Bigotry and the Murder of Terri Schiavo

[Tigermike 3,029]

Published on Friday, March 25, 2005

FOCUS: Bigotry and the Murder of Terri Schiavo

By JOE FORD

“Misery can only be removed from the world by painless extermination of the miserable.”

—a Nazi writer quoted by Robert J. Lifton in The Nazi Doctors: Medical Killing and the Psychology of Genocide

The case of Terri Schiavo has been framed by the media as the battle between the “right to die” and pro-life groups, with the latter often referred to as “right-wing Christians.” Little attention has been paid to the more than twenty major disability rights organizations firmly supporting Schiavo’s right to nutrition and hydration. Terri Schindler-Schiavo, a severely disabled woman, is being starved and dehydrated to death in the name of supposed “dignity.” Polls show that most Americans believe that her death is a private matter and that her removal from a feeding tube—a low-tech, simple and inexpensive device used to feed many sick and disabled people—is a reasonable solution to the conflict between her husband and her parents over her right to life.

The reason for this public support of removal from ordinary sustenance, I believe, is not that most people understand or care about Terri Schiavo. Like many others with disabilities, I believe that the American public, to one degree or another, holds that disabled people are better off dead. To put it in a simpler way, many Americans are bigots. A close examination of the facts of the Schiavo case reveals not a case of difficult decisions but a basic test of this country’s decency.

Our country has learned that we cannot judge people on the basis of minority status, but for some reason we have not erased our prejudice against disability. One insidious form of this bias is to distinguish cognitively disabled persons from persons whose disabilities are “just” physical. Cognitively disabled people are shown a manifest lack of respect in daily life, as well. This has gotten so perturbing to me that when I fly, I try to wear my Harvard t-shirt so I can “pass” as a person without cognitive disability. (I have severe cerebral palsy, the result of being deprived of oxygen at birth. While some people with cerebral palsy do have cognitive disability, my articulation difference and atypical muscle tone are automatically associated with cognitive disability in the minds of some people.)

The result of this disrespect is the devaluation of lives of people like Terri Schiavo. In the Schiavo case and others like it, non-disabled decision makers assert that the disabled person should die because he or she—ordinarily a person who had little or no experience with disability before acquiring one—“would not want to live like this.” In the Schiavo case, the family is forced to argue that Terri should be kept alive because she might “get better”—that is, might be able to regain or to communicate her cognitive processes. The mere assertion that disability (particularly cognitive disability, sometimes called “mental retardation”) is present seems to provide ample proof that death is desirable.

Essentially, then, we have arrived at the point where we starve people to death because he or she cannot communicate their experiences to us. What is this but sheer egotism? Regardless of one’s religious beliefs, this is obviously an attempt to play God.

Not Dead Yet, an organization of persons with disabilities who oppose assisted suicide and euthanasia, maintains that the starvation and dehydration of Terri Schiavo will put the lives of thousands of severely disabled children and adults at risk. (The organization takes its name from the scene in Monty Python and the Holy Grail in which a plague victim not dying fast enough is hit over the head and carted away after repeatedly insisting he is not dead yet.) Not Dead Yet exposes important biases in the “right to die” movement, including the fact that as early as 1988, Jack Kevorkian advertised his intention of performing medical experimentation (“hitherto conducted on rats”) on living children with spina bifida, at the same time harvesting their organs for reuse.

Besides being disabled, Schiavo and I have something important in common, that is, someone attempted to terminate my life by removing my endotracheal tube during resuscitation in my first hour of life. This was a quality-of-life decision: I was simply taking too long to breathe on my own, and the person who pulled the tube believed I would be severely disabled if I lived, since lack of oxygen causes cerebral palsy. (I was saved by my family doctor inserting another tube as quickly as possible.) The point of this is not that I ended up at Harvard and Schiavo did not, as some people would undoubtedly conclude. The point is that society already believes to some degree that it is acceptable to murder disabled people.

As Schiavo starves to death, we are entering a world last encountered in Nazi Europe. Prior to the genocide of Jews, Gypsies, and Poles, the Nazis engaged in the mass murder of disabled children and adults, many of whom were taken from their families under the guise of receiving treatment for their disabling conditions. The Nazis believed that killing was the highest form of treatment for disability.

As the opening quote suggests, Nazi doctors believed, or claimed to believe, they were performing humanitarian acts. Doctors were trained to believe that curing society required the elimination of individual patients. This sick twisting of medical ethics led to a sense of fulfillment of duty experienced by Nazi doctors, leading them to a conviction that they were relieving suffering. Not Dead Yet has uncovered the same perverse sense of duty in members of the Hemlock Society, now called End-of-Life Choices. (In 1997, the executive director of the Hemlock Society suggested that judicial review be used regularly “when it is necessary to hasten the death of an individual whether it be a demented parent, a suffering, severely disabled spouse or a child.” This illustrates that the “right to die” movement favors the imposition of death sentences on disabled people by means of the judicial branch.)

For an overview of what “end-of-life choices” mean for Schiavo, I refer you to the Exit Protocol prepared for her in 2003 by her health care providers (available online at http://www.cst-phl.com/050113/sixth.html ). In the midst of her starvation, Terri will most likely be treated for “pain or discomfort” and nausea which may arise as the result of the supposedly humane process of bringing about her death. (Remember that Schiavo is not terminally ill.) She may be given morphine for respiratory distress and may experience seizures. This protocol confirms what we have learned from famines and death camps: death by starvation is a horrible death.

This apparently is what it means to have “rights” as a disabled person in America today.

Joe Ford ’06 is a government concentrator in Currier House.

http://www.thecrimson.com/today/article506716.html

[TexasTiger 12,876]

Published on Friday, March 25, 2005

FOCUS: Bigotry and the Murder of Terri Schiavo

By JOE FORD

“Misery can only be removed from the world by painless extermination of the miserable.”

—a Nazi writer quoted by Robert J. Lifton in The Nazi Doctors: Medical Killing and the Psychology of Genocide

The case of Terri Schiavo has been framed by the media as the battle between the “right to die” and pro-life groups, with the latter often referred to as “right-wing Christians.” Little attention has been paid to the more than twenty major disability rights organizations firmly supporting Schiavo’s right to nutrition and hydration. Terri Schindler-Schiavo, a severely disabled woman, is being starved and dehydrated to death in the name of supposed “dignity.” Polls show that most Americans believe that her death is a private matter and that her removal from a feeding tube—a low-tech, simple and inexpensive device used to feed many sick and disabled people—is a reasonable solution to the conflict between her husband and her parents over her right to life.

