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.
“Can’t handle the truth so you sling the Psalms my way? I can tell you aren’t in Florida, the meltdown state. My Bible’s not readily available. If it were, I could locate plenty of verses about ministering to the ill and caring for those who will not be cured.”
“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.”
Find me a verse that assigns the task of ministering to the ill to the secular government. You continue to be fixed on salvation through the state, and as long as that fixation remains, the torment of unsatisfied expectation will remain as well.
‘Am I “such people”? Tell me, are you a pro-lifer? I am. I just hate the thought of the government or anyone else deciding my life is futile and murdering me without my permission.’
‘You quote the Bible so maybe you can quote some more passages that discuss when it is ok to kill innocents.’
There are no Scriptures that I am aware of which positively sanction killing innocents. There are also no Scriptures which assign the responsibility of taking care of the ill to the secular state, though there are several assigning that role to the people of God, His congregation, i.e., the church.
Your tagline proclaims “Jesus I trust in Thee”. Jesus says, “Why do you call me ‘Lord, Lord’, but do not do what I say?” (Luke 6:46). He does tell you to trust in Him, not in the blasphemous claims of the modern secular salvation state, which seems to have become you idol. Having illicitly ceded that responsibility to the state, you now are appalled that the state is interpreting its responsibility in a way that amounts to killing the innocent. Why are you surprised at this?
It would be good to repent of this idolatry immediately, and ask God to show you your part in seeking to retract this cession of responsibility to the state and return it to the custody of God’s people, who are to depend on Him, and not the taxing and police power of the secular salvation state to provide the means for caring for the ill and infirm.
LilAngel says:
“You’re courageous! I’d be afraid to abuse God’s Word to promote killing off His most vulnerable creations.”
Please explain how calling God’s people to repent of their illegitimate delegation of the responsibility for caring for the ill and infirm to the secular salvation state and its representatives, and to resume meeting that responsibility themselves, promotes the killing of these individuals? Having turned these individuals over to the tender mercies of the state,to the point where you apparently cannot imagine any other way of dealing with the need, you are now appalled at the results. Why?
Proverbs 12:10
A righteous man regards the life of his animal, But the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel.
Since the start of this thread you have engaged in strawman arguments in a effort to push your PRO-DEATH position.
This law has NOTHING to do with paying for medical care and it never has. I don't care for the current Medicare/Medicaid system either, but that's not what this thread is about. This law is about the state allowing doctors to decide that someone's life is "not worth living" and deny them food and water so they die. Should this be allowed? Yes or No.
Let me give you a hypothetical so that you can get beyond your misconception that this is about money. Let's say that I lived in Texas and was in a position similar to Terri Schiavo's. You see my family has A LOT of money, they could keep me in there indefinitely and pay for it out of pocket. Should the hospital be allowed to kill me off because some doctor doesn't like my "quality of life"?
It would be good to repent of this idolatry immediately, and ask God to show you your part in seeking to retract this cession of responsibility to the state and return it to the custody of God’s people,
You are pathetic!
8mmMauser has done more for the pro-life movement than anyone here. He went to Terri's hospice and stood by in prayer as she was being murdered -- NOT YOU.
You can disagree with people all you want but calling someone a blasphemous idolater is disgusting, especially when everything you've posted on this thread indicates that YOU feel that it is acceptable to kill innocent people for "convenience".
NO. YOU explain how putting someone into a hospital is "illegitimately delegating responsibility for caring for the ill and infirm" to the state?
44 For every tree is known by its fruit. For men do not gather figs from thorns: nor from a bramble bush do they gather the grape.
45 A good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is good: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth that which is evil. For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.
46 And why call you me, Lord, Lord; and do not the things which I say?
Buy yourself a clue. You are in desperate need of them. Quoting the bible does not increase your credibility if you have no understanding of the faith behind it.
Are you a troll? Your attempt to insult does not make it because you have not reached that level of communication.
Matthew 7:6
That is to say, Mt:7:
6 Give not that which is holy to dogs; neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest perhaps they trample them under their feet, and turning upon you, they tear you.
