Bush/Right to Life agreed on a"pull the plug over family objections"99 Law

[papau]

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/3079622

More on Bush & Right To Life folks that passed Texas Law

March 10, 2005, 10:49PM

Right to Life backed law that irks wife
By RICK CASEY
Copyright 2005 Houston Chronicle

<snip>Judge Tony Lindsay expressed "most sincere sadness and apologies," but said the law required Nikolouzos show a reasonable expectation of finding an alternative facility before Lindsay could order the hospital to continue treatment it did not feel was advisable.

It's the same law under which another judge denied Wanda Hudson's request to force Texas Children's Hospital to maintain Sun Hudson on life support.

The law was passed in 1999 and amended two years ago. Acting as a negotiator for Houston-based Texas Right to Life, Burke Balch flew in from Washington "20 to 25 times" to sit at a table with represent-
atives of the Texas Hospital Association and other parties to negotiate the law and its amendment.

Balch is director of National Right to Life's Robert Powell Center for Medical Ethics.Right to Life was at the table partly because then-Gov. George W. Bush had vetoed a similar bill two years earlier (1997) at the request of some members of the religious right, according to its sponsor, then-Sen. Mike Moncrief, now mayor of Fort Worth.<snip>

After new negotiations, the bill went before a Senate committee without opposition. Balch testified in favor, as did representatives of the Baylor Health Care System and the Texas Conference of Catholic Health Facilities.<snip>

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/3073295

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/healthscience/stories/031605dntexbaby.bc467.html

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/3079622

[papau]

1. The change in the Bush "kill'em" law 2 years later (2001) was minor

An Internet registry of doctors and institutions willing to consider accepting patients under the Bush 1999 bill - in order to make it easier to find them - was setup.

[papau]

2. Copy of Bush/Right to Life "make'em die if poor" Texas Law below

And here's a copy of the state statute:

Texas Health & Safety Code - Chapter 166

§ 166.046. PROCEDURE IF NOT EFFECTUATING A DIRECTIVE OR
TREATMENT DECISION. (a) If an attending physician refuses to
honor a patient's advance directive or a health care or treatment
decision made by or on behalf of a patient, the physician's refusal
shall be reviewed by an ethics<0> or medical committee. The attending
physician may not be a member of that committee. The patient shall
be given life<0>-sustaining treatment during the review.
(b) The patient or the person responsible for the health
care decisions of the individual who has made the decision
regarding the directive or treatment decision:
(1) may be given a written description of the ethics<0> or
medical committee review process and any other policies and
procedures related to this section adopted by the health care
facility;
(2) shall be informed of the committee review process
not less than 48 hours before the meeting called to discuss the
patient's directive, unless the time period is waived by mutual
agreement;
(3) at the time of being so informed, shall be
provided:
(A) a copy of the appropriate statement set forth
in Section 166.052; and
(B) a copy of the registry list of health care
providers and referral groups that have volunteered their readiness
to consider accepting transfer or to assist in locating a provider
willing to accept transfer that is posted on the website maintained
by the Texas Health Care Information Council under Section 166.053;
and
(4) is entitled to:
(A) attend the meeting; and
(B) receive a written explanation of the decision
reached during the review process.
(c) The written explanation required by Subsection
(b)(2)(B) must be included in the patient's medical record.
(d) If the attending physician, the patient, or the person
responsible for the health care decisions of the individual does
not agree with the decision reached during the review process under
Subsection (b), the physician shall make a reasonable effort to
transfer the patient to a physician who is willing to comply with
the directive. If the patient is a patient in a health care
facility, the facility's personnel shall assist the physician in
arranging the patient's transfer to:
(1) another physician;
(2) an alternative care setting within that facility;
or
(3) another facility.
(e) If the patient or the person responsible for the health
care decisions of the patient is requesting life<0>-sustaining
treatment that the attending physician has decided and the review
process has affirmed is inappropriate treatment, the patient shall
be given available life<0>-sustaining treatment pending transfer
under Subsection (d). The patient is responsible for any costs
incurred in transferring the patient to another facility. The
physician and the health care facility are not obligated to provide
life<0>-sustaining treatment after the 10th day after the written
decision required under Subsection (b) is provided to the patient
or the person responsible for the health care decisions of the
patient unless ordered to do so under Subsection (g).
(e-1) If during a previous admission to a facility a
patient's attending physician and the review process under
Subsection (b) have determined that life<0>-sustaining treatment is
inappropriate, and the patient is readmitted to the same facility
within six months from the date of the decision reached during the
review process conducted upon the previous admission, Subsections
(b) through (e) need not be followed if the patient's attending
physician and a consulting physician who is a member of the ethics<0>
or medical committee of the facility document on the patient's
readmission that the patient's condition either has not improved or
has deteriorated since the review process was conducted.
(f) Life<0>-sustaining treatment under this section may not be
entered in the patient's medical record as medically unnecessary
treatment until the time period provided under Subsection (e) has
expired.
(g) At the request of the patient or the person responsible
for the health care decisions of the patient, the appropriate
district or county court shall extend the time period provided
under Subsection (e) only if the court finds, by a preponderance of
the evidence, that there is a reasonable expectation that a
physician or health care facility that will honor the patient's
directive will be found if the time extension is granted.
(h) This section may not be construed to impose an
obligation on a facility or a home and community support services
agency licensed under Chapter 142 or similar organization that is
beyond the scope of the services or resources of the facility or
agency. This section does not apply to hospice services provided by
a home and community support services agency licensed under Chapter
142.

Added by Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 450, § 1.03, eff. Sept. 1,
1999. Amended by Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 1228, § 3, 4, eff.
June 20, 2003