The reason for this public support of removal from ordinary sustenance, I believe, is not that most people understand or care about Terri Schiavo. Like many others with disabilities, I believe that the American public, to one degree or another, holds that disabled people are better off dead. To put it in a simpler way, many Americans are bigots. A close examination of the facts of the Schiavo case reveals not a case of difficult decisions but a basic test of this country’s decency.

Our country has learned that we cannot judge people on the basis of minority status, but for some reason we have not erased our prejudice against disability. One insidious form of this bias is to distinguish cognitively disabled persons from persons whose disabilities are “just” physical. Cognitively disabled people are shown a manifest lack of respect in daily life, as well. This has gotten so perturbing to me that when I fly, I try to wear my Harvard t-shirt so I can “pass” as a person without cognitive disability. (I have severe cerebral palsy, the result of being deprived of oxygen at birth. While some people with cerebral palsy do have cognitive disability, my articulation difference and atypical muscle tone are automatically associated with cognitive disability in the minds of some people.)

The result of this disrespect is the devaluation of lives of people like Terri Schiavo. In the Schiavo case and others like it, non-disabled decision makers assert that the disabled person should die because he or she—ordinarily a person who had little or no experience with disability before acquiring one—“would not want to live like this.” In the Schiavo case, the family is forced to argue that Terri should be kept alive because she might “get better”—that is, might be able to regain or to communicate her cognitive processes. The mere assertion that disability (particularly cognitive disability, sometimes called “mental retardation”) is present seems to provide ample proof that death is desirable.

Essentially, then, we have arrived at the point where we starve people to death because he or she cannot communicate their experiences to us. What is this but sheer egotism? Regardless of one’s religious beliefs, this is obviously an attempt to play God.

Not Dead Yet, an organization of persons with disabilities who oppose assisted suicide and euthanasia, maintains that the starvation and dehydration of Terri Schiavo will put the lives of thousands of severely disabled children and adults at risk. (The organization takes its name from the scene in Monty Python and the Holy Grail in which a plague victim not dying fast enough is hit over the head and carted away after repeatedly insisting he is not dead yet.) Not Dead Yet exposes important biases in the “right to die” movement, including the fact that as early as 1988, Jack Kevorkian advertised his intention of performing medical experimentation (“hitherto conducted on rats”) on living children with spina bifida, at the same time harvesting their organs for reuse.

Besides being disabled, Schiavo and I have something important in common, that is, someone attempted to terminate my life by removing my endotracheal tube during resuscitation in my first hour of life. This was a quality-of-life decision: I was simply taking too long to breathe on my own, and the person who pulled the tube believed I would be severely disabled if I lived, since lack of oxygen causes cerebral palsy. (I was saved by my family doctor inserting another tube as quickly as possible.) The point of this is not that I ended up at Harvard and Schiavo did not, as some people would undoubtedly conclude. The point is that society already believes to some degree that it is acceptable to murder disabled people.

As Schiavo starves to death, we are entering a world last encountered in Nazi Europe. Prior to the genocide of Jews, Gypsies, and Poles, the Nazis engaged in the mass murder of disabled children and adults, many of whom were taken from their families under the guise of receiving treatment for their disabling conditions. The Nazis believed that killing was the highest form of treatment for disability.

As the opening quote suggests, Nazi doctors believed, or claimed to believe, they were performing humanitarian acts. Doctors were trained to believe that curing society required the elimination of individual patients. This sick twisting of medical ethics led to a sense of fulfillment of duty experienced by Nazi doctors, leading them to a conviction that they were relieving suffering. Not Dead Yet has uncovered the same perverse sense of duty in members of the Hemlock Society, now called End-of-Life Choices. (In 1997, the executive director of the Hemlock Society suggested that judicial review be used regularly “when it is necessary to hasten the death of an individual whether it be a demented parent, a suffering, severely disabled spouse or a child.” This illustrates that the “right to die” movement favors the imposition of death sentences on disabled people by means of the judicial branch.)

For an overview of what “end-of-life choices” mean for Schiavo, I refer you to the Exit Protocol prepared for her in 2003 by her health care providers (available online at http://www.cst-phl.com/050113/sixth.html ). In the midst of her starvation, Terri will most likely be treated for “pain or discomfort” and nausea which may arise as the result of the supposedly humane process of bringing about her death. (Remember that Schiavo is not terminally ill.) She may be given morphine for respiratory distress and may experience seizures. This protocol confirms what we have learned from famines and death camps: death by starvation is a horrible death.

This apparently is what it means to have “rights” as a disabled person in America today.

Joe Ford ’06 is a government concentrator in Currier House.

http://www.thecrimson.com/today/article506716.html

153207[/snapback]

Texas can disconnect people simply because they can't pay even if every family member wants them to stay alive. Does that bother you, too?

[Tigermike 3,029]

Texas can disconnect people simply because they can't pay even if every family member wants them to stay alive.  Does that bother you, too?

153208[/snapback]

Yes it does. Does it bother you? But why don't you stick to the point of the article?

[TexasTiger 12,876]

Texas can disconnect people simply because they can't pay even if every family member wants them to stay alive.  Does that bother you, too?

153208[/snapback]

Yes it does. Does it bother you? But why don't you stick to the point of the article?

153211[/snapback]

I didn't know I was off point. This is not an isolated case. It happens frequently. The driving force in many cases is money. To the extent that one wants to call it "bigotry" , there is far more of if directed at the poor and disabled, but that rarely if ever makes the news or conservative blogs. The Texas law gets brought us with the President's press secretary and he lies about it. There is no outrage there. Few, if any, conservative blogs decried the decision to cut off life support to this child:

Baby born with fatal defect dies after removal from life support

By LEIGH HOPPER

Copyright 2005 Houston Chronicle

The baby wore a cute blue outfit with a teddy bear covering his bottom. The 17-pound, 6-month-old boy wiggled with eyes open and smacked his lips, according to his mother.

ADVERTISEMENT

Then at 2 p.m. today, a medical staffer at Texas Children's Hospital gently removed the breathing tube that had kept Sun Hudson alive since his Sept. 25 birth. Cradled by his mother, he took a few breaths, and died.

"I talked to him, I told him that I loved him. Inside of me, my son is still alive," Wanda Hudson told reporters afterward. "This hospital was considered a miracle hospital. When it came to my son, they gave up in six months .... They made a terrible mistake."

Sun's death marks the first time a hospital has been allowed by a U.S. judge to discontinue an infant's life-sustaining care against a parent's wishes, according to bioethical experts. A similar case involving a 68-year-old man in a chronic vegetative state at another Houston hospital is before a court now.

