Mark - you have referred to a recent Christian awakening in many of your posts here. What happened? Were you born again? Had you been agnostic prior to that?

Mark, first off I'd like to say sorry to hear about your dad, its always sad to know that a relative is dying, moreso to watch (I had a relative pass away fairly recently from bone cancer so somewhat know what its like).
But i remain confused about your position here, do you think its unethical for a doctor to refuse to treat a patent even if they have clearly stated they do not want any treatment or just unethical when they want the treatment?

It may be worth noting that Texas' "futile care law" was signed into law in 1999 by then Gov. George Bush.

Ricorun, that is true but it is only half the story. The current law is actually an improvement of what existed before and what Gov. Bush tried to change, and did to some small extent. It was the best that he could do at that time in Texas. I know there are other differences, but one change made with the new law that Bush signed as govenor was that the families had 10 days to find alternate treatment as opposed to having just 3, which was the original law. I need to reference some articles I read on this to remember what some of the other changes were and what the circumstances of the law was - that is why the legislature did not change the law the way Bush had wanted.

Ricorun, half the truth is not the truth. Bush did not create the futile care law as you seem to imply, he tried to correct a very bad law and was only partially successful.

CeCe,
I said nothing about Bush creating the legislation. I only said he signed the bill into law. That's true. But what you say is also true. Bush did not create the bill -- a heavily Republican legislature did. And Bush did manage to insist on extending the time to 10 days for relatives to find another hospital that will take a person in. Nonetheless, as I understand it, the practical reality is that once one hospital makes the decision to stop care, the likelihood of finding another hospital to take them on is essentially nil. As indicated in the Drudge article I cited, "Houston hospitals have a policy in that once the medical treatment of a patient has been deemed "medically futile" no other hospital in the area will accept transfer of that patient to their facility." It stands to reason that hospitals will tend to stick together so none of them look bad. So whether you give the family 3 days or 10 days or 1000 days, the outcome is essentially always the same -- the person dies, not because they want to, or because their guardian wants them to, but because the hospitals want them to.

As far as I know, Texas is the only state in the country that has a law like this. And it is not exactly rare for it to be acted on. Read the Drudge article. I certainly remember the Sun Hudson case, which happened around the same time as the Terri Schiavo case. Bush's behavior in one versus the other seems a little inconsistent. That's true of Tom DeLay, too. Both Bush and DeLay went out of their way for Terri Sciavo, but did nothing to save Sun Hudson's life. For that matter, Tom DeLay didn't protest when they pulled the plug on his own dad, either.

Mind you, I'm not advocating one position or another. I'm just pointing out the apparent hypocricies involved in those that have taken different positions at different times.

Mark, I extend my condolences on the loss of your mother and the ordeal of your father.

You can call yourself a Christian if you want, but as long as you maintain a slavish obedience to an economic theory that elevates the basic human flaws of greed and self-interest to the primary determinants of economic action and decision-making -- and is therefore SATANIC at its core -- I must have my doubts. This posting of yours is an excellent example of the wicked deceivers spoken of in Psalm 49. You obviously intend to slur liberals when you write “the deliberate killing of the innocent is called good...while the execution of the guilty is called by most of the very same people a bad thing.” It is only on such liberal sites as DailyKos that I find this very same story of Andrea Clark, but with the writer squarely and fearlessly calling the health insurance companies to account: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/4/25/181614/934

Why, Mark, do you avoid entirely mentioning the despicable role of Ms. Clark’s health insurance company? I read Psalm 64, and I think of you, Mark.

"Pulling the plug" on someone is a step taken when the person in question has requested that no extreme measures to be taken to prolong life. "Pulling the plug" usually refers to halting the use of machinery that artificially keeps a heart beating, or lungs inflating, when it is clear that these organs will never be able to operate independently.

