Posted on 04/30/2006 6:56:15 PM PDT by FR_addict
If anyone gets through to the hospital and gets an answer as to what will happen to Andrea, please post it here.
It's probably too early yet to find out anything this morning from the hospital administration.
The article has been moved down for newer articles.
http://www.hyscience.com/archives/2006/04/cease_and_desis.php#more
Besides the phone number listed above, there is an email address for St. Lukes.
generalinformation@sleh.com
Also in the article is the letter written by Andrea's attorney:
"Consequently, Andrea's attorney, Jerri Lynn Ward, is serving St. Luke's with a cease and desist order on Monday. Here is an electronic copy that we obtained:
Ms. Ann Thielke, J.D. In-House Counsel St. Luke's Hospital
VIA Email and Fax
Dr. Ron Giveon
Dr. Mark Tran
Dr. Robert Carpenter
Chairman of St. Luke's Hospital
Case Manager
Blue Cross Blue Shield
Re: Andrea Clark
Dear Sirs and Madam,
As you know, I represent Andrea Clark and her family. On behalf of the family and Andrea, I have been authorized to convey treatment decisions made by the family with regard to her care. Because Andrea is heavily sedated and is limited in her ability to communicate treatment decisions to her physicians and the hospital, the family is empowered under law to make such decisions on her behalf. The family is united in its decision that life-sustaining treatments should NOT be withdrawn or withheld from Andrea Clark pending transfer to another physician or facility.
On behalf of Andrea, the family, acting as a unit, has made the following treatment decisions:
1. Life-sustaining treatment should continue pending transfer as referenced above.
2. Dr. Ron Giveon should, in the exercise of reasonable care, prepare an interim summary of his findings and diagnoses to enable other physicians to have sufficient information in order to make a decision as to whether or not to take on the care of Andrea. It is unconscionable to this family that Andrea's primary attending physician has made himself unavailable to the patient during this trying time--even though he has delegated care to Dr. Tran.
3. It is the family's position that Andrea is not a "futile case". Under the provisions and privacy regulations of HIPAA, the family is entitled to have erroneous information in Andrea's medical chart corrected. Because, it is at least one physician's opinion that a diagnosis of futility and decision that life-sustaining treatments are inappropriate, the family requests, pursuant to HIPAA, that the medical chart be corrected and that the discontinuation of life-sustaining treatments on the basis of inappropriateness not be entered into her chart. The decision that Andrea's case is "futile" has placed seemingly insurmountable obstacles to transferring Andrea's care to other providers. It is repugnant to notions of justice and fairness that Andrea's life be threatened because you have unilaterally determined a disputable outcome that impedes her chances of finding another health provider.
4. The family has decided that the regimen of pain medication be reassessed and the dosage appropriately decreased so that a proper assessment of Andrea's condition can be made by physicians other than the ones to whom this letter is directed.
5. The family withdraws consent and authorization from the attending physicians and the hospital to discuss with, disclose to or elicit opinions from Dr. Robert Carpenter regarding protected health information concerning Andrea Clark. It is the family's opinion that Dr. Carpenter's actions and opinions in this matter are informed solely by his personal philosophies regarding "futile care theories" and that he has not taken an objective approach in this matter. Furthermore, it is the family understands that Dr. Carpenter is an ob-gyn, and not a cardiologist. Thus, the family questions Dr. Carpenter's seemingly active role in affirming treatment decisions of Andrea's treating physicians.
Moreover, it is the family's opinion that Lanore Dixon and Charles Clark were treated with rudeness, insensitivity and disdain during an ethics committee meeting which focused on pain management for Andrea. The family felt that its positions were ignored and ridiculed by Dr. Carpenter. Moreover, the report Dr. Carpenter wrote as a result of that particular ethics committee meeting was rife with misstatements of the facts. For instance, Dr. Carpenter wrote: "...The specific question asked concerning that belief is when, if ever, her sister told her that she wanted to exist in a state of pain and suffering to achieve that goal. That question was never answered."
Lanore Dixon strongly disputes this and asserts that she did; indeed, state "that Andrea did tell me that she wanted all measures to be taken to save her life unless she was brain dead."
It is the family's decision and desire that Dr. Carpenter recuse himself from consideration of this case and any decision regarding Andrea's care. The family will be exploring its recourse under the law and under the enforcement mechanisms of HIPAA to this end.
The family requests that the ethics committee be convened on a day and time convenient for the family, their attorney and their medical experts to discuss Andrea's care.
The family insists that Dr. Carpenter, or any other hospital staff member desist from any attempts to unduly or unreasonably persuade, intimidate or bully any potential treating physician into accepting Dr. Carpenter's opinion that life-sustaining treatments should be withdrawn. The family, again, withdraws any consent or authorization from the parties in this matter for Dr. Carpenter to receive or discuss protected health information regarding Andrea Clark
The family insists that it be made privy to any conversations between representatives or case managers and attending physicians or hospital staff and Andrea Clark's insurer regarding matters of coverage. The family is entitled to know if the insurer is placing pressure on the hospital based on its assessments regarding length of stay or any other measure impacting the insurer's willingness to pay.
Furthermore, Andrea Clark has apparently developed a pressure-ulcer while under your care. The family has been informed that the pain that Andrea is experiencing, and which in part is being used to justify withdrawing life-sustaining treatment, is resulting from the pressure ulcer. The family is entitled to evaluate whether or not proper and timely interventions were implemented to prevent Andrea from developing the pressure ulcer. Further, it is the expectation of the family that all necessary and proper treatment be continued to promote healing of the ulcer. It is the position of the family that the attending physicians and hospital have developed a conflict of interest as a result of Andrea's development of a pressure ulcer that should preclude you from making a treatment decision that will inevitably result in her death. Therefore, any action or decision that you make to withdraw life-sustaining treatment is ethically tainted by questions of fact regarding the level of care received by Andrea Clark.
