It does say in your post below that children have survived this btw.
Yes it does, and since this is a genetic disorder every case is different, it was determined that this child was not one that could have survived.
I'm curious Jim are you defending this law or what?
Since you asked, I ended up reading the entire law before responding. As a person receiving Life-sustaining treatment, as defined by this law, and I lived in Texas, I would feel confident that my advanced directives were carried out according to my wishes.
Do you find something wrong with it that you would have vetoed it if you were governor, after it had passed both houses unanimously?
Do you think it's right to take a life because of serious abnormalties because they aren't brain dead and we're seriously abnormal.
If they were suffering, as it was determined in the Sun Hudson case that keeping him on a ventilator was only prolonging his suffering, then yes I think it is the right and humane thing to do.
Several months ago I was contacted by a parent of a 7 month old daughter who had become paralyzed from the neck down and ventilator dependent due to transverse myelitis in a matter of a few hours. She did an Internet search and found me. This mother had to decide to either put in a g-tube or disconnect the ventilator. She told me that it was killing her watching her baby suffering. I remembered how I was suffering extreme pain at first. If it were my child I would have disconnected the ventilator. This mother asked me what I would do, I avoided answering her directly instead telling her that she could live a good quality of life with a supportive family. I later found out their baby had died (I don't know how) a few weeks after she had first contacted me.
So if ending a person's pain and suffering makes me a hypocrite, so be it.
Jim
Nearly all babies born with the incurable condition, often diagnosed in utero, die shortly after birth
-------Original Message-------
From: Jim Lubin
Date: 04/01/05 16:58:04
To: QuadPirate; Kate Hubin; Lori Michaelson; Quad
Subject: RE: [QUAD-L] The blame game
Sun Hudson, the nearly 6-month-old at Texas Children's Hospital in Houston, diagnosed and slowly dying with a rare form of dwarfism (thanatophoric dysplasia)
What is thanatophoric dysplasia?
Thanatophoric dysplasia is a severe inherited skeletal disorder characterized by extremely short limbs and folds of extra skin on the arms and legs.
Infants with this condition have disproportionately short arms and legs with extra folds of skin. Other signs of the disorder include a narrow chest, small ribs, underdeveloped lungs, and an enlarged head with a large forehead and prominent, wide-spaced eyes. Infants with type 1 thanatophoric dysplasia also have curved thigh bones and flattened bones of the spine (platyspondyly). An unusual head shape called a cloverleaf skull is seen with type 2 thanatophoric dysplasia.
The term thanatophoric is Greek for "death bearing." Infants with this condition are usually stillborn or die shortly after birth from respiratory failure; however, some children have survived into childhood with a lot of medical help. These children are severely mentally retarded due to a variety of brain abnormalities and have difficulty breathing on their own.
Under chapter 166 of the Texas Health and Safety Code, if an attending physician disagrees with a surrogate over a life-and-death treatment decision, there must be an ethics committee consultation (with notice to the surrogate and an opportunity to participate). In a futility case such as Sun Hudson's, in which the treatment team is seeking to stop treatment deemed to be nonbeneficial, if the ethics committee agrees with the team, the hospital will be authorized to discontinue the disputed treatment (after a 10-day delay, during which the hospital must help try to find a facility that will accept a transfer of the patient). These provisions, which were added to Texas law in 1999, originally applied only to adult patients; in 2003; they were made applicable to disputes over treatment decisions for or on behalf of minors.
Since Bush became president in 2001 how can he be responsible for a baby being removed from life-support in 2005 when the provision for minors was added in 2003?
At 12:59 PM 4/1/2005, QuadPirate wrote:
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-------
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.
- 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.
