Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Where was Bush and his right to lifers when they killed this baby Tuesday?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
NNN0LHI Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-18-05 01:11 PM
Original message
Where was Bush and his right to lifers when they killed this baby Tuesday?
Edited on Fri Mar-18-05 01:16 PM by NNN0LHI
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/front/3087387

Baby dies after hospital removes breathing tube

Case is the first in which a judge allowed a hospital to discontinue care
By LEIGH HOPPER
Copyright 2005 Houston Chronicle

The baby wore a cute blue outfit with a teddy bear covering his bottom. The 17-pound, nearly 6-month-old boy wiggled with eyes open, his mother said, and smacked his lips.

Then at 2 p.m. Tuesday, a medical staffer at Texas Children's Hospital gently removed the breathing tube that had kept Sun Hudson alive since his birth Sept. 25. Cradled by his mother, he took a few breaths, and died.

"I talked to him, I told him that I loved him. Inside of me, my son is still alive," Wanda Hudson told reporters afterward. "This hospital was considered a miracle hospital. When it came to my son, they gave up in six months. ... They made a terrible mistake."

Sun's death marks the first time a U.S. judge has allowed a hospital to discontinue an infant's life-sustaining care against a parent's wishes, according to bioethical experts. A similar case involving a 68-year-old man in a vegetative state at another Houston hospital is before a court now.

more

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Bunny Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-18-05 01:14 PM
Response to Original message
1. Well now, you see, that there is a little black baby, son.
And little black babies just aren't as important. :grr:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NashVegas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-18-05 01:42 PM
Response to Reply #1
31. and furthermore
He can't be used as an incubator to host even more babies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LisaL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-18-05 11:22 PM
Response to Reply #31
146. Aren't' those the very same arguments used to not keep Terri
alive? Her care costs too much, the money could be used for someone who really needs it. Who exactly is bunch of hypocrites? Why do you worry about this child? He couldn't even breathe, but Terri can.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
imenja Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-19-05 12:56 AM
Response to Reply #146
189. the issue is the role of the state in determining family's private choices
In the Schivo case, the state is determined to intervene against Terry's stated wishes. In the TX case, the state likewise has violated the wishes of the family in question. These are decisions the rightly belong to families.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LisaL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-19-05 01:27 AM
Response to Reply #189
202. Well, in Terri's case, it is her family (mother, father, brother
Edited on Sat Mar-19-05 01:28 AM by lizzy
and sister) who don't want her feeding tube removed. I mean, don't you consider your parents to be your family?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
imenja Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-19-05 02:10 AM
Response to Reply #202
215. yes, of course they are
But there is obviously a dispute among the family members over what Terry's wishes were. The court, based on testimony of her husband and friends, determined that she herself wished to avoid being in the state she is. Regardless of the dispute between the family members, one thing is certain: Tom Delay and Jeb Bush are not her family and what happens to her is not justly their decision.

Are you comfortable with the state deciding if you or your children should live? Do you want that decision to be up to your closest family members or Tom Delay? For me, the answer is clear. This is not a matter for the legislature.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tigress DEM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-19-05 03:44 AM
Response to Reply #215
220. You go Imenja!
repugs always talk about "less government" they just mean cheaper government with their grubby laws still all over our lives.

:grr:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TomClash Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-19-05 07:23 AM
Response to Reply #220
222. Cheaper Government?
Look at the Federal Budget. Nothing cheap about that.

They spend worse than the Dems every did.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tigress DEM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-19-05 08:50 PM
Response to Reply #222
273. Cheap as in shoddy.
The things they are spending money on aren't going to programs to really improve our quality of life as people. So to me that's a "cheap" way of doing government. Supposedly less taxes and "tax cuts" but because they are only giving them to the wealthy people it isn't doing squat for the rest of us. THAT kind of cheap.

Less government used to mean less interference in our lives as Americans.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
imenja Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-20-05 01:16 PM
Response to Reply #273
292. I'd like to see the Dems challenge the Rep anti-big government fallacy
As you rightly point out, they spend like drunken sailors and feel they have a right to tell us how to live our private lives. They even now think it's their business to tell us how we can die.

I've argued for some time that their whole argument against big government spending is a false one. The difference is in their view of what government should do. They apparently feel it's government's responsibility to fund corporations, private investments, and churches (faith based initiatives), yet impoverish public education, retirement, and health care. I believe the Dems are the party of limited government and we should develop that as a platform in 2006 and 2008. The Schiavo case is only one recent example of Republican intrusion into private matters.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ms Chicklet Donating Member (141 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-20-05 11:29 AM
Response to Reply #202
288. Legally, no.
When Terri married Michael Schiavo, he became her next of kin in the eyes of the law and has legal authority in matters like this. The family basically wants to ignore and overturn one of foundations of probate law, as well as ignore biblical teaching (on how a man and woman leave their families and cleave unto each other). Michael can take the Schindlers' feelings into account when making the decisions, but ultimately he has the final say.

This is also an interesting parallel to the gay marriage issue. Because gays cannot marry, their parents and siblings can force themselves into a situation like this and make decisions like these while their partner can be completely shut out. This is true even if the family rejected and emotionally abandoned this person for decades. In some states, even if gays have signed all the "correct" documentation, if the family gets a homophobic judge on their sides can get it all nullified.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SemperEadem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-05 06:13 PM
Response to Reply #288
300. These are exactly the points I feel are being missed
What is happening here is the deconstruction the the legal definiton of what/who constitutes marriage. To me, what is happening in the Schiavo case is far more insidious, far more destructive to the so-called 'sanctity of marriage' than allowing same sex couples to marry.

What's being said here is that your parents with/or the state, at will, can at any time interfere in the legal decision of a married adult son/daughter, even without provocation. This isn't about right to life; this is about the legal standing of married people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Siyahamba Donating Member (890 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-18-05 04:08 PM
Response to Reply #1
80. Yet the Repugs just have to point to Condi
And claim to be the party of diversity and tolerance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madeline_con Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-18-05 04:11 PM
Response to Reply #1
83. hear hear
Absolutely! If the kid were blond and blue-eyed, the protesters would be all over it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LisaL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-18-05 11:15 PM
Response to Reply #1
142. What difference does it make if he was black or white?
Do you think white kid would be left on a ventilator? He would have been dead anyway in the near future, this disorder is lethal and there is no cure. Yet you think that child should have been left on a ventilator, even though there was no hope that he could live? He could not breathe on his own. He went very quick after his ventilator was turned off. Terri can breathe on her own. She is going do die very slow death.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tigress DEM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-18-05 11:58 PM
Response to Reply #142
169. It's about choice and dollars.
Edited on Fri Mar-18-05 11:58 PM by Tigress DEM
People who want to keep their child alive are denied the choice, probably because of dollars.

Meanwhile dollars are denied people who want to choose not to have children possibly knowing their child would be born with this kind of disease.

It's about hypocrisy because the repugs want to demand that everyone be abstinent or have every child no matter what burden it places on the parents or society, but once a child is born they turn their backs on all of them, except their own.

People who don't want to be left on ventilation indefinitely can't have their wishes honored.

It's all about control and posturing. That's why this is bothersome.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LisaL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-19-05 12:00 AM
Response to Reply #169
171. Unfortunately, that's how it goes in this country.
And not just in health care. As for repugs turning their back on this child, the Drs. are the ones who went to court asking his life support to be removed because he had no hope of recovery.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tigress DEM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-19-05 12:45 AM
Response to Reply #171
187. I understand what you're saying, but Doctors at "Miracle Hospitals"
aren't normally about going to court against parent's wishes. There was a time when Cancer was a death sentence and 2 pound babies didn't stand a chance at survival. Doctor's battle AIDS and SIDS and I'm sure this is a killer disease too.

The climate in this country places more value on the life of a white woman who asked NOT to be kept alive - in advance while she was an adult with all her faculties in tact - than it does on a severely sick black child whose mother was still fighting for him and visiting him and speaking to him and not ready to pull the plug.

This administration and the right wing fanatics have placed more value on undeveloped embryos than they do on living breathing children.

It's about honoring choice and quality of life. It's about letting the people involved make the decision, not having governments push their decisions down to us by claiming their version of morality is a one size fits all and letting the profits of the Health Care Companies dictate policy on who can live or die.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LisaL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-19-05 01:19 AM
Response to Reply #187
196. Quality of life? You seriously think baby Sun's quality of life
was better than that of Terri Schiavo? Baby Sun could not breathe on his own, he was on a ventilator, apparently in a lot of pain. You think that makes his life better than that of Terri Schiavo who is not on a ventilator?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tigress DEM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-19-05 03:38 AM
Response to Reply #196
219. I am saying it was his mother's decision, not mine or the doctor's.
Terri had asked not to be kept alive in these circumstances. AS an adult she made her decision.

With the mother of Sun people really should have helped her realize what his needs were instead of taking that decision from her in a court of law. The intermediate step should have been a guardian for the child. Some evaluation to show her the pain he was going through.

As a mother, I know I would love my son enough to let him go if he were in unrelenting pain and there was no way to relieve it, but I don't know how long it would take me to come to that choice or what support/information I would need to make that decision.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LisaL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-19-05 01:47 PM
Response to Reply #219
253. Again, the mother believed baby Sun would recover once
he gets enough energy from the Sun. How do you think it would be possible to make her realize anything?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tigress DEM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-19-05 08:54 PM
Response to Reply #253
274. Have you ever lost a child or gone through severe mental illness?
People do recover with help. There really are professionals who deal with this and bring people out of things like that and there are medications that help people.

I'm certain that this little Sun child is probably better off now that he isn't suffering and maybe that's where your heart is at, but since you aren't looking at the larger picture, it's really difficult to continue conversing with you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bouncy Ball Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-05 03:31 PM
Response to Reply #196
299. Uh Baby Sun had a BRAIN and Terri
doesn't have most of hers. Terri has NO quality of life at all, no consciousness, nothing.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Carolab Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-19-05 01:58 AM
Response to Reply #142
212. No slower death than patients in hospice who decline to be fed. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ElectroPrincess Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-19-05 01:17 PM
Response to Reply #212
249. Many people in hospice, especially those with terminal cancer ...
opt to fade out through starvation. With the proper attention and medication to ease suffering, starvation may be one of the most humane ways to die.

Conversely, the IMO feeling of not being able to breath (suffocation) is only second in horrific to being burned alive.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SemperEadem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-05 06:22 PM
Response to Reply #142
301. the missed point: It's about the legal guardian' carrying out
the wishes of the 'life' in question. If you personally aren't the legal guardian and haven't been told first hand what the wishes are, you are in no place to interfere, interject, project or do a control freak number over.

If that mother believed that her son wanted to live, would live if given a few more weeks, then those wishes should have been honored, as she feels she's interpreting the wishes of her baby. If she was convinced that her baby hopeless and was in agreement to pull the plug, then that wish should have been honored.

I don't agree with the surmission that just because it was a baby, it's worth was negligable and just because Terri's grown, then her life has some value.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LisaL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-18-05 11:29 PM
Response to Reply #1
150. Isn't the quality of life important to you?
The child was on a ventilator. His lung could not support his body. No other hospital would accept him. People in this condition do not survive. The very few that do are severely retarded and need constant care. Yet you are upset his ventilator was turned off? But want Terri's tube to be removed?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
merh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-19-05 01:12 PM
Response to Reply #150
247. It is about the hypocrisy of the people that spout "life begins at
Edited on Sat Mar-19-05 01:16 PM by merh
conception" but have failed to recognize the importance of the life of baby Sun.

No you can't abort the fetus, but if it is born with infirmities that require a respirator or other medical means to keep it alive, its okay for the state to stop the medical care despite the wishes of the mother.

It is about the mother having the choice to keep her child alive until he dies as opposed to allowing the hospital the choice of deciding when he dies.

Don't abort the fetus, no matter what, it is a life afterall. Well what the hell was baby Sun?

How dare you ignore the wishes of this mother, who was loving this child.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ElectroPrincess Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-19-05 01:25 PM
Response to Reply #150
251. I'm with you on this lizzy ...
I wish for these poor souls to die in peace, not political scrutiny.

BTW how many Iraqi civilians have we "taken out" so far? I'm sure their last moments of life were less than peaceful or stellar in any way. And guess what? They're just as dead. :(

Isn't this a cleaver ruse by the corporate media to continue fighting among ourselves about private family and court issues, rather than focusing on the many needless deaths that occurred due to OUR (The USA) Illegal/Immoral Invasion and Occupation of Iraq.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LisaL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-19-05 01:40 PM
Response to Reply #251
252. It's extremely sad that perfectly healthy children are
being killed in Iraq, and nobody seem to care much. If only our congress cared that much about them!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AngryOldDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-05 10:25 AM
Response to Reply #1
296. Exactly.
Edited on Mon Mar-21-05 10:30 AM by AngryOldDem
He doesn't (or didn't) look like "us." ("Us," as the word is defined by the fundie rightwingnuts.)

This case should be held up everywhere as exposing just how hypocritical, self-serving, and manipulative the Right is on this issue.

:mad:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Windy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-18-05 01:14 PM
Response to Original message
2. I guess its different when the government is paying to keep someone alive
Money trumps life I suppose...

Hypocrisy!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ganja Ninja Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-18-05 01:20 PM
Response to Reply #2
10. Teri Schiavo is on Medicare.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
southlandshari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-18-05 02:10 PM
Response to Reply #10
43. must be registered to enter the site
can you cut and paste the part of the article regarding Shiavo and Medicare? Thanks in advance (and thanks for adding this - I assumed she was not).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NNN0LHI Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-18-05 05:11 PM
Response to Reply #43
115. According to Palm Beach Post editor Randy Schultz she is NOT on medicare
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/opinion/content/opinion/epaper/2005/02/27/a1e_schultzcol_0227.html

Jeb's patients don't include Terri Schiavo

In Florida, about 30,000 children are in the foster care system. Some have been there for years, waiting for a permanent home. They are Gov. Bush's responsibility. But last week, they didn't have his attention.

In Florida, tens of thousands of boys and girls are in the juvenile justice system. From the incorrigible to the misguided, they are supervised by people who don't make much more than the minimum wage. Those juveniles are Gov. Bush's responsibility. But last week, they didn't have his attention.

