Mother Given 10 Days to Find New Hospital For Sick Child or Hospital Will Remove Respirator

[Contrary1]

Here's the Chimp's real legacy: Death.

"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.”

More: http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2007/mar/07032102.html

[yardwork]

1. Where's Bill Frist? Where's Jeb?

[itsrobert]

5. Why?

The story didn't mention anything about a young wife woman.

[MADem]

28. Same place they are every other time they do this in Texas...

MIA...

[pepperbear]

51. tumble weeds crickets.....n/t

[Sabriel]

2. Quick, someone send Frist a video.

Does he video-diagnose people with Latino names, or just white people?

[Erika]

9. Just white people with insurance or wealth n/t

[robinlynne]

3. and yet people with terminal illness are not allowed to take their own lives...

[Erika]

6. In Texas if they don't have the $, the hospital terminates the life

I guess if they have the funds, they aren't allowed to end their own life. Corporate profit?

[Igel]

37. Sort of.

It's triage. If a doctor decides a patient has no chance of survival, s/he refers the matter to an ethics board, and their decision, IIRC, is reviewed by somebody else. If care is to be denied, the patient or his/her guardian has the right to find some place else.

Consider my uncle John. He died last year. He had a stroke and heart attack in quick succession (I'm not sure of the order). He had, the various doctors said, virtually no chance of regaining consciousness. If he did, he'd be a vegetable.

His family and their insurance were on the hook for his care. He was retired, owned a business, owned property, and lived comfortably. His wife and kids, and his surviving siblings, looked at the odds of his recovery, the cost of care, and decided to pull the plug. He died within 30 minutes. A large part of the reasoning had to do with the money involved: the guy had worked to make sure his wife would be taken care of, and his kids would get an inheritance.

Now consider if he was on public assistance. His wife and kids would look at the odds of his recovery, and weigh that against the cost of having government pay for his care. He'd be on a respirator to this day, taking up a berth in the hospital, a berth that costs a lot of money. There are limited resources.

In Texas, guardians have 10 days or so to find some place to take the patient. If the family's wealthy, it's not a problem. If they're poor, it's a problem. But all it takes is for a doctor to say that he thinks the patient has a reasonable chance of recovery, to say that the resources are doing something other than allowing the patient's family to avoid grieving.

Euthanasia isn't involved: That's actively killing somebody. This is allowing somebody to die, just as my father, aunt, and cousins allowed my uncle to die.

[smoogatz]

69. It's still a form of euthanasia. It's witholding available medical treatment

with the knowledge that doing so will result in the death of the patient. No different in practice than giving them that big bolus of morphine. None of which is a problem for me. What's troubling to me is that the state of Texas has decided that some bottom-line driven "ethics panel" has the right to take life-and-death decisions out of the hands of families, and to ration health-care (and end of life care) as the for-profit hospitals see fit. It's yet more proof (as if we needed any) that our current health-care system doesn't work.

[Th1onein]

82. I'm sorry, but you are wrong. Completely wrong.

My sister, Andrea Clark, was insured to the hilt when she was admitted to St. Luke's Hospital in Houston, TX. She was insured to the hilt because she had had heart problems all of her life. She was in intensive care for months before they finally decided to operate on her. After the operation, one of the valves of her heart became infected. We had many conversations with her, both before and after the operation, about what she wanted us to do should the question ever arise. She told us, inequivocally, that she wanted everything done to keep her alive, unless she was brain dead.

When the doctors tried to talk us into withdrawing treatment, we said "No." Andrea said "No." They said if you don't agree we will hold an ethics committee meeting and you will have ten days to move her and if you don't, we will withdraw treatment whether you, or she, likes it or not.

Once that "futile" is written on that patient's chart, you can forget about moving them. The hospitals in Houston have an agreement, collateral to the ethics committee decision, that none of them will accept a patient having been deemed "futile." Trying to get another doctor in that institution is a joke. Your only choice is to hope that some hospital, very far off, will take your loved one. And, if you move them, they are usually in such a precarious state of health, they will die.

No, this IS EUTHANASIA. My family has been through it. You can put all the laws, and all the words you want, on paper; you can make all the distinctions you like about "passive" and "active" euthanasia, but to withdraw treatment when a cognizant, communicative and dissenting patient wants you to live and will die if you withdraw it--well, that is murder.

[monarch]

53. Important point. n/t

[Erika]

4. Where are all the Schiavo people? W signed this Texas bill

that allowed hospitals to terminate life if the patient couldn't pay the bill.

