Posted on 03/16/2005 6:12:01 AM PST by Crackingham
The baby wore a cute blue outfit with a teddy bear covering his bottom. The 17-pound, nearly 6-month-old boy wiggled with eyes open, his mother said, and smacked his lips. Then at 2 p.m. Tuesday, a medical staffer at Texas Children's Hospital gently removed the breathing tube that had kept Sun Hudson alive since his birth Sept. 25. Cradled by his mother, he took a few breaths, and died.
"I talked to him, I told him that I loved him. Inside of me, my son is still alive," Wanda Hudson told reporters afterward. "This hospital was considered a miracle hospital. When it came to my son, they gave up in six months. ... They made a terrible mistake."
Sun's death marks the first time a U.S. judge has allowed a hospital to discontinue an infant's life-sustaining care against a parent's wishes, according to bioethical experts. A similar case involving a 68-year-old man in a vegetative state at another Houston hospital is before a court now.
"It's sad this thing dragged on for so long. We all feel it's unfair, that a child doesn't have a chance to develop and thrive," said William Winslade, a bioethicist and lawyer who is a professor at the Institute for the Medical Humanities at the University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston. Paraphrasing the late Catholic theologian and ethicist Richard McCormick, Winslade added, "This isn't murder. It's mercy, and it's appropriate to be merciful in that way. It's not killing, it's stopping pointless treatment."
The hospital's description of Sun — that he was motionless and sedated for comfort — has differed sharply from the mother's. Since February, the hospital has blocked the media from Hudson's invitation to see the baby, citing privacy concerns.
"I wanted y'all to see my son for yourself," Hudson told reporters. "So you could see he was actually moving around. He was conscious."
On Feb. 16, Harris County Probate Court Judge William C. McCulloch made the landmark decision to lift restrictions preventing Texas Children's from discontinuing care. However, an appeal by Hudson's attorney, Mario Caballero, and a procedural error on McCulloch's part prevented the hospital from acting for four weeks.
Texas law allows hospitals to discontinue life-sustaining care, even if a patient's family members disagree. A doctor's recommendation must be approved by a hospital's ethics committee, and the family must be given 10 days from written notice of the decision to try and locate another facility for the patient.
You're right.
Lonnie was not this baby boy, Lonnie had made his own choices in life that led to his inevitable death. Baby Sun didn't have those choices in life, but he had about as much chance of living on as Lonnie did.
EuthanasiaTo my mind the relevant teaching here is that "discontinuing medical procedures that are burdensome, dangerous, extraordinary, or disproportionate to the expected outcome can be legitimate". As I understand it, this means that a brain-dead person who cannot breathe or pump his own blood is essentially "already dead", and that there is no sin in allowing the body to expire naturally. Contrast this sort of patient with the sort exemplified by Terry Sciavo, who is not brain-dead, merely incapable of movement: since her body is otherwise fully functional (i.e. her heart, lungs, digestive system, etc. all operate without machine assistance), she is obviously still a living human being, and it is murder to stop feeding her.2276 Those whose lives are diminished or weakened deserve special respect. Sick or handicapped persons should be helped to lead lives as normal as possible.
2277 Whatever its motives and means, direct euthanasia consists in putting an end to the lives of handicapped, sick, or dying persons. It is morally unacceptable.
Thus an act or omission which, of itself or by intention, causes death in order to eliminate suffering constitutes a murder gravely contrary to the dignity of the human person and to the respect due to the living God, his Creator. The error of judgment into which one can fall in good faith does not change the nature of this murderous act, which must always be forbidden and excluded.
2278 Discontinuing medical procedures that are burdensome, dangerous, extraordinary, or disproportionate to the expected outcome can be legitimate; it is the refusal of "over-zealous" treatment. Here one does not will to cause death; one's inability to impede it is merely accepted. The decisions should be made by the patient if he is competent and able or, if not, by those legally entitled to act for the patient, whose reasonable will and legitimate interests must always be respected.
2279 Even if death is thought imminent, the ordinary care owed to a sick person cannot be legitimately interrupted. The use of painkillers to alleviate the sufferings of the dying, even at the risk of shortening their days, can be morally in conformity with human dignity if death is not willed as either an end or a means, but only foreseen and tolerated as inevitable Palliative care is a special form of disinterested charity. As such it should be encouraged.
With this in mind, I'm fairly certain that removing the artificial ventilation from this poor child was not an act of murder. I could be wrong, however, and if so I request that those of you more knowledgeable please correct me on this.
