Some people apparently are more worthy of "saving" than others...
Don't stir the pot, Ambrose.
I just happend to have this link handy from a Terri Thread.
I'm assuming (not sure) that this is the law they are talking about.
http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/statutes/docs/HS/content/htm/hs.002.00.000166.00.htm
To find the section, do a search for the phrase "When There Is A Disagreement About Medical Treatment"
But, definitely not the last.
This is the slippery slope that started in Europe, and found its way here. This baby is probably a "test case", and who knows what baby is next?
The mother is a psycho who claimed that the baby would never die. She also claimed the Sun was the baby's father, never explaining how she got close enough to copulate.
The baby had an accute case of this affliction, and not one doctor in the entire country suggested that the baby wasn't terminal.
This was the biggest waste of legal and medical resources in recent history.
When will it end.
Well thank GOD the Fed didn't get involved! Whoo! Now THAT would have been AWFUL! Who cares about a baby, it's a state's rights issue! Wow, we dodged a bullet on this one--the nation would have crumbled if some federal judge got involved, that's all I can say, since that's the most important thing! Whew!
Ping. This is something Boortz brought up to undermine pro-life credibility. FReegards....
Mr. Nikolouzos was moved to Avalon Place, a nursing home in San Antonio yesterday. It is one of eight homes in TX which can care for patients on ventilators.
Really feel for the mom-must be difficult.
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.
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.
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.
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."
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?
Tommy Daschle works at a hospital in Texas now? Who knew?
FMCDH(BITS)
The child has a terminal defect.
The mother claims the child is the embodiment of the Sun come to Earth.
("So that mankind cannot claim the glory")
The poor child has been cast into this as a result of the mothers' crack usage.
Remind me to never check into a hospital, since doctors aren't saving lives anymore I might as well stay home and die for free.
BTW this isn't the first case of its kind.
http://www.affirminglife.org/issues/doe.asp