[olchevytruck]

7. Mother Given 10 Days to Find New Hospital For Sick Child or Hospital Will Remove Respirator

That is a horrible thing to have to face.As health care becomes more centralized, the more choices will have to be bad on who or who doesn't get health care.

[Erika]

8. Texas ruled the poor die

The rich must not. Corporate profit.

Centralization has nothing to do with Texas law signed into force by W.

[olchevytruck]

11. Texas ruled the poor die

Yes the rich can afford anything. But they will not be able to buy their way out of it for long. We must have centralized health care so everyone is treated the same.

[jobycom]

12. Actually, the reverse.

The problem is that there is noone to pay for the treatment now, so the hospital is planning to remove life support. With a single-payer system, the hospital would be fighting to maintain life support, since they would not be losing their own money to do so, and even if an individual hospital refused treatment, as is being done here, other hospitals would be willing to take the child in. Now, the mother can't find anyone willing to fund the treatments, and Texas law allows the hospital to end treatment to save money.

With the system as it is now, too many people are uninsured, and many who are insured have to deal with unscrupulous profit-oriented insurance companies with no concern for a patient's well-being, and no incentive to care about anything other than financial aspects. And there are enough insurance companies that oversight, even when we have a government who cares about oversight, is difficult. With a more centralized system, hopefully in the hands of a not-for-profit organization, the primary concern would be the patient's health, and there would be fewer administrators to monitor. Thus, more responsive care.

[olchevytruck]

13. Actually, the reverse.

Right.That is why we need to have centralized health care.Everyone will qualify for it.Everyone will have to use it.No loop holes for the rich.If we used tax money then it will be cheap for everyone.It is good for everyone.

[jobycom]

15. Is that supposed to be agreement, an attempt at an argument, or sarcasm?

I put forth an argument. If you have one to counter, please do so. Political slogans don't prove anything except indoctrination, which is usually the opposite of truth.

[olchevytruck]

23. I agree with your post.

And you accuse me of using slogans? The rich get all the breaks. It is time we take care of every person with good health care. Just saying so is not good enough.

[jobycom]

32. I apologize. Because of the way you repeated my subject line, i thought

you were being sarcastic. Sorry.

[Erika]

16. Larry Craig, Senator from Idaho, head of the Vet Committee

found that Veterans participating in "universal" health coverage were more satisfied with their government health care than those who used private insurance.

[Erika]

14. Excellent post! Everyone should have good healthcare

without income consideration.

[olchevytruck]

25. Everyone should have good health care

Exactly!

[Jonathan50]

10. A Catholic run hospital...

I wonder what happened to the "every spermatoza is sacred" sanctity of life that the Pope preaches?

[Critters2]

17. I thought about this, too

What does "pro-life" mean?!

[Nikki Stone1]

27. Exactly

...

[peacetalksforall]

44. Fetus to birth - good

Birthed, not insured - bad
Decision made for us either way by c h r i s t i a n s.

[Critters2]

54. By some Christians

my own denomination is pro-choice and advocates universal, single payer health care.

[Erika]

18. I guess sacred is as money is available n/t

[jobycom]

19. Brackenridge is a city hospital administered by a Catholic organization.

A decade or so ago Brackenridge was a mess, and Austin did not have the expertise or money to fix it, so they hired the other major hospital organization here in Austin--Seton--to handle the administration of Brackenridge. Seton is Catholic.

Led to a couple of problems. Seton would not allow abortions or birth control, but Brackenridge did, so one floor of the hospital was left to the city to run for the operations the Catholics would not perform.

Austin has been trying to pass a hospital taxing district (Texas has "taxing districts" for most public services). For some reason I can't remember if it ever passed, even though I was somewhat active in promoting it a few years back.

Anyway, Brackenridge is a public hospital, the Catholics only handle the administration. I'm not sure what role they play in the decision here.

[Erika]

22. It appears the hospital yielded to Texas law

as signed by George W Bush. The poor die.

[jobycom]

30. As I said, it's a public hospital. nt

[Jonathan50]

34. I guess the Catholic administration will just move the kid

To the floor that is not under their control.

Voila', ethical dillema solved.

[tavalon]

72. Nope, that floor only handles pregnant women and healthy newborns

[Justice]

45. They would play a huge role if they would just cover the costs of care

for this woman.