On behalf of the family, I am putting you on notice that the family intends to file pleadings with the appropriate court in order to restrain you from withdrawing life-sustaining treatments. There are numerous questions of fact that should not be solely determined by you with regard to Andrea's treatment. There are fact issues with regard to whether or not the physicians and the hospital have acted with reasonable care in deciding that life-sustaining treatment should be withdrawn. Should you act to withdraw life-sustaining treatment prior to review by an appropriate Court, the family intends file complaints with the appropriate regulatory and licensure entities and to take any available legal action permitted under the law and in equity.
It is the family's opinion that the attending physician and ethics committee have overreached in this case. It should not be your decision as to whether or not Andrea's life is worth living. The family demands that life-sustaining treatments be continued in light of the fact that the family intends to take this matter up with the Court.
Should you have any questions, please contact me. Thank you for your immediate attention to this matter.
Very truly yours,
Jerri Lynn Ward
Cc: MFCU, OAG
HHSC (Texas)
Texas Board of Medical Examiners
Texas Department of Health
Episcopal Diocese of Houston"
thanks for the Ping. IMO, if this woman is still brain alive than they should keep treating her and do what they can for her. Many people live taking dialysis every day of their life, that is nothing new. I just don't get why doctors just think it is best to let someone die when that person clearly can live!
What's hurting her bad enough she needs to be zonked out on opioids? That sounds odd.
The information I have been getting comes from
Prolifeblogs.com
www.wesleyjsmith.com
and Hyscience.
I am not sure of the source of her pain. But Hyscience mentions ulcerations.
That's a good question.
Also, you can contact news media in Houston, TX, and contact multiple newspapers, tv and radio, right from this link:
http://www.congress.org/congressorg/dbq/media/
In reference to Post #49, you must put in the zip code. I put one of Houston's zip codes, 77001.
You can send messages to 5 places at a time.
Great. Not enough that she gave instructions to family, but now her intent must be scrutinized. And her family is in denial for abiding by her stated wishes?
This is a very interesting case and very important. I am not sure how many threads have been posted on this subject. I suggest everyone please go to this blogger site for an overview and links -
http://maxedoutmama.blogspot.com/2006/04/andrea-clark-and-futile-care-laws.html
Maxedoutmamma often mointers the Democractic Underground. A poster over there is this womans sister. There are 4 threads she links to DU where the family is trying to get out info. Also its interesting to see how a Right/left coalition has formed. I have been screaming about situations like this for years. If you anyone that is familar with case can post an update please do. I have to go to Shreveport Louisiana tomorrow and I will make sure that pro life organizations get involved If I have the proper info I can give them as to status. Also I have contacts with the Espicopal Diocese in Shreveport. Since this is an Espicopal Hospital they might have possible connections.
thanks, what ever happend to first do no harm?
Great news on Andrea's condition!
Follow-up on www.hyscience.com
http://www.hyscience.com/archives/2006/05/good_news_about.php#comments
"Yesterday was the day Andrea Clark's hospital originally said they would end her life sustaining medical treatment. As a result of the efforts of her family and friends, Andrea's sister sent us the following email today (in response to our email asking how she was doing):
How am I doing? I am doing FABULOUS! My sister, Andrea, is GETTING WELL. Her white blood cell count has been down to normal for the FOURTH day in a ROW now, and she has been able to get off of the blood pressure raising drugs that she has had to be on for MONTHS. She is doing GREAT. Her new doctor ... has also halved the amount of pain medications that she is taking, so that she can talk to her family. He says that her condition is "serious," but that she does have the ability to get much better.
The futility proceedings are stopped now. Because this new doctor took over her case, it is all stopped.
I'm so happy I don't know what to think, or say, or do. Not only is my sister NOT going to be put to death by St. Luke's Episcopal Hospital, but it also looks like she is RECOVERING from her heart surgery, finally.
Melanie
Praise God! Yes, miracles do happen. We couldn't be happier for Andrea and her family.
Originally posted by PLB at ProLifeBlogs
Let's all keep in mind that St. Luke's Episcopal Hospital in Houston and it's so-called "Ethics Committee" (sic) wanted to withdraw life support from Andrea Clark instead of giving her body the opportunity to recover.
Were it not for a physician that truly cared, respected Andrea's own wishes, AND had the common decency to care about life, unlike St. St. Luke's Episcopal Hospital and it's "Ethics Committee" - Andrea Clark would likely be dead instead of having an opportunity to continue fighting for her life."
You'll be happy to read Post #54.
Next battle - Vo.
"She is doing GREAT. Her new doctor ... has also halved the amount of pain medications that she is taking, so that she can talk to her family."
Ping to #54
I hope Andrea does as well as your son is doing.
Here's background on Ms. Vo.
Here's a case where the patient's daughter is a doctor, so knows better than the rest of us:
Ms. Vo is in her 60's. She is a patient at St. David's North Austin Medical Center here in Austin, Texas. She has been diagnosed with persistent vegetative state--but that is disputed by the family.
Ms. Vo's daugher, Loann Trihn, is an emergency room doctor and she disputes the diagnosis. Such a diagnosis is very subjective and involves clinical assessments. Dr. Trihn and her father have both witnessed her mother being responsive.
LifeNews reports the latest:
North Austin Medical Center had originally given Vo's family only until Saturday to find a place to take her because it was no longer willing to allow Vo to stay there.
Now they have until June 5 to transfer Vo to another medical facility or NAMC will stop providing Vo any life-sustaining medical treatment.
http://www.prolifeblogs.com/articles/archives/2006/04/yenlang_vos_str.php
Thanks for posting the great news!
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.