This person suffering from hereditary defects costs
the community 60,000 Reichsmark during his lifetime.
Fellow Germans, that is your money, too.
Posted on 03/21/2007 4:25:57 PM PDT by wagglebee
AUSTIN, TX, March 21, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A hospital ethics committee at Brackenridge Children’s Hospital of Austin, TX, a Catholic run hospital in the Seton Healthcare System, yesterday notified Catarina Gonzales, a young mother of a very sick child that, unless she can arrange to have her child transferred to another medical facility within 10 days, they will remove the respirator that the child relies on to breath.
Emilio Gonzales was born 16 months ago blind and deaf. Though very difficult to definitively diagnose, doctors have said that Emilio also suffers from Leigh’s Disease, an incurable neurometabolic disorder that affects the central nervous system leading to loss of motor control and frequently to eventual respiratory, kidney and heart failure. Victims of the disease in its severest form usually have a life expectancy of a few years although some individuals have lived to early teens.
Emilio has been hospitalized for the past three months on a feeding tube and respirator. His mother, a single mother, has kept a vigil by his bedside – quitting her job and dropping out of school to be with him. Catarina believes in miracles but is aware that Leigh’s Disease will probably eventually take the life of her little child. She disagrees that the hospital should be allowed to decide when that will be.
She says, “He is my only one and I cannot afford to lose him. I know he's going to die because of Leigh’s Disease. I accept that. But to take him, that's mainly playing God because you are saying who lives and who dies.”
Catarina says that Emilio responds to her while doctors claim that he is comatose and near death with no hope of recovery. Catarina said, "It's really hard because you see your son moving, and you see him opening his eyes." She has vowed to do everything in her power to find an alternate healthcare facility – even if it means moving the sick child out of state.
Under the “Futile Care Law”, Texas being one of only two states to have such a law, medical personnel may decide to withdraw vital medical treatment from a terminally ill patient regardless of the patient’s wishes. Not Dead Yet, a group dedicated to fighting euthanasia and protecting disabled individuals from laws such as the above mentioned Texas law says, “Essentially, futile care policies provide that a physician may overrule a patient or their authorized decision-maker in denying wanted life-sustaining treatment. Futile care policies do not generally require that the treatment be objectively futile, but allow doctors to use subjective criteria such as quality of life judgments and even economic factors as grounds for denying treatment.”
Emilio is on Medicaid and many critics have asserted that individuals like him are more likely to be euthanized in order to prevent them from being a drain on the system. Diane Coleman, President of Not Dead Yet, has written to ask Texas Governor Rick Perry to order a “stay of execution” for little Emilio saying, “If you need reasons other than simple humanity, here's one that might help: Since Emilio is a Medicaid recipient, he falls under the protections afforded by Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Removal of his ventilator - against the express wishes of his mother - violates his civil rights underSection 504.” Coleman complained that should the hospital be allowed to withdraw the respirator from Emilio, he will have received fewer protections from the state of Texas than a death row inmate.
Emilio’s doctors, members of the Pediatric Physicians Alliance of Central Texas, and Catarina have disagreed numerous times regarding Emilio’s treatment. They assert that she continually changes her mind regarding her son’s treatment while she has accused the doctors of withdrawing treatment without her consent and not adequately explaining their decisions about her son. An ethics committee meeting in February reviewed Emilio’s case and doctors agreed to continue treating Emilio until Catarina could find another hospital to transfer him to or until he was strong enough to return home.
A second ethics committee meeting last Friday reevaluated the case and determined, "The current aggressive treatment plan for Emilio amounts to a nearly constant assault on Emilio's fundamental human dignity, and with little, if any, corresponding benefit to Emilio."
The same ethics committee that determined that Emilio’s life was not worth living also recommended that spiritual and pastoral care be provided to help his mother and family cope with their grief.
The “Futile Care Law” is currently under review in the Texas legislature.
Emails and updates are swirling across the country to garner support for little Emilio Gonzales and to voice encouragement to act to anyone who might have the opportunity or authority to sway the hospital’s decision. Advocate groups for the disabled and pro-life groups have also joined forces to campaign for Emilio’s right to life.
To respectfully contact:
Most Reverend Gregory M. Aymond
Bishop of Austin
Contact: Rick Bologna
Location: Chancery
P.O Box 13327 1600 N. Congress
Austin, TX 78701
512-697-2015
Children’s Hospital of Austin
One Children’s Place
1400 North IH 35
Austin, TX 78701
512.324.8000
Austin Mayor’s Committee for People with Disability
(512) 974-2292
Office of the Governor – Rick Perry
P.O. Box 12428,
Austin, Texas 78711
Phone: (512) 463-2000
Citizen's Opinion Hotline: 1-800-252-9600
THANK YOU!
The results of the Texas Futile Care law have been
quite appalling!
No one has even mentioned that the main therapy for
Emilio's disease is vitamins.
One hard hearted poster glibly said, "pull the plug!"
Have we lost our corporate sense of compassion?
from wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hospital
A hospital is an institution for health care, often but not always providing for longer-term patient stays.
Today, hospitals are usually funded by the state, health organisations (for profit or non-profit), by health insurances or by charities, whereas in history, they where often founded and funded by religious orders or charitable individuals and leaders. Hospitals are nowadays staffed by professional physicians, surgeons and nurses, whereas in history, this work was usually done by religious orders or by volunteers.
....snip.....