Bringing Tom DeLay into this in such a questionable manner is pretty low---there is no reference to a 'living will' executed by DeLay's father, for example, requesting certain decisions be made in his behalf. Honoring the wishes of a dying parent's DNR, as I had to do, is an excruciating experience, and not one to be trivialized or politicized by someone with no knowledge whatsoever of the circumstances. There is certainly no indication that Mr. DeLay acted AGAINST his father's wishes when he halted treatment. Referring to that decision in the context of this article is misleading and hateful.

According to the article, the law in question allows a hospital ".. to reject a patient’s desire for treatment." There is a huge difference there.

This appears to be a law by which outsiders take on the authority to rule on the quality of life of a person who is requesting treatment, and to rule on the value of that person's life.

I am curious about whether the law was intended, for example, to let a committee evaluate the pros and cons of using radical techniques on a patient whose chances of improvement are essentially non-existent, in spite of a desperate patient's desire for such treatment, or if it does allow a hospital to simply stop basic care in spite of the request of the patient to continue such care. I could understand a law which allows a hospital to a refuse bone marrow transplant, for example, for a patient who could clearly not benefit from it due to other circumstances. In a case such as this, it might appear that the hospital was playing God and deciding that the life in question was not worth saving, when in fact the decision was based on a humane desire to spare additional pain and suffering with no possible chance of improvement before certain death.

With an affordable accessable universal single-payer health care system,this would never happen. Everyone would get all the care available and necessary from before birth until death. Only corrupt capitalist warmongers would invent the health care system that we all currently suffer under. Peace

Sun Hudson's case was so different from Terri Schiavo's, it is extremely misleading to mention them in the same article, as part of the same argument, as if they had any relationship to each other.

Terri Schiavo was a fully grown, intelligent, developed human being who suffered a severe trauma which altered her significantly. While there were arguments about her level of understanding or awareness, as long as she was provided with nutrition and hydration she could survive. She breathed on her own, and her heart beat without aid. While some claimed she had no awareness of her surroundings, many of her caregivers, who saw her far more than any doctors did, claimed that she responded differently to different people, showed emotion, could swallow some foods and indicate preferences for some flavors over others, and generally showed evidence of awareness. Even after her death, the autopsy showed deterioration of the part of her brain that controls motor funciton, but little or no damage to the part that controls thought or emotion--in spite of media claims that she had no brain left at all, that it had "liquified" . Another issue centered on whether food and water qualified as extreme or artificial measures. Finally, the claim of her husband that she had expressed a desire to be killed rather than live "full of tubes" was disputed by at least two of his former girlfriends, who had affairs with him after Terri became incapacitated, that Michael often told them he had absolutely no idea what Terri would have wanted in a situation like hers.

Sun Hudson was born with a genetic condition in which both his heart and lungs were too small to sustain him. He never took a breath without artificial aid, his heart never beat on its own---and medical experts said he would die soon anyway, even with the machinery they were using to keep him going, and that he would never, could never, develop a heart and lungs with the capacity to sustain life. In other words, the medical opinion was that he was terminal, probably in a very short period of time, and with no hope whatsoever of improvement. It is generally understood that keeping a heart beating or respiration going with machines DOES qualify as "artificial means".

Terri Schaivo had a family eager to care for her, and doctors telling them that she had a chance of improvement. Not recovery, but improvement.

Sun Hudson's mother wanted him to live longer so the could gain strength from his "father"---the Sun.

Comparing the two cases is inherently dishonest and a prime example of demogoguery.

Ricorun...
just when I think you are showing signs of hope, you prove me wrong with that little bomb throwing statement re Tom DeLay's Father.
back to square 1..............

What's most amazing about the Republican led Texas bill is that it will effect mostly the poor, those who have no ability to pay. And the public health care system in Texas is deplorable.

Mark I do hope your right and there is a just God so all these scum buckets can see how their arguments and explanations for screwing the poor they made here on Earth hold up in front of true justice.

I may not be a believer and I'm certainly not perfect but I'm not too worried about judgement from a just God. It'll kick butt when an atheist like me gets to move to the front of the line past all the fake Christians promoting greed, war and ignoring the poor.