"This isn't murder. It's mercy and it's appropriate to be merciful in that way. It's not killing, it's stopping pointless treatment," said William Winslade, a bioethicist and lawyer who is a professor at the Institute for the Medical Humanities at the University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston. "It's sad this (Sun Hudson case) dragged on for so long. It's always sad when an infant dies. We all feel it's unfair, that a child doesn't have a chance to develop and thrive."

The hospital's description of Sun — that he was motionless and sedated for comfort — has differed sharply from the mother's. Since February, the hospital has blocked the media from accepting Hudson's invitation to see the baby in the neonatal intensive care unit, citing patient privacy concerns.

"I wanted y'all to see my son for yourself," Hudson told reporters. "So you could see he was actually moving around. He was conscious."

On Feb. 16, Harris County Probate Court Judge William C. McCulloch made the landmark decision to lift restrictions preventing Texas Children's from discontinuing care. However, an emergency appeal by Hudson's attorney, Mario Caballero, and a procedural error on McCulloch's part prevented the hospital from acting for four more weeks.

Texas law allows hospitals can discontinue life sustaining care, even if patient family members disagree. A doctor's recommendation must be approved by a hospital's ethics committee, and the family must be given 10 days from written notice of the decision to try and locate another facility for the patient.

Texas Children's said it contacted 40 facilities with newborn intensive care units, but none would accept Sun. Without legal delays, Sun's care would have ended Nov. 28.

Sun was born with a fatal form of dwarfism characterized by short arms, short legs and lungs too tiny to sustain his body, doctors said. Nearly all babies born with the incurable condition, often diagnosed in utero, die shortly after birth, genetic counselors say.

Sun was delivered full-term at St. Luke's Episcopal Hospital, but Hudson, 33, said she had no prenatal care during which his condition might have been discovered. He was put on a ventilator while doctors figured out what was wrong with him, and Hudson refused when doctors recommending withdrawing treatment.

"From the time Sun was born ... he was on life support because his chest cavity and lungs could not grow and develop the capacity to support his body. He was slowly suffocating to death," Texas Children's said in a statement today.

Texas Children's contended that continuing care for Sun was medically inappropriate, prolonged suffering and violated physician ethics. Hudson argued her son just needed more time to grow and be weaned from the ventilator.

Another case involving a patient on life support — a 68-year man in a chronic vegetative state whose family wants to stop St. Luke's Episcopal Hospital from turning off his ventilator — was supposed to be heard today by the Houston-based 1st Court of Appeals.

But in a procedural switch, the case was transferred today to the 14th Court of Appeals, which promptly issued a temporary injunction ordering St. Luke's not to remove the man's life support, much as the 1st Court did Saturday. No hearing date has been set.

Bush signed a bill giving the family 10 days to find an alternative. 10 whole days. Where's the outrage? All the anger is aimed at "liberals" for some reason. Last night you aimed it at people interested in perserving the Perdido Key Mouse. They're not the problem. This is not an isolated incident. Health care costs money. Do we provide it? And if we do, do we only provide it when someone is near death? Do we care about people's health before it is too late? Injustices and "bigotry" go on every day with nary a notice. And then on the basis of one well-publicized case, I've seen people who don't generally express too much concern over whether the poor get any health care, shelter or food, get on a high horse, try to make political hay and make moral judgements on all their perceived enemies (this is not directed at you, btw, but rather the whole circus surrounding this case.) with little or no basis.

[TxWarEagle 3]

Texas Childrens Hospital went to extra-ordinary means to explain to Sun Hudsons mother what the situation was. Not once have I heard that her finiancial standing was an issue. In fact, the hospital provided care and a lawyer for her at no cost.

Its an editorial....

The tragedy of Sun Hudson

There was no 'life or death' decision to make

By DRS. RALPH D. FEIGIN and LAURENCE B. MCCULLOUGH

In most cases, an infant's birth represents a host of possibilities and potentials, joys and delights. However, every year, a few babies are born with birth defects so devastating that they cannot live. That is a tragedy.

When such an event happens, physicians and nurses usually rush to keep the infant alive until they understand better the problem that afflicts the child. Once they realize that the baby's problem cannot be remedied, they and the parents together usually decide to end extraordinary medical measures that keep the child alive. Again, this is a difficult decision, and one made in the best interests of the child. While such decisions are hard, parents usually come to terms with the situation often before the doctors and nurses. This is a private decision between physicians and parents, one that is made frequently in intensive care units across the United States and the world.

Recently, the case of Sun Hudson came to the fore in Houston. This case made headlines and, like other recent cases involving medical decisions about life and death, sparked considerable debate. However, it is time to set the record straight.

Little Sun Hudson was born with a defect so overwhelming that most infants with it die before they are born or at birth. The name of his disease — thanatophoric dysplasia — literally means death-bearing. His lungs and his rib cage were tiny and there is no medical treatment that would allow them to grow so that he could someday breathe on his own. Keeping him on a ventilator meant keeping him anes- thetized. He never had a chance at real life.

The doctors who put him on the ventilator at birth did not then know that he suffered from that problem. If the condition is found before birth, a pregnant woman is often given the chance to deliver early or at term with the promise that no extraordinary life-sustaining measures will be undertaken. Once doctors understood Sun Hudson's problem, they began to approach his mother about the issue and discuss with her the fact that her child was in pain, literally smothering to death. For nearly six months, Sun Hudson existed on a ventilator. While the rest of his body grew, his rib cage did not. His lungs could not support the continuing demands of his body.

The nurses and the doctors at Texas Children's Hospital who cared for Sun Hudson every day of his life understood that and wanted it to end. The mother, who believed she was impregnated by the sun, did not. She told the Houston Chronicle that the baby is "the sun that shines down in the sky (who) has come down in the flesh and blood." Harris County Children's Protective Services declined to intervene.

Under the Texas Advanced Directives Act, passed in 1999, which, according to the Houston Chronicle, the director of National Right to Life's Robert Powell Center for Medical Ethics helped negotiate, a physician caring for a terminally ill patient is free to refuse to follow a guardian or parent's request to do everything to keep someone alive.

However, the physician's decision must be reviewed speedily by the hospital's Bioethics Committee, as it was in this case. In fact, the committee met twice and unanimously agreed with the physician. There was then a 10-day wait while the mother looked for a facility that could and would take the child on a transfer. None were found, despite the best efforts of the hospital and parent.

Because of concerns about the mother's ability to understand what was involved, Texas Children's Hospital elected to pay for an attorney of her choosing. Her attorney took the matter into court, asking for a restraining order to prevent the hospital from removing the ventilator. In the long court battle, no judge disagreed with the finding that further treatment would be inappropriate.