Actually yesterday I had copied the very same quoted Luke passage into my clipboard ready to use, so still had it at the ready, and this guy clips out a part and uses it. That is funny.
But it happens often enough. People with little true understanding but who want to sound as they do will seek out passages thinking it will support their attacks, but instead, the context just sort of sneaks up on ‘em.
Sometimes people sound smarter when they do not speak or quote.
There are still some people around here who could only sound stupider if they talked more.
Maybe they will. I am all ears and ready for some comic relief.
Luke 6:44-46 is indeed an appropriate extension of the thought in vs 46.
‘NO. YOU explain how putting someone into a hospital is “illegitimately delegating responsibility for caring for the ill and infirm” to the state?’
The answer to this question depends on how the hospital is managed, funded, and governed. Who makes the governing rules, who pays the bills, and who enforces the rules? What state tax funds pay for tends to end up being under the governance and management of the state. Even much of the private funding (e.g., privately funded insurance) tends to end up giving the state more leverage over the practice and management of medical care services under the present system, because the private funds are largely spent in ways which qualifies those who pay (employers) for tax deductions.
Thus, the state tax system both by providing taxed funds directly, and indirectly (through the regulation of qualifications for tax deductions) gains control over medical service management and policy. We are seeing the fruit of that system of providing medical and labor intensive persoanl care services in the various deadly practices which all of us who recognize the importance of valuing human life find appalling, but many, apparently including you, and some of the other posters in this discussion, are oblivious to the connection.
I hope this changes. If you wish to retreive control over the policies, management, and enforcement of policies in medical and labor-intensive personal care services, then you will have to cease delegating the funding of these services to the state, because it WILL end up managing them and controlling enforcement of polices that you abhor, if you don’t.
Clearly that’s a big change, perhaps the work of more than a lifetime (unless the whole system collapses in a fairly short period of time, and we are left to develop a replacement under catastrophic conditions - - -always a possiblity, though hopefully something less drastic will suffice).
Now, now, I already told you to buy a clue and you didn’t.
The heart of this issue is pro-life, not about obfuscation. I just think it is wrong for the government or anyone else to murder innocent patients for any reason. That is pro-life, n’est pas?
Surely you hate as I do that any organization in Texas would croak an innocent regardless of policy. I hope so.
As far as I can tell, you are some sort of anarchist who favors eliminating government altogether. I don’t know where you come up with this nonsense, because it isn’t Christian and it certainly isn’t conservative and Free Republic is after all a conservative and not an anarchist/libertarian forum.
In any event, it still seems that you have no opposition to a doctor or hospital choosing to end someone’s life based upon some arbitrary definition of futile.
‘This law has NOTHING to do with paying for medical care and it never has. I don’t care for the current Medicare/Medicaid system either, but that’s not what this thread is about. This law is about the state allowing doctors to decide that someone’s life is “not worth living” and deny them food and water so they die. Should this be allowed? Yes or No.’
This law, and the system of laws and regulations of which it is a part, has a great deal to do with paying for medical care, because it is the control of payments that has given the state the leverage to compel public acceptance of its authority to tell medical practitioners what they can and can’t do, and to make its telling stick.
‘Let me give you a hypothetical so that you can get beyond your misconception that this is about money. Let’s say that I lived in Texas and was in a position similar to Terri Schiavo’s. You see my family has A LOT of money, they could keep me in there indefinitely and pay for it out of pocket. Should the hospital be allowed to kill me off because some doctor doesn’t like my “quality of life”?’
No, it shouldn’t, and if it determines to do so, then your family’s recourse (unless the state’s control of the funding hasn’t given it so much leverage that it can prevent your family from removing you from the hospital and relocating you to a provider of services who will respond to your family’s wishes) is to relocate you to service providers that will take care of you in the manner that they wish. Apparently, in the case of Terry Schiavo, the state’s reach has indeed extended to that point, right?