In Florida, nearly 36,000 adults are in the Medically Needy program. It provides care for those who are too young for Medicare and too sick to qualify for Medicaid or get affordable insurance. They are Gov. Bush's responsibility. But he wants to cut the Medically Needy budget by $400 million, while cutting taxes. Last week, he wasn't looking for a way to make up the money for those people whose lives depend on what the state provides.

No, last week, Gov. Bush was worrying about a woman who is not his responsibility — Terri Schiavo.

more

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
southlandshari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-18-05 06:38 PM
Response to Reply #115
122. Thanks
That's what I thought.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-18-05 01:15 PM
Response to Original message
3. taht is a black kid
and not good for PR yuo see

Racism is alive and well in the US.

you like my answer?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
forgethell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-18-05 01:15 PM
Response to Original message
4. Maybe they
didn't know about it? This is the first I've heard about it, and I try to follow the news.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NNN0LHI Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-18-05 01:19 PM
Response to Reply #4
8. They all knew about it. It happened in Bush's and Delay's home state
Edited on Fri Mar-18-05 01:21 PM by NNN0LHI
And this was posted in LBN the day it happened.

Don

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
forgethell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-18-05 01:25 PM
Response to Reply #8
13. Yep, Bush
and Delay keep up with every court case. That makes sense.

But I was actually referring to the ignorant groud troops of the right-to-life movement. And why weren't we there? This is not about a fetus, but an actual baby. And if we weren't there, what do we have to complain about with the right-to-lifers not being there?

As for being posted in LBN, I try to read a lot, but I can't read everything. Can you? I might miss something, occassionally.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-18-05 01:47 PM
Response to Reply #4
32. It was ALL OVER THE CABLE NEWS, impossible to miss
Of course, the woman was uninsured, and the kid was dusky in color.

The pictures of the pretty young woman sobbing in court were shown over and over again. But hey, she had melanin, no money, and the hospital did not want to pay.

I find it astounding that the parents' rights only take precedence when Jeb Bush and a GOP congress say so....and there's a pile of money set aside to foot the bill!

Late breaking--the judge said REMOVE THE TUBE NOW!!

Let the POSTURING begin!!!!!!!!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
forgethell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-18-05 02:53 PM
Response to Reply #32
57. Obviously
Edited on Fri Mar-18-05 03:41 PM by forgethell
it was possible to miss, because I missed it.

Still, are you saying that people should defy the courts, or are you saying that we should not have euthanasia? Or that it's good? Or what are you saying? That the government should decide who lives and who dies? Then how do you justify a pro-choice position?

I'm a little bit confused here. Help me out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-18-05 03:12 PM
Response to Reply #57
63. What I am saying is that the GOP is a bunch of hypocrites.
They jump through hoops to save Jeb Bush's white lady with a load of cash for her care on hand, but won't go to bat for the little black child who has no insurance. All life, apparently, is NOT created equal in their eyes. That's all I'm saying.

The mother of the child did not defy the court, so I don't get where you are going with that. The kid is dead.

Obviously, you haven't watched cable news in the past week, otherwise you would have seen the story. The "money shot" was of the mother of the baby sobbing bitterly in court. Once they removed the ventilator and the kid died, the story did too. I find it amazing that no one has yet to do a serious "compare and contrast" story on these two cases, especially since the kid's life support was removed in TEXAS, and Tom Delay is all over the tube shrieking about Terri's right to live.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
forgethell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-18-05 03:40 PM
Response to Reply #63
69. We've
been on that hypocrite spiel for a long time. It hasn't seemed to catch on. In this case, I don't know that they are. Terri Schiavo has been around for a long time. She had her parents fighting for her. She got in the media.

As I said, this little girl slipped under the radar.

But here is an interesting question: Where were we? Or do we approve of court-ordered murders? Then why oppose the death penalty? I don't, by the way. All I am saying is that it is easy to shout hypocrisy. Everybody is inconsistent about things, for one reason or another. Not all of them malicious. Rather than call our opponents hypocrites for every little thing, maybe we should concentrate on the things they are directly and personally responsible for? For instance, I think all the "Bush lied" crap backfired. Not that he didn't lie, but some of the stuff that was said, he bore no responsibility for. His brain waves do not control the mental functioning of every low-level bureaucrat and soldier in the USA civil service and military. People tuned us out. When we act like fools, well we get taken for fools.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-18-05 03:53 PM
Response to Reply #69
71. What little girl????? What are you talking about?
Bush's brain waves????

Your post makes no sense to me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
forgethell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-18-05 04:15 PM
Response to Reply #71
88. sorry, I
Edited on Fri Mar-18-05 04:16 PM by forgethell
was confusing it with another discussion I'm conducting. Little boy. There, is that better??

All I'm saying is that Bush is not responsible for every bad thing that happens in America, and the world. We should concentrate on the ones that he is responsible for.

I always thought progressives were good at metaphor.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-18-05 04:23 PM
Response to Reply #88
91. Point me to the statement where I indicated that
...Bush was "responsible for every bad thing that happens in America."

You seem to be projecting a perception that you have about the membership here on me.

Why, I have no idea.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
forgethell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-18-05 04:31 PM
Response to Reply #91
94. You seem to think he is responsible
for this



http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=3294267&mesg_id=3294347&page=

As for your second paragraph, I have no idea what you're talking about. Projection of a perception?? what perception? What projection?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-18-05 04:36 PM
Response to Reply #94
95. You just linked to THIS thread
Again, what are you talking about? Point me to the salient statement that I am alledged to have made, please, or stop sniping at me. You're getting close to personal annoyance, if not personal attack. I don't recall peeing in your cheerios, that's not my style.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
forgethell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-18-05 04:44 PM
Response to Reply #95
98. Of course I linked to
this thread. You seem to think that Bush is responsible for the death of this baby. I don't think so. I don't think that he can personally intervene for evil in every situation occurring in the United States, so I don't see why you think that he is.

If I am beginning to annoy you, ignore me. That's what I would do if the situation were reversed. I gotta call 'em like I see 'em. But I do not think that I made a personal attack upon you; I just disagreed with you, and there is a difference.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-19-05 12:19 AM
Response to Reply #98
180. OK, PROVE YOUR ASSERTION
Nowhere have I ever said that BUSH is responsible for the death of the child. I asked you to provide proof, and you bullshitted me. There was no PROOF, because I NEVER SAID ANY SUCH THING.

What you are doing is close to trolling. Or baiting. Or something else that I just cannot classify. From my understanding, it is not something that this board supports.

I am one of those who is OPEN to all points of view, liberal, moderate, progressive, even conservative. What I cannot get behind is someone MIScharacterizing my statements, and playing a BS game. To my mind, that is what you are doing. Prove me wrong.

You did not "just disagree" with me, you made a FALSE CLAIM. You accused me of saying something I did not say. SHAME on you.

Put up, or perhaps preferably, shut up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tigress DEM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-19-05 03:47 AM
Response to Reply #180
221. MADem, do you hear crickets?
I think someone finally took the time to read your posts.

I never saw you say Bush was responsible for the death of the child either.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-19-05 11:12 AM
Response to Reply #221
231. Chirping away!!!!
I should probably just let it slide, but I cannot help but get a little bent when I am accused of making sweeping, general statements, especially when I made no such assertions.

I suppose I should take the high road and "ignore" ... but I'm human!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
forgethell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-19-05 08:14 PM
Response to Reply #231
271. See my post n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-19-05 08:09 PM
Response to Reply #180
270. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-20-05 12:31 AM
Response to Reply #270
282. I'm not easily offended
You might benefit from actually reading posts before you respond to them, or learning to use the reply feature correctly. You insisted that I said something I didn't say, and then blew it off when I called you on it. My reference to TEXAS referred to DELAY, not Bush--but you would KNOW that if you in fact would READ WHAT PEOPLE POST before you spout off with snarky remarks...sensitive flower, indeed.

I'd suggest you could use a course in logic, since you seem so fond of it, as well as reading comprehension.

If anyone needs to grow up and practice a little etiquette, it's you. You are being rude and obstreperous to me, and I haven't a clue why. And you still have not acknowledged that I NEVER SAID what you said I said, and your response is to continue to attack me with childish horseshit on a personal level. Since you are such an expert on the rules, you should know that personal attacks are not appreciated here, either.

If the shoe fits, wear it. I quite frankly don't care one way or another about your "other life" but I do care about your misrepresenting me. What you are doing is wrong, and I am telling you so, plainly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
forgethell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-20-05 12:42 AM
Response to Reply #282
283. But I haven't
made a personal attack. I disagreed with what you said. I have re-read your post. It still seems to say what I thought that it said. But if you say differently, OK, I'm willing to accept that that was not what you meant.

Still, it is a matter of wonder to me that people can get so upset over anything posted on a forum such as this. I don't know you; you don't know me. Why do you care what I think? That is why I said you were a sensitive flower. Maybe you are tough as nails in real life. And, yes, we have gotten off the original subject, haven't we?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-20-05 01:01 AM
Response to Reply #283
284. One more time. You did not disagree, YOU LIED
Lied. Fibbed. Prevaricated. MADE SHIT UP. You said that I said something I did not say. I was speaking about Tom Delay, the representative from TX, and you went off on me about what I "said" about GW Bush. When I pointed this out, you got all "huffy" -- your term -- and refused to acknowledge that you LIED. Then you threw down for a pissing contest.

The error is yours. You did not read, and even when I pointed this out to you, you still insist that you are right. But you aren't. You are wrong.

It's not a question of "being upset" at all. I don't get upset. The issue is my personal integrity. I value it. You falsely characterized a statement of mine, and then continued to claim that I said something I didn't say--even to the point of giving me a rather didactic "logic" lesson that failed to support your assertions.

I don't shoot off my mouth, and if I screw up, I own up. It's the mature thing to do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
forgethell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-20-05 09:27 AM
Response to Reply #284
286. All my
Edited on Sun Mar-20-05 09:48 AM by forgethell
comments were in reference to message #8, which started this personal little sub-thread. I do seem to have made a mistake, as the post was not yours. This is a mistake, not a lie. However, you were responding to my response to that, and I did include that information in the formulation of my response. I also linked to the post when you asked me. You responded that I had linked to this thread.

I still don't know if Delay knew about it. I don't think it is hypocrisy on his part. I still think you are wrong. But I apologize for my error.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
efhmc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-18-05 04:40 PM
Response to Reply #88
96. Well I do think he and his type ARE at the root of all evil in America.
No if ands or buts about it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
forgethell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-18-05 10:33 PM
Response to Reply #96
137. ?!
All the evil? I would be very surprised. Some, maybe even most of it certainly, but all the evil?

Do you think the killer in Atlanta was a faithful Repuke voter? He might have been, but what does one have to do with the other. What about that sex offender that killed the little girl that confessed tonight? I'd bet he doesn't care one way, or the other.

Sorry, I think that's just silly. Or maybe naive would be a better word.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ultraist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-18-05 04:01 PM
Response to Reply #69
75. Both this story and the Shiavo story are about STATES interferring
with the rights of a custodian. IN BOTH CASES, most of us feel it is WRONG for the STATE to interfere.

The ONLY TIME the State has a right to interfere in a case of custodian of a child or disabled adult, is IF the custodian has been proven to have neglected or abused the dependent.

There is no hypocrisy here. KEEP THE STATE OUT OF OUR PRIVATE AFFAIRS, unless a crime is committed, they do NOT have the right to interfere.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clark2008 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-18-05 11:02 PM
Response to Reply #75
139. Question - I know how I'd answer, but it needs to be addressed
If the state is paying for the care, does it then have a right to interfere?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Horse with no Name Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-18-05 11:23 PM
Response to Reply #139
147. This case bothered me very much because
I took care of a 6 month old shaken baby that had no brain matter left--it was mush. He had to stay in a Behr hugger (he couldn't hold body heat), he was on a ventilator (brain was gone), and had coded multiple times and was repeatedly rescuscitated.He also had a feeding tube.
His parents were responsible for this and they were in prison. The child was a ward of the state and in foster care.
The child received Medicaid through the state of Texas.
BUT...even though the state paid medical care and custodial care, it was not in the state's mandate to order a DNR because it could be seen as a conflict of interest. (Killing the kid as opposed to paying for him).
In the case of Sun...the hospital paid for his mothers attorney. The mother was clearly not the brightest crayon in the box, yet the judge never appointed a guardian ad litum which I thought was very unusual. Had there been someone acting in this child's best interest you might have seen a different outcome.
I was shocked that the same people crying over Terri weren't crying over Sun, but unfortunately I believe that the skin color and socio-economic status was the deciding factor.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LisaL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-18-05 11:27 PM
Response to Reply #147
149. And I am shocked that the very same people
crying over SUN are not crying over Terri. In fact, they demand her tube was removed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Horse with no Name Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-18-05 11:51 PM
Response to Reply #149
161. With all due respect
Terri has had a chance for recovery against insurmountable odds and it just didn't happen and now it's time for her wishes to be carried out.
Sun just never had a chance.
The similarities of this case are that they both have parents who did not wish for life support to be withdrawn.
The difference is...that there has been sufficient time for any type of meaningful life with Terri and Sun was not afforded the same opportunity.
Let's reverse the situation...if Terry was only 6 months into her affliction...I say sure, give her time. The family is willing to take care of her, support her, be there for her. Give them time to adjust to the inevitable.
If Sun had been given all those years without any meaningful life, my thoughts would still be to withdraw life support and let him go.

