Posted on 08/08/2007 4:09:44 PM PDT by wagglebee
However, the efforts of hundreds of activists, including families whose ailing loved ones were victims of the law and the attorneys and doctors who offered benevolent services to the patients, were not in vain. The statewide and national awareness provoked by this battle will not be forgotten by Texas legislators and the citizens they represent. The end of life euthanasia war has only just begun.
Currently, Texas law allows for a physician to withdraw life-sustaining treatment (including food and water) from a patient despite the patient's advance directive or expressed wishes.
Once the physician's decision is approved by the ethics committee at the hospital, the patient and/or family have only ten days to transfer to another facility or another physician. The physician or facility is not obligated to treat the patient beyond the tenth day, which can and has led to the death of the patient. Rarely are transfers effectuated either by the family or the facility within the ten-day allotment.
Senate Bill 439 and House Bill 1094 would have changed the law so that a patient and the family are given sufficient time to locate a transfer during which time the patient would continue receiving life-sustaining medical treatment until a transfer is completed, thereby safeguarding against involuntary euthanasia. Eleven other states require that a patient be treated until he is transferred elsewhere, and Texas should have been the twelfth state to enact such patient protections.
On April 12, the Texas Senate Committee on Health and Human Services heard testimony on Senate Bill 439—Texas Right to Life’s proposed changes to the current Texas Futile Care law. Senator Robert Deuell, M.D., (R-Greenville), the bill's sponsor, explained that most physicians practice good medicine and communicate effectively with patients and their families.
He emphasized that this law only comes into play when there is a disagreement, and in those situations, the current law does not serve families well. The Senate committee then heard from concerned citizens and organizations, including nurses, doctors, disability rights groups, and Right to Life groups.
Many of the families affected by this ten-day law courageously recounted their experiences in battling against the ten-day clock. They discussed how they were shocked and dismayed that the people entrusted to care for their ailing loved ones would soon be the ones to pull the plug against the will of patients and families if a transfer was not found.
Catarina Gonzalez, mother of 18-month old Emilio who at the time was languishing in an Austin hospital, took time away from Emilio’s bedside to address the committee. She dramatically and tearfully shared that she knew her precious son was dying, but she thought he should die when God called him home, not when an ethics committee rendered Emilio’s life as value-less. (Emilio died on May 20.)
More families echoed her sentiments. Lanore Dixon, sister of Andrea Clark, told how her family should have been spending more time with Andrea during the last days of her life instead of fighting lawyers and ethics committees.
Due to the unjust balance of power conferred upon hospital ethics committees to make these life and death treatment decisions, even the Texas branch of the American Civil Liberties Union spoke in favor of SB 439. Will Harrell, Esq., director of ACLU Texas, stressed that patients are stripped of their due process rights and civil liberties when ethics committees make quality of life judgments and decide the fate of patients in the board rooms of hospitals.
Houston attorney, Robert Painter, played a shocking voicemail message left by a hospital administrator for the family of a patient. While Mr. Painter courteously omitted the name of the administrator and the name of the facility, the recording illustrated the quality of life mindset that has infiltrated some of these facilities.
The administrator pressured the family to agree with the hospital and let “your Daddy pass.” More shocking was this: “If we don’t hear from you by Monday, we're gonna make him hospice so he can go ‘head onto Glory,” threatening the family about the facility proceeding without their consent.
Needless to say, Mr. Painter’s testimony as an attorney who has helped several families through this process was quite compelling. (The patient who was the subject of the voicemail message was slated to be withdrawn from treatment and “made hospice” in January of this year, but was transferred to a skilled nursing facility where he is stable and receiving dialysis.)
On the House side, the Public Health Committee heard all the bills on advance directives on April 25th. The antagonistic tone of this hearing was dramatically different than the cordial tone set by Senator Deuell in the Senate committee.
The chair of House Public Health, Dianne Delisi (R-Temple) presented her own bill on advance directives and end of life care. While her bill, House Bill 3474, would have lengthened the ten days to twenty-one days, other provisions in her bill actually undermined what little protections for patients currently exist in the law.
