Where is the Outrage?

Over this poor, defenseless baby's death, despite his mother's wishes?

March 21, 2005
Sun Hudson, Terri Schiavo
Media Politics Rights, Law

Six days ago, a 6-month-old baby boy named Sun Hudson died when Texas Children's Hospital disconnected his life support, against the wishes of his mother, because they decided that further treatment was "futile" and Wanda Hudson, the boy's mother, had no medical insurance. The Houston Chronicle reported:

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. [...]
Texas law allows hospitals can discontinue life sustaining care, even if patient family members disagree.

A far more important case, one would think, than the Terri Schiavo case. In the Hudson case, for the first time ever, a hospital bureacracy terminates the life of a child (who was not in a vegetative state), against his family's wishes, when the family can't pay their bills. If that's not an important case, what is?

As it happens, the Texas Futile Care Law that empowered the hospital to pull the plug was signed into law by then-Governor George W. Bush. A number of left-wing blogs have pointed to the law as proof of Bush's — and the Republicans' — hypocrisy. Austin lawyer Jerri Lynn Ward says, however:

The legislation was passed to prevent hospitals from withdrawing life-prolonging treatments from patients and the fear was that the hospitals were creating and implementing such protocols because of money. According to Ward, the use to which the hospital put the law in the Hudson case was unanticipated and unintended by the law's authors. Be that as it may, it seems clear that money motivated the hospital's decision: surely, if the mother had money, the hospital would have acceded to her wishes. Attorney Ward again:

I do know that, as an attorney representing health providers — including hospice — I have given presentations to providers about the legal aspects of treatment options under Texas Law for children with terminal diseases. One thing that I taught was that the Courts would always defer to the treatment decisions of the parents. I was wrong. I will have to revise my powerpoint presentation because of the judge in this case — and this bothers me.

It is certain that this baby was funded by Medicaid. Had the parents — or an insurance company been paying the bills — I do not believe that the hospital would have gone to the courts to pull the respirator. It is probable, in my mind, that this respirator was pulled because of the issue of money. That should bother everyone.

So where's the Republican outrage in the Sun Hudson case? Where's the maudlin, wall-to-wall "Save Terri" type of media coverage? There's no interest in the Sun Hudson case because there's no political advantage to be gained there. And the Hudsons aren't the Republicans' — or the media's — kind of folks. They're poor, and they're Black.

Is it fair to ascribe cynical political motives to Senate Republicans in this case? Actually, yes. We don't have to guess. ABC News obtained a memo of talking points prepared for Senate Republicans regarding the Terri Schiavo case. It's on ABC's website. A few choice items from the memo:

This is an important moral issue and the pro-life base will be excited that the Senate is debating this important issue.

This is a great political issue, because Senator Nelson of Florida has already refused to become a cosponsor and this is a tough issue for Democrats.

This legislation ensures that individuals like Terri Schiavo are guaranteed the same legal protections as convicted murderers like Ted Bundy.

So the Republicans see the Schiavo case as a way to defeat Bill Nelson in 2006 and a way to "excite" their "pro-life base". Evidently, though, pro-life is one thing and pro-poor-Black-life is another. Meanwhile, the disgusting media circus continues.

Mrs. Bush in Afghanistan

http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGBQ4A1LX6E.html

Red Cross Link

https://www.redcross.org/donate/donation-form.asp

Bush Funny

I can't help myself...there is so much to mock

http://www.toostupidtobepresident.com/shockwave/cherrytree.htm

Judge Greer In Danger

I have heard and read about this from other sources as well. You know, it is this man's job to interpret the constitution and make rulings in line with the consitution. I have read that supporters of the Schindler's, including some members of Congress (maybe Frist or Delay?) has commented that Greer should be arrested. So, encourage a judicial review and arrest the judge if he doesn't agree with you? The extreme religious right is nothing more than a group of bullies.


http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0513,mon do3,62472,6.html

Blogging and the end of newspapers?

I enjoy writing down my random thoughts on political issues and current events, and posting links/articles that are interesting to me. But there is nothing like reading the newspaper.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A6469-2005Mar28.html?nav=rss_technology

New Tsunami Warning

These poor people! They are still dealing with the effects of the December Tsunami and have to worry about another one after a rather large earthquake.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7316846/

Delay Agreed to Let Comatose Father Die

Saying he knew that he would not want to live that way.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7309887/

It just won't be the same

France is building another Leaning Tower of Pisa. They of course are going to make it tilt.

http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGBKODIOU6E.html

Crashing George Bush's America

http://villagevoice.com/news/0513,york,62456,2.html

Bush Signed Law Years Ago...Related to Schiavo Case

What a hippocrite. He signs a law that allows doctors to make life and death decisions, even against the family's for their children. Last week, a 6 month old baby was taken form life support against the mother's wishes. Why wasn't Congress or Bush outraged about that? Although it is not in this article, I have read that the law also allows doctors to disconnect life support for the indegent. Does anyone else think this is outrageous, given what is happening to Terri Schiavo?