[tavalon]

71. Yes, I was working for the Seton Network at the time

and was highly amused and annoyed at the decision of Brack not to pull Seton's lease because they refused to provide tubals. I went to work for UTMB on the fifth floor for a bit after they opened it. BTW, UTMB didn't provide hospital abortions. There is no one in Austin who provides them in the hospital. That bugs me.

[Ilsa]

20. This is what got my attention as well. The Catholic mantra where

I live and post comments on a local board is that life is sacred and death is never the answer, yet, this catholic hospital seems to disagree. Maybe the mother should appeal to the bishop or pope if she thinks that will help, but I doubt it because this isn't a child that will grow up to provide progeny or money.

[Hekate]

36. Catholic doctrine is actually pretty consistent. Both life and death are in God's hands...

Every act of sex should be open to the possibility of the transmission of life (i.e. conception). It must be as nature dicates, not artificial -- so that rules out both contraception (except the rhythm method) and artificial insemination/assisted fertility in petri dishes/frozen embryos, and so on.

And at the end of life, there must be no hastening of death by euthanasia/mercy killings/suicide/Dr. Kevorkian/assisted death as all of that contravenes God's laws.

However -- and this is very important -- the Roman Catholic Church recognizes that death is the natural conclusion of life. It is permissable that no extraordinary means be used to keep a body breathing when all hope is gone. This may be a tricky point now that medical science has made such progress in extending the end of life, but it certainly allows patients to decide to refuse further surgery, disconnect themselves from dialyses, or for their families to pull the plug when they've essentially flatlined. I don't think the Church has anything against pain medication.

I am not a Catholic, and there are many things I disagree with Catholic doctrine on. But I do know this much: in a culture which calls the highly problematic birth of 6 or 7 implanted babies all at once "God's Will" it is refreshing that the Church might point out that it was "science's will" and that God apparently willed it that this couple be infertile. (Note: I'm personally very much in favor of both contraception and assisted fertility, but the umpteenth couple that produced half a dozen very sick little babies and called it God's Will just about made me throw my coffee at the tv set.)

Furthermore, in a culture that cannot accept death from natural causes in a hospital at all (while condoning death on the battlefield and in the gas chamber) it is likewise refreshing that at least one major religious group is willing to state that we all die of something, and while their hospitals are in the business of healing those who can be healed -- not everyone can be healed.

This is a heartbreaking story. The young mother needs to be surrounded with love and support so that she can come to terms with her inevitable loss, not prolong that loss forever.

Hekate

[Jonathan50]

40. or for their families to pull the plug when they've essentially flatlined.

But the family doesn't want to pull the plug..

Thanks for explaining the Catholic position, it makes more sense to me now. But that position has little or nothing to do with this case.

[LeftyMom]

66. Kind of an aside but

The Catholic church doesn't teach the rythym method anyplace that I know of. Catholic-run laity groups do teach various forms of the sympto-thermal method, which looks at current indicators of fertility rather than past cycles as rythym does and is as effective as any other non-permanent birth control method when used by motivated people who understand the method. Plenty of non-Catholics use it too, because it does work.

Which, I think, is where the logic breaks down. The Catholic church says every act of sex should have reproductive potential (assuming you're young enough, healthy, etc and of course many Catholic couples aren't and are still married by the church...) but at the same time they condone the use of a method that eliminates that reproductive potential by restricting coitus to times in the cycle when a viable egg and live sperm have no chance of meeting unless you have made a mistake or have a freak event such as double ovulation. Now, what precisely is the moral difference between separating sperm and egg by timing sex to avoid their contact and separating sperm and egg with a little bit of latex? I don't see one at all, both are attempts to reduce the likelihood of pregnancy while still enjoying the recreational and bonding effects of sex. No wonder I'm an ex-Catholic. :shrug:

[Hekate]

76. Thanks, I know I'm not completely current on method

My parents are the ex-RCs, from when I was a baby. When I was an adolescent I came very close to becoming one myself (very drawn to the ritual aspects) but am glad I trusted my questioning self.

Hekate

[Morgana LaFey]

61. NO EXCUSE, reason or justification would have been sufficient

for an abortion -- yet they can pull the plug with impunity.

THE most craven hypocrisy.

[kestrel91316]

21. IMHO the mother should let go. Keeping those machines hooked

up is interfering with God's will in this case.

[Erika]

26. Many believe modern medicine is God's will

Where do we draw the line?

[happyslug]

24. Actual hospital Report

www.northcountrygazette.org/documents/PediEthicsCommitteeReport.doc

The child has been in the Hospital since November 3rd, 2005, that is 16 months. His brain is suffering numerous seizures (up to 1/2 of the time) and is atrophying (Through the term Vegetative State is NOT used).