My problem with this was that this parent was not given enough time to come to terms with this and adjust to the inevitable.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LisaL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-18-05 11:55 PM
Response to Reply #161
167. Read about other people with this disorder.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Horse with no Name Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-19-05 12:19 AM
Response to Reply #167
179. I understand that
and if you research Terri's level of injury, you will see a comparable prognosis.
I know that this baby would probably have not lived to see his first birthday.
If Terri's husband Michael had not made the decision as her legal next of kin, it wouldn't bother me if they fed Terri until she was 100.
But, the fact that her wishes "as stated by her legal next of kin" were not to live like this, then I believe she should not be forced to live like this.
Regardless of her parent's intentions or feelings, they were not her legal next of kin.
He is trying to carry out his wife's dying wishes and is being fought by other peoples' ideals of a meaningful life vs. his own and his wife's ideals.
There has been time for her to recover if that was going to happen. It did not. There has been time for her family to get used to the fact that she has no brain function and they have not.
What bothers me is that Sun's mother was not afforded the same luxuries as afforded to Terri. His legal next of kin opposed the removal of life support and it didn't matter.
Sun didn't even get to live as long as just ONE of Terri's appeals.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clark2008 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-18-05 11:38 PM
Response to Reply #147
153. Thank you for clearing that up. I had no idea there was no
Edited on Fri Mar-18-05 11:38 PM by Clark2008
guardian ad litum.
Why not?
The best interest of the child should ALWAYS be the first thing considered. Children, more than their parents, need representation, too.

However, I am still wondering what we do? We have ways to keep people, basically on hiatus from life, but they're still living.

It's a sad, sad world when life is only breathing.

These people need to watch "Vanilla Sky" or something. Seriously - get out of the dream, people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ultraist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-19-05 01:08 PM
Response to Reply #139
246. No. Why should a welfare recipient be denied their civil liberties?
Should someone on foodstamps not be allowed to exercise their rights?

Should an elderly person on Medicare be denied their civil rights?

If that were the case, someone who recieves SSI for instance, would not have any rights, such as, right to a fair trial, protection from illegal search and siezure, right to free speech or any other civil liberties protected by the Bill of Rights.

Accepting assistance from a social program does not require giving up your Civil Liberties.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tigress DEM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-19-05 12:05 AM
Response to Reply #69
172. Even repugs acknowledge Bush lies... it didn't backfire.
The truth is the truth and hypocricy is a fact of the present administration. They even tried to spin a positive porn man to distract from Gannon.

* is stupid isn't a valid argument.

Pointing out the truth isn't acting like a fool.

Why are you defending this fool because he's a fool and saying that people who tell the truth are being foolish for being honest?

That is really twisted.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
forgethell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-19-05 09:31 AM
Response to Reply #172
227. Bascially because
we are not going to get Bush out of the White House. We need to concentrate on the next election.

And because of what I see around me. I live an a very conservative area of the country, and our attacks are not moving them. Maybe it's different where you live.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LisaL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-18-05 11:38 PM
Response to Reply #63
154. And you are not a bunch of hypocrites?
This child had no hope of any decent life. Basically, he had no hope of any life-this is a fatal genetic disorder. Isn't that the main reason you think Terri Schiavo should be dead?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DearAbby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-18-05 11:53 PM
Response to Reply #154
165. hypocrites?
And you are not a bunch of hypocrites?


Terri has no hope of any decent life. And Terri had spoke to her husband about such a situation. He as her husband is legally able to speak for Terri...But of this child, that surely has no hope of a decent life, true, but who spoke for him? His Mother wanted him to live. Who has the right to speak for a child?


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LisaL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-18-05 11:58 PM
Response to Reply #165
170. Like you said, baby SUN had no hope for a decent life.
His mother, unfortunately, has mental problems and is not rational. The hospital could have declared her incompetent, but decided not to do it out of respect. The child's father is unknown, the mother claims his father is the SUN itself. In that situation, who should speak for the child?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Horse with no Name Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-19-05 12:32 AM
Response to Reply #170
183. It wasn't out of respect
It was a deliberate legal maneuver to keep the child from becoming a ward of the state. If they proved her incompetent, then without a father being in the picture, the state would have had to initiate an order of protection and would have assumed custody.
As I stated above, the state cannot order DNR's or removal of life support from children in their custody because it is seen as a conflict of interest if they do so because it gives the impression that they are doing it for a monetary reason.
IMHO the judge was remiss in not appointing a guardian ad litum for this baby because the mother CLEARLY was not capable of keeping up with the legal maneuvers and proceedings on behalf of this child.
This child's best interests were not served--not by his mother, not by the hospital, and certainly not by the state of Texas.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LisaL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-19-05 01:22 AM
Response to Reply #183
197. You think his best interests would be to continue to "live that way"?
Then why not Terri's? She can breathe on her own, baby Sun couldn't.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Horse with no Name Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-19-05 01:32 AM
Response to Reply #197
203. No-if you read anything I wrote I don't deny that he has a
poor prognosis, but his mother did not want life support removed. I would advocate intensive teaching and education (including as much hands-on care to the child in the hospital with suctioning, gavage feeding, changing, breathing treatments, etc) to the mother--court mandated if necessary--to help her understand the gravity of her child's condition and the poor prognosis attached so she could come to terms and make the right decision.

If Terri's mother was legal next of kin and she did not want life support removed--then fine, all good, keep rocking Terri.
But the fact is that she is NOT the legal next of kin, Michael is, and in the end, it is supposed to be his decision and his decision is to withdraw life support.

Just for clarification...breathing is not living.
By your argument, Christopher Reeve could not breathe on his own without a ventilator, and he was still a productive, intelligent human being. Do you think Christopher Reeve had less of a life than Terri because he couldn't breathe on his own?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LisaL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-19-05 01:47 AM
Response to Reply #203
209. You can't really educate an irrational person.
The woman believed baby Sun needed more time to get some energy from the SUN to recover.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Horse with no Name Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-19-05 02:00 AM
Response to Reply #209
213. She wasn't necessarily irrational
as much as she was mentally incompetent.
There is a difference.
The education that I would have suggested wasn't to take care of him at home, but to have hands on/eyes on knowledge in what that baby went through to stay alive in his condition.
She needed to know how much medication it took to keep him medicated so he didn't hurt, she needed to know the reaction of a baby with a tube down his lungs when he was suctioned, etc.
Speaking from experience, I can tell you, parents eventually draw the line at saving a child and letting them go when watching them "being saved" is more hurtful than watching them die. It isn't pretty and it is definitely an eye opener...and I believe even a mentally incompetent person would be able to distinguish the human factor in that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clark2008 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-18-05 11:53 PM
Response to Reply #154
166. I'm not a hypocrite.
I think if medical advances save "lives" it should only be to save "life."
If there is not a cure in the near future, why go on?
I'm not talking about the Christopher Reeve's of the world. I'm talking about brain-dead folk - people who will die because they aren't capable of thought.
Life is no life unless there is A life. "A" is the operative word.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LisaL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-18-05 11:56 PM
Response to Reply #166
168. And there was no cure for baby SUN either.
So, why do you think in his case, he should have remained on life support?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
oldcoot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-19-05 03:31 PM
Response to Reply #154
264. No, we are not hypocrites
If Sun had been my child, I probably would have made the same decision that the hospital made. I also have a living will and have authorized my husband to make all legal decisions so I do not end up like Terri.

However, if I was unfortunate enough to be hospitalized in the state of Texas, my husband might not get the final say in my care. Instead, the hospital administration would get the final say and that fact is frankly disturbing.

This case is even more disturbing when one studies the eugenics movement in the United States during the Progressive Era. During this period, some doctors advocated refusing medical care to infants they considered "unfit." Hopefully, most doctors are familiar enough with the eugenics movement to know that is was a dark period in American history but you never know.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Selteri Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-20-05 12:17 PM
Response to Reply #264
290. Most doctors don't know
past possibly thinking it's associated with Star Trek.

Terribly sad and pathetic, but sadly true. We don't teach our mistakes, just the good we do and people stupidly believe the propoganda in education, on the TV and everywhere else.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gordianot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-18-05 01:16 PM
Response to Original message
5. Good question?
None of them will have an answer. Nominated.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
uppityperson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-18-05 01:17 PM
Response to Original message
6. Thank you for the link
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
in_cog_ni_to Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-18-05 01:17 PM
Response to Original message
7. wrong color. Get with the program!
WHITES ONLY! What were you thinking? Why on earth would they want to waste precious resources on a AA baby? <sarcasm off>

:grr::nuke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreedomAngel82 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-18-05 02:23 PM
Response to Reply #7
47. It's so disgusting and heartbreaking
:cry: The poor mother. And the little baby was murdered for no reason. That's what it is. He was so a live and he'd only been a live for six months and it was against the mother's wishes!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LisaL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-18-05 11:12 PM
Response to Reply #47
141. He had a fatal disease caused by a genetic disorder.
There was no hope for his survival. He could not breathe on his own. You think he was killed for no reason? Yet Terri must be killed with a good reason? She can breathe on her own. Who exactly is a bunch of hypocrites here?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
me b zola Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-18-05 09:03 PM
Response to Reply #7
132. Seperate & unequal lives in the US
My heart breaks for this mother.:cry:

My anger & outrage for these hypocrits grows.:grr:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ewagner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-18-05 01:19 PM
Response to Original message
9. What makes this unique
is that the breathing tube was removed AGAINST the parents wishes.....

that is, in my opinion, totally different from the Shaivo case with the husband speaking on one side and the parents on the other....

this is the "State" over-riding the wishes of the parents....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bridget Burke Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-18-05 01:21 PM
Response to Reply #9
11. The father was The Sun, according to the mother.
No human male stepped forward to claim his parental rights. The medical facts of the case totally warrant the action taken.

But the medical facts of Schiavo's case also warrant removal of the feeding tube.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gordianot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-18-05 01:26 PM
Response to Reply #11
14. I work for a system that has many children who were not supposed to live.
Guess what many of them do, their parents managed to keep them alive to school age. I do intake for these children.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bridget Burke Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-18-05 01:28 PM
Response to Reply #14
16. The hospital tried to find another institution to take over care ...
Of this child--40 refused. (They paid for the mother's lawyer in the case.)

Where was your "system"? Did the children you cared for have the same condition?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NNN0LHI Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-18-05 01:32 PM
Response to Reply #16
19. You made a little error in your post
The hospital "hired" an attorney for this baby but never paid him for his work so therefore he refused to file an appeal for this baby.

Don

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bridget Burke Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-18-05 01:33 PM
Response to Reply #19
21. Then why didn't you come & get the child to care for it until it died?
Since you're so concerned....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NNN0LHI Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-18-05 01:38 PM
Response to Reply #21
27. Because I don't have a fucking hospital in my house n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gordianot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-18-05 02:03 PM
Response to Reply #27
39. Right the child needed a hospital.
The tube feedings would be very involved. I have seen some parents after years of training and experience might be able to pull this off. Many need special nursing care in the home.

I wish I had known about this sooner even though I am not in Texas.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Horse with no Name Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-18-05 11:36 PM
Response to Reply #39
152. Many children go home with vents, feeding tubes,
Edited on Fri Mar-18-05 11:41 PM by Horse with no Name
and other apparatuses.
There is even a nursing home for children in Gladewater,TX (Truman W. Smith Children's Home).
The parents are trained to do the care with some at home assistance.
It is not that difficult.
The problem was the socio-economic status of the mother. She would not have been mentally capable of doing this, and did not have the resources needed.
Terri has had 17 or so years to recover from something that is unrecoverable and has proven she will not recover. The fact that her parents refuse to see that is very sad.
I feel that in most likelihood this baby would die at some poin in the near future.
But I feel that the mother should have been allowed more time to come to terms with his illness and terminal status. For God sake, the baby was only 6 months old, he could have been given a little more time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LisaL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-18-05 11:42 PM
Response to Reply #152
155. Yet she got people capable of taking care of her.
This child didn't. I believe Drs. thought he would die anyway, his lungs were not growing with his body. No hospital would accept him. Maybe it's not fair. But it's just as unfair for people to claim he had a right to live, and Terri does not. Even though there are people willing to take her in and take care of her. And one more thing-unlike this poor boy, Terri does not need a ventilator to breathe.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gordianot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-18-05 01:38 PM
Response to Reply #16
26. I'm not sure of the syndrome for this child.
We have children that cover the broad range of severe to profound disabilities. Many were not expected to live at birth. This situation makes me ill. We strive to preserve and improve children's lives.

In my State we would have worked to maintain this child. Our System provides education from the age of 5-21.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bridget Burke Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-18-05 02:40 PM
Response to Reply #26
54. He had thanatophoric dysplasia.
Let us know how he could have been helped.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gordianot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-18-05 03:09 PM
Response to Reply #54
62. They can survive with a lot of medical help.
Edited on Fri Mar-18-05 03:17 PM by gordianot
It explains the shortened limbs, and clover leaf shaped skull. These children are usually stillborn and have severe respritory problems. Some survive to childhood, I am always wary of that. I know of many children with syndromes who should have died, according to text books, years ago. Their parents and teachers love them without regard to their disability.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LisaL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-18-05 11:25 PM
Response to Reply #62
148. The surviving persons with this disease are very few, and
they are profoundly retarded. They probably can't do much more than Terri does in her state. I am amazed that the very same people who insist Terri should have her feeding tube removed are upset that this child's ventilator was turned off.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gordianot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-19-05 08:13 AM
Response to Reply #148
224. I am not real sure where I stand on Shaivo.
I tend to look at children differently, guess I am guilty of situational ethics in this childs case.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Horse with no Name Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-19-05 12:06 AM
Response to Reply #16
173. It didn't matter
Very few hospitals will take transfers of potential litigious patients/families, especially ones that have ethical issues attached so this was an expected thing and TCH knew that when they started looking around for another hospital to dump this baby on.
This child's care with being in ICU on a vent with round the clock nursing care was a money pit that Medicaid does not completely cover and that the hospital will end up having to write off a major portion of the care because the mother clearly cannot cover the balance.
IF we had national health insurance, who knows? But the system as it is will not allow for an underfunded, critical patient to be moved to an equal or lesser facility because you won't find another facility willing to take the financial loss knowing that they couldn't provide a higher level of care than he was already receiving.
Now, if the baby needed advanced care that TCH could not provide, it would have been a different story--they would have found an accepting hospital.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
southlandshari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-18-05 01:34 PM
Response to Reply #11
22. I agree on that point
I don't have the strong feelings so many do about the Shiavo case, but if pressed to take a side, I would say it's time for the feeding tube to come out. Her husband, whether her folks like him or not, whether he had an affair or not, was still her husband - IS still her husband - and has as much right (more in the eyes of the law) as they do in expressing her wishes to her physicians.

