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

To: Peach
"And, btw, did you know that then Governor Bush signed legislation in Texas making it possible to remove people from life saving equipment (in many states feeding tubes are considered in that category) against the family's consent?"

This is the White House response to your accusation: From White house.gov.

McClellan being Scott McClellan, the President's press secretary. The question coming from a reporter in the gaggle.

"Q Scott, you may remember this from your Texas days. A member of Congress in Florida, Deborah Wasserman Schultz, got on the floor yesterday and said that the President, when he was Texas Governor, signed a piece of legislation into law that, she said, would allow -- when there's a dispute, would allow a feeding tube to be removed and that -- she was a little bit murky on exactly what the law was, but, essentially, she was saying that the President signed something into law that's contradictory to what he is doing now.

MR. McCLELLAN: That's absolutely incorrect. The legislation he signed is consistent with his views. You know, this is a complex case and I don't think such uninformed accusations offer any constructive ways to address this matter. The legislation that he signed into law actually provided new protections for patients. He had previously vetoed legislation in 1997, when he was Governor, which essentially would have sanctioned current law in Texas that allowed hospitals to stop providing life-sustaining treatment -- because under Texas law, prior to the passage of the '99 legislation that he signed, there were no protections. And so this legislation was supported by many; it enjoyed strong bipartisan support; concerned citizens, various groups came together to support this legislation and put in place new protections for patients.

The legislation was there to help ensure that actions were being taken that were in accordance with the wishes of the patient or the patient's family. And let me give you an example. Prior to that legislation being passed I think there was a 72 hour period where if the hospital notified a patient -- or the family that represented the patient that they were going to deny life-sustaining treatment, then they had just that 72 hour period to find a place to transfer the patient, that would provide the treatment.

This legislation, some of the new protections it put in place were --included, the ethics committee review by the hospital, in working with the families as well, making -- you know, to discuss those decisions, determinations. And it also provided a 10-day period, so they had 10-day notice to be able to transfer the patient to another health care provider. And it also authorized court proceedings to extend that 10-day period in order to extend that transfer, if necessary.

So it's just an uninformed accusation.

545 posted on 03/23/2005 6:14:22 AM PST by A Citizen Reporter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 539 | View Replies ]


To: A Citizen Reporter

I truly thank you for sending me that, despite your tone. If you search on my posts last night, around 1 or 2 in the a.m., you will see the article which I posted to.

I said it didn't sound right and I was pretty shocked. But I knew nothing of this legislation except what was in the newspaper article.


547 posted on 03/23/2005 6:16:34 AM PST by Peach (The Clintons pardoned more terrorists than they ever captured or killed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 545 | View Replies ]

To: A Citizen Reporter

Thank you for clearing that up. I, myself, played into the media hype this time. You know, it's a very easy (albeit lazy) thing to do.


553 posted on 03/23/2005 7:25:32 AM PST by Hildy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 545 | 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