Posted on 03/21/2005 5:14:06 PM PST by ambrose
Hospital ends life support of baby
1st U.S. case of its kind is against mom's wish, in accordance with law
10:52 PM CST on Tuesday, March 15, 2005
By BRUCE NICHOLS / The Dallas Morning NEws
HOUSTON — In what medical ethicists say is a first in the United States, a hospital acting under state law, with the concurrence of a judge, disconnected a critically ill baby from life support Tuesday over his mother's objections.
The baby, Sun Hudson, who'd been on a mechanical ventilator since his birth Sept. 25, died quickly afterward, his mother said.
"I held him ... I talked to him. I told him I love him," said the child's mother, Wanda Hudson. Then doctors took the mechanical breathing tube out, the child took a couple of breaths, struggled briefly in her arms and it was over, Ms. Hudson said.
She never shed a tear and explained why she wasn't showing emotion. "I was prepared for this," she said.
Doctors did not join her in meeting reporters, but Texas Children's Hospital issued a statement that it was "deeply saddened." The baby died of the effects of thanatophoric dysplasia, a form of dwarfism that impairs lung and chest cavity development and is "a lethal and incurable genetic deformity."
The death ended a court battle that began in mid-November when Ms. Hudson, a 33-year-old unemployed dental assistant, opposed doctors when they decided continuing life support was futile, unethical and medically inappropriate. Probate Judge William McCulloch cleared the way for removal of mechanical ventilation from the baby Monday.
There have been other cases elsewhere in which courts intervened, but the Hudson case was the first to reach the end stage, said Dr. John Paris, a bioethicist at Boston College.
"It's a first in the United States," he said. "It's not a first in the world. There was a similar case in England."
The hospital acted under a Texas law passed in 1999 that allows attending physicians, in consultation with a hospital bioethics committee, to discontinue life support when a patient's condition is hopeless. The law gives a parent or guardian 10 days to find another hospital or institution. After that, the hospital is free to act.
Texas Children's officials, and Ms. Hudson's lawyer, Mario Caballero, called dozens of institutions and none was willing to take the child, officials said.
Ending life support
With modern technology keeping more and more people alive who would have died in the past, the question of whether to end artificial life support increasingly arises, said Joan Krause, an expert on health care law at the University of Houston.
But parents and guardians usually go along with doctors' decisions. "The vast majority of cases end quietly," she said.
In the Hudson case, the hospital encouraged the mother to go to court and agreed to pay her lawyer after concern arose about her mental state. She said "the sun that shines in the sky," not a man, fathered her child and would decide its fate. She repeated her belief Tuesday.
Push came to shove Nov. 18, when the hospital's bioethics committee endorsed the recommendation of attending physician Peter Hainey to end life support. The hospital agreed to several extensions of the 10 days to seek alternative care but in January began pushing for a resolution.
Judge McCulloch in February lifted a restraining order barring the hospital from removing life support, but the 1st Court of Appeals stayed his order then sent the case back for correction of a procedural error. When that was done, the judge renewed his order, and Ms. Hudson's lawyer did not pursue his appeal further.
Mr. Caballero said he was a solo practitioner without the resources to go forward.
"I only have two arms and two legs," he said. He expressed disappointment that groups interested in right-to-life issues did not come forward to help him.
First state with law
The law under which the hospital acted was a compromise passed with the participation from the right-to-life lobby, Ms. Krause said. Their main focus has been opposing an artificial end to life through abortion, not an end to artificial support for life, although they've intervened in some cases, analysts said.
Texas was the first state to enact such a law, followed by California, Dr. Paris said.
"Texas is way ahead of everybody else," he said. "Judges don't want to issue these rulings. They want somebody else to do it."
The Texas law has not been tested before the highest courts.
Judge McCulloch took pains at a hearing to explain that he wasn't ordering the hospital to end life support, merely ruling that under the law, the hospital had done its duty, acted properly and was free to remove mechanical ventilation.
Ms. Hudson said her son had grown to more than 17 pounds while on life support, and that he "opened his eyes, moved his tongue" and moved around when she held him at the end.
"That was not the body," she said, expressing faith that she would see her son again. "As long as the sun's shining in the sky, my son's still here."