[MADem]

That;s terribly sad. A hard read, that. NT

[happyslug]

33. It is sad, I read the whole thing before I posted (and forget it was 2007)

Thus I had to change my post to reflect 2005 instead of 2006 (it now reads 16 months not five Months).

[tammywammy]

60. That just breaks my heart

The poor little guy. :cry:

[jobycom]

29. Folks, this story has been breaking hearts here in Austin for a couple of weeks now.

The mother had a rough delivery, and will never have any other children. Her only child will die within a year or so, and the death is likely to be painful because of the brain disease he is suffering from. The hospital, which I believe is well-intentioned, wants to remove life support to end the child's suffering, as well as end the futile financial burden (I'm sure there are some who are only concerned about the finances, but there are certainly doctors and nurses involved who are only concerned about the child's suffering).

The mother is in agony, as you can imagine. She's been pleading with everyone in the state and now out of the state to find someone to treat her child, to let him live as much of a life as he can. She is young and seemingly uneducated (I don't know much about her), but she is fully aware her child has no hope. She is doing what she believes is right for her child, I believe, despite the fact that the hospital is portraying her as someone who can't let go.

It's just heartbreaking. I can't read the stories anymore. There will be no happy ending, no matter what happens. It's just the kind of situation that makes you hug your children and feel really, really fortunate.

[Erika]

31. yep. No other words.

May the little guy gain peace as well as his family.

[mopinko]

49. yup, parents fight for their kids. no matter what. but

really, this stuff breaks my heart. but death is a part of life people. sometimes i think that we just don't get that anymore. the effects of the prolife propaganda, maybe. NYT had an article the other day about perinatal hospice. what a shame that she cannot spend his short life at peace, holding him, and letting him go.
we had a case in chicago a few years ago of conjoined twins, where they were hopeless, but the parents insisted on an attempt to separate them. i thought it was just a shame that their short life was spent in pain, full of drugs, hooked up to everything. a ton of medicaid money, to only cause suffering. sad sad.
and btw, the catholic church USED to profess that heroic measures were not necessary when death is inevitable. most of those who run/work in catholic hospitals still hold that. my mom died in a catholic hospice. they were wonderful.

[Madspirit]

55. Another Austinite...

Just saying "hi". This story has been tearing us up for a while now. It's a horrible sad thing. It was the front page of our paper today.
Lee

[Pushed To The Left]

35. This is supposed to be a religious hospital? I guess this particular hospital isn't "pro-life"

:mad: I wouldn't blame a parent for putting a bullet in the head of anybody who tries to remove that respirator!

[Hekate]

38. Please read my post above. nt

[Madspirit]

56. BRACKENRIDGE is NOT a religious hospital.

A whole post above by another Austinite explains. Please read it. Brackenridge is NOT a Catholic Hospital.
Lee

[man4allcats]

39. In Texas, if you are poor and need extensive health care

and especially if you are poor and too old and frail or too young to fight your own battles and have no powerful advocate to fight for you, you're in a lot of trouble. By way of example, Texas nursing home residents deal with neglect and abuse on a daily basis. It is criminal, really. In fact it is criminal actually, though trying to get the State of Texas to enforce the statutes is like trying to get Congress to impeach Bush and Cheney. Accountability is nonexistent.

[WillyT]

41. Didn't This Same Thing Happen In Texas A Couple Of Years Back ???

Pro-Life my ASS !!!

:fuckyou:

I want my :fuckyou: smilie back, dammit!!!

[Hekate]

43. I think it was a DUer's sister. It was another heartbreaker. nt

[fortyfeetunder]

75. It was last year...very sad story

I can't remember the DUer's name but her sister was fighting a good fight until the end.

And also there was the other case with another baby with a terminal illness, impoverished family...plug pulled on respirator, baby died...

So much for every life is precious....

[Th1onein]

83. It was my sister, Andrea.

We raised so much hell and got so much publicity for her and what the hospital was trying to do to her that they backed off and finally allowed another physician practicing in the hospital to take her case. This physician determined that she wasn't "futile," and began treating her. She got better for a little while, then she died very peacefully. We knew, as a family, that we were losing our sister; that we wouldn't have her long, but we respected her wishes to the end, and she died a normal death.

By the way, before the ethics committee got involved, the hospital staff had "counseled" our sister and told us that she wanted to die. We begged them to give us an hour or two to get to her bedside before they pulled her plug. When we got there, the nurses had her bolus of morphine ready and asked her if she was ready, and she mouthed that they were lying, and wrote on a piece of paper that she didn't want to die.