WASHINGTON — The federal law that President Bush signed early yesterday in an effort to prolong Terri Schiavo's life appears to contradict a right-to-die law that he signed as Texas governor, prompting cries of hypocrisy from congressional Democrats and some bioethicists. In 1999, then-Gov. Bush signed the Advance Directives Act, which lets a patient's surrogate make life-ending decisions on his or her behalf. The measure also allows Texas hospitals to disconnect patients from life-sustaining systems if a physician, in consultation with a hospital bioethics committee, concludes that the patient's condition is hopeless. Bioethicists familiar with the Texas law said yesterday that if the Schiavo case had occurred in Texas, her husband would be the legal decision-maker and, because he and her doctors agreed that she had no hope of recovery, her feeding tube would be disconnected. "The Texas law signed in 1999 allowed next of kin to decide what the patient wanted, if competent," said John Robertson, a University of Texas bioethicist. While Congress and the White House were considering legislation recently in the Schiavo case, the Texas law faced its first high-profile test. With the permission of a judge, a Houston hospital cut off life support for a badly deformed 6-month-old baby last week against his mother's wishes after doctors determined that continuing life support would be futile. The baby died almost immediately. "The mother down in Texas must be reading the Schiavo case and scratching her head," said Dr. Howard Brody, the director of Michigan State University's Center for Ethics and Humanities in the Life Sciences. "This does appear to be a contradiction." Bush's apparent shift on right-to-die decisions wasn't lost on Democrats. During heated debate on the Schiavo case, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla., accused Bush of hypocrisy. "It appears that President Bush felt, as governor, that there was a point which, when doctors felt there was no further hope for the patient, that it is appropriate for an end-of-life decision to be made, even over the objection of family members," she said. "There is an obvious conflict here between the president's feelings on this matter now as compared to when he was governor of Texas." The White House said yesterday that Bush's position is consistent, and that the Texas bill focused on expanding the rights of the critically ill and their families to prevent hospitals and doctors from denying life-saving treatment. Bush spokesman Scott McClellan told reporters that Bush vetoed 1997 legislation that would have put into law Texas hospital policies that gave families virtually no protections and as little as 72 hours to find alternative care after a hospital decided to stop treatment. Under the 1999 law, another White House official said, Bush expanded that time to 10 days and authorized family members to seek extensions in court, but acknowledged that if the challenges fell short, "under the legislation, the hospital still could authorize the end of life." In Texas, Bush's position also had the backing of the Texas Right-to-Life Association, whose national headquarters, along with other Christian conservatives that make up a key part of the Republican base, has taken up the fight to prolong Schiavo's life as a cause célèbre. Burke Balch, director of the Powell Center for Medical Ethics at National Right-to-Life in Washington, said he represented the Texas chapter in more than two dozen negotiating sessions over the 1999 bill. He acknowledged that the legislation could allow a hospital to move to end a patient's life over the family's wishes but denied that was inconsistent with Bush's positions now, or his own group's as well. "Does this mean that we or Governor Bush are hypocrites because we supported that law? The answer is, it was the best we could achieve at the time, better than the existing state of the law. ... But when we have the ability to change the law to be more protective, certainly we would do that," Balch said.

Flash Cartoon-Bush's Angels

http://www.motherjones.com/commentary/fiore/2005/03/angels.html

Missing Girl's Body Found

What is wrong with our criminal justice system? The second young girl in two weeks has been found, murdered by a deranged sex offender. It seems that there is an incident every month. These lunatics need to be in prison for the rest of their lives. They can never be rehabilitated and they will always be a serious threat to society. Her is a link to a petition to increase and enforce jail time for convicted sex offenders

The Sound of Silence

Isn't it interesting how silent GWB and Congress has been about Terri Schiavo in recent days, considering how vocal they were to "save her life"? If they really have this so called "philosophy of life", they should be screaming about the unjustice done to her. I suppose since Bush's approval rating has fallen about 6 or 7 points since he and Congress decided to inject themselves in Schiavo's personal life/death decisions, they feel it is wiser to back off. That is some philosophy of life.

Home Depot Helps the Troops

You would think the military would be planning for such events

Marine In Iraq Calls Silverdale Home Depot For Needed Part

March 21, 2005
By Tracy Vedder
KOMO 4 NEWS, Seattle

When First Sgt. Bryan Hall's Company needed a crucial battery charger in Iraq, he picked up the phone and called his former boss at Home Depot.