HIPAA isn't a barrier when the legal guardian gives permission to specified persons to access protected health information, including patient visitation.
My "guess" is that the hospital was attempting to avoid a PR nightmare, which obviously backfired. Militant
"She may be a nutcase but murdering a baby is wrong."
Nobody murdered any baby
Hey thanks for the Churches take. I don't buy everything they say, load of problems these days with there positions vs. reality. But, they have spent some time cogitating these ethical issues. Unfortunately, they ignore any mention of economics, technology, or quality of life issues.
I'm amazed how much explaining you are having to do on this thread regarding some pretty obvious points. Clearly this story has a lot of people blasting away without having any idea what is going on.
Back in the 40's my cousin gave birth to a "blue baby" that didn't have a chance. Today those babies are routinely saved through emergency intervention.
Maybe someday Sun's defect will have a cure, but until then, keeping him alive on a respirator (even though his death is CERTAIN when his lungs grow too big for his chest) is not smart medically or financially, IMO.
"Nobody murdered any baby "
LOL!
Now you're redefining murder to excuse it.
Perhaps you are a relative of Clinton?
He redefined words all the time to rationalize his less than moral ways.
That seems to be the latest "fad" on FR; lots and lots of people spouting off as experts on things that they are fully versed on.
Maybe soon, many others can find this same relief and the bickering can stop. /sarc
Oh, the irony. That must have been a sight. On the one hand, you have this pathetic soul, ranting about Sun and demonstrating to all the world that she needs psychiatric help. Then, on the other hand, you have Greta, wide-eyed at the scene before her. I wonder what was going through Greta's mind, seeing this off-kilter woman in front of her, but, being a Scientologist, she doesn't believe in people getting psychiatric help?
So, you saw the show? LOL.
Now that you bring that up, I do believe there was mention of her having had "help" or having been "institutionalized," because I remember thinking, "She needs MORE help."
In all honesty, it was one of the most uncomfortable interviews I've ever seen on TV; her lawyer was beside her -- and I was thinking he should have been pummeled for letting her on that show.
I beg to differ. Motionless and sedated would describe my daughter's condition for the last week of her life. The condition described in the article is terminal and results in a slow, painful death with much suffering. The child was already in severe respitory failure, if vented for as long as suggested by the article. Children - adults for that matter - cannot stay on a vent indefinitely without severe degradation of pulmonary function.
Other sources on this story suggest the mother was, shall we say, a bit unbalanced and uncooperative. The hospital has the right to withdraw treatment in these cases, and the guardian has the right to move the child to another facility. I doubt any other institution would take the child, as merely transporting an infant in this condition is likely to be terminal. Surely there's more to the story, but the idea that the baby was "killed" by the hospital staff is absurd.
Hospitals face both civil and criminal liability if they withdraw treatment without following proper procedure. This case is no different than hundreds/thousands that happen daily among elderly patients, vegatative patients, and severely compromised children. There are certainly a few Dr. K wannabees out there, but they are held pretty well in check by their peers and the hospitals.
The contingent of pro-death medical professionals you mention gets lots of publicity, but I've yet to encounter them in my daughter's case or my father's, who also died after a long battle with dementia. Rather, I've witnessed immense compassion and understanding, and a remarkable respect for the dignity of a natural, peaceful death when all possible hope of recovery is past.
Nope, just familiar with the agony of a parent in this situation.
I spent about $250K of my own trying to keep my daughter alive.
Pound sand
"Now you're redefining murder to excuse it.
Perhaps you are a relative of Clinton?"
What a juvenile response. Yes, you caught me, I'm Bill Clinton's nephew.
For your information -- murder is defined as "The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice."
It was not unlawful, and also not with premeditated malice. Call it something else if you wish, but it ain't murder. You are redefining the term. Therefore, under your sterling logic, you are the Clinton relative!
"The contingent of pro-death medical professionals you mention gets lots of publicity, but I've yet to encounter them in my daughter's case or my father's, who also died after a long battle with dementia."
Yes I just read the mother was a nut.
However my original point - that was not properly expressed-is that the pro-death movement is on the march and like the abortion movement it lies and distorts. And like the abortion movement they don't have to be many - just loud. The pro-death movement infiltrated the medical profession in 1973 it is trying to come full circle -and will, in time, try to make us like Amsterdam.
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.