After that, they had a meeting during which they decided that she was in intractable pain, from the bedsore that she got in THEIR hospital, and drugged her to the gills. You would have thought, looking at her, that she was brain dead. My brother and I happened to come in one day, right before her next dose of oxycontin, and lo and behold, Andrea raised up off of the bed, shaking her head "No" at us, in an obvious panic, when we said that we would go out of the room, to let the nurse do her "evaluation." The nurse was really shitty and rude to us and obviously wanted us out of the room. When we came back in, Andrea was drugged to the gills again, and totally unable to communicate.

They ALWAYS use the excuse that the patient is in really bad pain, and they usually drug them up really good before consulting the family for an ethics meeting. I think they screwed up in our sister's case (either that, or Andrea was just absolutely fighting to communicate--we never COULD get her to shut up; she was a loudmouthed Texan, just like the rest of us), and didn't drug her up soon enough before posing the "let's pull the plug" crap with our family. When the patient is trying to con family members into going and getting them a Big Mac, you tend to think they're still worth keeping alive.

These mother fuckers know what they're doing and they ARE playing God.

[Contrary1]

47. Here, use mine:

[WillyT]

48. Hey Thanks !!!

Works perfectly!

:hi:

[Contrary1]

50. That one is for when you are angry...

Here are a couple for when you are in a more "playful" mood"

and

[Blue_Tires]

42. eh....this can NOT be true

every RWer tells me the American health system is the ENVY OF THE FREE WORLD!!:sarcasm: :scared:

[happyslug]

46. The Local Courts has given her more time.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17709078/

But sooner or later the fact that the child will NEVER some out of this coma will have to be accepted and even the Catholic Church has come out and said that when someone is in a Persistent Vegetative State, that person is DEAD even if being kept breathing and heat pumping by artificial means.

Now Pope John Paul II in 2004 modified the above by saying a person is a Vegetative State (Note NOT a Persistent Vegetative State) can NOT be denied food and water but can be denied non-regular medical care. Basically the Pope said you can NOT starve someone to death, but you can permit them to die of the underlying medical problem. In this case this child will die whenever the medical machines are removed.

Some sites discussing the issue of when to cut off medical care:
http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=3481
http://www.wf-f.org/04-3-VegetativeState.html
http://www.bethel.edu/~rakrob/files/PVS.html
http://www.nds.edu/old/comparativeanalysis.htm

[LittleClarkie]

52. Before I even clicked on the topic, I said to myself "Texas"

And sure enough.

[Janice325]

62. I knew it was going to be "Texas" too.

:cry:
I remember some time back a DU'er was relating what happened to her sister while she was hospitalized in Texas, but I don't remember the details, other than it was appalling.

[Marrah_G]

57. It's so sad

I remember the opposite happening here. My cousin had to jump through hoops to get a DNR Order (do not resuscitate) for her son. He had Tay Sachs, a horrible disease that left him unable to see, hear, talk.. basically a vegetable that could feel pain and would seize for hours until his body completely shut down. No one can know what it is like to have a dying child unless you have been there. Some want their children allowed to pass on, to end the pain, others want to hang on, unable to let go. In my opinion these things should ALWAYS be left to the parents to decide, no matter what anyone else thinks or how much it costs. I feel so badly for this mother. I hope she has some family or friends around to support her.

[Rosemary2205]

58. GWB signed this POS into law.

Fucking psychopath.........

[The Doctor.]

65. As I recall.

It was brought up during the Schaivo catastrophe. There was a baby, I believe with hydroencephalitis, whose mother desperately wished only to hold him for a few more days.

It is not difficult to see who creates more strife and who does not.

But then we would have to begin to define 'strife'... and my definition might not be the same as everyone else's.

I'm sure we can see the real sources, however... and I believe they can be discerned.

[badgerpup]

59. What kind of quality of life is that child having?

Is he aware of anything at all?
If so, I hope it isn't just pain...