The tragedy of Sun Hudson began long before he was born, when something went wrong as his tissues developed. In the end, medical science could do nothing more than merely prolong his dying. That his death played out in the court system and on the front pages of the newspaper and on television news is another tragedy. This was not a matter of life and death. It was a matter of when Sun Hudson would die and the desire of those who cared for him not to prolong his suffering.

[CCTAU 3,327]

Hey. I know. Let's keep her body alive just so WE can go and play with her each day. Boy, she sure seems to be liking this. Don't you think? I just couldn't see US losing her. It makes ME feel so much better knowing that we don't have to give that shell of a person some relief. Boy, if they were to let her body die now, I don't know what WE would do or feel. Oh woe is WE. What? What's that you say? How does she feel about it? Lets ask her. Oh we can't. She is not in there.

I'm DAMN glad none of you are my deciding factor. If so, you would have me trapped in an empty shell for years just to appease YOUR wants. Some of us BIGOTS want to move on to the next life if this one is essentially OVER.

[TexasTiger 12,876]

Texas Childrens Hospital went to extra-ordinary means to explain to Sun Hudsons mother what the situation was.  Not once have I heard that her finiancial standing was an issue.  In fact, the hospital provided care and a lawyer for her at no cost.

Its an editorial....

The tragedy of Sun Hudson

There was no 'life or death' decision to make

By DRS. RALPH D. FEIGIN and LAURENCE B. MCCULLOUGH

In most cases, an infant's birth represents a host of possibilities and potentials, joys and delights. However, every year, a few babies are born with birth defects so devastating that they cannot live. That is a tragedy.

When such an event happens, physicians and nurses usually rush to keep the infant alive until they understand better the problem that afflicts the child. Once they realize that the baby's problem cannot be remedied, they and the parents together usually decide to end extraordinary medical measures that keep the child alive. Again, this is a difficult decision, and one made in the best interests of the child. While such decisions are hard, parents usually come to terms with the situation often before the doctors and nurses. This is a private decision between physicians and parents, one that is made frequently in intensive care units across the United States and the world.

Recently, the case of Sun Hudson came to the fore in Houston. This case made headlines and, like other recent cases involving medical decisions about life and death, sparked considerable debate. However, it is time to set the record straight.

Little Sun Hudson was born with a defect so overwhelming that most infants with it die before they are born or at birth. The name of his disease — thanatophoric dysplasia — literally means death-bearing. His lungs and his rib cage were tiny and there is no medical treatment that would allow them to grow so that he could someday breathe on his own. Keeping him on a ventilator meant keeping him anes- thetized. He never had a chance at real life.

The doctors who put him on the ventilator at birth did not then know that he suffered from that problem. If the condition is found before birth, a pregnant woman is often given the chance to deliver early or at term with the promise that no extraordinary life-sustaining measures will be undertaken. Once doctors understood Sun Hudson's problem, they began to approach his mother about the issue and discuss with her the fact that her child was in pain, literally smothering to death. For nearly six months, Sun Hudson existed on a ventilator. While the rest of his body grew, his rib cage did not. His lungs could not support the continuing demands of his body.

The nurses and the doctors at Texas Children's Hospital who cared for Sun Hudson every day of his life understood that and wanted it to end. The mother, who believed she was impregnated by the sun, did not. She told the Houston Chronicle that the baby is "the sun that shines down in the sky (who) has come down in the flesh and blood." Harris County Children's Protective Services declined to intervene.

Under the Texas Advanced Directives Act, passed in 1999, which, according to the Houston Chronicle, the director of National Right to Life's Robert Powell Center for Medical Ethics helped negotiate, a physician caring for a terminally ill patient is free to refuse to follow a guardian or parent's request to do everything to keep someone alive.

However, the physician's decision must be reviewed speedily by the hospital's Bioethics Committee, as it was in this case. In fact, the committee met twice and unanimously agreed with the physician. There was then a 10-day wait while the mother looked for a facility that could and would take the child on a transfer. None were found, despite the best efforts of the hospital and parent.

Because of concerns about the mother's ability to understand what was involved, Texas Children's Hospital elected to pay for an attorney of her choosing. Her attorney took the matter into court, asking for a restraining order to prevent the hospital from removing the ventilator. In the long court battle, no judge disagreed with the finding that further treatment would be inappropriate.

The tragedy of Sun Hudson began long before he was born, when something went wrong as his tissues developed. In the end, medical science could do nothing more than merely prolong his dying. That his death played out in the court system and on the front pages of the newspaper and on television news is another tragedy. This was not a matter of life and death. It was a matter of when Sun Hudson would die and the desire of those who cared for him not to prolong his suffering.

153220[/snapback]

Not once have I heard that her finiancial standing was an issue. In fact, the hospital provided care and a lawyer for her at no cost.

There was then a 10-day wait while the mother looked for a facility that could and would take the child on a transfer. None were found, despite the best efforts of the hospital and parent.

If her financial standing wasn't an issue, the hospital wouldn't have needed to hire an attorney for her. Nice gesture. Not required. Still, in this case, cheaper than providing the care. And good PR.

Despite the best efforts of the hospital NO facility could be found? And you don't think financial standing was an issue? Do you think any hospital would pull the plug on Ross Perot's grandchild, against the family's wishes? James Baker's? Jerry Jones' grandchild? Roger Staubach's? Michael Dell's child? Mark Cuban's? Any Bush? And if by chance one was willing to do so, would finding another facility be a problem if you had enough money? This bill is about resources, plan and simple.

medical science could do nothing more than merely prolong his dying.

That's true for all of us.

[DKW 86 7,424]

Yeah! Dont you guys all know by now that the Federal Govt is always perfect and runs everything it does flawlessly?

I know when I am sick, I want a non-caring unionized lazy butt deciding if I live or die...NOT! Better yet, lets allow same govt flack to decide which doctor I get to see, (ala Hillary-Care).

Nationalized healthcare will come to us all. We are too stupid to be able to stop it much longer. We will hate it. We will publish stories just like this now. We will make fun of it and those that run it. We will never be able to reform it, because no one on the Left reforms anything.

TT, you get an A+ for Thread Hi-Jacking btw.

[TexasTiger 12,876]

Yeah! Dont you guys all know by now that the Federal Govt is always perfect and runs everything it does flawlessly? 

I know when I am sick, I want a non-caring unionized lazy butt deciding if I live or die...NOT! Better yet, lets allow same govt flack to decide which doctor I get to see, (ala Hillary-Care).

