|
No he died "after" they removed life support not before so to say that he died from anything else is mute unless you can see in the future.
It clearly states in your post "nearly" all babies die from this not every baby so they don't know if he would've survived or not but they sure made the percentage higher.
Mark
-------Original Message-------
Date: 04/01/05 14:28:43
Subject: RE: [QUAD-L] The blame game
At 02:47 PM 3/31/2005, Kate Hubin wrote:
Woah! I had no idea about all that. I'm not a Bush supporter for plenty of other reasons, but wasn't really familiar with his track record in Texas, and was aware of his Torte reform and Medicaid initiatives, but didn't connect the dots. You're right, there's a direct connection there. How hypocritical. Not to even mention the whole death penalty issue. Bush supporters, what say you about this?!?
From: QuadPirate [ mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Kate I think if everyone in the family agrees and that's her wishes then do it!
I am confused on Bush's involvement though after hearing about this law he signed as Governor of Texas, talk about two faced.
As Governor, George W. Bush championed and signed a law in Texas that expressly gave hospitals the right to remove life support if the patient could not pay and there was no hope of revival, regardless of the patient�s family�s wishes. This anti-life law removed a baby from life support against his mother�s wishes in Houston this week.
I did some research before making a judgement based on half-truths passed around the Internet. I don't find Governor Bush signing the Texas 1999 Advance Directives Act hypocritical or two faced at all.
The Act put several safeguards in place for patients that did not exist in prior laws in Texas. Governor Bush vetoed a similar bill that was passed the Texas Legislature in 1997 According to the Governor�s office, he vetoed the 1997 bill because it contained "several provisions that would permit a physician to deny life-sustaining procedures to a patient who desires them."
The 1999 Advance Directives Act in Texas allows for a patient's surrogate to make end-of-life decisions and spells out how to proceed if a hospital or other health provider disagrees with a decision to maintain or halt life-sustaining treatment.
If a doctor refuses to honor a decision, the case goes before a medical committee. If the committee agrees with the doctor, the guardian or surrogate has 10 days to agree or seek treatment elsewhere.
As for the baby that was removed from life-support in accordance with the 1999 Act:
- Sun was born with a fatal form of dwarfism characterized by short arms, short legs and lungs too tiny, doctors said. Nearly all babies born with the incurable condition, often diagnosed in utero, die shortly after birth, genetic counselors say.
- Sun was delivered full term at St. Luke's Episcopal Hospital, but Hudson, 33, said she had no prenatal care during which his condition might have been discovered.
- He was put on a ventilator while doctors figured out what was wrong with him, and Hudson refused when doctors recommended withdrawing treatment.
- Texas Children's contended that continuing care for Sun was medically inappropriate, prolonged suffering and violated physician ethics. Hudson argued her son just needed more time to grow and be weaned from the ventilator.
So it was the baby's fatal condition that he was born with that killed him not the removal of life-support.
| 