[scarz]

63. i have 2 children so......

question1: if keeping this child alive cost x amount of dollars, and this child were going to die very shortly anyways, would it be better to fight for this one child, or use the money, the x amount of dollars, to improve the lives of y amount of children. this question invariably leads to ...
question2: without having the facts at my immediate disposal, an early assumption would be that given the spanish name, it is quite possible that the young woman is an illegal immigrant. it is quite possible that she had knowledge that her child was sick in the womb (modern medicine). is it right that we as american citizens pay this large sum of money for this particular child in this particular case. the hospital is not choosing to take the life, but rather choosing to stop giving life, which is a distinct difference like how there is a distinct difference in not wanting to die and wanting to live.
dont jump to conclusions, get all the facts, which is a unfortunate common occurrence her.
i personally believe that life has value and is precious, but sometimes we have to let go.
let go and move on, but never forget.

[Maddy McCall]

67. Wow. You make a lot of assumptions about this family.

What does her immigration status have to do with this???

[scarz]

78. i was just offering up a hypothetical question

i am a philosopher, what else would you expect. and if this woman was an illegal immigrant who illegally snuck over the border so that her child would be a citizen, and then this child were kept alive, knowing that the medical care was futile,and this woman would pay none of the costs, leaving the system to tax other citizens by raising premiums to recoup lost costs IS THAT FAIR IS THAT RIGHT and like i said before i am only asking a question, i am not putting forth my specific belief quote

What does her immigration status have to do with this???
what do you think:

[Th1onein]

84. Are you the guy on the other site that asked if this was an anchor baby?

This is such bullshit.

[scarz]

90. first of all hero

i have "earned" my citizenship more than most on this website. thomas jefferson"Every citizen should be a soldier. This was the case with the Greeks and Romans, and must be that of every free state. " i have been a true earned citizen since 96. i dont even need give my file. i didnt give forth whether this is an anchor baby. it pains me greatly, a man with little fear, that one would speak of hatred for current immigration policy and then , with a seemingly disparate view, condemn the legitimacy of the childs or mothers citizenship. have you lived in california or new mexico and seen the impact of illegal immigration on medical care. NO, i think no. I HAVE IN EVERY WAY POSSIBLY IMAGINABLE EARNED MY CITIZENSHIP, AND TOTAL FREEDOM TO SPEAK, as a zen student i have become awake to the true nature of the world. it seems you have responded with hate and biased anger, totally close minded to your view unwilling to except alternative perspectives. i only offered hypothetical talking points to probe and engage what seems like childish minds. i have earned my right to be here, in a free unfettered forum, and i only offer up that which will promote the good for all. what have you done, for i am with absolute certainty, and my government agrees, a true american, and above all doubt as to the veracity of my allegiance. i serve no man, but i kneel to the will of the american people. for at the instant of anger, the pursuit of trutH his lost. you and us all have much to learn. we are not perfect, AND THE ADMINISTRATION IS NOWHERE NEAR PERFECT. we have been failed. however CAN YOU absolve yourself of your bias and constantly seek the truth. can you admit wrong to better the greater good. can you serve the american people, even if the people you serve, in their ignorance and darkness mock and attempt to destroy you. there is so much hate and bias here. I AM NOT RIGHT, I AM NOT LEFT, I WALK MY OWN PATH. free yourself from unyielding emotion and become blind like justice.

[Th1onein]

93. That's an awful lot of crap to say to a single question.

AND you're not making much sense.

Maybe you haven't figured out the basics of what America SHOULD be yet, friend. We have certain "inalienable" rights, as humans, according to our form of government. No one NEEDS to "earn" the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

No one here said a thing about your patriotism or lack of it. But you have no right to decide that someone should die just because they aren't Americans.

[scarz]

95. it was 0300 on a friday night soooooo

that settles the somewhat jumpy tone. but my question is more about the immigration WHICH IS a huge aspect. YES or NO, if this woman were an illegal immigrant, and had the child here knowing he would receive free health care, and that this particular child was receiving FUTILE medical support, which the mother could not provide leading to americans to foot the bill. SHOULD WE LET NATURE TAKE ITS COURSE. not decide who lives or dies. SHOULD WE TAKE OR HANDS OFF? people decide all the time who lives or dies, its called triage. the care this child receives should go to someone with a chance, and the care should go to americans first.
FACT: the geneva convention states that wounded on the battlefield receive care based on injury, irregardless of nationality. so basically a wounded enemy soldier in critical condition (expectant) is supposed to receive care before an american soldier who is an emergency situation (urgent). NEVER EVER HAPPENS, and wrong to expect that it does.
FACT: this child is going to expire, no matter what.
FACT: this child is triaged as expectant
FACT: there are countless amounts of patients who need care, money and supplies.
FACT: it is better for SOCIETY as a whole.
GIVEN: two people with identical illnesses. one american and one illegal immigrant, or child of an illegal immigrant.
GIVEN:one available care program.
WHO GETS THE CARE???
taxpaying americans in a way EARN merit or EARN political or nationalistic karma

AND NO, i in no way believe this is an easy decision
i have seen much to much death already WITH MY OWN EYES as a soldier
i have 2 amazing children, and my sons twin brother died
this is a fair assessment of the situation

[Th1onein]

99. WHY does immigration come in to this?

This mother is a native to this country and her child is as well. Why are you ASSUMING, just because they're Hispanic, that they are not?

