Watch this story...Posted on 03/23/2005 10:32:14 PM PST by Destro
Living Wills; What If Terri Schiavo Lived in Texas?
LAST UPDATE: 3/23/2005 9:22:32 PM
Posted By: CyberBob
The entire Terri Schiavo controversy exists because she does not have what's called a "Living Will" - a legal document that requires hospitals to respect your wishes in a life or death situation. But a Living Will may not do you any good in Texas.
Without a Living Will the decision whether or not to stay alive on life support is out of your hands.
“I think this case clearly should demonstrate that to everybody that the importance of having these decisions written down and discussed with your family,” says University Hospital Spokesperson Leni Kirkman.
A Living Will is free and you don't need a lawyer or a notary. But even if you have a living will in Texas, it doesn't guarantee you'll stay on life support. Back in 1999, a law was passed here in Texas that allows hospitals to take you off life saving machines.
If your doctor feels there's no hope for survival, the Advance Directives Act allows a hospital to make a life decision for you. This exact situation just happened in Houston to Spiro Nikolouzos.
“The state of his brain injury is so severe, we can't fix him,” explains Dr. David pate from St. luke's hospital.
But Nikolouzos' wife was able to move him to a San Antonio nursing home. That happened because that Texas law giving doctors and hospitals the right to remove you from life support also allows your family ten days to find another health center to take care of you.
If the Schiavo case would have happened in Texas, it appears her feeding tube would have been removed long ago. That's because that law, signed by then Governor Bush in 1999, spells out who is the patient's surrogate, or decision-maker. It's the spouse with no provision for resolving disputes with other family members. And because Terri Schiavo's husband agrees with doctors who want to remove the tube, experts say it's likely the tube would have been removed.
There are other free legal documents similar to a Living Will that give you more control over your medical future. Click here for a complete list…
In our exclusive Survey USA Poll, we found that 48% percent of Texans think Schiavo's feeding tube should be left out; 41% think it should be put back in; and 11% are not sure.
Both the Schiavo and Nikolouzos cases are still developing. Keep it on WOAI - on TV, online and on the radio - for the latest.
Living wills can also get you put to death, maybe not even given food or water, so beware. I put in my living will clearly that I would never want to be denied food or water.
Evil lurks.
I see you're becoming a tool for the left, Shouldn't you post a copy of that bogus Republican "talking Points" memo along with this ?
This was the best bill GW could get, from my research. Previously the window was 72 hrs. Also with Terri's medical settlement another facility would have been found.
CONTACT JEB BUSH HERE:
E-mail: jeb.bush@myflorida.com
Telephone: 850/488-4441
Fax: 850/487-0801
Well, what's the problem? This is a good law. The people they're pulling the plug on have no moolah to pay for treatment. Think hospitals/Gubment should pay for this care?
Posted on 03/21/2005 7:44:29 AM PST by hipaatwo
I got into this a little last night, but here’s a little more background on something I suspect you might have heard yesterday and will continue to hear today. During the debate over Terri Schiavo’s life in Congress on Sunday, Democrats in the House of Representatives argued that President Bush is inconsistent in his support for Terri Schiavo because when he was governor of Texas he signed a bill that was recently used in a terrible case in Texas to deny lifesaving treatment to a baby against the child’s family’s wishes.
But according to a source familiar with what went down in Texas, the then-governor signed into law the best bill he could get at the time, improving an already bad situation. Here’s some background explained:
In August 1996 the Journal of the American Medical Association published an article describing procedures then in effect in Houston hospitals. Under these procedures, if a doctor wished to deny a patient lifesaving medical treatment and the patient or the patient's surrogate instead steadfastly expressed a desire for life, the doctor would submit the case to the hospital ethics committee. The patient or surrogate would be given 72 hours notice of the committee meeting would be allowed to plead for the patient's life at it. During that short 72 hour period, the patient or surrogate, while preparing to argue for life, could also try to find another health care provider willing to give the lifesaving treatment, food or fluids.
If the ethics committee decided for death, under these procedures there was no appeal. There was no provision that the food, fluids, or lifesaving treatment be provided after the decision while the patient or family tried to find another hospital willing to keep the patient alive.
So under these procedures, the hospitals in Houston were denying life-saving treatment, food and fluids against the wishes of patients and their families, when the hospital ethics committees said their quality of life was too poor. Patients and families were being given only 72 hours after being notified of the proposed denial to find another health care provider.
In 1997 there was an advance directives bill going through the Texas legislature that would have given specific legal sanction to such involuntary denial of life-saving treatment. An effort in the Texas legislature to amend the bill to require treatment pending transfer to a health care provider willing to provide the life-saving treatment had been defeated. When that bill reached Governor George Bush’s desk, he vetoed it, and said he was vetoing it precisely because it authorized hospitals to deny lifesaving medical treatment, food, and fluids against the will of the patients.
But even without that bill, these procedures were still going on. So there was an effort in the next sitting of the legislature, in 1999, to pass protective legislation. Unfortunately, the votes just weren’t there to require lifesaving treatment, food, or fluids be provided by unwilling hospitals. So there were negotiations that resulted in a bill that gave partial protection. That 1999 bill:
first, formalized more protections for in-hospital review second, gave patients 10 days of treatment while seeking transfer, and third, authorized court proceedings to extend the 10 days for reasonable additional periods to accomplish transfer.
Now this was not what patient advocates wanted and it wasn’t what Governor Bush wanted. However, it was an important advance over the existing situation of no legal requirement of treatment pending transfer, for any period of time. The votes were not there in the Texas legislature to accomplish a more protective bill. So Governor Bush signed it because it was an improvement over the existing law
Maybe the government needs to take an inventory of how many people will commit suicide if something goes wrong in surgery ?
Isn't Karl Rove a genius getting DemocRATS to circulate a fake Republican memo? What will he think of next?
If a person was on full life support with little or no chance and a person with a good chance of surviving needed the machine, who should get the machine?
I am talking about full life support, not just a tube or IV.
If she lived in Texas some Texan would have already lynched her bastard of a husband.
noun {C}
1 the equipment used to keep a person alive when they are very ill or injured:
See #15
My mother was fed through a feeding tube for over 2 years while she was beating Cancer, My father also had a feeding tube during his last 4 years on this Earth and that is not life support. Clear your mind my friend, you're falling for the leftist propaganda
bump
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.