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.