Almiranta said: ""Pulling the plug" on someone is a step taken when the person in question has requested that no extreme measures to be taken to prolong life. "Pulling the plug" usually refers to halting the use of machinery that artificially keeps a heart beating, or lungs inflating, when it is clear that these organs will never be able to operate independently."

You realize yours is a "moral relativist" argument, right? For some, ANY life-sustaining intervention is obligatory, regardless of the patient's condition, and regardless of whether a living will exists. That is the moral absolutist view. For them, Anything short of that is a moral abomination. Anything short of that is heading down the slippery slope.

I'm neither defending nor disparaging that view, I'm just attempting to explain it.

On the other hand, for most people the decision is not as morally clear. And thus it is much more excruciating. I feel for your plight, Al. I really do. My mom is slowly, excruciatingly, approaching the same decision point. In her case her desires have been very clearly stated over and over; she does NOT want to be hooked up to anything -- no respirator, no heart/lung machine, no feeding tubes, nothing. In her view, any life-sustaining technology which only prolongs the inevitable is an aberration of her own relationship with God. She says that unequivocally most of the time. Then again, the closer she comes to that point, the more she vacillates. It is so very, very hard.

And THAT is why I brought up DeLay's father. In his case life-sustaining intervention was withdrawn at the request of the family. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it is my understanding that DeLay's dad did NOT have a living will. Rather, my understanding is that everyone in his nuclear family concurred that "he wouldn't have wanted to live this way". While I am willing to believe they believe they are accurate, I am not aware of anything in writing to that effect. You call bringing Tom DeLay's father into the discussion low and hateful. I would agree with "painful", but not "low and hateful". By dint of the prominent role DeLay played in turning the Schiavo incident into a national political issue, I think it's fair to bring it up. Otherwise I never would.

The Schiavo case was extremely sad and difficult because it was a situation where the family did not have a concensus of opinion as to what Terri herself thought. You obviously have your own opinion, and I respect that. Perhaps you can respect others' opinions on same as well. Either way, the Clark case is different in several respects. Perhaps the most important difference is that Clark's family is unanimous in their opinion that she should be kept alive -- it is the STATE (by way of the hospital administration) that doesn't agree. In addition to that, as noted in the Drudge article I referenced, the family contends that Andrea "has suffered no brain damage to the parts of her brain responsible for thought and reason or speech. She has only suffered loss of some motor control. The reason that the physician gave to medicate her so much is that she is suffering from intractable pain in the sacral region (in other words, she has a bedsore that causes her pain)."

Let me repeat that... a bedsore causes her pain. That's a bit of a problem for me. Unlike a simple reflex to a pin-prick, which is largely a localized response at the spinal cord level, a chronic response to a bed sore certainly implies that central mechanisms are intact at least at the level of the brainstem. But that's only my opinion. And though my opinion is likely to be more enlightened that you might think, in the end it is only that. The real question is, who gets to make the call? Does her family? Do the doctors? Do her principal caregivers? Do you? Do I? Does some politician, or some political party? Do the courts? Who? Until you answer that question, I see no way to substantially reply to your questions vis-a-vis how this case pertains to Terri Schiavo or any other case, let alone your demagoguery charge.

extra,

I believed with the head, not with the heart - my particular blockage was the concept that I could not be forgiven, that no one could ever forgive me for the sins I had done...I finally just happened to meet the man who said, "or course you don't DESERVE to be forgiven, but you will be anyway, if you just ask". From that moment, a new spark was awakened within me - I don't know if you are a believer or not, but if you aren't it is impossible for me to describe the difference, and if you are a believer then you already know. Suffice it to say that I view the world very, very differently from the way I did just a few months back.

It was a born again Christian who opened up the door, but after consideration and prayer, I have determined to remain in the faith of my ancestors - so, I'm still a Catholic in all respects.

kiwi,

It is my view that we have an absolute moral obligation to care for those who are ill - "care", not "kill".

Now, what is involved in care? At bottom, it is to make the person as comfortable as possible - we cannot cure all ills and eventually all of us will die, so it isn't really a matter of preventing death, but of preventing the moral death of the person who is dying, and those connected to that person.