The fact is that the hospital took on the care of the infant when he was brought in. Now, they are trying to withdraw that treatment. This is not about who is American, who is an immigrant, and who isn't. Even if she were an illegal alien, at this point, that wouldn't be an issue, since the hospital has already BEGUN giving her child the care he needs. The issue is the withdrawing of that care.

[colinmom71]

87. You're right. You have no facts here...

Addressing your second question first, the vast majority of metabolic disorders cannot be diagnosed in utero since proper diagnosis of metabolic disorders requires blood and other bodily fluid samples directly from the child. Most kids with metabolic disorders are not even diagnosed after birth until well after becoming symptomatic from their particular disorder, especially if it is a rare disorder like the one in this child's case. It's unlikely to any reasonable degree that this woman had foreknowledge of her child's disorder. And even if she could have, she is not obligated to terminate her pregnancy because the child will be born ill.

I'd direct you to follow your own advice - "dont jump to conclusions, get all the facts...".

As for your first question, I doubt if it were your child's life on the line that you'd be reducing your family's tragedy to some cold cost-benefit algebraic equation. And your legal rights and responsibilities to govern consent over your child's medical treatment should not be quashed just because you'd make differing choices from others. I probably wouldn't be making the same decisions this mom is making were I ever in her position, but I strongly feel her parental role here should be given the utmost respect and integrity.

[scarz]

64. under state law.....

Under state law, physicians are allowed to request medical treatment be suspended if they believe it simply prolongs dying. so...if a magic pill were created that allowed one to live 100 extra years, WHICH IS PROLONGING DEATH FOR 100 YEARS, but it cost 100 million dollars to MANUFACTURE the pill we should all be given that pill even if we dont have the money. even the mother says god says who lives and who dies. the hospital is GIVING life. god is TAKING it away. would i want to ever endure this pain and suffering ,no. Do i believe this is an easy decision , a resounding no. justice is blind and thought to be without emotion. its the truth. and sometimes it hurts very badly. very bad.

[alarimer]

68. If she had money or insurance, the hospital would not be doing this

I am sorry to be so cynical, but if she had money, the hospital would keep him alive as long as she was willing to pay for it. Just as long as they got their cut but there is no money in it for them. Law or no law.

[tavalon]

70. I worked at Satan, er Seton for a number of years

My first response when I saw who it was was to be enraged but reading the rest of the story this is one of those horribly gray ethical areas. I feel for this mother and yet, in the larger picture, I'm not sure we do anyone any favors by prolonging this child's life, no matter how much money this family has or doesn't have. I don't see this one as black and white and I'm so glad I'm not directly involved.

[Horse with no Name]

73. The best thing for this child is probably letting him go

HOWEVER, it should be the parent's decision and nobody else should be able to influence that decision.

[yurbud]

74. shit! I just watched John Q the other night. When is this going to hit the boiling point?

[tavalon]

77. I just read the ethics report

and while this is a case of the haves and have nots being treated differently, I am grateful for this child that his mother doesn't have the monetary wherewithall to prolonge this his suffering. This is terribly hard for all involved and my heart goes out to them. I know a couple of the doctors who consulted for this ethics committee. I do not feel that their evaluations were colored by money or religious concerns.

[Th1onein]

100. If you just read the ethics report, you are reading only one side

The doctors, all who work for the hospital, draw up that report. Gosh, I wonder which side they'll be on?

[BoneDaddy]

79. Sick world

we live in. WHere are the "conservative pro life christians"?

[hedgehog]

80. I have several responses

1. The notion that we have to let people go because of limited resources is a false one. We have plenty of resources; we're just dedicating them to maintaining a larger military than the rest of the world combined!

2. There are several layers Catholic teachings. For example, although the Pope and bishops and some priests loudly state that artificial birth control is wrong, the actual teaching is that each couple must follow their consciences. It's not a decision to be made lightly, but the personal conscience is the final arbiter. Oddly enough, most couples disagree with the "official" teaching.

