Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: mcg1969
even going so far as to contact 40 other hospitals to find one who would take the child and continue the life support

That makes a lot of sense. If they wanted the child to remain on life support they could have kept it there where it was already on it.

Is utter stupidity the rule?

50 posted on 03/15/2005 5:20:46 PM PST by tallhappy (Juntos Podemos!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies ]


To: tallhappy

I may be wrong, but I believe the reason the other hospitals were contacted was because the one the baby was in had decided they were going to take him off life support.


55 posted on 03/15/2005 5:28:18 PM PST by sageb1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies ]

To: tallhappy
That makes a lot of sense. If they wanted the child to remain on life support they could have kept it there where it was already on it. Is utter stupidity the rule?

In your posts, it is, it seems.

The point is, they contacted 40 other hospitals to see if any of them disagreed with their position that further life support would be pointless. According to Texas law, if even one hospital would continue treatment, they must do so too.

61 posted on 03/15/2005 5:31:40 PM PST by mcg1969
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson