This Blog considers assisted suicide/euthanasia, bioethics, human cloning, biotechnology, radical environmentalism, and the dangers of animal rights/liberation. My views expressed here, as in my books and other writings, reflect my understanding that the philosophy of human exceptionalism is the bedrock of universal human rights. Or, to put it another way: human life matters. (The opinions expressed here are my own and not necessarily those of any organization with which I am affiliated.)
Apparently while I was on vacation, a new futile care dispute has erupted in Texas. Here is the Houston Chronicle's story. From the story's tenor, I sense that the Texas futility law might be in some jeopardy. I certainly hope so.
posted by Wesley J. Smith @ 12:39 PM
8 Comments
I am a Senior Fellow in Human Rights and Bioethics at the Discovery Institute and the author of 12 books, including A Rat Is A Pig Is A Dog Is A Boy, which is relevant to the issues considered by this blog.
Subscribe to
Comments [Atom]
8 Comments:
Winston Jen: I must insist you rein in your tone and your spamming. This comment was off topic. If you want to comment on futile care, go ahead. But I am going to delete your comments and/or prevent you from contributing unless you begin to be more civil and restrict your comments to the subject of a post.
Thank you.
Wesley,
Thank you for posting this. I hope that the law, as written, is in jeopardy as well.
However, one of the law professors who has long participated in the writing of this law admitted, at the last meeting, that he often advises his clients to withhold or withdraw treatment without going through the procedures of 166.046--as there is no penalty for not doing so--other than losing "safe harbor." He believes that his clients will be able to prove that the treatments are inappropriate.
Of course, the proof would come after the death of the patient--which would, under tort reform, cause the providers minimal economic risk.
I think that we will have to put stronger legal protections in place with regard to the futility protocols being used by these hospitals.
Thanks, Jerri and for all you are doing. I have long warned that legal redress after death caused by futility imposition is virtually nonexistent because these patients aren't "worth" money in damages and, as a result, no attorney will take the case on contingency. The only real way to save the patients is through actions taken before death, such as you have been doing. Keep up the pressure.
Actually, Bush signed a bill that he did not generate. It was originally intended to overturn the decision of Houston hospitals to impose medical futility and give patients/families a mere 3 days to find another institution. The attempt to outlaw this failed in the legislature. The best they could do was a 10 day limit. Bush should have vetoed and attacked the law administratively or allowed patients/families to sue. But he signed it believing, I suppose, that at least it was an improvement. A mistake.
The time is now to overturn this unjust law.
Yea, that must be it. And the French leadership didn't care about the 15,000 elderly people who died ina heat wave a few years ago.
You know Winston, at some point you need to have an original thought. Now, tell me: How many Senate Democrats voted against the federal bill to save Terri Schiavo?
No, in the U.S. Senate. The number was zero. Dems gave unanimous consent. And about 45% of the Dem. House caucus voted for the bill, making federal Schiavo one of the most bipartisan laws of recent years.
No. It was not struck down. That was Florida's "Terri's Law." The courts defied the law by refusing to engage in the required de novo analysis, demonstrating that in the end, Schiavo was less about Terri and more about a power struggle between the political and judicial branches of government.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home