Nationalized healthcare will come to us all. We are too stupid to be able to stop it much longer. We will hate it. We will publish stories just like this now. We will make fun of it and those that run it. We will never be able to reform it, because no one on the Left reforms anything.

TT, you get an A+ for Thread Hi-Jacking btw.

153295[/snapback]

I think that's what you just tried to do. But you repeat the same old crap regardless of the topic so its kinda hard to tell.

[Jenny AU-92 0]

If her financial standing wasn't an issue, the hospital wouldn't have needed to hire an attorney for her.  Nice gesture.  Not required.  Still, in this case, cheaper than providing the care.  And good PR.

Despite the best efforts of the hospital  NO facility could be found?  And you don't think financial standing was an issue?  Do you think any hospital would pull the plug on Ross Perot's grandchild, against the family's wishes?  James Baker's?  Jerry Jones' grandchild?  Roger Staubach's?  Michael Dell's child?  Mark Cuban's?  Any Bush?  And if by chance one was willing to do so, would finding another facility be a problem if you had enough money?  This bill is about resources, plan and simple.

153284[/snapback]

Didn't you read THIS part of the article????

The nurses and the doctors at Texas Children's Hospital who cared for Sun Hudson every day of his life understood that and wanted it to end. The mother, who believed she was impregnated by the sun, did not. She told the Houston Chronicle that the baby is "the sun that shines down in the sky (who) has come down in the flesh and blood." Harris County Children's Protective Services declined to intervene.

Because of concerns about the mother's ability to understand what was involved, Texas Children's Hospital elected to pay for an attorney of her choosing. Her attorney took the matter into court, asking for a restraining order to prevent the hospital from removing the ventilator. In the long court battle, no judge disagreed with the finding that further treatment would be inappropriate.

She could have been as rich as Ross Perot, but since she was obviously incapable of comprehending the situation due to mental issues, and chose not to hire an attorney of her own, the hospital took extraordinary steps to make sure that people like you did not think she had been taken advantage of. THEY hired an attorney for her - like a guardian ad litem for a minor child - to make sure her best interests were represented - financial means had nothing to do with it. THEY assisted her in trying to locate a facility to take the child. FORTY OTHER HOSPITALS said NO - why? BECAUSE THE CHILD WOULD NOT SURVIVE AND RECOVER. IT WAS A TERMINAL CASE. HE WAS SUFFERING AND UNDER CONSTANT SEDATION TO KEEP HIM FROM BEING IN PAIN. The mom said he was getting better. Yeah, her medical opinion really has merit - I guess she discussed it with Apollo, the Sun God, before making that statement. After all, he was the child's father. Please note that the mom had not sought pre-natal care - which is ABUNDANTLY available in Houston at low or no cost to anyone who makes even a half assed attempt to get it (such at thru the March of Dimes). If she had had any prenatal care, the condition would have been discovered early and the baby would never have been put on life support to begin with. I guess Apollo told her not to go get help.

[TexasTiger 12,876]

If her financial standing wasn't an issue, the hospital wouldn't have needed to hire an attorney for her.  Nice gesture.  Not required.  Still, in this case, cheaper than providing the care.  And good PR.

Despite the best efforts of the hospital  NO facility could be found?  And you don't think financial standing was an issue?  Do you think any hospital would pull the plug on Ross Perot's grandchild, against the family's wishes?  James Baker's?   Jerry Jones' grandchild?  Roger Staubach's?  Michael Dell's child?  Mark Cuban's?  Any Bush?   And if by chance one was willing to do so, would finding another facility be a problem if you had enough money?  This bill is about resources, plan and simple.

153284[/snapback]

Didn't you read THIS part of the article????

The nurses and the doctors at Texas Children's Hospital who cared for Sun Hudson every day of his life understood that and wanted it to end. The mother, who believed she was impregnated by the sun, did not. She told the Houston Chronicle that the baby is "the sun that shines down in the sky (who) has come down in the flesh and blood." Harris County Children's Protective Services declined to intervene.

Because of concerns about the mother's ability to understand what was involved, Texas Children's Hospital elected to pay for an attorney of her choosing. Her attorney took the matter into court, asking for a restraining order to prevent the hospital from removing the ventilator. In the long court battle, no judge disagreed with the finding that further treatment would be inappropriate.

She could have been as rich as Ross Perot, but since she was obviously incapable of comprehending the situation due to mental issues, and chose not to hire an attorney of her own, the hospital took extraordinary steps to make sure that people like you did not think she had been taken advantage of. THEY hired an attorney for her - like a guardian ad litem for a minor child - to make sure her best interests were represented - financial means had nothing to do with it. THEY assisted her in trying to locate a facility to take the child. FORTY OTHER HOSPITALS said NO - why? BECAUSE THE CHILD WOULD NOT SURVIVE AND RECOVER. IT WAS A TERMINAL CASE. HE WAS SUFFERING AND UNDER CONSTANT SEDATION TO KEEP HIM FROM BEING IN PAIN. The mom said he was getting better. Yeah, her medical opinion really has merit - I guess she discussed it with Apollo, the Sun God, before making that statement. After all, he was the child's father. Please note that the mom had not sought pre-natal care - which is ABUNDANTLY available in Houston at low or no cost to anyone who makes even a half assed attempt to get it (such at thru the March of Dimes). If she had had any prenatal care, the condition would have been discovered early and the baby would never have been put on life support to begin with. I guess Apollo told her not to go get help.

153318[/snapback]

If I hire an attorney for you, it is hardly like a guardian ad litem. Ethically, attorneys are supposed to represent the client, no matter who pays. Practically, if a corporation hires your attorney and you lack the means to do so, good luck having a private attorney as dedicated to you as he/she would be if you were paying. True guardian ad litems, legal aid and public defenders are an exception, and usually are very dedicated to their clients. "People like you..." refuse to see the role money plays no matter how obvious.

There seems to be little doubt that in this case the woman was not all there. As I pointed out, the hospital went beyond what was absolutely required. And their judgement in this particular case regarding the prognosis for the child was likely very sound. The point is, the law leaves the judgment with them, not the family. If the Schiavo case upsets you (and I'm not referring to you, Jenny, specifically) so should a law like this one. Most experts say that Terri Schiavo's parents don't truly appreciate her situation when they swear she is "responsive."

BTW, some of us think Ross is pretty crazy, too, but there are for profit hospitals that will say "yessir" in a heartbeat if he wants to foot the bill.

[TxWarEagle 3]

I believe that the law is the law.

If you want to believe that economic status plays a role, you can, but with this case it did not.

[TexasTiger 12,876]

I believe that the law is the law.

If you want to believe that economic status plays a role, you can, but with this case it did not.