The First Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D. urged the Church to provide for the poor, sick, widows and strangers. It ordered the construction of a hospital in every cathedral town. Among the earliest were those built by the physician Saint Sampson in Constantinople and by Basil, bishop of Caesarea. The latter was attached to a monastery and provided lodgings for poor and travelers, as well as treating the sick and infirm. There was a separate section for lepers.[6]
In medieval Europe
Medieval hospitals in Europe followed a similar pattern. They were religious communities, with care provided by monks and nuns. (An old French term for hospital is hôtel-Dieu, "hostel of God.") Some were attached to monasteries; others were independent and had their own endowments, usually of property, which provided income for their support. Some hospitals were multi-function while others were founded for specific purposes such as leper hospitals, or as refuges for the poor or for pilgrims: not all cared for the sick.
..... snip .....
In the United States the traditional hospital is a non-profit hospital, usually sponsored by a religious denomination. One of the earliest of these "almshouses" in what would become the United States was started by William Penn in Philadelphia in 1713. These hospitals are tax-exempt due to their charitable purpose, but provide only a minimum of charitable medical care. They are supplemented by large public hospitals in major cities and research hospitals often affiliated with a medical school. In the late twentieth century, chains of for-profit hospitals arose.
.... end of quote ......
As the history shows, the idea of hospitals as businesses is very new. Right now, one can wonder how well the concept is working. I believe the ideal role is for such care to be funded voluntarily through individuals, churches and charities rather than forcibly through government. However, the reality is government pays 50 percent of medical bills in the U.S. today and has choked much of the true charity out of the medical sector through overregulation.
It is foolish to say that care should only be given to those who can pay for it. Virtually all of us are just one major car accident or serious illness away from being unable to pay for it (particularly, as someone has already pointed out, with lifetime caps with many insurance companies these days). In addition, battling illness often prevents the sick and those caring for them from being able to provide income for themselves.
Historically in human society, we have decided that it is only humane and just that we provide care for those who cannot provide it for themselves. Many of the attitudes we are seeing here are the very thing that happens when government gets involved. Everyone feels they have the right to decide who is "worthy" of care.
To be sure my point is clear, I meant "medical care" when I wrote "care" in this paragraph.
Making totally unfounded assumptions about this poor mother's religion and obedience to her faith based upon your perceptions of your immediate peers speaks volumes about both your intellect and your character.
Have I denied that this has been a learning experience or that she knows now? Absolutely not. Prove that I did.
A "learning experience" is completely irrelevant to your cruel and unfounded accusations. You openly questioned her obedience to what you assume is her Catholic faith in your post #128 and falsely claimed an inapplicable citation in a failed attempt to prove her alleged disobedience in your post #147.
What I said was that it wasn't likely she understood those teachings coming into all of this, of course in my opinion.
You have absolutely no factual basis to make such a cruel and utterly pointless accusation.
Yet it is entirely possible to follow the teaching and not know it.
You have no basis to make any assumption about her religion, so stop doing it.
All I'm arguing is that it's possible, nay, likely she didn't know that this was the teaching of the Church.
The only point you have successfully if unintentionally argued is that you do not understand the teachings of the Catholic Church and have absolutely no clue how to apply them.
Do I deny that she's followed the teaching? Nope.
Then stop insinuating that because you and your friends are irreverent idiots that she is too.
My experience in working with my peers on these issues, as well as studying them for term papers, classes, etc. ad nauseam, is why I hold this opinion.
Grow up and stop attacking the loving actions of a desperate mother of a mortally vulnerable child.
I'm not attacking the actions of this mother.
Simply because you're assuming one thing and I'm assuming another doesn't mean jack.
Should I be assuming? That's a different debate, my FRiend.
Further, I'm not just talking about my friends (in reality, I have no friends--and yes, I'm not afraid to state this publicly), but people I've worked with. Based on what I know about this woman, and the fact that I've dealt with similar women, simple logic follows. Now, I may be entirely wrong.
But until I see otherwise, I believe I am to go by my assumptions because the evidence in the case leads me to those assumptions.
Absolutely, I despair for the children. I only hope and pray women will come to their senses and stop having children with men who are not going to be proper fathers.
susie
You attacked this poor woman by publicly assuming that she was acting contrary to her what you assumed her religion to be. Don't be so foolish as to make groundless assumptions against people you know nothing about, regardless of what you think of your immediate peer group. It's not logical and it's not nice.
And you have many virtual friends here on this discussion board. If you want to make some real friends, join your local church, your local Republican party, and your county's Right-To-Life group. If your college doesn't have a student chapter, e-mail WRTL and they will help you start one.
"You attacked this poor woman by publicly assuming that she was acting contrary to her what you assumed her religion to be. Don't be so foolish as to make groundless assumptions against people you know nothing about, regardless of what you think of your immediate peer group. It's not logical and it's not nice."
It was a logical assumption. And with all due respect, I believe I am not the only one who came to that. Should I have worded my original posting better? Probably. Should I have made sure I didn't sound condescending? Probably.
I stand by my assumptions because the postings here, the articles, plus the various conversations both here and elsewhere led me to logically make those. Now whether they turn out to be right or wrong in the end is for time to judge.
Enough said.
Secondly, I don't have friends because I don't have time for a social life. I work at least 42 hours a week between two jobs AND taking 15 credits, and only a couple of extracurriculars (mostly work-related). With homework, and then my involvement in Scouting, and then the little bit of remaining time here. Granted that's partially in my control, the fact that I still have bills, and the tuition going up in the UW system by almost 5%, and an untold increase in segregated fees.
I didn't even go out for my 21st with the exception of a family dinner.
OK -- but we don't know what this woman's situation was. She could be a widow for all we know. Or maybe she was married and he abandoned her after the baby was born. Who knows? This is just sad.
I agree it's sad. I simply stated that the majority of these stories don't have a father in them. That's sad as well.
susie
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.