Law Bush signed allows hospital to kill a patient

[Random]

Ok, back during the Terri Schiavo mess, people noted a Texas law, signed by Bush, that allowed hospitals to "pull the plug" on patients against the wishes of the family. At the time I also noted that it allowed them to withdraw life support against the express wishes of the patient, even if they were distinctly asking to be allowed to live.

Of course, no hospital would withdraw life support from a patient who was alert and conscious, right? Right?

Wrong.

Granted, she was going to die of cancer eventually anyway, but they can't let her live long enough to see her mother one last time? The new article tries to make it sound like an argument for fixing health care coverage in this country (which it is), but fails to mention any role that Bush had to play in it. I guess that any sort of comparison to the Schiavo case is beyond them.

Not sure if anyone had mentioned this yet, but it just kind of struck me as sort of important.

 

[Mephisto]

Although I remember several Terri Schaivo threads floating around when she was the X-tian "controversy for the month," but I don't ever remember if anyone brought up this law (although I'm probably mistaken). It SHOULD be a controversial law, but as with many of this administration's controversies they are expediently forgotten as the next red herring is dangled before them.

That law combined with the fact that Bush presided over more executions in his time as governor of Texas should cue anyone paying attention that they are as hypocritical as X-tians who bomb abortion clincs.

 

[casebro]

I lost access, but the (para)phrase "alert and conscious- or so her family says" sure seems reminiscent of the Schiavo case....

When the body's health degenerates to needing a ventilator for 25 days, in what kind of shape is the mind? 25 more days of degeneration after the body can't breath for itself=???

 

[NoZed Avenger]

At the time I also noted that it allowed them to withdraw life support against the express wishes of the patient, even if they were distinctly asking to be allowed to live.

Can you give the section number of the part that allows this? I started skimming it, but it would be easier if you have a cite. ETA: That interpretation seems to directly conflict with Section 166.042.

 

[NoZed Avenger]

Is that concerned with the procedure in 166.052? (Still reading)

 

[Random]

(Lifted entirely from my post back in March):

Its a pretty dense chunk of legislation, writen in that bizarre language that only lawyers can understand, and the process is tedious and complicated, and a lot of hospital personel have to agree, and they have to give the patient ten day to find a new facility, but it does give the hospital the legal ability to discontinue treatment over the wishes of the patient.

The portion you want is tucked away under subsection 166.046, Subsection (e):

(e) If the patient or the person responsible for the health care decisions of the patient is requesting life-sustaining treatment that the attending physician has decided and the review process has affirmed is inappropriate treatment, the patient shall be given available life-sustaining treatment pending transfer under Subsection (d). The patient is responsible for any costs incurred in transferring the patient to another facility. The hysician and the health care facility are not obligated to provide ife-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).

Would a facility actually use this process to discontinue life support for an individual against their stated wishes? I have no idea. I can see a hospital doing this to get rid of costly indigent patients by forcing them to go to another hospital, but would they still pull the plug if they could not transfer to another facility? Regardless, it is possible, and the law Bush signed gives them that absurd authority.

 

[Manny]

What people like to ignore is the context of this bill. Prior to this bill there were no protections whatsoever for patients in Texas; this added some. Could/should it have added more? Yeah, possibly. But you have to remember that Bush's relationship with the Texas legislature was a lot different from his current relationship with Congress; it was more like his relationship with Congress back before 9/11 drove the left insane. Bipartisan, accomodation-seeking, etc. He had earlier bucked that accomodative spirit to veto a similar bill which didn't have the 10-day waiting period and had less stringent review procedures. The bill signed by then-Governor Bush was directionally correct and was all the bill he could get from the legislature at the time after diligent effort.

 

[NoZed Avenger]

(Lifted entirely from my post back in March):

Its a pretty dense chunk of legislation, writen in that bizarre language that only lawyers can understand, and the process is tedious and complicated, and a lot of hospital personel have to agree, and they have to give the patient ten day to find a new facility, but it does give the hospital the legal ability to discontinue treatment over the wishes of the patient.