Back during the Schiavo issue my only absolute complaint was that when her feeding tube was pulled, no attempt was made to have her eat and drink orally. We, as a people, stood aside while a helpless human being suffered and did NOTHING to attempt to alleviate the suffering. Perhaps she couldn't eat or drink orally - in which case, she was really doomed to die at that time...but to not make an attempt is to negate all morality, to cease to be human...to become some abominable deformity of what humanity is supposed to be.

That is what care is - trying to make a person comfortable, if there is no way to cure them. To provide them with hope, and relief and the sense that their life is valuable, even as it draws to a close. In this, we are truly human...what we have here in Texas is the disgusting concept that someone can determine that a "quality of life" is insufficient for continued living...that is worse than barbarism; that is positively Satanic.

Steve,

Then how to you explain the fact that it is in countries with socialised medicine that "assisted suicide" is more prevalent?

muirgeo,

I think you'll find that by not believing, when the truth is available to you, that you might join those Christians who negate their faith.

You are asking, though, for perfection from Christians...as if Christians were not as human as you. No,muigeo, they are fallible...the difference is in the attempt; we are at least attempting to live up to a higher standard. What are you living up to? Something you made up yourself? Something someone else made up for you?

Terri Schaivo had a family eager to care for her, and doctors telling them that she had a chance of improvement. Not recovery, but improvement.

Like Frist ? Hahahaha

Were Frist rendering an official medical judgment, she said, relying on an "amateur video" could raise liability issues. After 15 years, "there should be no confusion about the medical data, and that's what was so surprising to me about Dr. Frist disagreeing about her medical status," Zoloth said.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A48119-2005Mar18.html

Even after her death, the autopsy showed deterioration of the part of her brain that controls motor funciton, but little or no damage to the part that controls thought or emotion--in spite of media claims that she had no brain left at all, that it had "liquified"

You need to read the autopsy. You are wrong.

Examination of Schiavo’s nervous system revealed extensive injury. The brain itself weighed 615 g, only half the weight expected for a female of her age, height, and weight. Microscopic examination revealed extensive damage to nearly all brain regions, including the cerebral cortex, the thalami, the basal ganglia, the hippocampus, the cerebellum, and the midbrain. The neuropathologic changes in her brain were precisely of the type seen in patients who enter a PVS following cardiac arrest. Throughout the cerebral cortex, the large pyramidal neurons that comprise some 70 percent of cortical cells—critical to the functioning of the cortex—were completely lost. The pattern of damage to the cortex, with injury tending to worsen from the front of the cortex to the back, is also typical. There was marked damage to important relay circuits deep in the brain (the thalami)—another common pathologic finding in cases of PVS. The damage was, in the words of Thogmartin, "irreversible, and no amount of therapy or treatment would have regenerated the massive loss of neurons."

Keep drinking the koolaid.

wikipedia is hardly an unbiased source, John. And no one ever said that the therapy would regenerate the brain loss. The biggest issues to me with the Schiavo case was that the husband maintained complete authority, even in the face of conflict of interest and that no attemp was made (in fact it was prohibited by the judge) to give her fluids by mouth. I wonder, too what effect the severe dehydration had on the weight of her brain.

Mark, you bring up a good point about socialized medicine and assisted suicide. It might be far less than perfect to have a system like ours, but to have a system where government controls the health care system will hardly ensure fairness.

"we the people" are the government, so the government runs nothing. The governments role is oversight using the audit process. Assisted suicide is a seperate issue within the context of a universal single-payer health care system. As a "free" person I/we, should have the "right" to check-out any time we like. The religious will chose to never do such a thing unless they are riddled with cancer and in tremendous pain with no hope of survival. Chist was a communist, which is actually an enlightened socialist, so don't fight evolution. Peace

CeCe,

Another thing to keep in mind vis a vis socialised medicine...the government-employed health care worker gets paid the same if he sees one patient or a dozen in a day...so how many do you think he'll see?