SILVERDALE - We've heard the stories about troops in Iraq having problems getting the supplies and equipment they need. Well, a little hometown help made the difference for a group of Marines just back from Iraq.

After eight months in Iraq and Kuwait, Alpha Company is home. The reserve unit of 60 Marines were charged with keeping airfields in Iraq and Kuwait open.

It's been eight months since the marines of Alpha Company have seen their families.

"I can't even put it into words," says First Sgt. Bryan Hall. "It's great."

First Sgt. Hall is grateful to be home. And he brings back a special message for a group of friends and former co-workers in Silverdale: They made a huge difference for a successful tour in Iraq.

"Thank you from the bottom of my heart."

Shortly after First Sgt. Hall's Alpha Company arrived in Iraq, they had a problem. The battery charger for their power tools shorted out. It seems a small thing, but it could take weeks for supply channels to get it to the Marines.

But Hall knew who to call.

"He said, 'I'm calling you from Iraq,' and I was, 'Everybody! I'm talking to Iraq!' " Mona Hernandez, the Assistant Manager for the Home Depot Store in Silverdale said. That's right, First Sgt. Hall called Home Depot.

He used to work with Hernandez and her boss. And when they discovered he needed help?

"It was a matter of what can we do, how quickly does he need it and like I said, it went out within an hour or two," says Hernandez.

In three days, Hall and his Marines had their charger.

"It was something very simple but it was an important tool that we needed," says Hall, "they were there for us, absolutely."

An American flag, now flying over the Home Depot entrance, used to fly over First Sgt. Hall's Iraq base. He sent it home in gratitude, which is reciprocated by his friends at Home Depot.

"I'm probably more happy than anything that Bryan has returned," says Hernandez. "He's back with his family so that's really important to me."

In the grand scheme of things, a battery charger from Home Depot probably seems like a small thing. But we've heard from many troops in Iraq, the small things make a big difference.

Another Catholic Perspective on Right to Die

No Moral Sense’
A Jesuit bioethicist believes the religious right is exploiting Terri Schiavo and that there is no moral or legal obligation to keep her alive.

Tim Boyles / Getty Images
Keeping vigil: Children hold rosary beads outside Schiavo's hospice center
WEB EXCLUSIVE

By Brian Braiker
Newsweek

Updated: 12:40 p.m. ET March 24, 2005
Editor's Note: The Supreme Court declined to hear the Schiavo case on Thursday, Mar. 24. The justices did not immediately provide legal reasons for their decision, and no justice issued a written dissent with the one-page ruling.

March 23 - Despite congressional intervention, a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit refused to order the brain-damaged Terri Schiavo’s feeding tube reinserted, intensifying the fight over the fate of a woman who has become a symbol—some say pawn—for both the right-to-life and the right-to-die movements. Schiavo’s parents, Robert and Mary Schindler, said Wednesday that they plan to appeal one last time to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Meanwhile, peripheral players and pundits weighed in on a case that is drawing wall-to-wall cable coverage. From Washington to Rome, leaders of the religious right have repeatedly called for American courts to protect Schiavo—a Roman Catholic woman whom medical experts say is in a persistent vegetative state with no hope of recovery—from certain death if her feeding tube is not replaced. The Vatican’s leading bioethicist called such a death a “pitiless way to kill” someone.

But much like in the United States, where consensus is a rare commodity, even the Roman Catholic Church is not unified in its stance on Schiavo. The Rev. John J. Paris, a bioethics professor at Boston College and an expert on the intersection of law, medicine, and ethics, believes that past statements made by the pope have been taken out of context, misrepresented as church doctrine and applied to the Schiavo case. He says Schiavo, who has a moral right to die, has been exploited by the religious right to further its agenda—and if the pope himself, who has no known living will, were in a similar situation, it would be “an invitation to open chaos” at the Vatican. Paris spoke to NEWSWEEK’s Brian Braiker about euthanasia, high-tech life support and moral obligations. Excerpts:


The Rev. John J. Paris
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NEWSWEEK: The church has said that providing food and water does not constitute an extraordinary way of sustaining life.

John J. Paris: What you’re quoting is a statement that was issued by the pope at a meeting of [an] international association of doctors last year in Rome. This was really a meeting of very right-to-life-oriented physicians. It was an occasion speech. The pope meets 150 groups a week—a group comes in and the pope gives a speech. If the pope tells the Italian Bicycle Riders Association that bicycle riding is the greatest sport that we have, that doesn’t mean that’s the church’s teaching, that the skiers and tennis players and golfers are out. It wasn’t a doctrinal speech.

So it’s been taken out of context?