I, like most who will view this thread, was emotionally hit by the contrast in the case of the infant in the article because of the age and race of the patient, and - with all the attention given the Shiavo case - the fact that in this case, no one in the family advocating for removal of life support as Mr. Shiavo is in the other.

In constrast to the Texas case, the current wall-to-wall media coverage of the Shiavo case and the incredible focus it has gotten for months and months in local, state, district and now national courts is a shitty reminder of the fact that some people are just worth a lot less than others in the eyes of those who hold power in this country. And that is an important reminder to us all to continue to find ways to hold those who hold power accountable for their actions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BurtWorm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-18-05 01:39 PM
Response to Reply #11
28. That isn't mentioned in this article.
That puts this in a whole different light. Still, the double standards are astounding. This is a Catholic hospital. The doctors suggest that the baby's condition might have been discovered with prenatal care. Then what would they have done? Recommended third- or second- trimester abortion?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bridget Burke Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-18-05 03:51 PM
Response to Reply #28
70. Texas Children's Hospital is not Catholic
It is connected to St Luke's, which is Episcopal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BurtWorm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-18-05 04:31 PM
Response to Reply #70
93. Pardon my error.
But of course the ironies hold, considering this child presents a text book case for medically necessary late-term abortions, if the mother consented to one. The doctors are indicating they clearly would have recommended one if they were her doctors and had known the condition of the child. This is probably one reason why the right doesn't want to make this child a cause celebre. This case sheds too much light on the idiocy of banning medically necessary third-term abortions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rockholm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-18-05 04:56 PM
Response to Reply #9
106. Husband is legally responsible for her.
Sanctity of marriage, and all. Isn't this what these wingers want?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alarimer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-18-05 05:05 PM
Response to Reply #9
111. I don't understand why the hospital was allowed to do this
Because it was costing them too much money?? Then where do we draw the line? Couldn't they have sent him somewhere else? It isn't right that the parents didn't get to make the decision. I guess we had all better hope that if we are every injured or very sick we have a lot of money and insurance, otherwise the hospital might be allowed to kill us too.
I generally think that I wouldn't want to be kept alive by artificial means but I want my family to make that decision, not the hospital or state. I wonder if the child were white or if the parents had money if the hospital would have been allowed to do this. It is a slippery slope to eugenics.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LisaL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-18-05 11:20 PM
Response to Reply #111
145. No other hospital would take him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
southlandshari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-18-05 01:23 PM
Original message
self delete
Edited on Fri Mar-18-05 01:24 PM by southlandshari
duplicate post
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
southlandshari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-18-05 01:23 PM
Response to Original message
12. No title comes to mind
Because I feel too disgusted to think of one.

I can think of several reasons why this infant was removed from life support with little fanfare while Shiavo seems to warrant the attention of everyone whose name has appeared on a ballot this decade.

But I can't bring myself to actually write any of those possible reasons down here, because they are all sickening.

Let's start here. What does the following quote from the article mean?

"Texas Children's said it contacted 40 facilities with newborn intensive care units, but none would accept Sun. Without legal delays, Sun's care would have ended Nov. 28."

Why would that care end 11/28? Any ideas, anyone?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Horse with no Name Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-19-05 12:44 AM
Response to Reply #12
186. This was discussed in full
But when it went to court the judge ordered that to be the date that he was removed from life support, barring appeals.
There were no appeals because the lawyers (hired by the hospital for the mother) did not file any, even though the mother did not want them to take him off of life support.
I don't have a star but you can research and find the prior posts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
southlandshari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-19-05 12:27 PM
Response to Reply #186
241. Thanks
I just figured it might be date that medicaid funds ran out or something. I stand corrected.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bearfan454 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-18-05 01:27 PM
Response to Original message
15. These repukes are fucking monsters.
They will let a little black baby die but keep a brain dead woman alive.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LisaL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-18-05 11:46 PM
Response to Reply #15
157. That baby would most likely die anyway. His disorder was fatal.
Only very few people with this disorder ever survive, and they are profoundly retarded. Why do you think his life would be any more valuable than Terri's? She at least can breathe on her own, this child can't even do that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CottonBear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-18-05 01:29 PM
Response to Original message
17. Tragic: no prenatal care, no $, mom thought his lungs would grow...
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/front/3087387

snip...

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.

more...

This is a sad, sad story. He never breathed without the ventilator.
:cry:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BrklynLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-18-05 01:30 PM
Response to Original message
18. NO PRENATAL CARE!!!! Heartbreaking. Double standards...
Edited on Fri Mar-18-05 01:30 PM by BrklynLiberal
As usual, the stench of the "Pro-lifers'" hypocrisy is stomach-churning.

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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bridget Burke Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-18-05 01:33 PM
Response to Reply #18
20. The mother CHOSE not to have prenatal care.
She also believes the Sun was the father of her child.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NNN0LHI Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-18-05 01:37 PM
Response to Reply #20
24. You said: "The mother CHOSE not to have prenatal care."
If what you say is true in this post of yours then why didn't the state step in and require prenatal care? They can decide to kill the baby but they can't demand prenatal care? Hmmmm.

Don

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bridget Burke Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-18-05 01:40 PM
Response to Reply #24
29. Great Idea! Every month, "the state" can check every woman ....
Of childbearing age. If she's pregnant, they can ensure she gets care. If she turns up un-pregnant the next month, they can arrest her for murder of a fetus.

Should they go door to door with pregnancy tests? Or can you suggest another method.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madeline_con Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-18-05 04:17 PM
Response to Reply #29
90. no prenatal
Was she just a loose lunatic, who wasn't receiving any care at all, and was suddenly 'discovered' when she turned up in a hospital and bore the Sun's child?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LisaL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-18-05 11:36 PM
Response to Reply #24
151. The mother is not rational.
She thinks the child was fathered by the SUN. She chose not to have parental care because she believed the SUN will take care of everything.
I am absolutely at a freaking loss. You think this child should have been kept alive, even though the Drs. testified he had no hope of recovery and couldn't breathe on his own? Yet Terri who can breathe on her own must die? Talk about double standards!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
southlandshari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-18-05 01:50 PM
Response to Reply #20
33. Hmmm..
Edited on Fri Mar-18-05 02:33 PM by southlandshari
I didn't see this (that she claimed the sun fathered her child) in the story (but am not doubting you here - will do a google search for more news links). If true, seems pretty clear that the mother may have some sort of mental health problems.

On edit: Another article which give a bit more info on
Hudson's description of how her son was concieved here:

http://www.click2houston.com/news/4285371/detail.html


Which makes this even sadder - and more ugly when held in contrast to the Shiavo case. No one should kid themselves that a black baby born to a single mother with a mental disability is going to be any kind of priority on any politician's list of important issues.

The medical staff actions (in either case) aren't the real issue. To me, it is all about who merits public attention and what their life is worth in terms of media play and political grandstanding.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gordianot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-18-05 02:27 PM
Response to Reply #33
48. This is very different than Shiavo case.
Children develop. We do not know how they may develop. If they survive infancy who knows?

There is a man a number of years who was found to be Micro-Cephalic with very little cerebral cortex. In some hospitals today they might have harvested organs assuming he would be severely retarded and would not beyond infancy. This man was not retarded, he complained of headaches in his twenties while a math major in a University. The x-rays showed serious lack of a cerebral cortex. For privacy reasons he never identified himself. As an infant if you put a light up to his head it would have glowed.

Traumatic brain injury as in Shiavo case is a very different situation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
southlandshari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-18-05 02:31 PM
Response to Reply #48
53. I think you and I are on the same page
Edited on Fri Mar-18-05 02:36 PM by southlandshari
I believe Sun Hudson had a LOT more chance of developing beyond his initial state when born than Terri Shiavo has at this point. I understand the medical differences in the case. My posts in this thread have focused more on the political and social issues that illustrate a clear and not-so-pleasant contrast in how politicians and the mass media have responded to each case.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gordianot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-18-05 02:48 PM
Response to Reply #53
55. True
This one kicks me where I live and work. I am really glad I am not in Texas. I simply do not understand why pro-life advocates are focusing on Shiavo. However I would be willing to bet Sun's story has legs.

I will be on the phone regarding Sun today to AAMR and CEC advocates.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ultraist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-18-05 04:08 PM
Response to Reply #48
81. Legally it is the same. The STATE is interferring with guardianship
WITHOUT proving abuse or neglect. That is a violation of right to privacy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
southlandshari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-18-05 06:41 PM
Response to Reply #81
123. Good point
I was working my way to this, just hadn't wrapped my brain around what I was trying to say!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eridani Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-18-05 08:04 PM
Response to Reply #48
131. "Is the brain necessary?" was the title of an article--
--someone wrote about it in the early 80s. Can't find it online.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LisaL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-18-05 11:49 PM
Response to Reply #48
158. Oh God! They know precisely how children with this disorder
develop. Most die, and very few that survive are profoundly retarded. Yet, you think, the little SUN would somehow be different?
Well, if you believe in miracles, why not believe in one for Terri?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gordianot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-19-05 08:31 AM
Response to Reply #158
226. Did more checking, yes there are survivors of this syndrome.
Edited on Sat Mar-19-05 08:32 AM by gordianot
Text books are not always correct. I did not say I was in opposition Shaivo having feeding tube removed. Frankly it is the decision of family, one I am not going to interject my opinion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pallas180 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-05 02:34 PM
Response to Reply #158
297. I thought the GOP fundies believed all llife is sacred-retarded or not -
so again, how is it the black baby is disconnected who might end up retarded, but the goppers dont want Ms Schiavo disconnected, who is definitely beyond retarded?

This is very serious.

Many many people on life support are at risk.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BrklynLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-18-05 03:58 PM
Response to Reply #20
74. Did not read that in the article.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ScreamingMeemie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-18-05 01:54 PM
Response to Reply #18
36. They only care about the fetus...not the person.
We can't make any mistake about that, no siree bob.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mad_Dem_X Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-18-05 02:23 PM
Response to Reply #36
46. BINGO! Fetus Fetish
Once the kid comes out of the womb, nobody cares anymore.:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ultraist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-18-05 03:26 PM
Response to Reply #18
64. Prenatal care would not have cured that condition
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BrklynLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-18-05 04:04 PM
Response to Reply #64
76. My comment was not to say the baby would have been cured, but to
point out that she had NO prenatal care. How is that possible, in this country, in this time? Why should it have happened?
Given all the questions that seems to coming out about her mental state, the conditions surrounding her getting pregnant could be questionable too. She should have been under a doctor's care all along.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ultraist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-18-05 06:44 PM
Response to Reply #76
125. Unfortunately, no prenatal care does happen a lot
If the person makes over a certain amount or is the dependent of someone who does, they will not qualify for medicaid, so if they don't have insurance, they are out of luck.

We don't know why she didn't seek prenatal, but yes, her mental deficiency, likely had something to do with it. SOMEONE in her life knew she was pregnant and didn't bother to take her in.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LisaL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-18-05 11:51 PM
Response to Reply #76
162. Because she believed the baby was born by the SUN, and
SUN was supposed to make sure that her delivery was painless and everything was fine.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
consciousobjector Donating Member (173 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-19-05 09:44 PM
Response to Reply #162
275. I wasn't going to say anything, but
I can't stand hearing your disparagement of people with mental illness. Why are you so harshly critical of the poor woman? People do not choose to be mentally ill...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mike Daniels Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-18-05 01:34 PM
Response to Original message
23. FR did have threads protesting tube removal on this as well
Edited on Fri Mar-18-05 01:35 PM by Mike Daniels
so at least they've maintained consistancy on this one issue.I've looked around for the threads just now but can't seem to hit the right "search" terms.

Actually, there's also a small population on that board who are screaming "bullsh*t" on Congress's actions on Schiavo as well and who are pissed that Schiavo and baseball seem to be all Congress is focusing on at this time.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NNN0LHI Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-18-05 04:14 PM
Response to Reply #23
87. I have been a poster on Freerepublic now for over 3 years and...
...I seen this story get posted there. I also watched this story get scrubbed off that site as fast as someone would post it there too. Is that what you mean by maintaining consistency?

Don

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tom_paine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-18-05 01:37 PM
Response to Original message
25. Black baby, that's why. Just another Liberal Enemy of the State.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-18-05 01:40 PM
Response to Original message
30. Tom DeLay lets a Houston baby die for being born poor, but, will
move Congress every which way and loose to save Terry Schiavo.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-18-05 01:54 PM
Response to Reply #30
35. He'll wave that banner like a madman, hoping to distract...
...from his many, serious ethical lapses that are barking at the door of the Ethics Committee. I smell smoke--could it be from this smokescreen?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreedomAngel82 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-18-05 02:29 PM
Response to Reply #30
51. Someone should send this story to Boxer
To use against them. They were on CNN earlier this afternoon going on and on about how Boxer and two other democrats were against life. Someone should get this story to her and show how DeLay let this happen.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LisaL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-19-05 12:10 AM
Response to Reply #51
176. How did DeLay let this happen? The Drs. went to court
and asked for life support to be terminated. Where does DeLay fit in this scenario?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
oldcoot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-19-05 03:20 PM
Response to Reply #176
262. Texas law allowed this to happen
Under Texas law, it is legal for hospitals to terminate care for a patient against the wishes of the patient's family. If he really believes in life at all costs, he should be equally critical of his own state laws as he is of Michael Schiavo.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catherine Vincent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-18-05 01:52 PM
Response to Original message
34. I thought about that too.
It was reported on Dateline (I think) but it didn't get too much play after that and before you know it, I heard on the local news a couple of days ago that they pulled the plug. And you can't say that no one was fighting for the baby because the mother was.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Semi_subversive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-18-05 01:54 PM
Response to Original message
37. I just sent an email and this link to my piece of shit congressman
Dan Lungren. Asked him where he and his buddies were for this one. I also responded to his latest try at "sanctifying" marriage and told him that homosexual unions won't make a mockery of marraige because dumbass heteros, like Bittany Spears, have already asked done that. I told him that true conservatives, which no longer exist, fight against government intrusion in our personal lives. What gives him the right to do so? And while I was at it, I asked him to quit trying to turn this once proud nation into a theocracy and to stop trying to cram it down our throats. Now I'll probably get audited!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hiley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-18-05 02:01 PM
Response to Original message
38. Question is right on
Thought the same thing but being black doesn't count in their estimation!
They are such hypocrite's and of course TEXAS just tops it off.
Guess most of you heard DeLay pontificating his frickin' wisdom on it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DearAbby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-18-05 02:06 PM
Response to Reply #38
40. Rest in peace baby Sun..
Disgusting Pukes!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LisaL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-19-05 01:09 AM
Response to Reply #40
192. Again, Pukes didn't pull his plug.
Drs. did, at their own request. I see that many on DU are downright irrational about baby SUN. Such outrage-why do you think baby SUN deserved to live, while Terri has to die? Baby SUN's prognosis wasn't good at all. And he needed a ventilator to live, while Terri doesn't. Baby SUN was not starved over several weeks, his ventilator was turned off, and he went fast.
I would say that's a much better death than Terri's going to be.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-19-05 11:25 AM
Response to Reply #192
233. Of course not
I think what is irritating people isn't the decision to remove life support in and of itself, necessarily, it's the INTERFERENCE of the GOP into the Schiavo matter while totally ignoring this other case, which has similar elements--no, they aren't exactly the same, but there's that whole "life support/extraordinary measures" aspect to both cases. Either "all life is precious" or it isn't. Either responsible/accountable family members (as defined by the court) are allowed to make the decision or they aren't.

