extraordinary measures
I was reading about the case of a 6 month old boy named Sun Hudson, who died last week after being disconnected from life support against the wishes of his penniless mother, under the provisions of the Texas law on "Advance Directives" signed in 1999 by then governor G. W. Bush.
[ The law itself can be found at the following URL:
http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/statutes/docs/HS/content/htm/hs.002.00.000166.00.htm
and an article on the case is at this URL:
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/3084934
]
I don't have the time to go through the statute and try to make sense of it, but I do note that it seems to list both "Artificial nutrition and hydration" and "mechanical breathing machines" in the category of "artificial life support." Here's an illustrative paragraph:
(10) "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 nutrition and hydration. The term does not include the
administration of pain management medication or the performance of
a medical procedure considered to be necessary to provide comfort
care, or any other medical care provided to alleviate a patient's
pain.
It puzzles me that there's been no outcry over this case as there has been in the Terri Schiavo case. As I understand it, many people consider an assisted breathing apparatus to be an extraordinary measure while a feeding tube isn't, but it troubles me that this sort of semantic hair-splitting can govern a life-or-death medical decision. How much difference does it make to an infant whether he chokes to death or starves to death? And might the outcome have been different if Texas Children's Hospital hadn't barred the media on the pretext of protecting privacy? Here's what his mother had to say about this:
"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."
[after i wrote the preceding, another alarming possibility came to mind. so i googled "sun hudson" & black, and found any number of blogs pointing out that mother & child were black. does that account in part for lack of public and media interest?]
[ The law itself can be found at the following URL:
http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/statutes/docs/HS/content/htm/hs.002.00.000166.00.htm
and an article on the case is at this URL:
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/3084934
]
I don't have the time to go through the statute and try to make sense of it, but I do note that it seems to list both "Artificial nutrition and hydration" and "mechanical breathing machines" in the category of "artificial life support." Here's an illustrative paragraph:
(10) "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 nutrition and hydration. The term does not include the
administration of pain management medication or the performance of
a medical procedure considered to be necessary to provide comfort
care, or any other medical care provided to alleviate a patient's
pain.
It puzzles me that there's been no outcry over this case as there has been in the Terri Schiavo case. As I understand it, many people consider an assisted breathing apparatus to be an extraordinary measure while a feeding tube isn't, but it troubles me that this sort of semantic hair-splitting can govern a life-or-death medical decision. How much difference does it make to an infant whether he chokes to death or starves to death? And might the outcome have been different if Texas Children's Hospital hadn't barred the media on the pretext of protecting privacy? Here's what his mother had to say about this:
"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."
[after i wrote the preceding, another alarming possibility came to mind. so i googled "sun hudson" & black, and found any number of blogs pointing out that mother & child were black. does that account in part for lack of public and media interest?]
posted by yitwail at 11:51 AM
9 Comments:
The little black boy's case is just as heartwrenching as Terri's; all such cases are. Many besides the Hudson case remain anonymous. In Terri's case, the parents have sent out many, many letters describing their daughter's plight; not everybody has the same motivation or anger or whatever to launch the kind of campaign Terri's parents did.
Not everyone might have the time or the resources, either. But an aspect of the Schiavo case that disturbs me is the involvement by Congress. Unless the GOP is willing to intervene in every similar case, won't future inaction imply that some lives are not worth saving, as well as violate the consitutional principle of equal protection under the law?
I think that the GOP's intervention was an "SOS" thing, ad hoc, improvised----not some sort of politically thought-thru long-term thing (altho I had hoped it would spark a massive movement generally towards pro-life landmarks). Had they been successful in igniting a general reversal of the mentality underlying Roe vs. Wade and the pro-euthanasia trend, then we wouldn't have had to worry about lack of equal protection. But, sigh, as usual, judiciary despotism won the day, and any hopes for some sort of small flame turning into a firestorm were futile.
cynics like me are inclined to ascribe it to opportunist grandstanding for the sake of winning brownie points from the religious right, especially if there's no follow-up on the part of the GOP, and i think it's incumbent on the part of pro-life people to pester the GOP until it does something long-lasting. us cynics, liberals, what-have you, think the GOP has a smug attitude that it has the religious right in their electoral pocket, so the religious right ought to make the GOP a bit less comfortable & complacent by making a big noise once-in-a-while aimed at the GOP.
Sigh, John, this kind of discussion is fruitless, bec. I could counter that the GOP learned 99% of its tricks from the Ass Party. The fact is (if we'd like to stay on track in this conversation, rather than straying into vitriolic polimix), Terri's desperate parents tried every avenue they could, and the GOP, being overall more pro-life, was one of their choices. You hardly think that the Ass Party would have gone to bat for them, do you?
(1)>>>pester the GOP until it does something long-lasting<<< Every time folks from right of center try to "do s.th. long-lasting," they are thwarted by the Establishment (viz. Bork's nomination, et al).
(2) If I understand correctly, **YOU** are pro-life, Sir, so you could definitely be among those who "pester the GOP," could you not? (That is, if you really believe it will avail against the Jericho Wall of Leftism.)
while it may not be vitriolic polemics, the Rev. Patrick Mahoney expressed considerable cynicism recently from the ranks of Terri Schiavo supporters. (the reverend is director of the Christian Defense Coalition--an organization i'm unfamiliar with, but Rev. Mahoney has been described as an advisor to and spokesman for the Schindlers.)
Mahoney turned his fury on his erstwhile allies in the Schiavo case: the brothers Bush and congressional leaders. "They are lacking the political will," he said, criticizing Congress's failure to enforce its subpoena to question the severely brain-damaged woman. "Is this a political stunt by the Republican leadership?" (from today's Washington Post)
i have written email to GOP lawmakers on occasion, the last to tom delay, and never gotten replies. i also doubt that politicos of either party are keen on input from citizens who don't belong to any well-defined camp. the 2-party system at present is no place for moderates. you probably wouldn't characterize me as a moderate, but i hope you will acknowledge that i'm not an extremist, like the colorado ethnic studies professor who called 9/11 victims *little Eichmanns*
No, no, John, I'd not brand you as an extremist, anymore than I myself am. No doubt, you've heard me complain that the Dems and the Pubs ougghta fuse into one party (called either the Republicrats or the Democans), and then, let's have a truly constitutional party, so we FINALLY have a genuine choice.
(Bah the way, Granny aksidintlee slippt in thar on one o them posss---spellin that thar word "polimix" whin o corse, the wrahtr knowz iss writtin with a "i" in the middle. This iz whut cumz o lettin a illitrut hillbillee wraht a blawg, sigh...)
Post a Comment
<< Home