It has to be seen in the context. This has to be seen in the context of the pope’s 1980 Declaration on Euthanasia, which says that one need not use disproportionately burdensome measures to sustain life. Even if the treatment is in place, if it proves burdensome it can be removed. The terms you’ll hear them talk about all the time are “ordinary” and “extraordinary.” Well, those words are so confused in the minds of the public that they no longer serve any useful purpose. People think of extraordinary as respirators or heart transplants. Extraordinary never referred to technique or to hardware—it referred to moral obligation. What are we obliged to do?

What is the church doctrine?

The church doctrine, and it’s been consistent for 400 years, is that one is not morally obliged to undergo any intervention. And, of course, 400 years ago they weren’t talking about high technology. Here’s the example one of the moralists of the 16th century gave: if you could sustain your life with partridge eggs, which were very expensive and exotic, would you be obliged to do so? The answer is no, they’re too expensive. They’re too rare. You can’t get them. They would be too heavy an obligation to put on people.

Would the pope’s recent tracheotomy qualify as a partridge egg?

No. This was best put together in a statement by the chief justice in the Brophy [v. New England Sinai Hospital Inc. right-to-die] case. He said even such things as artificial nutrition and fluid can become extraordinary if they become burdensome when you have to sustain somebody for 15 years on it. That’s surely burdensome. It has nothing to do with the technique itself. Antibiotics could be extraordinary if a patient is dying and it’s not going to offer many benefits. The bishops of Florida themselves have addressed this issue of the papal statement. Right-to-lifers aren’t attacking this Jesuit priest, me; they’re now attacking all the bishops of Florida saying they are deviating from the pope. What the right-to-lifers want to say is the pope said you must always use artificial nutrition and fluids for patients in persistent vegetative state—and there’s no exception. The Florida bishops say that’s not what the church has taught and that’s surely not what this means.

But at the Vatican Monsignor Elio Sgreccia, a bioethicist like yourself, said "starving" Schiavo to death would be a "pitiless way to kill" someone.

The people in the Vatican are the same as the people in the United States: they run the gamut. He represents the radical right-to-life segment of thinking. But he’s not the only voice in the Catholic Church. He undoubtedly wrote that speech the pope gave. And now he says, “See? The pope said it!”

So you’re saying providing Schiavo with food and water is not morally obligatory?

For 400 years the Roman Catholic moral tradition has said that one is not obliged to use disproportionately burdensome measures to sustain life.

And in this case, you view this as disproportionately burdensome?


Fifteen years of maintaining a woman [on a feeding tube] I’d say is disproportionately burdensome, yes.

The editorial page of The New York Times said she has been "exploited" by the religious right in this country.

I agree with that. First of all, this is not a fight about a feeding tube in a woman in Florida. This is a fight about the political power of the Christian right. The argument from Bishop Sgreccia is like saying, “Tom DeLay just said, ‘In America we never stop feeding tubes'.” That doesn’t make it true. The fact of the matter is that feeding tubes are removed every day in hospitals around this country. We solved this question medically in the United States in 1984 when the American Medical Association said that patients who are terminally ill and/or in a persistent vegetative state, it is ethically acceptable to remove all medical interventions, including artificial nutrition and fluids. That’s the official statement of the American Medical Association.

The pope, himself a sick man, has yet to make known a living will. What do you suppose would happen if he were in a similar situation?

This is the open invitation to chaos. There are no rules in the Vatican on this sort of thing because, up through 1950, really, it wouldn’t happen. Doctors tended to kill people more than save them. Unless there’s some secret document that the pope has written, he becomes a pawn in the hands of bureaucrats. This organization is no different than any others.

How does the stance of Schiavo supporters in the church reflect religious teaching about death?

Here’s the question I ask of these right-to-lifers, including Vatican bishops: as we enter into Holy Week and we proclaim that death is not triumphant and that with the power of resurrection and the glory of Easter we have the triumph of Christ over death, what are they talking about by presenting death as an unmitigated evil? It doesn’t fit Christian context. Richard McCormick, who was the great Catholic moral theologian of the last 25 years, wrote a brilliant article in the Journal of the American Medical Association in 1974 called “To Save or Let Die.” He said there are two great heresies in our age (and heresy is a strong word in theology—these are false doctrines). One is that life is an absolute good and the other is that death is an absolute evil. We believe that life was created and is a good, but a limited good. Therefore the obligation to sustain it is a limited one. The parameters that mark off those limits are your capacities to function as a human.

But is anyone arguing that for Schiavo to die would be an “unmitigated evil”? They just don’t want her death to happen unnecessarily.

It’s not happening unnecessarily. It’s happening because her heart attack has rendered her utterly incapable of any future human relationships. The Republican riposte to this is astonishing: interest in states’ rights disappearing, interest in privacy of the individual to be free of government intrusion disappearing. If we implemented the policy articulated by the Congress and the president, we’d have everyone going forever!