The testimony on HB 3474 and the other bills on advance directives lasted until 5:11am. Attorney Jerri Ward, Texas Right to Life’s 2006 Pro-Life Attorney of the Year Award recipient, and other attorneys who have helped many families navigate the ten-day transfer process buttressed the ACLU’s concerns about patients being robbed of their due process, not to mention the errors in medical judgment that can occur.
Chairman Delisi would not allow the attorney to play the “Send him onto Glory” voicemail message in her committee. (The recorded voicemail message is posted at http://www.texasrighttolife.com).
Some opponents to the Hughes bill argued by describing treatments that can be painful to patients and told of families insisting that doctors continue painful treatments that will not benefit their loved ones.
However, Burke Balch, JD, Director of the Robert Powell Center for Ethics (and our colleague from National Right to Life), reminded the committee that appropriate palliative care could resolve nearly all pain and suffering issues and also clarified that this bill does not include a requirement for futile treatment—treatment that is providing no medical benefit to the patient, but rather, HB 1094 would require treatment that is sustaining the life of the patient. He further explained medical groups in the states in which “treatment pending transfer” laws are in place have not complained that they cannot work within the law.
Kristina Harrison, mother of six-year old Klemente, told how doctors tried to pressure her three years ago into withdrawing treatment from Klemente, now disabled and in a wheelchair. Klemente was the star of the hearing and would not have stolen the show if his mother yielded to the pressure of the hospital.
LaCretia Webster stated that the only reason she still flies her Texas flag, despite Texas letting her down with our futile care law, is because her father and brother are military servicemen. Her mother, Ruthie, was transferred to a facility in Chicago after a Dallas area doctor personally intervened to thwart two confirmed transfers within the state. She now must travel from Texarkana to Chicago twice a month to visit her best friend, her mother.
Even though Senate Bill 439 had the support of the majority of the Senate committee members as it was written, the committee decided to vote out a substitute for SB 439—a substitute identical to the unacceptable Delisi bill in the House. Unfortunately, this substitute included six elements that rendered the bill even worse than current law while giving the family only an additional 11 days to find a transfer.
Lieutenant Governor David Dewhurst intervened and oversaw negotiations. He offered his own office for negotiations with the stakeholders, including Texas Right to Life, disability rights advocates, and the medical and hospital associations.
To his credit, Dewhurst would not allow the bill to come to the Senate Floor until the problems were remedied. Because of his assistance, SB 439 emerged from his office and then from the Senate Floor in a clean, acceptable form, albeit not close to the original strength of SB 439. Regrettably, when the bill reached the Public Health Committee in the House, the negotiated agreement masterfully orchestrated by Dewhurst was disregarded, and harmful amendments were added. Nonetheless, SB 439 emerged and was placed on the House Calendar, where it died on the last day of eligibility due to its low placement on the schedule.
HB 1094/SB 439 did not die due to a lack of support. In the House 77 out of 150 members co-authored the bill signifying their commitment to vote for the issue, and about a dozen more members firmly committed to support the measure while choosing not to co-author. Twenty of these House co-authors were Democrats who took active leadership, demonstrating the most bi-partisan effort in the history of Pro-Life bills in Texas. Likewise, 11 of 30 Senators co-authored SB 439 (2 Democrats and 9 Republicans).
Texas Right to Life hopes that such established support coupled with a new awareness of the issue will lay the foundation for a victory in the near future. As we continue to help families in the interim who are victims of this law, we will be reminded of the importance of our perseverance in this battle. And we pray that no one else will be the victim of this state-sanctioned, draconian involuntary euthanasia process.
As I said in my first response, see post # 15. Although, thank the Lord, the Act has never been used to remove food and water, the substitute Bill that everyone agreed to in the Lieutenant Governor’s office that day, and which the Senate passed, would have made sure that the Advance Directive Act was never used to remove or withhold food and water. The dems in the House effectively killed the bill, by grandstanding and stalling.
I hope we can get the tweaks passed in ‘09. In the meantime, the TMA, the Hospital Association and several regulatory agencies have agreed to work to include them in “best practices.” And, I assume, the Coalition will continue to meet to strengthen the improvements that are needed.
hocndoc,
Fascinating, isn’t it? “We want what we want when we want it, at a price we are willing to pay, and YOU physicians (and other care providers and their managers) must deliver or else!”
