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
Suppose she had been sane as a judge (well, Greer excepted) and yet wanted this. Would that have made it better?
Broken bones, signs of strangulation, No CPR administered, the cremation outrage, and recent, hot: ACCIDENTAL CONFESSION ON LARRY KING?....And many quotes with info I was not aware of have been pasted there.
This is a very different case to that of Terri.
Terri is not being kept alive artificially, as this poor little baby was.
Even the Catholic Church accepts it's beyond reason to keep someone alive artificially - as distinct from starving a patient to death. VERY, VERY BIG DIFFERENCE
All you have to say are seven words, and you're a bioethicist..."I wouldn't want to live that way."
The two cases are not similar at all.
I agree. The children of people who you feel are psychos should be terminated. Even if the children are healthy. Right on brother! You get to decide who lives. Yeah, Baby!
how long did it take the baby to die after the artifical breathing apparatus was removed?
"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."
There is a BIG difference in the Terri Schiavo case which I don't know that you are considering . . . Terri is NOT terminal.
Letting them go is one thing, and making them go is another.
If the state is paying, the state will pursue it's interest to cut costs. What more do you need to know as you place your foot on the top of this slippery slope?
From what I understood, the baby was terminal and did have a chance.
IMO, the hospital did the right thing.
Neither did that Superman guy
That Superman guy had a fully developed set of lungs & a fully developed heart...something the Hudson baby never would have had.
From what I understood, the baby was terminal and did not have a chance.
(forgot the not)
If you think this child was healthy, you are terribly misimformed.
If people really, deeply believe there is a heaven, and that innocent people who die will spend eternity in the glory of God's presence, why do they simultaneously work so hard to keep the Terri Schiavos of the world in this world?
First of all, I do not know what happens to a baby who dies. I really don't. Christians do not hold that "innocent" people go to heaven, because there are no innocent people, "for all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God" Romans 3:23. Rather, those who do go to heaven do so, not through their own "innocence" or righteousness, but through the atoning sacrifice that Jesus made; one that must be accepted by those who want it. Jesus said "I am the way the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but through Me." (John 14:6).
Secondly, the Bible teaches us that human life is inherently valuable (a better question, though admittedly somewhat off topic, would be how can any true-blue Darwinist defend medicine of any kind?), due to passages like "And God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them." (Genesis 1:27), "Whoever sheds man's blood, By man his blood shall be shed, For in the image of God, He made man." (Genesis 9:6), "the ransom for a life is costly, no payment is ever enough-" (Psalm 49:8), and "For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well.
As a final note, for my few minutes on the soap-box, this case as well as the Terri Schiavo case display a trend about our nation: a total disregard for the lives of those considered inferior. When a nation begins to turn and slay the weakest, the most helpless among them (those that they have the greatest charge to care for and protect), it has violated the most essential of God's laws, and has become completely barbaric.
If you think that whether this child was healthy or not is an issue, you are terribly misinformed.
I have to agree with you. This baby had no chance to live and the lungs were so poorly developed. I had a friend who's baby dies right at birth because the lungs were to small and not fully developed. In a situation like this I think there is a time to let go. I believe Terri's case to be different in that she canb reath on her own. Huge difference!
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.