153368[/snapback]

Yeah, the law is totally blind to one's economic status. That's why OJ, Robert Blake, Klaus von Bulow, and Robert Durst, even after admitting to cutting up the body after "accidentally" shooting his neighbor, all walk free while poor folks sit on death row.

And for-profit facilities are totally blind to customers ability to pay because it would be unseemly to actually make a profit instead of giving expensive health care away.

BTW, under the Texas law, the hospital could decide to remove Terri's feeding tube and the family would have 10 days to move her. The law Dubya signed did not distinguish nutrition from other life-sustaining support:

"Life-sustaining treatment" means treatment that, based on

reasonable medical judgment, sustains the life of a patient and

without which the patient will die.  The term includes both

life-sustaining medications and artificial life support such as

mechanical breathing machines, kidney dialysis treatment, and

artificial hydration and nutrition.

The Texas law makes no distinction between the a case such as Tom Delay's father or Terri Schiavo.

[TxWarEagle 3]

That's why OJ, Robert Blake, Klaus von Bulow, and Robert Durst, even after admitting to cutting up the body after "accidentally" shooting his neighbor, all walk free while poor folks sit on death row.

Curious what this has to do with the Sun Hudson Case, but oh well....

Robert Durst is walking the streets? I thoght he was in jail, not death row, but in jail.

[TexasTiger 12,876]

That's why OJ, Robert Blake, Klaus von Bulow, and Robert Durst, even after admitting to cutting up the body after "accidentally" shooting his neighbor, all walk free while poor folks sit on death row.

Curious what this has to do with the Sun Hudson Case, but oh well....

Robert Durst is walking the streets? I thoght he was in jail, not death row, but in jail.

153400[/snapback]

If he is, it is not for killing the guy he chopped up. The point was in response this:

I believe that the law is the law.

If you want to believe that economic status plays a role, you can, but with this case it did not.

Under our legal system, economic status almost always plays a role. In the case of the men I mentioned, it made a huge difference in the quality of legal representation and how they were viewed by a jury. In regard to the Sun case, and others, read this entire statute. What do you think motivated it as written? Who do you think lobbied for it? Who benefits from it?

[Jenny AU-92 0]

You know, just as you accuse us of seeing only one side to this, what about you? Just as we are convinced that the hospital did everything possible to make sure this woman and her child got due process, to the point of going above and beyond the call, and that her economic status played no role, you are convinced that we are all headed to a society where poor people are eliminated just as soon as the rich white conservative right wingers that run the entire country from their HQ in the great state of Texas determine that they no longer have the ability to pay. "NO money - out comes that plug!!"

Your Ross Perot example is a bit unrealistic. There are only a handful of people who COULD afford to pay for that level of care, so stating that a hospital will pull the plug on "poor" people because they can't pay would mean that practically ANYONE - any "real" person - who found themselves in this same circumstance would be open to forced euthenasia once their insurance or other funding ran out. IF there is still legitimate hope, they will not pull the plug, because it wouldn't meet the test prescribed by law. I would be willing to bet that if there was even one shred of hope that the child would have lived or gotten any better, he would still be on a vent at TX Childrens, money or not. The doctors are the best judge of suffering, and their Hypocratic Oath says "First do no harm." They knew the child was suffering, slowly suffocating to death. They were unable to communicate that to the mom, who did not possess the mental capability to process that information. In this case, upon the advice of the court, the hospital did the right thing. Even under the law, this is not some arbitrary bureaucratic decision - there are hurdles and hoops that have to be jumped thru before any life sustaining measure can be eliminated.

But just to take the callous road for a minute - WHY should a hospital be forced to provide millions of dollars in treatment for free to someone who countless numbers of doctors have stated has no hope? Why wouldn't those doctors be the best judge of a person's condition - the family is too emotional, and unless one of them is a doctor, how would they know?

[TexasTiger 12,876]

You know, just as you accuse us of seeing only one side to this, what about you?  Just as we are convinced that the hospital did everything possible to make sure this woman and her child got due process, to the point of going above and beyond the call, and that her economic status played no role, you are convinced that we are all headed to a society where poor people are eliminated just as soon as the rich white conservative right wingers that run the entire country from their HQ in the great state of Texas determine that they no longer have the ability to pay.  "NO money - out comes that plug!!"

Your Ross Perot example is a bit unrealistic.  There are only a handful of people who COULD afford to pay for that level of care, so stating that a hospital will pull the plug on "poor" people because they can't pay would mean that practically ANYONE  - any "real" person - who found themselves in this same circumstance would be open to forced euthenasia once their insurance or other funding ran out.  IF there is still legitimate hope, they will not pull the plug, because it wouldn't meet the test prescribed by law.  I would be willing to bet that if there was even one shred of hope that the child would have lived or gotten any better, he would still be on a vent at TX Childrens, money or not.  The doctors are the best judge of suffering, and their Hypocratic Oath says "First do no harm."  They knew the child was suffering, slowly suffocating to death.  They were unable to communicate that to the mom, who did not possess the mental capability to process that information.  In this case, upon the advice of the court, the hospital did the right thing.  Even under the law, this is not some arbitrary bureaucratic decision - there are hurdles and hoops that have to be jumped thru before any life sustaining measure can be eliminated.

But just to take the callous road for a minute - WHY should a hospital be forced to provide millions of dollars in treatment for free to someone who countless numbers of doctors have stated has no hope?  Why wouldn't those doctors be the best judge of a person's condition - the family is too emotional, and unless one of them is a doctor, how would they know?

153420[/snapback]

If you actually read all my posts on this general topic, I think you will see that I see a variety of sides in this issue.

Ross is a rich person everyone knows about. There are many people of ample means, but you test a "principle" with such an "exception." Kind of like the story of the man who asked a woman if she'd sleep with him for a million dollars. She says, "Of course!" Then he says, "How about $50?" She gets offended and says, "What kind of woman do you think I am?" He replies, "We've already estalbished that, now we just haggling over price."

But you miss my point. I never said she didn't get the due process allowed under the law. In fact, I recognize the hospital went beyond what was required. I didn't even say it was a bad decision. And I haven't said that your position on Schiavo matter is unreasonable, either.

Matters such as these almost immediately get simplified, and many have done so in the Schiavo case. This side is virtuous, the other evil. Somehow this is portrayed by many as the fault of "liberals" as if this is a liberal/conservative issue. My point is that the same George W. Bush who flew back in his pajamas to sign a bill because he thought removing a feeding tube was inhumane, signed a bill that expedited just such a process. Tom Delay, who decried pulling the tube obviously has considerable sway in his home state. I haven't heard him speak out against this bill that effects his own constituents.