And they say the docs are playing God!? What rubbish. I can see why many are exiting the profession.
“Blue Ridge. Reality Check: People in health care plans for seniors are priced out of home health care by their said plan. Then the patient has no choice (Florida) but to go to a care facility. When they see how much it would cost to stay in their health care plan, it is astronomical so the patient is FORCED into Medicaid due to cost measures. The state then does then become in charge of said patient.”
That is, ‘I have a right to the services of other people at a price I can afford, and if I don’t get it, I will sue the pants off the gatekeepers to these requirements using my contingency fee compensated lawyer, while lobbying the lawmakers incessantly so said lawyer will have the tools to prevail in court and get me what I demand.’
Well, if it gives satisfaction and makes what remains of life meaningful, then I suppose that those with such expectations will litigate and lobby to the end of their days, won’t they? Having placed their lives in the hands of the modern secular salvation state and its various proxies in the form of limited liability corporations, regulatory agencies, and litigation systems, those who trust in that version of salvation will have their reward, one way or another. May they enjoy it, while they have it.
Given the prevalence of such people, it would be prudent to warn our offspring against entering the ranks of the caregiving professions, or seeking venues to practice their arts outside of the reach of these tyrants.
Psalm 39:4-7
4 “LORD, make me to know my end,
And what is the measure of my days,
That I may know how frail I am.
5 Indeed, You have made my days as handbreadths,
And my age is as nothing before You;
Certainly every man at his best state is but vapor.
6 Surely every man walks about like a shadow;
Surely they busy themselves in vain;
He heaps up riches,
And does not know who will gather them.
7 “And now, Lord, what do I wait for?
My hope is in You.
8 Deliver me from all my transgressions;
Do not make me the reproach of the foolish.
Psalm 90:9-12
9 For all our days have passed away in Your wrath;
We finish our years like a sigh.
10 The days of our lives are seventy years;
And if by reason of strength they are eighty years,
Yet their boast is only labor and sorrow;
For it is soon cut off, and we fly away.
11 Who knows the power of Your anger?
For as the fear of You, so is Your wrath.
12 So teach us to number our days,
That we may gain a heart of wisdom.
I don't see anywhere in the Bible where poisoning the sick is an acceptable practice. Anna Nicole Smith wasn't a senior citizen but she's dead, right? She died of a poisoning event too.
Nice try but not quite. Terri was given the morphine as a part of the Exit Protocol to make her die faster. It was written into the protocol. We were reading it as she lay dying just yards away. She was a tough one for the killers, lasted thirteen days without a drop of water. That says something about her health.
Judge Greer wanted her dead and said so.
Wow, how much did they give her to make her die faster - and why did it still take almost two weeks?
I’ve been disgusted with the removal of the feeding tube, the placement of an IV for the morphine, and the refusal of oral food and water. These were medical interventions done only to kill her.
As I recall from the Protocol, it wasn’t an overdose at all, but part of the procedure to set up the body to shut down. I guess you know how that works. The protocol itself is being held by Hospice of the Florida Suncoast. Perhaps we can request a copy if it helps explain.
Yup, they had a hard time killing her.
You quote the Bible so maybe you can quote some more passages that discuss when it is ok to kill innocents.
Terri Schindler Schiavo was not "hooked up to machines". Had she been permitted instead of held hostage, Terri was able to move about by wheelchair but big surprise, IT WAS BROKEN and the guardian of the year wouldn't fix it.
Terri breathed on her own, she laughed, she cried, for gosh sakes, she recognized people, she even followed directions. Lightning speed? No, but she was quite active.
Many lies about Terri have already been revealed. The back story is less tragic but for the long haul, more compelling. For example, Robert Woods Johnson Foundation is for SCHIP. Why you ask? Because the SCHIP is harmful to seniors, cutting them off at the knees but providing socialized medicine to kids up to the age of 25 and EVEN ILLEGAL ALIENS would get free medical care.
That's another way to kill Granny when she gets her new Medicare premium and finds out the promise made to her of health care was gutted and laundered over to illegals and to 25 year old children.