The gripes, as near as I can tell, no matter how you feel about the actual decisions that were made, have to do with the GOP "cherrypicking" this issue for what seems to be blatant political reasons. And there's also the matter of MONEY--when there's no money for care, enthusiasm seems to wane.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LisaL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-19-05 11:34 AM
Response to Reply #233
236. Well, I agree.
But if you think GOP interference in Terri's case is wrong, why be outraged that they didn't interfere with baby SUN? Again, baby SUN's Drs.were the ones who went to court and asked for his life support to be terminated. The Drs. also said baby SUN was slowly suffocating to death. Should GOP have interfered on behalf of baby SUN? So, he could suffocate to death instead of having his ventilator turned off?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-19-05 12:00 PM
Response to Reply #236
238. The REAL issue, regardless of how anyone feels about the two cases
...is the disparity in treatment by the GOP. They eagerly interfere in one case, and totally ignore the other. And in the latter case, the "responsible adult" (yes, she had mental issues, but had not had her rights terminated or any due process) was denied any say.

I think that if the GOP were to REMAIN CONSISTENT, and not expose themselves to charges of hypocrisy, they should have spoken up in both cases--if they are true to their principles. By speaking up for the parents of Terri (and ignoring her husband's court-verified, court appealed, court-sanctioned rights) and ignoring the rights of the young mother, they let everyone know they are doing this to support a purely POLITICAL agenda. The message they send is: Some life is more precious than others.

As a consequence, we can only conclude that this has nothing to do with the actual lives in these cases, but it has everything to do with jerking the emotional chains of voters.

My opinion, not that it matters, is that they should let Michael Schiavo make the decisions for his wife, as the courts have ruled quite decisively that this is his right, and his alone. They should also have let the Baby Sun case have its day in court too, and had the hospital and the mother duke it out in court to establish who was responsible for the kid. Unplugging the kid without assuming legal (to say nothing of moral) responsibility first smacks to me of a purely economic decision. Had the mother been rich, right or wrong, that kid would still be hooked up.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
southlandshari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-19-05 12:42 PM
Response to Reply #236
242. They shouldn't be involved in EITHER case,
Edited on Sat Mar-19-05 12:46 PM by southlandshari
I think is what many folks are trying to say. It is the double standard of the politicians, not the medical decisions on whether or not to remove life-sustaining equipment, that has people upset here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
consciousobjector Donating Member (173 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-19-05 09:49 PM
Response to Reply #236
276. I think he did suffocate to death
isn't that what happens when you remove a ventilator?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ultraist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-18-05 04:56 PM
Response to Reply #38
107. 80% of the men they put to death in Texas are black
NEVER have they pulled the plug on a white child in Texas.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hiley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-18-05 11:19 PM
Response to Reply #107
144. They never will
either. Death Penalty pisses me off all it is more racism and separating classes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
southlandshari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-18-05 02:07 PM
Response to Original message
41. kick
for relevance!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leetrisck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-18-05 02:10 PM
Response to Original message
42. Missouri executed a man last night, but Blunt
was out there today (with Delay) spouting off his mouth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Snotcicles Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-18-05 02:14 PM
Response to Original message
44. Could bush have granted amnesty?
Edited on Fri Mar-18-05 02:15 PM by Snotcicles
for this baby.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreedomAngel82 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-18-05 02:19 PM
Response to Original message
45. Freakin unbelivable!!!!
Edited on Fri Mar-18-05 02:19 PM by FreedomAngel82
He wiggled and smacked his lips and nobody saved him! But yet they're all trying to save someone who can't even do that!!!!!! I'm so pissed!
:argh: Especially this part:

<Sun's death marks the first time a U.S. judge has allowed a hospital to discontinue an infant's life-sustaining care against a parent's wishes, according to bioethical experts. A similar case involving a 68-year-old man in a vegetative state at another Houston hospital is before a court now.>
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mad_Dem_X Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-18-05 02:28 PM
Response to Original message
49. Against his mother's wishes...!
This is terrible; that poor mother. :cry:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GiovanniC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-18-05 02:31 PM
Response to Reply #49
52. Well Maybe The Sun Will Impregnate Her Again
Maybe she'll have a second chance at raising the offspring of a 20 million degree burning hot ball of hydrogen and helium.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ultraist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-18-05 03:29 PM
Response to Reply #52
66. Having fun making fun of a mentally disabled women?
:puke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GiovanniC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-18-05 03:37 PM
Response to Reply #66
68. Yes, Loads
Also making the point that she does not have the capacity to make such decisions (however, I do believe that a hearing to that effect should have been done as she deserves due process as much as anyone else).

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ultraist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-18-05 03:57 PM
Response to Reply #68
73. Her parental rights were not terminated, the State still interfered
In most states, the parent's rights would have to be terminated in order to override this decision.

Texas has a law whereby a parent's rights can be superceded by the State with regard to medical decisions involving life support, as noted in the OP article.

Being mentally disabled does NOT mean someone's parental rights should be terminated. Retarded parents have rights too. State laws vary but generally people who have been proven to have abused or neglected (defined by state statute) their child, may lose parental rights.

This issue is about the State overriding parental rights even when no abuse or neglect has been shown. That is FUCKED up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GiovanniC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-18-05 04:10 PM
Response to Reply #73
82. The Woman Had Zero Capacity To Make Medical Decisions
That said, she deserved due process, which she didn't receive.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ultraist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-18-05 04:13 PM
Response to Reply #82
86. You are totally speculating
I have worked with disabled and retarded parents and they ARE capable of providing for their children.

What a snap JUDGMENT about her. You know NOTHING about her capacities.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GiovanniC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-18-05 04:53 PM
Response to Reply #86
103. Everything Is Speculation Without Due Process, However
When someone bursts out in the courtroom that the sun is the father of her child, that she communicates with the sun telepathically, and that the child is the human embodiment of the sun, and has to be admitted into a psychiatric hospital, those are all pretty good indications that her mental capacity to make sound, reasonable decisions are in question. That's a little bit better than knowing "NOTHING" about her capacities. Furthermore, the child was terminal, and unlike, say Schiavo, actually WAS in some rather severe pain.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ultraist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-18-05 04:59 PM
Response to Reply #103
109. They have to go through a legal process to terminate parental rights
The point is, the STATE HAS NO RIGHT INTERFERING WITH Parental or legal guardian's rights UNLESS they have substantial evidence of abuse/neglect and have gone through the court process.

This is NOT the case with this child or Terri Shiavo. The STATE is taking control where it shouldn't. Same deal with antichoicers.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GiovanniC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-18-05 05:13 PM
Response to Reply #109
116. I Don't Know Who You're Arguing With
I only know it isn't me, because I've said in pretty much every reply that I believe

(a) This crazy woman was entitled to due process; and
(b) She was denied that Constitutional Right

That does not, however, alter my opinion that she was completely batshit.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
southlandshari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-18-05 06:51 PM
Response to Reply #103
128. Heard of medication?
I work with people with a variety of physical and mental disabilities on a daily basis. I have found jobs for adults who have schizophrenia, MMR, and other conditions that have them saying things much weirder than they made a baby with the sun. Doesn't NECESSARILY make them bad parents or unable to make basic decisions about their care. In some instances, medication makes a tremendous difference in their lives and many I know have children at home who are very well cared for.

I also work with people who are in no way ready to be parents. I'm just saying nothing in this story gives any kind of definitive proof that Ms. Hudson was incapable of caring for or making legal decisions regarding her child. I don't think anyone involved in the case (hospital, attorneys, etc...) has been quoted as saying this, either.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LisaL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-19-05 11:28 AM
Response to Reply #128
235. I don't think you can medicate someone against their will.
I think it would be a good idea for his mother to undergo treatment, but suppose she thinks there is nothing wrong with her. How can you treat someone against their will?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
southlandshari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-19-05 12:22 PM
Response to Reply #235
240. I wasn't advocating that at all!
Just replying to the earlier poster's assertion that Wanda Hudson was "crazy" and unable to make decisions about her child's welfare. I don't even know what, if any, mental disability she might have or whether she needed (or was on) medication.

Sorry if my post implied anything otherwise. =)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ultraist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-19-05 03:08 PM
Response to Reply #240
261. It was apparent that you weren't
Some resort to fallacious arguments to push their point.

If a parent is under a family case treatment plan, they can be required to take meds, if their psychologist/pyschiatrist has recommended it as a necessary component of their treatment. If they fail to complete their case plan or meet the goals of such, they are at risk of losing their children. So, in effect, they can be made to take meds to some degree. (We had a schizophrenic mother who thought she didn't need meds, but as part of her plan, she was required to take them in order to maintain custody).

In some states, patients can be court ordered to take meds too, if they have been convicted of a crime.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
southlandshari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-19-05 07:35 PM
Response to Reply #261
266. Thanks
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
oldcoot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-18-05 04:49 PM
Response to Reply #82
100. According to Texas law, the mother's sanity is irrelevant
Any hospital can decide to terminate care for any patient regardless of whether or not the available family members are sane. In other words, the only ones who get to make this decision is the hospital unless the family in question is lucky enough to find another facility in ten short days.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GiovanniC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-18-05 04:54 PM
Response to Reply #100
104. And I Disagree With That Law
And find it to be incredibly cold and ripe for abuse with the bottom line in mind.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
politicat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-20-05 01:34 AM
Response to Reply #82
285. The Virgin Mary, if you believe the theology, believed herself to be
impregnated by a deity who appeared at various times as a disembodied voice, a burning bush, a pillar of fire and a dove. However, 1900 years of religion have been based on the concept that she was competent to make her own decisions regarding the life, health and welfare of her child, including leaving her country for another place more than 100 miles away within days of giving birth. Today, would you consider her to have "zero capacity to make medical decisions" and thus, perhaps prevent the founding of Christianity?

So what's so different with Ms. Hudson? Just because she believes something that you find ludicrous does not mean she is incapable of making other decisions rationally and effectively. I may not have much respect for what I consider the irrational belief systems of the religious, but I do respect their ability to compartmentalize their lives and make rational decisions on other issues that have nothing to do with religion.

Ms. Hudson did not have a day in court, and due to this, her abilities were never confirmed. Further, the state interfered in a private matter that countered the unevaluated wishes of the next of kin. We cannot evaluate Ms. Hudson's abilities because they have never been evaluated legally.

Would there be as much dissent about Ms. Hudson if she claimed her son was the result of a virgin conception, caused by the deity known as Jahweh, and destined to lead mankind to salvation? So she chose the sun, which is visible, provides useful functions, and provides life to the planet. This is different from Jahweh how?

(Full disclosure: I am atheist; I do not believe in a virgin birth or that the sun has the capability to cause pregnancy... but because of that, I see similarities.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JanMichael Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-18-05 11:52 PM
Response to Reply #68
163. That's just fucked up pal.
Sorry, I didn't mean "pal", I really thought "dickhead":-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
adigal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-18-05 02:28 PM
Response to Original message
50. I hate to say it also,
but that baby is not white. And I wonder if his mother had health insurance, because I bet that if she did, they would not have taken the breathing tube out without the permission of the mother.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bridget Burke Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-18-05 02:52 PM
Response to Reply #50
56. Health Insurance is not an inexhaustible source of money.
Insurance companies often stop paying out after you reach a maximum, or for some other reason.

The baby had a form of dwarfism that made his rib cage very small. His lungs were growing but the rib cage was not. He was never going to be able to breathe & was kept sedated to reduce the pain.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BrklynLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-18-05 04:08 PM
Response to Reply #50
79. If she did not have ANY prenatal health care it is a good bet that she
has no health insurance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SouthernDem2004 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-18-05 02:54 PM
Response to Original message
58. Kind of sick people are making this tragedy a political issue. Who
cares who the President is. The odds are he knew nothing about this. He is definitely not omnipotent. The concern here is why she did not get prenatial care. That is what should be looked into.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SmokingJacket Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-18-05 07:02 PM
Response to Reply #58
129. They're making it an issue because of Schiavo.
If the repubs are going to mouth off about "culture of life," perhaps they should expend a little energy on cases like these.

But obviously... that's not on their agenda.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LisaL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-19-05 01:26 AM
Response to Reply #58
200. Because she has mental problems, and believed
the SUN would take care of it. According to her, that is-she thought SUN would ensure she had an easy delivery.
Anyhow, no prenatal care would have helped baby SUN. The only option would be an abortion. And we don't even know what her views on abortion are. I doubt she would have believed the Drs. anyway, if they informed her of his condition before baby Sun was born.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NNN0LHI Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-19-05 11:04 AM
Response to Reply #200
230. Majority of Americans believe there is some all knowing big man in the sky
Some play with snakes to prove their faith in their beliefs. Others speak in tongues and flop around on the floor like fish out of water. Still others think the rapture is about to occur at any moment and are excitedly waiting for it to happen. And they are considered sane in our society. But because of what this babies mother thinks you say she has mental problems. Funny.