Why should a hospital be forced to pay millions? I think you just hit on the primary impetus behind this bill. Let's just be honest and recognize that.

[Jenny AU-92 0]

Why should a hospital be forced to pay millions?  I think you just hit on the primary impetus behind this bill.  Let's just be honest and recognize that.

153426[/snapback]

Well, you say that like that is a bad reason. Look at the bankrupt system of health care in Claifornia. Look at how much red ink flows from Ben Taub here in Houston because they provide free health care - much of it trauma care - to anyone who hits their door. At some point, if a bajillion doctors, ethicists and courts have all determined that continuing to use resources on a person who is dead in all but name is a waste of those resources, why shouldn't the hospital footing the bill be able to make that decision over the wishes of the family? If it has come to the point like Schiavo and Baby Sun, and the families are not thinking and acting rationally, if they are even ABLE to think and act rationally, then someone has to do the right thing. How many other lives that are saveable could that hospital save if they withheld these usless measures from someone who is all but gone?

HOWEVER, I still don't think that financial means has anything to do with it. Again, unless you are SWIMMING in $$$, very few if ANYONE would have the bucks to continue extreme measures for long, so to say they are only pulling the plug on poor people is a mis-statement, and assumes they would also remove potentially LIFESAVING care from someone who has lost their ability to pay. If a poor person actually has a chance at recovery, then no one is pulling any plugs, no matter the financial means. The only plug pulling is for those with NO hope, NO chance of recovery, PERIOD, as determined by the aforementioned bajillion doctors, ethicists and courts. I would also imagine that given the shortage of NICU beds, Texas Children's would have told even Ross Perot to find some place else to take his grandchild that had no hope of recovery.

[TexasTiger 12,876]

Why should a hospital be forced to pay millions?  I think you just hit on the primary impetus behind this bill.  Let's just be honest and recognize that.

153426[/snapback]

Well, you say that like that is a bad reason. Look at the bankrupt system of health care in Claifornia. Look at how much red ink flows from Ben Taub here in Houston because they provide free health care - much of it trauma care - to anyone who hits their door. At some point, if a bajillion doctors, ethicists and courts have all determined that continuing to use resources on a person who is dead in all but name is a waste of those resources, why shouldn't the hospital footing the bill be able to make that decision over the wishes of the family? If it has come to the point like Schiavo and Baby Sun, and the families are not thinking and acting rationally, if they are even ABLE to think and act rationally, then someone has to do the right thing. How many other lives that are saveable could that hospital save if they withheld these usless measures from someone who is all but gone?

HOWEVER, I still don't think that financial means has anything to do with it. Again, unless you are SWIMMING in $$$, very few if ANYONE would have the bucks to continue extreme measures for long, so to say they are only pulling the plug on poor people is a mis-statement, and assumes they would also remove potentially LIFESAVING care from someone who has lost their ability to pay. If a poor person actually has a chance at recovery, then no one is pulling any plugs, no matter the financial means. The only plug pulling is for those with NO hope, NO chance of recovery, PERIOD, as determined by the aforementioned bajillion doctors, ethicists and courts. I would also imagine that given the shortage of NICU beds, Texas Children's would have told even Ross Perot to find some place else to take his grandchild that had no hope of recovery.

153455[/snapback]

You make some good points. In fact, you were helping to illustrate my point right up until the point that you contradict yourself.

At some point, if a bajillion doctors, ethicists and courts have all determined that continuing to use resources on a person who is dead in all but name is a waste of those resources, why shouldn't the hospital footing the bill be able to make that decision over the wishes of the family?

The Texas bill leaves the decision to the hospital, not the family, for the reason you cite here. You go on to point out that medical resources are limited and isn't it a better idea to direct those resources where they might do the most good. Good point. Deals with the reality of cost and benefit.

But you are a stubborn thing, even after you have arrived at the truth:

HOWEVER, I still don't think that financial means has anything to do with it.

Shorthand: "Of course finances are, and must be, a major factor. Except, that they don't have anything to do with it."

I would also imagine that given the shortage of NICU beds, Texas Children's would have told even Ross Perot to find some place else to take his grandchild that had no hope of recovery.

And if they did, he would, no problem.

For those, and this has not included you, who believe that the Schiavo case respresents a barbaric departure from the norm because they believe that removing food and water and letting someone, anyone, starve to death, is inhumane, the question arises, "Then who pays to sustain someone in a vegetative state for decades?" The hospital, who then spreads the cost to all paying customers, or the government, i.e. our taxes? Somebody has to pay it, as you point out.

If one takes the postion, as many conservatives and Jesse Jackson have, that removing a feeding tube is always wrong and inhumane, then they have to offer a viable alternative. Under the Texas law a rich person can, and if he or she so desires, will find a way to sustain a friend or family member in such state. Under this law, others will not have the option. Is that wrong? Well, it is if you take the postion that many have taken regarding the distinction between a feeding tube and a respirator or other life-sustaining equipment.

If it is wrong to starve someone in such a state, then it is wrong to starve someone in such a state, regardless of their ability to pay. If it is not necessarily wrong to remove the tube, i.e. you take the position that it may be even the more humane option to let them pass on, it is not wrong, and, thus, the fact that the rich have an option of sustaining someone is not so problematic. This is where you seem to be, but many people are not. Think of the title of this thread: "The Bigotry and the Murder of Terry Schiavo" You apparently don't think of it as "murder" and, thus, don't attribute it to bigotry against the "disabled." But if one does, he or she needs to come to grips with the need to find a way to address the issue across the board.

And if one thinks removing a feeding tube is inhumane and "murder", that person must also come to grips with the fact that George W. Bush signed a bill that authorized that very thing, and must reconcile that fact with whatever opinion they hold of him. You agree with the bill, so it isn't a problem for you.

Again, unless you are SWIMMING in $$$, very few if ANYONE would have the bucks to continue extreme measures for long, so to say they are only pulling the plug on poor people is a mis-statement, and assumes they would also remove potentially LIFESAVING care from someone who has lost their ability to pay.

"LIFESAVING", although emphasized, is probably not the word you meant. Terri's feeding tube is LIFESAVING, the question is will she ever recover, or simpy maintain a pulse?

The only plug pulling is for those with NO hope, NO chance of recovery, PERIOD, as determined by the aforementioned bajillion doctors, ethicists and courts.

I've never argued otherwise. At least, that is how the law is written, and I think applied in the Sun Hudson case.