The portion you want is tucked away under subsection 166.046, Subsection (e):

Thanks. I agree with your reading, then: If the doctor disagrees with the patient's agent (given the context of the patient being incapacitated, the patient disagreeing is less clear, but I cannot say you are wrong there on a quick read -- I'd need to spend more time looking at it and some companion law), then it goes to a medical review panel. If they agree with the doctor, then the patient/patient's agent has ten days to find a new facility and/or file a court challenge. Information on how to file a court challenge is given and the courts can waive fees if the challenger does not have money.

That's how I read it -- but again, just a quick once-over.

 

[Mephisto]

it was more like his relationship with Congress back before 9/11 drove the left insane.

C'mon, Manny be fair! 9/11 drove the LEFT insane? Who's responsible for:

WMD
Iraq
Abu Grahib
Plame-gate
Homeland Security
secret prisons
approving torture
kidnapping citizens from other (and in other) countries

and so on . . .

I think most of us know his record as governor:
______

George W. Bush during his six years as governor of Texas presided over 152 executions, more than any other governor in the recent history of the United States. Bush has said: "I take every death penalty case seriously and review each case carefully.... Each case is major because each case is life or death.

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/17670
_________

Perhaps it was inevitable that questions about the death penalty would be thrust at Bush, if only because Texas leads the country by far in executions. More executions have occurred in Texas under the 5 years of Gov. Bushís tenure than in any other state in all of the past 24 years since the death penalty was reinstated. And it is not only the sheer number of executions: Texas has vigorously gone forward with executions of juvenile offenders, the mentally retarded, foreign nationals not informed of their rights under international treaties, defendants with sleeping lawyers, and others with serious doubts about their guilt.

Candidate Bush first found himself being scrutinized on the death penalty when he reportedly mocked the final entreaty of Karla Faye Tucker before she was executed, imitating her saying: ìPlease, donít kill me.î He also smirked when talking about a Texas defendant whose lawyer slept during part of the trial.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=18&did=235
_______

I can't see where "pulling the plug" for an indigent patient would be any different than a routine execution in Bush's eyes.

 

[Manny]

C'mon, Manny be fair! 9/11 drove the LEFT insane?

Oh, absolutely! Voting for wars that they turn out to be against, then collecting commies and even less savory types to lead their movement against it, seeing evil across the aisle but not across the ocean, etc. But that's just an aside. My point was that prior to 9/11 it was possible to do bipartisan stuff like No Child Left Behind or the new Medicare drug entitlement. And it was that bipartisan environment in which Bush was able to operate successfully when he was governor.

I can't see where "pulling the plug" for an indigent patient would be any different than a routine execution in Bush's eyes.

Then perhaps you can address the fact that the bill Gov. Bush signed increased protections for end-of-life patients, that it was enthusiastically endorsed by the National Right to Life Campaign, advocates for the terminally ill, and others, and that the bill was sponsored by a Democrat. Because to read the OP, you'd think the opposite was true.

 

[fishbob]

Oh, absolutely! Voting for wars that they turn out to be against, then collecting commies and even less savory types to lead their movement against it, seeing evil across the aisle but not across the ocean, etc. But that's just an aside. My point was that prior to 9/11 it was possible to do bipartisan stuff like No Child Left Behind or the new Medicare drug entitlement. And it was that bipartisan environment in which Bush was able to operate successfully when he was governor.

Then perhaps you can address the fact that the bill Gov. Bush signed increased protections for end-of-life patients, that it was enthusiastically endorsed by the National Right to Life Campaign, advocates for the terminally ill, and others, and that the bill was sponsored by a Democrat. Because to read the OP, you'd think the opposite was true.

Whoa there.
You obviously know these specifics very well. Your point gets lost when you very accurately describe the Texas bill, yet mischaracterize the dems voting to authorize the president to use force at his discretion as voting for 'wars that they turn out to be against'.