for you too
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
So when a baby is born with a congenital, terminal illness or condition, we should allow the baby to die without trying everything to save the baby? How do you feel about abortion?
The lungs won't grow with the child. If something could be done, they would have done it, I'm sorry to say.
Everyone is not born with an invariably fatal disease that can only be postponed, not cured. Most of us most of the time can continue to live without massive medical intervention.
I don't believe anyone has a right to expensive medical care they can't pay for. When the law says otherwise, the Law is an Ass and needs changing. This is not a socialist country, yet.
So9
Sun is slowly suffocating to death because his lungs lack the capacity to support his body, according to hospital officials.
I had to shut the life suport off from a parent a few years ago.
It's time to smell the roses.
That was 9 years ago. She'll be 10 in August.
Doctors are only human.
What does abortion have to do with this poor baby? I, also, don't believe I said that they should have just left the baby to die, with out trying. I guess I need to go back and check my posts.
But, I did say, that you have to decide when to draw the line. How long do you want the baby to stay on life support? How long is enough? When do you let go? Have you seen someone who has suffered life support long term?
Lung replacement?
This is a rare disorder but it not enough that it isn't understood. It is fatal.
You're kidding me, right? Lordy, lordy... Oh yes, cherishing every last moment you have with someone you love, whom you know is going to be gone forever soon, is extremely selfish. Shame on her. Shame shame shame. [/sarcasm]
A few years ago, my grandmother was diagnosed with cancer. We were told that she only had a few months to live; there was simply no way she was going to survive. In the end, she did die from it.
We tried chemotherapy (sp?) and other treatments to keep her with us as long as we could. If the hospital had come to us and said, "We're not going to treat her because she's going to die anyway" and gave us a court order, we would be outraged. Who wouldn't?!
And think on this: Is a hospital playing God when it give cancer patients chemotherapy? Perhaps God meant for that person to have cancer; perhaps we have no right to try to save that person. Is the hospital still playing God when it removes cancer from a person's body? ...What if a baby is born with a heart defect - is the hospital playing God if it gives the baby a new heart? Your argument is ludicrous to me.
My grandmother died. Yes, we tried to save her against all odds. Yes, we clung to hope. Yes, we knew we would lose her.
So go ahead and write selfish on my forehead.
What a sick thing to say. If you can't have a civil argument get the hell out of this thread.
Who decides who is entitled to expensive medical care? What standards do they use? Age? Length of expected life? Finances only? Only American citizens? Projected quality of life? Who decides?
No.
Yes, it is selfish in this case. Deal with it. The child is suffering terribly. And you think that's something to cherish?
Your grandmother's example is irrelevant, because, I presume, she consented to the treatment herself.
Again, I ask you this: if a mother was causing this level of pain to an otherwise healthy baby, would you excuse it in the name of parental prerogative?
I looked it up: Thanopatophoric dysplasia
http://www.emedicine.com/ped/topic2233.htm
Medical Care: Inpatient care is necessary. Intubation may be performed as aggressive treatment for respiratory distress.
If aggressive treatment is deferred, palliative treatment consists of keeping the infant warm, comfortable, and nourished.
Consultations:
Geneticist
Neurologist
It looks like treatment options are extremely limited. Infants afflicted with this genetic defect die, with a very few exceptions, in the neonatal period. Very tragic.
See post #64.
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.