[Jenny AU-92 0]

Okay, without doing all that quote and reply crap, I think we are both dancing around the same thing, with the same take on it. Amazing - this has GOT to be a first. It is surprising that you have liberals wondering who is going to pay for all this continual care while the conservatives are not concerned about where the money comes from as long as life in whatever form it takes continues on and on.

But I do NOT believe I have contradicted myself. I still do not believe that the financial means of the FAMILY have anything to do with it. I think that the hospital would pull the plug on a Perot just like they would on me or on some welfare patient, if that Perot is all but dead (ABD) which for purposes of this discussion means someone with NO HOPE EVER of recovery. If that had been Sun Perot instead of Sun Hudson, I STILL doubt that you would have found a hospital to take that child - the 40 that they contacted HAD to have included some non-profits, and some religious based hospitals that will take anyone regardless of their ability to pay - and yet NO ONE was willing to take on the burden of an ABD child. Maybe Ross could build his own hospital to take Sun Perot, but other than that, all his millions are not going to change the outcome, and if I were a hospital admin, I would not want his child brought to my facility with no hope of recovery and no end in sight. Regardless of Perot's millions, if my hospital administrator ethics are intact, and I firmly believe that making this decision is the right thing, and that the family is deluding themselves and wasting money, then I would refuse care for Perot just like for Hudson.

Okay, the counterargument goes, the mega rich can STILL afford to try and find a private hospital that sees nothing but $$$, and the average Joe can't, so they won't pull the plug on the rich people, just how many people are we talking about here? Not enough to make an impact on the overall point of the law, which is that a hospital has the right to refuse to continue to care for someone who is ABD. There are so few mega rich people in this country - less that one half of one percent maybe? (??) - that figuring in a person's ability to pay for continued pointless care is really not a serious enough issue for argument - unless you are liberal, which means that rich people are evil and are going to survive as vegetables while the evil rich people who run hospitals pull the plugs on the helpless poor masses.

And as an aside to my last point above:

Teri's feeding tube is LIFE-SUSTAINING. Yes, removing it means she dies, but to me, Life-SAVING means a treatment that will result in an improvement to a current condition. Example - keeping someone on a vent until a bullet wound to the trachea has had time to heal, or giving antibiotics to someone with an infection. The vent and the meds are LIFESAVING - it has a purpose beyond merely allowing an ABD person to exist in the same condition in perpetuity.

EVERYONE SHOULD JUST GO AND GET A DAMN LIVING WILL!!!!!!!!!!! Maybe this unceasing media attention will make enough people think about their own end and prompt more people to do the right thing and advise more than one person about their wishes!!!!

[TexasTiger 12,876]

Okay, without doing all that quote and reply crap, I think we are both dancing around the same thing, with the same take on it.  Amazing - this has GOT to be a first.   It is surprising that you have liberals wondering who is going to pay for all this continual care while the conservatives are not concerned about where the money comes from as long as life in whatever form it takes continues on and on.

But I do NOT believe I have contradicted myself.  I still do not believe that the financial means of the FAMILY have anything to do with it.  I think that the hospital would pull the plug on a Perot just like they would on me or on some welfare patient, if that Perot is all but dead (ABD) which for purposes of this discussion means someone with NO HOPE EVER of recovery.  If that had been Sun Perot instead of Sun Hudson, I STILL doubt that you would have found a hospital to take that child - the 40 that they contacted HAD to have included some non-profits, and some religious based hospitals that will take anyone regardless of their ability to pay - and yet NO ONE was willing to take on the burden of an ABD child.  Maybe Ross could build his own hospital to take Sun Perot, but other than that, all his millions are not going to change the outcome, and if I were a hospital admin, I would not want his child brought to my facility with no hope of recovery and no end in sight.  Regardless of Perot's millions, if my hospital administrator ethics are intact, and I firmly believe that making this decision is the right thing, and that the family is deluding themselves and wasting money, then I would refuse care for Perot just like for Hudson.

Okay, the counterargument goes, the mega rich can STILL afford to try and find a private hospital that sees nothing but $$$, and the average Joe can't, so they won't pull the plug on the rich people, just how many people are we talking about here?  Not enough to make an impact on the overall point of the law, which is that a hospital has the right to refuse to continue to care for someone who is ABD.  There are so few mega rich people in this country - less that one half of one percent maybe? (??) - that figuring in a person's ability to pay for continued pointless care is really not a serious enough issue for argument - unless you are liberal, which means that rich people are evil and are going to survive as vegetables while the evil rich people who run hospitals pull the plugs on the helpless poor masses. 

And as an aside to my last point above:

Teri's feeding tube is LIFE-SUSTAINING.  Yes, removing it means she dies, but to me, Life-SAVING means a treatment that will result in an improvement to a current condition.  Example - keeping someone on a vent until a bullet wound to the trachea has had time to heal, or giving antibiotics to someone with an infection.  The vent and the meds are LIFESAVING - it has a purpose beyond merely allowing an ABD person to exist in the same condition in perpetuity.

EVERYONE SHOULD JUST GO AND GET A DAMN LIVING WILL!!!!!!!!!!!  Maybe this unceasing media attention will make enough people think about their own end and prompt more people to do the right thing and advise more than one person about their wishes!!!!

153577[/snapback]

If that had been Sun Perot instead of Sun Hudson, I STILL doubt that you would have found a hospital to take that child - the 40 that they contacted HAD to have included some non-profits, and some religious based hospitals that will take anyone regardless of their ability to pay - and yet NO ONE was willing to take on the burden of an ABD child. Maybe Ross could build his own hospital to take Sun Perot, but other than that, all his millions are not going to change the outcome, and if I were a hospital admin, I would not want his child brought to my facility with no hope of recovery and no end in sight.

Non-profits still have to be very cost-conscious and have to weigh, as you did, where resources are best spent. For-profits, and some non-profits, love having a customer that can pay the "full-rate", i.e. not the negotiated, insurance discount amount. Such customers essentially subsidize other things, including those who can't pay at all, but need life-sustaining care.

If you were a hospital administrator, perhaps you would refuse the child, even with the ability to pay, although this is a hypothetical and you have no budget to balance yet. But even that decision is based on a conclusion that is more ethical to let the child die than to sustain it and that the decision rest with "experts" and not the family-- many of the more outspoken "conservatives" disagree, although according to the polls, many agree. And, in the case, of Sun, the end appeared to be very much in sight.

A little quote and reply crap:

Okay, without doing all that quote and reply crap, I think we are both dancing around the same thing, with the same take on it.

That's why I found your use of "we" a little ironic here:

  You know, just as you accuse us of seeing only one side to this, what about you? Just as we are convinced that the hospital did everything possible...

The "we" is not so much "we" on this issue. Complicated stuff.