. Read up on the condition please.
Fair point, except you can recover from such operations to the point that you are automomous and relatively pain free. In this case, not only is the life support causing the child significant pain, but as I read the description of the condition, even standard life support will fail eventually.
If this mother were causing an otherwise healthy child this much pain, on a continuous, ongoing basis without any sign of relief, we'd lock her up.
So you know there is nothing that can be done?
What about breaking the ribs and resetting them?
Just wondering why doctors can't remove his ribs and replace them with artificial ones that can be enlarged or replaced as he grows?
That's only half the battle. The LUNGS are the other half. What about leaving it in God's capable hands?
I asked earlier about replacing the ribs with artificial ones but hadn't heard if that is possible.
The author sure seems to see TAX dollars as being a bottomless pit.
And people wonder why hospital care is expensive. The money does have to be made up, either through higher costs or higher taxes.
If the disease is skeletal then the lungs should grow normally once the rib cage were enlarged, right?
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.