3. As noted above in one post, the Catholic Church has no requirement to use heroic efforts to postpone death. The exact definition of heroic efforts is nebulous. One family may opt for tube feeding, another may not. Again, it's a matter of individual conscience.

4. IMO, survival at the end of life is too cloudy to call. Look at premature babies as a group. A certain percent born at 25 weeks will die, no matter what. Others will survive but with all kinds of health issues, others will be fine. To make things even more cloudy, the statistics are moving. Premature babies who would have certainly died 40 or even 5 years ago are now routinely sent home with their parents, happy and healthy.Now look at one single infant and figure out which group this baby belongs in.

Now look at a very sick person. Will this person die, or will the heroic application of one last round of Chemo, six more weeks on the respirator, just one more surgery mean that this person will survives to live another 5 years of a good life?

Anyone who can tell which patients will die and which will live, please let the entire Medical Establishment know.

5. Is it possible that the hospital administrators are trying to help this mother by taking the decision out of her hands? If she pulls the plug, she may always feel guilty. If the hospital does it against her wishes, she can always blame them but the child will be out of pain.

[earth mom]

81. I feel bad for the mom, but...

it's time to let go. Just like terminally ill patients that are on life support have a turning point, this is the turning point for this child. I really don't think it's about insurance, but rather the cold hard facts that the child will never ever get well and is in fact terminally ill.

[Th1onein]

86. If it were YOUR child, it would be time to "let go."

But this is not your child. And that is not your decision. Neither is it the doctors' decision.

Who are any of us to determine what is quality of life? That is a personal, VALUE decision that is to be made by each one of us, individually. Period.

[earth mom]

89. Yes, it is the moms decision, I'll give you that.

But the mom is in denial as well, no getting around that fact.

[Th1onein]

94. My mom was in denial, too..........fifty three years ago.

She stayed "in denial" until the doctors managed to create a machine that enabled them to operate on the human heart without killing the patient. After fifty three years of a very full life, and after bringing a child of her own into the world, the "blue baby" my mother was "in denial" about finally DID die. But she would have died sooner if my mother had listened to the doctors and given up.

Every MOMENT of life is precious. Life is made up of just that: moments in time. How dare anyone decide to deprive another of one moment of life, if that life is still precious to someone.

I'd say there are times when we all NEED to be in denial. And who are you to judge whether that denial is a good or a bad thing?

[earth mom]

97. In my personal experience, denial has hurt more than helped.

Your experience is different. Okay, fine.

But don't you dare judge me because I feel differently about this situation. You are doing exactly what you accuse me of doing! :grr:

FYI-I NEVER said I didn't feel that moms pain-because I do. What mother wouldn't?! But sooner or later she WILL have to let go. That's a fact. A cold hard fact, but there's no getting around it because of the disease the child has.

Again, it's a heartbreaking situation, let's let it go at that.

[Th1onein]

98. No one is judging you.

I certainly did not levy a judgement upon you in my post. I am simply saying that everyone seems to think that denial is a bad thing. And maybe, for you, it has caused damage. But it is a natural reaction to bad news; to situations over which we feel that we have no control. It is the opposite of acceptance, and sometimes you just DON'T need to accept some things. There are some things that are just WORTH fighting for, no matter how bad the situation is. And a life is one of those things.

[Doctor_J]

85. Shouldn't Smirk cut his vacation short to intervene on this?

maybe hate radio needs to fan the flames for a few days first.

[JerseygirlCT]

88. Does no one in the Catholic church see the horrible irony

of these situations?

They'll castigate Catholic politicians for supporting a woman's right to choose, but have few compunctions about unhooking an innocent child from respirators -- because the bill isn't getting paid.

Nice.

[orleans]

91. i thought "sounds like texas" before i clicked onto your thread

and discovered...why, it IS texas.

my god!

[REP]

92. The Child Is Dying and the Keeping Him Alive Causes Him Pain

It is a pity that the mother is so unspeakably selfish that she cannot stop the infliction of such suffering on this helpless child, who apparently only has enough brain function left to feel only pain. Playing god is keeping him alive because she "cannot afford to lose him."

[Vinca]

96. How can a Catholic-run hospital do this?

Doesn't it amount to abortion after the fact? Funny how the almighty DOLLAR changes everything. Has anyone told Ratzy his hospitals are killing kids? While it might make sense to remove life support, the decision is for the mother to make, not the state.

[area51]

101. Say it loud.

This "futile care" bill was signed into law by so-called pro-lifer GW Hoover as TX governor.