Don

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LisaL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-19-05 11:26 AM
Response to Reply #230
234. Do you have children? Do you think their father was the SUN?
If you think your child's father is the SUN, sorry, you have mental problems.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
southlandshari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-19-05 08:24 PM
Response to Reply #234
272. "You have mental problems"
And, therefore, give up any and all rights the rest of us "sane" American adults enjoy.

That about sum it up for you?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LisaL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-19-05 09:55 PM
Response to Reply #272
278. Well, obviously, baby Sun should have stayed on a ventilator
until he got energy from the SUN and recovered. That was her logic for keeping him alive. Maybe she was right, what do I know?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
southlandshari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-19-05 08:02 PM
Response to Reply #200
269. What if Terri Shiavo had suffered from mental illness
prior to her current hospitalization? Would you be as callous in your assessment of her and her rights?

What if Terri Shiavo said she was the daughter of the sun, or the moon or the stars? What if her mother said she had been conceived by the sun, or the moon or the stars?

And most importantly, what the bleeping f@#% does any of this have to do with:

a) a critically ill/injured patient's PHYSICAL prognosis for survival

b) legal rights of the next of kin when it comes to these decisions

and, most germane to the discussion started in this thread,

c) whether or not elected officials or the mass media should be involved in very complicated, personal, painful, medical cases like both of these
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bushisanidiot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-18-05 02:57 PM
Response to Original message
59. Repukes don't count black kids. Pay attention!
:P
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CitySky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-18-05 02:58 PM
Response to Original message
60. right-to-lifers' perspective
There was an interesting feature that ran in the Hou Chron a couple of weeks ago while this case was brewing.

Featured another mother who had given birth to a child with the same condition. In that case, the (photogenic, white) couple had been informed during the pregnancy that the child would not live, but being Christians they were opposed to abortion and wanted to leave their child's life in God's hands.

Knowing their child would only live a few hours after birth, if that, they explained to their 3-year-old that expected younger sibling was going to live in heaven instead of on earth. They hired a photographer and had pictures taken of mom and everyone holding the baby in the few short hours the child was alive.

It was actual a beautiful, moving story, and I commend the couple who made that choice for actively living their faith.

BUT: running the story in the context of THIS case to me carried subtext of, "Here is the RIGHT way to deal with this situation, unlike this OTHER (bad) mother who won't just accept that her kid is going to die." It would be incredibly difficult for ANY parent to suffer this, and it does seem wrong to me that this woman was given no choice in how to proceed, all because of mighty Mammon (not God).

-Sky in Houston
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LisaL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-19-05 01:16 AM
Response to Reply #60
195. Sun's mother actually said her child needed more time
to get energy from the Sun to recover. I am sorry, but poor woman is just not rational. It's not about acceptance that her child is going to die. This woman does not sound to be mentally competent to make these decisions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tblue37 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-18-05 03:05 PM
Response to Original message
61. Some troubling details--
This is from the article linked in the OP:
The hospital's description of Sun — that he was motionless and sedated for comfort — has differed sharply from the mother's. Since February, the hospital has blocked the media from Hudson's invitation to see the baby, citing privacy concerns.

"I wanted y'all to see my son for yourself," Hudson told reporters. "So you could see he was actually moving around. He was conscious."


Isn't it up to the patient (or his immediate family) to decide about the patient's or family's own privacy? If the mother wanted media to come in and see that her son moved and was conscious, then she should have the right to do that. I am very bothered by the fact that the hospital was so determined not to allow outside observers to see the child.

Mortality/Morbidity: Although the literature documents several reports of survival into childhood, TD virtually is always lethal in the neonatal period. Respiratory insufficiency secondary to reduced thoracic capacity or compression of the brainstem leads to death. . . . TD is lethal in neonates; however, long-term survival has been reported. (Bold and italics added.)http://www.emedicine.com/PED/topic2233.htm




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ultraist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-18-05 03:33 PM
Response to Reply #61
67. FIRST time this was done. Black, mentally disabled woman..hmm
Sun's death marks the first time a U.S. judge has allowed a hospital to discontinue an infant's life-sustaining care against a parent's wishes, according to bioethical experts. A similar case involving a 68-year-old man in a vegetative state at another Houston hospital is before a court now.

The hospital's description of Sun — that he was motionless and sedated for comfort — has differed sharply from the mother's. Since February, the hospital has blocked the media from Hudson's invitation to see the baby, citing privacy concerns.

Texas law allows hospitals to discontinue life-sustaining care, even if a patient's family members disagree. A doctor's recommendation must be approved by a hospital's ethics committee, and the family must be given 10 days from written notice of the decision to try and locate another facility for the patient.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
oldcoot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-18-05 04:05 PM
Response to Reply #67
77. This is very disturbing
No matter how one feels about the Schiavo case, at least it was her husband who wanted to remove the tube. In this case and possibly many other cases, the family has no say and the hospital gets to decide. Texas law literally gives hospitals the power to play God in their patients' lives.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ultraist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-18-05 04:11 PM
Response to Reply #77
84. That's right, Texas can take full control over people's bodies
in cases that involve life support, REGARDLESS of what the legal guardian decides. That is what they are doing with the Shiavo case too. Refusing to allow her husband his rights and letting the STATE decide.

It's also what they are doing with anti choice, allowing the State to take control over women's bodies.

In all cases, civil liberties are being violated.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alarimer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-18-05 05:07 PM
Response to Reply #77
112. exactly
This is what bothers me. I live in Texas and I never knew they could do this!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vinca Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-18-05 04:30 PM
Response to Reply #67
92. Astonishing. This amounts to pay up or die.
If the family is given the option of finding another facility, that implies that the hospital is pulling the plug for lack of funds. While I appreciate the financial woes of hospitals, money shouldn't be the motivating factor when it comes to euthanasia.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
THUNDER HANDS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-18-05 03:54 PM
Response to Reply #61
72. no, a hospital can refuse to have media on its premises
its entirely up to the discretion of the hospital's media relations department.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ultraist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-18-05 04:48 PM
Response to Reply #72
99. yep. Guess who will have the plug plugged the fatest?
POOR people. This is what happens when the STATE has more control than they should over people's bodies.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LisaL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-19-05 01:05 AM
Response to Reply #99
191. Well, obviously. But if baby SUN was born to rich parents, he
would still most likely be dead in the near future anyway. And if he didn't die, he would be severely retarded, needing a ventilator to breathe.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LisaL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-19-05 12:07 AM
Response to Reply #61
174. The very few that survive are severely retarded
Edited on Sat Mar-19-05 12:07 AM by lizzy
and usually can not breathe on their own. He wouldn't be able to breathe on his own, he would need a ventilator. He would also be profoundly retarded. And that is the best case scenario. So, let me understand it, now people think this live is worth living? What gives?
http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/condition=thanatophoricdysplasia
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ultraist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-19-05 01:24 PM
Response to Reply #174
250. There is no hypocrisy in protecting civil liberties in BOTH cases
In BOTH the Shiavo case and this one, the State interfered and violated civil liberties. That is what we disagree with.

Quality of life is highly subjective and the State should not define this legally and impose their subjective view on all of us. One parent may have a different view on it than another as well as adult individuals.

I may choose euthanasia long before you would, for instance.

The State has NO RIGHT interfering with PRIVATE decisions such as this. The mother had legal custody, thus, the decision should have been hers. Same for Terri's husband.

How much power do you want to give the State over your body and your personal life decisions? Are you willing to give up your parental rights and allow them to make decisions about your children's healthcare?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mr_Spock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-18-05 03:28 PM
Response to Original message
65. Tom Delay should have his face kicked in for politicizing this issue
This guy is a fucking low-life - trying to take political shots on this issue - where has this fucking ass-wipe been for the last seven years during the long legal battle in this case. This mother fucker (Delay) has got to be kicked out on the street on his fucking lying weasel ass.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
efhmc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-18-05 04:50 PM
Response to Reply #65
101. I do so hate cursing unless it is absolutely needed and necessary.
Thanks, you have a great way with words.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mr_Spock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-18-05 05:13 PM
Response to Reply #101
117. :o)
are you saying that it was necessary to slap Delay's sorry but around - or were you being facetious?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
efhmc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-18-05 05:16 PM
Response to Reply #117
119. I am saying that you did a great job of conveying the nasty facts about
Delay that I am much, much too much of a lady (blush) to do. Thanks, kind sir. (Just trying to be funny. Guess I failed.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mr_Spock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-18-05 05:39 PM
Response to Reply #119
120. No, it was funny - I just wanted to be sure
I don't aim to just be belligerent for no reason :D
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
efhmc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-18-05 05:52 PM
Response to Reply #120
121. Oh no, you had a really good reason.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
oldcoot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-18-05 04:56 PM
Response to Reply #65
108. Isn't DeLay from the great state of Texas?
Edited on Fri Mar-18-05 05:09 PM by oldcoot
If he is such a great pro-lifer, why isn't he screaming about this poor infant and Texas law?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mr_Spock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-18-05 05:15 PM
Response to Reply #108
118. 'Cause it doesn't serve his immoral divisive agenda
What a flailing piece of chit he is - despicable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ultraist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-18-05 04:06 PM
Response to Original message
78. The State has NO RIGHT to take control over our our bodies
Or interfere with a PARENT OR LEGAL GUARDIAN'S DECISION over their loved one.

ONLY if the guardian has been proven by a JUDGE to have been abusive or neglectful, does the state have a right to interfere.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gordianot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-18-05 04:15 PM
Response to Reply #78
89. It is rare that parental rights are ever completely terminated.
In this case it sounds to me like rights were terminated in more ways than one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ultraist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-18-05 04:52 PM
Response to Reply #89
102. Actually, parents rights are terminiated more than just rarely
Any child that has been put up for adoption and MANY of the children in foster care, come from parents who either voluntarily terminated their rights or the State did so. Most states have around 100,000 children WAITING to be adopted who are in foster care. It's much more prevelant than many people realize. (Most of these kids in the foster care system are a bit older or have special needs. The very young ones get adopted fairly quickly).

In Texas, they have a law that allows the STATE to decide, rather than the PARENT or LEGAL GUARDIAN when to pull the plug.

This is very intrusive and an excess/abuse of State power.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gordianot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-18-05 10:24 PM
Response to Reply #102
133. Our State works a little differently.
We have plenty of students in custody of child services. I surmise fewer of our children State may be adopted.

I hope this one comes home to haunt them. I heard Delay's comments on the Shaivo and hope we have some Democrats out there willing to shove this incident down his throat.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ultraist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-18-05 10:28 PM
Response to Reply #133
134. It does vary a lot state to state
Some states terminate parental rights a lot faster than others to release them for adoption.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
efhmc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-18-05 04:42 PM
Response to Reply #78
97. Excuse me. Then why is denying an abortion ever even TALKED about,
much less have so many trying to take that right away?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ultraist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-18-05 05:05 PM
Response to Reply #97
110. Why?
Because whacked out fundies think the State should have control over women's bodies and VIOLATE women's right to privacy.

The STATE SHOULD NOT HAVE THIS LEVEL OF CONTROL OVER OUR BODIES OR THE BODIES OF THOSE IN OUR CUSTODY. It's unconstitutional. The Bill of Rights protects OUR RIGHT TO PRIVACY, including OUR BODIES, from Government interference.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
efhmc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-18-05 05:10 PM
Response to Reply #110
114. We fought and won that fight on on the privacy issue so why is it still
among us?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ultraist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-18-05 06:47 PM
Response to Reply #114
126. Are you serious?
Ask the fundie nutcases why they refuse to respect Roe.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tsuki Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-18-05 04:12 PM
Response to Original message
85. A similar case involving a 68-year-old man...Is that Spiro?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
deadparrot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-18-05 04:54 PM
Response to Original message
105. You see the color of that baby's skin? There's your answer. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spanone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-18-05 05:08 PM
Response to Original message
113. Selective Outrage. What the hell is the Senate doing? Fucking Tom DeLay.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lisabtrucking Donating Member (807 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-18-05 06:43 PM
Response to Original message
124. Yeah where are all those repugs with this. How sad. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Deja Q Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-18-05 06:49 PM
Response to Original message
127. No details? Was it a healthy baby? What's posted is insufficient.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ultraist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-18-05 10:31 PM
Response to Reply #127
135. No, he was not born healthy
from OP link:
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.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
oldcoot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-18-05 07:11 PM
Response to Original message
130. Bush, right-to-lifers and this law
Bush and the "right-to-life" movement in Texas is partially responsible for getting this law passed. In 1999, Governor Bush signed an earlier version of this law that only applied to adults. However, this law was later amended in 2003 to include minors. According to this web site http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/healthlawprof_blog (scroll down the page to March 16), "representatives of National Right to Life, Texas Right to Life" testified in favor of this bill in 1999. In 2003, " one of the co-drafters in both 1999 and 2003 was the National Right to Life Committee."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ultraist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-18-05 10:33 PM
Response to Reply #130
136. That is SO hypocritical!
They push to give the State to control ENDING life, even if it means overriding parental rights. uggh...

They are consistent though in their push to give the State more control over our bodies in general or the bodies of those we have custody of.

I wonder if Texas is the only state that has this law. I had never heard of it before this OP.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Horse with no Name Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-19-05 01:01 AM
Response to Reply #130
190. I'm exhausted and its been a very long day, but I believe this
legislation coincided with his tort reform he enacted in Texas (coming soon to a state near you).
I wonder if that was coincidental?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Princess Turandot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-18-05 10:53 PM
Response to Original message
138. Search for the threads on this..
this was a profoundly & terminally ill child who apparently needed to be sedated much of the time due to extensive pain from his condition. The hospital went to court to take the child off of support and also paid for the mother's lawyers. The mother had some unusual notions, believing that her child was fathered by the Sun, and that the Sun would cure him. That was one of her main arguments for keeping him on life support.