In rolling back that hubristic state claim of control over medical services delivery and delivery of labor intensive personal care services, I suspect we are in agreement. Where we differ is in the appropriate means to achieve that end. You apparently think it “has nothing to do with money”. I think that the regulations and enforcement powers that you are so concerned to bend to your way of seeing things have a lot to do with who controls the “payments to the piper”. In the end, ‘he who pays the piper’ will have at least a huge influence over the tune the piper plays. Increasingly, our society has delegated the “source of payments” to the state, and providers of funds who are deemed to receive a subsidy from the state (tax deductibility) and therefore sources of further leverage over service facilities and service delivery practices.
So, the bottom line is that you think that a hospital should be allowed to operate the same way a Burger King does, and that they should have the right to refuse service to anyone or deny further service to someone who is already there. Is this correct? YES or NO.
Are you talking about Medicare/Medicaid? Are you suggesting we should evade our taxes, or are you suggesting our taxes shouldn’t be spent on the services for which they are collected?
There are passages in the Bible which address both of these issues. You probably know the words. Your problem is, you don’t know their meaning. You are like those mentioned in Mark 12:13, hoping to twist God’s Word to serve your master’s purpose. God will not be mocked.
“As far as I can tell, you are some sort of anarchist who favors eliminating government altogether. I don’t know where you come up with this nonsense, because it isn’t Christian and it certainly isn’t conservative and Free Republic is after all a conservative and not an anarchist/libertarian forum.”
“In any event, it still seems that you have no opposition to a doctor or hospital choosing to end someone’s life based upon some arbitrary definition of futile.”
I am a Christian who understands the Scriptural mandate for government (e.g.,as set forth in Rom 13:1-10, and 1 Pet 2:13-17), and certainly not an anarchist (although I am a realist about the nature of human government and its possibilities, as set forth quite well in places like 1 Samuel 8, 1Jo 5:19, and in Augustine’s “City of God”).
You misread me when you say that I have no opposition to physicians killing their patients. On the other hand, there is a difference between killing, and refusing to continue treatments of various kinds. I think that the state should have very limited authority to require physicians or other care givers to perform services.
If we make the state the primary vehicle for paying (or permit it to exercise indirect control over payments) for medical services, however, this will extend its authority practically whether we like it or not.
Got it. You're in the "food and water is treatment" crowd and you think that a hospital should be allowed to cut someone off the same way that a bar does.
If we make the state the primary vehicle for paying (or permit it to exercise indirect control over payments) for medical services, however, this will extend its authority practically whether we like it or not.
The ONLY person here talking about this is YOU. There is no healthcare crisis in this country except the one created by the leftist liberals and libertarians. The overwhelming majority of people have private health insurance. And regardless of what anyone feels about Medicaid and Medicare, it is properly legislated law and to suggest circumventing these programs is a form of anarchy.
This law IS NOT about money, it's about whether or not a hospital has the right to kill people.
“Are you talking about Medicare/Medicaid? Are you suggesting we should evade our taxes, or are you suggesting our taxes shouldn’t be spent on the services for which they are collected?”
Being familiar with the teaching of Rom 13, I pay my taxes, and do not recommend that others not pay theirs. I am suggesting indeed that these ‘entitlement’ systems are a bad idea, and would further suggest that they are illicit extensions of the role of the state. Given their impending insolvency (which is what I think is driving the trend of laws that increasingly mandate or “permit” premature termination of lives) I don’t invest a lot of effort arguing why Medicare/Medicaid are perverse means to a good end. The course of events will make this plain enough for anyone with eyes to see and ears to hear.
“There are passages in the Bible which address both of these issues. You probably know the words. Your problem is, you don’t know their meaning. You are like those mentioned in Mark 12:13, hoping to twist God’s Word to serve your master’s purpose. God will not be mocked.”
God indeed will not be (successfully, indefinitely) mocked. If you know of any Scripture which instructs us to delegate our responsibility for caring for the ill, infirm, and weak to the state, I would be interested in learning about them.
I think you will be hard pressed to find them, but I could be wrong.
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.