Robert Woods Johnson Foundation is full of cultists imo. They wanted Terri dead in the worst way. So did George Soros. These are some non-republicans who are pro-death in addition to the ACLU who sat at Michael Schiavo's counsel table before the pro-death judiciary who backed up their buddy George Greer. Stand by your judge.
Backroom deals and blackmail arent always part of the death merchants' stew. In Terri's case, they were.
A sound bite that rings true. FV
I’m afraid that the *real* purpose was to sedate her enough to slow her breathing so that none of the people around her saw or heard her gasping. While slowing her breathing would also prevent her from breathing fast enough to get rid of the acid that builds up in the blood of starving people, I believe that the primary purpose was to make the people around her more comfortable and to salve their consciences.
You’re courageous! I’d be afraid to abuse God’s Word to promote killing off His most vulnerable creations.
Your post #15 to me was nothing but a series of hysterical depictions in a poor attempt to create false sympathy for the perverse idea of doctors being able to murder their patients.
Although, thank the Lord, the Act has never been used to remove food and water, the substitute Bill that everyone agreed to in the Lieutenant Governor’s office that day, and which the Senate passed, would have made sure that the Advance Directive Act was never used to remove or withhold food and water.
The way you have been whining on this thread about miserable patients enslaving their poor doctors, I'm surprised that you wouldn't endorse allowing physicians to just shoot them between the eyes with a .357 point blank.
The dems in the House effectively killed the bill, by grandstanding and stalling.
I imagine that included long litanies of flowery pro-death language similar to your previous posts here.
I hope we can get the tweaks passed in ‘09.
Unless the "tweaks" involve providing medical care to those that explicitly request it, the fundamental problem will remain. Innocent people shouldn't be put to death by lazy and incompetent doctors more interested in their profit sharing bonuses and their golf schedule.
I know the hospice had a protocol, but I think it was only for our comsumption to make us think she would not feel pain. The autopsy report reflects that she was given very little morphine and it was just on a few occasions given by suppositories. Here is what it says:
"In late March 2005, it was alleged in the press that Mrs. Schiavo was being given a morphine drip or otherwise being drugged with morphine to expedited or otherwise ease the dying process. Orders were written and Mrs. Schiavo received morphine sulfate (5mg) suppositories during her final days at Hospice. Her medical records indicate that she received dose on 3/19/05 and a second on 3/26/05. Now other morphine treatment were recorded. Her postmortem toxicology showed no trace of morphine in her body. Acetaminophen (Tylenol) was detected......Autopsy report
I think they wanted it to be as painful as possible. That was been the track record of the Schiavo team throughout the case, to inflict pain, and they killed by the cruelest method possible. There is no reason to think they turned into kind people, imo. Certainly evidence does not support that either.
Here is an eye wittnes about Terri breathing:
All I can say is God bless you.
Well stated.
I for one think doctors should be making the calls. With maybe an administrative committee of medical educated people to look at rare suspicious cases.
I don’t really get the alleged right to life position of keeping on operating and doing invasive surgeries in a futile effort. That may give a few days or maybe a few days of ‘life’ more at most, but vastly more suffering. We wouldn’t do that with animals who are dying, we let them go out as painfree as possible.
And I hope it stays that way! If I am ever so unfortunate as to venture into Texas and require life sustaining medical care, I'll expect nothing less from you and your ilk than "pull the plug, I tee off at 3:00."
I'm sure that Hillery Clinton agrees with you. I'm confident that having the government doctors make all the calls about who gets treated and who gets murdered will be an integral part of her health care nationalization proposal.
Even without her health nationalization something like 50% of health spending is now government. And I would guess in these type of long term end of life care examples its higher then 50% already.
Hillary would probably go farther then me. For me the main question is what is in the best interests for the life, includign quality of life of the patient. Hillary and especially some of her friends add another question. What benefits the collective.
I think she would actually prefer government administrators maybe doctors themselves but in high level bureaucratic positions, to make rules that doctors in the government system must follow.
I don’t play golf - mine’s the water garden - these days that has to be done early in the morning.
And I don’t “pull the plug.” Instead, my husband and I have dedicated our resources to pro-life activism and bioethics - to put the brakes on those who would use “bioethics” as a mechanism to justify killing.
Still, God bless.
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.