This was a heart-breaking situation which had nothing to do with race. Using this case and the child's race to rant against the absurdity of the Schiavo situation does nothing to advance the argument against the interference of the rightwingers in the Schiavo case.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NNN0LHI Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-18-05 11:08 PM
Response to Reply #138
140. "also paid for the mother's lawyers" Incorrect. See post #19 n/t
Edited on Fri Mar-18-05 11:10 PM by NNN0LHI
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Princess Turandot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-18-05 11:19 PM
Response to Reply #140
143. I've seen two completely different versions of the lawyer situation..
but based on everything else that was posted in the original threads on this, many from posters in the immediate area who were familiar with the hospital in question, I don't believe the child's race had anything at all to do with the hospital's actions. The child wasn't 'killed' because he was black; he was removed from life support because his prognosis was terminal & he was suffering. There are plenty of examples of hypocrisy and bias in the Bush Administration starting with an $18B Medicaid funding cut; IMO this tragedy doesn't need to be mired in the Schiavo discussion because it has the convenient parallel of the removal of artificial life support.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ultraist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-18-05 11:46 PM
Response to Reply #143
156. I do believe race had a lot to do with it
There are huge disparities between blacks and whites with health care as well as income, education, home ownership, etc.

Racism is a serious social ill. Why would you just assume it race wasn't involved when more often than not, it is?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LisaL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-18-05 11:50 PM
Response to Reply #156
160. If it's about race, if Terri was black, would the same people
who want her feeding tube removed now, demand it stay in?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ultraist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-19-05 12:07 AM
Response to Reply #160
175. Why weren't the prolifers in Texas advocating for this baby?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LisaL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-19-05 12:14 AM
Response to Reply #175
177. How do you know they weren't?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ultraist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-19-05 12:51 AM
Response to Reply #177
188. Do you have a source that says they were?
None of the news reports on this say they were. I also haven't heard about it on CNN like I have the Terri case.

Seems to me, if they had been there making a big scene like they are over Terri, we would have seen a news report on this, doncha think?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LisaL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-19-05 01:10 AM
Response to Reply #188
193. I really don't know if the pukes did protest or not.
Edited on Sat Mar-19-05 01:11 AM by lizzy
Apparently, some on DU wish they did.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bettyellen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-19-05 01:33 AM
Response to Reply #193
204. there were no puke protests....i don't know why they couldn't send a few
from florida.
oh yeah, it's because they don't gie a fuck about black people. not their kind of PR. never has been, never will.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LisaL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-19-05 12:20 AM
Response to Reply #156
181. And if he was white, he still would have most likely died.
Edited on Sat Mar-19-05 12:21 AM by lizzy
And at a rare chance that he didn't die, he would have been severely retarded, needing a ventilator to live. Do you think this disease cares if the person is white or black?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ultraist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-19-05 03:04 PM
Response to Reply #181
260. They have NEVER pulled the plug on a white baby
Health CARE and what disease are two totally different things Lizzy and I think you know that. Why are you using fallacious arguments to support your opinion? Are you at a loss for any logical reasons? Is that why?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proud2BlibKansan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-19-05 07:46 PM
Response to Reply #138
268. I think you can compare the two cases
And first of all, let me say up front that I am in favor of allowing BOTH of these people to die. This baby would have died eventually due to its serious birth defects. And Terri Schiavo is, for all practical purposes, dead already. Besides, her husband's wishes should be honored.

But how hypocritical of the right to make a campaign out of saving Schiavo but ignoring this little baby. They can't have it both ways. If the baby is allowed to die, Terri should be also. It is hypocritical (and racist) to let the baby die but advocate for Terri to live.

I say run with it. As I stated on a post on another thread, apologies to Terri's family, but let's milk this for all it's worth and make those fundie RW idiots look like the hypocritical ignorant idiots that they are.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
me b zola Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-18-05 11:49 PM
Response to Original message
159. Fuck you shrub, fuck you right-to-lifers
May you all burn:grr: :nuke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nonconformist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-18-05 11:52 PM
Response to Original message
164. Vote for Greatest Page from me
This speaks volumes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LisaL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-19-05 12:15 AM
Response to Reply #164
178. Speaks volumes about DU as well.
Edited on Sat Mar-19-05 12:16 AM by lizzy
Apparently, a life as a profoundly retarded person on a ventilator is worth living. Who would have thunk? And that was this child's best hope.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nonconformist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-19-05 12:21 AM
Response to Reply #178
182. I'm not making any presumptions on whether it was right or wrong
To remove his breathing tube. From what I read, I think it was likely the correct ruling.

The point is, where was the outrage over this? The fundies are so selective in their outrage. It's hard to drum up the same kind of sympathy for a black baby of a mentally ill mother though I guess.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LisaL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-19-05 12:33 AM
Response to Reply #182
184. I don't know if fundies are outraged by this or not.
I am more surprised how many people on DU are outraged by this.
Really, the best baby SUN could hope for is being a severely retarded on a ventilator.
I guess we should start a poll on who would want to live "that way".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Horse with no Name Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-19-05 01:23 AM
Response to Reply #184
198. The outrage is simple
Terri's legal next of kin wants her life support removed and its not because of state intervention.
Sun's legal next of kin wanted his life support to remain and it didn't because of state intervention.

Neither Terri nor Sun has/had a chance at a meaningful life.
Neither Terri nor Sun has/had a chance at life without life support.

Terri's condition dictates that she have round the clock care.
Sun's condition dictated that he have round the clock care.

Terri has a traumatic brain injury without chance for recovery.
Sun's best hope was to be profoundly retarded.
Both give about the same results cognitively.

Terri's family has had 17+ years to come to terms with the inevibility.
Sun's mom had 6 months and had not yet come to terms with the inevibility.

I can't speak for anyone else, but my outrage at BOTH cases is that the LEGAL NEXT OF KIN's wishes are not followed.

As a health care practitioner, this scares the hell out of me. What is going to happen when someone presents as legal next of kin and they sign consents for surgeries or other procedures, then another family member comes along and says that they don't agree. Are we going to flood the courts with these types of decisions? This is setting dangerous precedents and in the end, the patient will be the one paying the price.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nonconformist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-19-05 01:25 AM
Response to Reply #198
199. Great post.
You summed it up well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LisaL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-19-05 01:40 AM
Response to Reply #198
207. Well, really, courts sometimes is the only way to go
if relatives disagree. What is to be done in a situation when one parent wants life support removed, and the other doesn't? Wouldn't both parents be next of kin?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Horse with no Name Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-19-05 02:18 AM
Response to Reply #207
216. Thats a tough one
But yes that would have to be resolved in a court. It isn't as touchy when you are removing life support because that generally isn't an emergent situation, but it becomes more difficult when there is a life threatening condition requiring a life threatening surgery and time is of the essence.

This is the hierarchy of legal next of kin:

1. Healthcare Power of Attorney
2. Court appointed Guardian or Guardian ad litum
3. Spouse, unless legally separated
4. Adult children, majority
5. Parent
6. Domestic Partner (if unmarried and another person has not assumed financial responsibility for the patient)
7. Adult brother or sister
8. Close friend


Personally, I am divorced and I don't trust my mother or my brothers to make the decision I would want and I wouldn't want to burden my kids with this decision. My best friend has my healthcare power of attorney and we have discussed these issues at length.
I have also expressed implicitly what types of treatments are acceptable and which aren't and under which circumstances.
I highly recommend everyone do the same.

I took care of a patient once whose living will stated "Do everything you can do for me for 7 days. I ask that my fellow church members pray extensively for me at this time. If no change on the 8th day, I wish for all support to be withdrawn".

You can write anything you want in these things...so think about it carefully.

Believe it or not Lizzy, I know where you are coming from and I applaud your motivations. I don't disagree with you on the point that Terri deserves to live, I just disagree on the point that it isn't her parent's decision.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LisaL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-19-05 02:56 AM
Response to Reply #216
217. That's the problem I have with this case-why
is Michael still considered to be her husband? He is living with another woman, he is raising two children with that woman. If Terri was not in PVS, and her husband left her for another woman, and was living with that other woman for 10 years, raising 2 children with that woman, wouldn't Terri and Michael be considered separated? Then, her guardianship should go to her parents?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sonicx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-19-05 03:10 AM
Response to Reply #217
218. He wants her wishes correctly cared out.
the parents said that even if Terri told them she would not want to live in her current state that they would not respect that choice.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Horse with no Name Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-19-05 07:54 AM
Response to Reply #217
223. Legally he is her husband
Edited on Sat Mar-19-05 08:31 AM by Horse with no Name
The only two people who can dissolve that union are Terri and Michael and Terri is incapacitated and not fit to make legal decisions.
And seriously, a good attorney could argue that Terri left Michael first. Granted she "left him" to live in a post vegetative state as opposed to live with another man, yet the resulting estrangement equals the same abandonment. The illness she had and the choices she made led to the condition she was in. This quagmire opens too many cans of worms. If they rule that "he left her, therefore it dissolves their union", then they will have to concede that the only thing necessary for a a marriage to be considered null and void is for each party to just leave and start a new life without due process of legal proceedings.
She left the marriage first, not pointing blame, but the fact that he followed suit is not a judicial decision, but an intensely private one.
Added on edit:
Many people want to point fingers at Michael for being selfish and for abandoning his responsibilities by living with another woman and starting a new life, but the bitter truth is that he is staying in this to carry out the final wishes of his wife and is to be commended for doing so.
Turn the tables a little bit and see that his actions are not motivated by anything but that committment.
What would happen if Michael were to get in an accident and die, leaving the current woman he resides with and their family?
This woman who is raising his kids would not be entitled to his Social Security benefits (I believe his children would though) nor rights of survivorship on his assets. Terri would be his beneficiary, thus making Terri's parents beneficiaries of HIS estate after she died.
He can't even have a life insurance policy with this lady because legally the beneficiary has to be your spouse unless your spouse signs an affidavit stating that is okay with them--which Terri is not capable of doing.
It seems to me that so many want to judge his motives as selfish, when in fact I find them short of heroic in the legal battlefield.
He has chosen to take the heat from critics regarding his current living arrangement to see Terri's final wishes out to the end, despite the fact that if something were to happen to him, his current family would suffer an immense financial loss and hardship because he chose to see this through to the end and do what he felt was the right thing.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LisaL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-19-05 11:17 AM
Response to Reply #223
232. Well, maybe he is concerned about his current lady.
Edited on Sat Mar-19-05 11:18 AM by lizzy
Wants to marry her? After all, she is the mother of his children. But he can't marry her while Terri is still alive.
You think it proves he doesn't have a motive to want Terri dead, other than her wishes to not live "that way".
I view it as a possible motive on his part.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Horse with no Name Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-19-05 11:53 AM
Response to Reply #232
237. He gains more than he loses if he simply walks away
Edited on Sat Mar-19-05 11:55 AM by Horse with no Name
He gains freedom and independence from this circus, he gains his ability to marry his current lady, he gains his life back in essence. There have been monetary offers to divorce her which he has refused.
Terri doesn't have to be dead for him to achieve this...it can be done through a simple divorce.
But herein lies the crux of the matter.
Terri's wishes were not to live this way. He is honoring his committment to his wife as her legal next of kin by putting himself through this mess for no personal gain that I can see. He is her only advocate that is supposed to legally count. The minute he steps aside by divorcing her is the minute he completely let's her down by taking the easy way out and not standing up for her wants and desires when it counted most. In essence, it is THAT moment and that moment alone that he would commit the ultimate betrayal of his marriage to her. He didn't betray her when he continued living his life after her life was obviously over. Terri can't be considered as living as much as she can be considered being "undead".
He doesn't need a motive to put himself out of this special situation of misery that has been created. The door is open for the easy way out for him, he just refuses to take it and I applaud him for that.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LisaL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-19-05 12:54 PM
Response to Reply #237
244. I knew he wouldn't accept the money. He can't accept the
money and not loose face. He claims he is following Terri's wishes. Would Terri wish for her parents to suffer the way they are?
Unlike baby Sun, there are apparently other facilities willing to take Terri in, or however it is her parents are going to arrange for her care.
According to Drs. baby Sun was dying, he was slowly suffocating to death. Terri was not dying. Her life expectancy was estimated to be 50 years during the malpractice trial. Michael Schiavo wanted to take care of her for the rest of HIS life. Back then he apparently either didn't remember her wishes to not "live that way" or didn't care about them. Yet, some people on DU are outraged baby Sun was not allowed to continue, but very happy Terri isn't. What gives?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Horse with no Name Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-19-05 02:03 PM
Response to Reply #244
255. Terri isn't happy
Terri isn't sad. Terri isn't anything because Terri doesn't have intact brain function.
Terri functions at the level of a houseplant. You water her, she grows and thrives.
You don't water her, she withers up and dies.
You cannot use the argument of a baby that isn't fed will die to, because of the age appropriateness of the expectation.
It's very simple.
You may not understand the process of grief and loss, but I don't know where Michael Schiavo was during the trial...do you think maybe he was at the bargaining stage..."I'll take care of her as long as I live God if you will just let her be better" and now he is finally at the acceptance phase "I know she isn't going to get better so it is time to end this".
I DO NOT ADVOCATE THAT SUN SHOULD HAVE STAYED ON LIFE SUPPORT FOREVER.
I simply advocated that his mother be guided to acceptance of his grave situation and allow her the process of grief and loss. If Terri's mother has not found that after 17 years then chances are she will never find it. I do feel sorry for her because that is a very difficult state to be in.
As far as facilities accepting Sun vs. Terri.
Terri is not in critical care on a vent at a high level hospital that offers the best care money can buy. That is the sole reason other facilities were not willing to take this baby.They couldn't provide any additional level of care that the boy wasn't already receiving.
Terri is not a little black boy with a mentally unfit mother in denial of his situation.
Terri is a political cause and nobody ever made Sun a political cause. He didn't have extended family fighting for his right to live because he barely had a mother, let alone an intact support system.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
southlandshari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-19-05 07:45 PM
Response to Reply #198
267. kick
Edited on Sat Mar-19-05 07:51 PM by southlandshari
for a great post that gets at the heart of the matter at hand.

Rather, I thought this thread was one of the few that was NOT about whether or not Shiavo or Hudson should have been removed from life-sustaining equipment. There are a gazillion other threads where people can fight this out (at least when it comes to Shiavo, who even on DU matters a hell of a lot more than a little black baby born to a single mother with psychological problems).