Hospital officials disputed her account, saying the baby has always been sedated and unresponsive.
Ms. Hudson said she'd made no funeral plans and would not attend if one were held. She said her parents, who did not talk to the news media and disapproved "of my talking about the sun," might be present.
Ms. Hudson said she's not angry but wants an autopsy and warned, "This is not over." She did not clarify what she meant. She complained that Texas Children's officials briefly put her in a psychiatric unit. Hospital officials denied it.
Ms. Hudson's lawyer, Mr. Caballero, is also involved in another Houston case, that of 68-year-old Spiro Nikolouzos, a retired electrical engineer. St. Luke's Episcopal Hospital wants to remove him from life support, but the patient's wife, Jannette, has gone to court to force continued care.
E-mail bnichols@dallasnews.com
I remember a case of a doc in W. Washington about 10 years ago who didn't think the baby he had just delivered was going to survive, so he just put his hand over its mouth & nose and waited until is suffocated. Some docs are more than willing to literally take matters into their own hands.
The slippery slope is Socialism. This mother had no means to pay the hospital. If a terminally ill baby is "entitled" to free medical care, then where does it end?
well it is a matter of choice which in Terri's case is disputed....I would want to leave but others feel differently.....don't know why some would want to live in that state, not that they would know.......
I think the most unselfish, loving act of all is to let a terminal loved one go with as much grace and dignity as possible.
"...[they] don't realize that [they] are asking us to kill something inside us-- our soul."
Of course we care. Do you?
I am always sarcastic--that's why I keep forgetting the (sarcasm) note.
I've got the soundtrack to Apocalypse Now on, Ride of the Valkyries, so I'm in a feisty mood. Gimme someone to fight! :D
BTW, if the parents could pay for the cost to keep the baby on life support, it is too bad they couldn't have moved him to a different state where there was no such law.
I totally agree......too many people suffer, not just the terminally ill one.....
That's the only possible reason he posted this week old story which has already been discussed to death already on FR.
Did hopeless in this case simply mean the little one would have to be on a respirator all his life, but other than that would be OK? Why couldn't the mother have arranged to do that at home? Was the sedatives so the baby would not yank off the respirator when not watched? So many unanswered questions.
And yes, this is the entrance to a slippery slope.
"Florida's Medicare is going to pay Teri's bills."
Her parents offered to pay. What more do you want from them? It's the willingness to pay that counts.
Not only that, I confess, I forced myself to stay away from the Schiavo threads until recently. In case, people hadn't noticed, we've been swamped with leftist problems.
This baby had been on a ventilator since birth, over 5 months ago. His condition was genetic and incurable. He had no prospect of life off the ventilator, and he would not get better.
This is not akin to starving and dehydrating someone who cannot feed themselves. No baby can feed himself, and it is never ok to fail to feed them.
He's doing it because of the endless Terri Schiavo threads. She needs her own forum, IMO.
I posted this article a few days ago with a picture
of the mother and infant.
There lies the explanation.
haha.....since you and I agree on most and I'm half sarcastic, well I understand.....you want to fight, hell post on any thread about Terri or McCain and oppose the prevailing postion.....LOL......you'll be playing Ride of the Valkyries at 78 speed.....not that any youngsters here would even know what that is.......LOL
This is how it had been for years to the current moment. If the baby was that dire a shape as their tone implies, it would have died anyhow in later infancy limiting the burden. There is lots of waste in government but this is scarcely the worst.
Comes to mind the 60,000 reichmarks "New People" poster.
"Ride of the Valkyries, so I'm in a feisty mood."
I understand that. I like the Valkyries too. That is one of the few things I agree with Hitler about. The holocaust? No not that. Just the music. I'm sure you'd agree, if limited to Jews at any rate. Unborn infants, I don't know where you'd stand.
FReegards....
Neither did that Superman guy
Unfortunately nobody seems to be listening or reading what you are saying. I saw an interview with the woman. You are right on in your assessment. My guess would be paranoid schizophrenia but I'm not a psychiatrist. She seemed the type that would keep a dead body dressed and washed in its crib for years claiming she was holding conversations with it.
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.