No, I thought this thread was much more about who matters - and who doesn't - in the eyes of those we have entrusted to represent us in a "government of the people, by the people, for the people" than it was about medical issues, life expectancy, quality of life, etc...

Again, thanks for saying far more clearly what many of us have been trying to point out here!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bettyellen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-19-05 01:26 AM
Response to Reply #184
201. the only outrage i've seen by were people who were completely uniformed
about the baby's history and prognosis.
like those people who think terri's parenys care what she wanted or are just going to take her home.
lots of ignorance and innuendo substituting for knowledge.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paineinthearse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-19-05 12:42 AM
Response to Original message
185. Brown babies don't count nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Straight Story Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-19-05 01:15 AM
Response to Original message
194. Did/Do folks here (in general) support this one as well? (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bettyellen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-19-05 01:36 AM
Response to Original message
205. they let it pass completely unnoticed because they're not RW poster people
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Roxy66 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-19-05 01:40 AM
Response to Original message
206. This makes me so sad......I'm sure the story would be different if
the family came from a so-called fluent community...the Main Stream Media sucks!!!!!!! I dont know if she was a single mom or not (I am), but she sure didnt get the coverage it deserved. GRRRRRR!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LisaL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-19-05 01:41 AM
Response to Reply #206
208. How would it be different? Do you think baby Sun would be
miraculously cured then?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Roxy66 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-19-05 01:48 AM
Response to Reply #208
210. My point is that this mother had her parenting powers removed by the state
THAT SCARES THE SHIT OUT OF ME......CAN YOU SAY "POLICE STATE"!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Exit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-19-05 01:53 AM
Response to Original message
211. Fellow soulless and immoral democrats, I give you...
... the compassion and Godliness of a holy Christian Bush-voting freeper:

"To: DCPatriot

The baby was not really a baby. This was not life in any way you could define it.

45 posted on 03/16/2005 6:53:53 AM PST by Howlin (Free the Eason Jordan Tape!!!)"

On this very subject, the subject of this baby, the above post was made by "Howlin" who is a well-known and longstanding freeptard.

You see, folks, we just don't understand how to dedicate our lives to Jesus...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Roxy66 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-19-05 02:03 AM
Response to Reply #211
214. not surprised at all...there is a fundamental difference between Dems and
Repugs.....I would love to see a true and thorough psychological study done on the differences is mental processes between Dems and Repugs. Has there been one yet? It would be a very clear difference.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Exit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-19-05 10:21 AM
Response to Reply #214
228. One thing I know already, about today's repukelicans
The people currently calling themselves republicans will follow blindly. Those people will follow whatever person or entity has power. Those people are cowed and impressed by power.

The people currently calling themselves republicans do not like science because science asks questions. It's hard to follow blindly when questions arise. They call their blind, sheeplike, following "faith".

But faith is something which should be reserved for times when we really, really, can't know the answer. At such times, there is nothing left but faith. Repukelicans use what they call "faith" to close their eyes deliberately to whatever doesn't make sense--even if the answer is waiting to be found. Repukes are mentally lazy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
oldcoot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-19-05 02:53 PM
Response to Reply #211
259. Yet these people oppose abortion in most cases
Had the mother known that her child was going to be born with these problems and decided to get an abortion, they would have called her a baby killer.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bread_and_roses Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-19-05 08:31 AM
Response to Original message
225. Was this the child in severe unremitting pain? If so
how can anyone recommend keeping a child with no hope of recovery, unable to even breath on his own, on a ventilator if all prolonged life meant was prolonged pain?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Horse with no Name Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-19-05 12:06 PM
Response to Reply #225
239. The condition causes pain however
Babies in his condition that are ventilated are kept heavily medicated to keep from feeling the pain.
My point is, that the mother was still in the first stages of grief and hung up on the denial bit.
She didn't have the opportunity to move past that to realize that her son was not going to have any quality of life.
My problem with this is that the mother should have been given more time to come to terms with the inevibility. 6 months was clearly not enough for her and the baby could have been kept in his suspended state until that was achieved.
It has nothing to do with my personal beliefs...I would have grasped that fact many months ago and put an end to it had it been my baby and my choice.
The point of this is the mother lost her right of choice for her child to live.
This is a very important ruling. What if your child is injured or ill and the doctor/hospital/insurance company doesn't have any hope for recovery and you still do? Is it okay for them to kill your child when you are in total disagreement of what is being said?
Let me tell you in case you don't know. Doctors make mistakes, every single day. Are you willing to let a mistaken diagnosis end the life of your child? Or would you prefer to be completely comfortable with the plan of care--even if it includes withdrawal of life support?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LisaL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-19-05 12:48 PM
Response to Reply #239
243. Why not give the same consideration to Terri's mother?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Horse with no Name Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-19-05 01:47 PM
Response to Reply #243
254. She is not her legal next of kin.
That is the entire argument as I see it.
I don't advocate going around to nursing homes randomly pulling life support off of people whose next of kins wish to keep them connected to tubes as long as they can to further a cause.
IF their legal guardians wish for them to remain alive, then that is their business. More power to them and I hope for them the best.
IF Michael wished to keep Terri alive, then as her legal guardian that should be respected as well and that would be the decision.
The problem that I have is that her legal guardian has made the decision and it should be respected, whether you agree with it or not. This case would NEVER have been this controversial if they had just stuck to the letter of the law and not attempted to intertwine religion, politics and medical ethics.
This is simply another Pro-Choice topic (at the other end of the spectrum) disguised in sheeps clothing.
Terri did not choose her parents.
Terri chose her husband.
Her husband chooses to end this fascade and let her die as per her wishes.
Her mother and father have absolutely no legal standing in this matter whatsoever and while it is desirable that they should agree, in the case that they do not, that is why there is a hierachy of guardianship in place and her parents are not at the top of the hierarchy.
The law regarding kinship should be followed.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
oldcoot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-19-05 02:09 PM
Response to Reply #243
256. Terri is not a minor
Parents are responsible for the minor children but not for their adult children. The infant in the Texas case was a minor. However, his mother really had no say in her son's fate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bread_and_roses Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-19-05 01:15 PM
Response to Reply #239
248. What rational mother would choose unending suffering for her child
when there is no hope for it ending other than death?

"Let me tell you in case you don't know:" well, being a well-educated person I am fully aware that Dr.'s, being human, make mistakes. Nor does my question about this case indicate in any way that there are not unconscionable inequities in the health care options of the rich/poor or white/minority or insured/uninsured. Nor does it in any way refute the assumptions that the christo-fascists will use what they can for THEIR agenda without regard for the suffering of the individuals they are exploiting. Nor does it indicate a disregard for any legal rights (which, if they were violated, should not have been) the rights of the disabled, or the profound grief of this situation for the mother, whatever her mental state. I am a mother myself, she has my compassion.

But parental rights are not absolute. When there is clear and irrefutable evidence that great harm will be done at the parent's behest, those rights can and should be over-ridden - never lightly, never without safeguards, checks, balances. But if a child is going to die from appendicitis because his parent's religion forbids medical intervention, then yes, someone should step in and over-ride their rights. And if an infant is being kept alive artificially, and that life-support only prolongs his/her suffering, then I think continuing that life-support is wrong.

And while Dr's make mistakes, I do not think that many take death lightly, or are eager to end lives. I am not qualified to determine whether or not this child was suffering. But if he was, then for me, his pain trumps his mother's (who's capacity to even understand whether or not her child was in pain seems somewhat in doubt) and allowing that pain to continue, with no hope of respite or cure, would be unconscionable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Horse with no Name Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-19-05 02:17 PM
Response to Reply #248
257. This child did not have a mentally fit advocate
to argue his rights as a human being and nobody made sure that he did. A poor black baby with congenital malformations from the ghetto in Houston with a mentally unfit mother and no support system is not a political cause that anyone wants to embrace without having to address that abortions are sometimes necessary, lack of prenatal care in that sector of Houston, and the fact that the mother is on the streets without any type of medication for her obvious mental disease.
IF I were God, I would have d/c'd life support long ago on this child and on Terri to end their needless suffering.
However, I only advocated time for Sun's mother to come to terms with this and feel strongly that a guardian ad litum should have been appointed for this child to serve his interests when his mother could not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
oldcoot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-19-05 02:32 PM
Response to Reply #248
258. This law applies to the rational as well as the "insane"
Under Texas law, it does not matter if you are perfectly sane. The hospital, not the family members, makes the final decision in whether or not to terminate care and if you do not agree with their decision, you have a whole ten days to find another facility for your loved one. Considering that many long-care facilities have waiting lists, this might be difficult. Of course, the hospital is suppose to help you find a place for your loved one but if you are not fully aware of your legal rights, you may not get the help you need from the hospital.

While I am sure that many doctors do not take death lightly, I really do not think that most have an emotional bond with their patients. Frankly, many of them do not have the time to really get to know their patients. Indeed, if you are a member of an HMO, you are lucky if you even see a doctor for more than 10 minutes. The patients' families, with rare exceptions, are more likely to care about what happens to them and have the desire to do what is best for their loved ones. Indeed, hospitals are also usually businesses concerned about the bottom line. Moreover, insurance companies might even pressure hospitals to end the "suffering" of patients who require long-term care.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ultraist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-19-05 03:24 PM
Response to Reply #248
263. The mother was denied her rights
If the State believes that a parent is unfit, there are laws and processes to prove that. They simply side stepped those laws, thus violated her parental rights and made the decision for her.

That is the issue here. The State does not have the right to interfere with the rights of a legal custodian, unless they have proven the custodian is unfit. Only IF a custodian is shown to be abusive/neglectful, in court, can the state interfere.

I'm not willing to give up my parental rights or right to due process at the whim of the State. Are you?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LisaL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-19-05 10:13 PM
Response to Reply #263
280. I guess the hospital should have left baby Sun on a ventilator,
so he could die a natural death of suffocating to death. What do I know?
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PittLib Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-05 02:51 AM
Response to Reply #280
293. so what you're saying is ...
starving "bad" ... suffocating "good"? Taking the baby off the vent meant that he would suffocate, just sooner than later. And apparently starving is so horrible that the alternative is to shove a tube in to keep the body "alive" never mind the atrophy or infection. Brilliant. Really.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spanone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-19-05 10:25 AM
Response to Original message
229. Too busy sending 'fresh' troops to die in the middle east.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fortyfeetunder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-19-05 12:55 PM
Response to Original message
245. Once again, our policies protect the unborn
But once they are out of the womb, the Right to Lifers don't give a shit about the kids, especially if they aren't WASP litters.

The part that is particularly disturbing to me is the mother had NO prenatal care whatsoever.

Had the fatal birth defect been discovered during pre-natal care, what are the chances she could have gotten an abortion?

The hypocrisy of this case stinks like day old feces.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LisaL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-19-05 10:11 PM
Response to Reply #245
279. I doubt she would even believe the doctors if they told her about
the baby's condition. She believed everything would be fine because SUN was going to take care of it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PittLib Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-05 02:53 AM
Response to Reply #279
294. And again ...
I would like to commend you on your fantastic analysis (judgment) of people you don't know. Your compassion is overwhelming.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-19-05 07:30 PM
Response to Original message
265. Blacks are not stupid
if the GOP thinks they don't see the obvious difference between how they want Schiavo to live and this otherwise healthy baby die, they really are completely deluded by their ideology.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LisaL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-19-05 09:50 PM
Response to Reply #265
277. Otherwise healthy baby?
Who exactly is delusional here?
Do you know anything about this baby's condition? Maybe you should find something out first, before posting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftchick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-19-05 10:27 PM
Response to Original message
281. baby is black and...
the protests of the Iraq invasion have not quite started yet.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
goodboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-20-05 09:51 AM
Response to Original message
287. I love you NNNOLHI! Great post! Thank you!. nm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Selteri Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-20-05 12:14 PM
Response to Original message
289. Repug-ocrisy
Republican Hypocrisy strikes again

The difference, it the the hospital vs the mentally unstable mother

instead of 'the bereaved family' vs 'the evil husband' nobody that they can play off of for sympathy.

We need both universal health care and solid medical and verifiable standards that are approved by an elected board of ethicists to reflect the ethics and laws of each state.

The 'State' Government of Texas is using a paper that was signed into law by George W. Bush in 1999 to have disconnected this child who did have a full brain wave pattern in comparison to Terry Shivo who has a null pattern.

Republican hypocrisy in action again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cyberpj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-20-05 01:12 PM
Response to Original message
291. Where are they with THIS happening?
U.N.: Congo militias grilled victims alive - Congo is #1 world problem

EDDY ISANGO
Associated Press
Posted on Thu, Mar. 17, 2005

Members of the group were suspected of killing nine U.N. peacekeepers in a Feb. 25 ambush. On March 1, gunmen fired on Pakistani peacekeepers and the peacekeepers fought back, killing up to 60 fighters, U.N. officials said at the time.

Congo became a battleground for six nations during a 1998-2002 war that killed some 50,000 people directly and another 3 million through strife-induced hunger and disease. But sporadic fighting continues between militiamen, rebels and government troops in the lawless northeast.

Jan Egeland, head of U.N Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, said Wednesday that the fighting in Congo had overtaken Sudan's embattled Darfur region as the world's most serious humanitarian crisis.

"Measured in human lives lost, I think that Congo is the number one problem in the world today," Egeland told reporters in Geneva, Switzerland.

About 3 million Congolese are now in acute need of assistance and as many as 30,000 people are dying every month from conflict-related causes, Egeland said.

The United Nations says Sudan's Darfur region remains a major crisis, estimating that about 180,000 people have died there since October 2003 and a further 1.8 million have been displaced.


http://www.centredaily.com/mld/centredaily/news/politics/11154568.htm

Oh...but let's have a congressional furor over one American woman who's been brain dead for years and years and years!

Oh...and let's make a national issue out of baseball players who willingly take steroids.

Oh...and let's create nationwide division and rewrite the constitution over humans with alternate lifestyles.

Oh...and someone PLEASE wake me from this bad bad dream!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-05 10:15 AM
Response to Reply #291
295. If only it *were* a dream...
:(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
clem_c_rock Donating Member (989 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-05 02:51 PM
Response to Original message
298. Answer: She's black
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 30th 2024, 10:56 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC