Husband hits at bid to save coma wife (US media does not see W Hypocrisy?

Does anyone wonder why the husband of a severely brain-damaged woman condemned to a slow death by starvation has launched a vitriolic attack on last-minute efforts to keep her alive - or that the US Media has shown its "liberal side" - as in total control by the GOP -in not noting Bush/GOP Hypocrisy after they passed the 1999 Texas law law allowing hospitals to cut life support over a family's objections?

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1441815,00.html

Husband hits at bid to save coma wife

Politicians wanting her fed 'acting like Soviet Politburo'

Richard Luscombe in Miami
Sunday March 20, 2005
The Observer

<snip>However, the lawyer for Michael Schiavo, who insists that his wife never wanted to be kept alive artificially, has accused the Washington politicians of 'acting like the Soviet Politburo'.

'I feel like the government has just trampled all over my personal life,' Schiavo said hours after nutrition to his 41-year-old wife was withdrawn for the third time since he began his fight with her family a decade ago.

'It is incomprehensible that a government can walk all over somebody's private judicial matter because of their own personal feelings. It is just horrible the way the government is acting. This is what Terri wanted. It is her wish.'

The intervention of politicians, who sought to protect Mrs Schiavo by naming her as a witness in a congressional inquiry, and a flurry of last-minute legal activity, highlight the deep divisions in America's longest-running and most emotionally charged right-to-die case.

Her husband claims that his wife, who suffered brain damage after she collapsed at their St Petersburg home in 1990, told members of his family that she would never want to be kept alive by artificial means. He has won a succession of legal rulings from Greer that feeding should be discontinued, and he turned down a $1 million offer from a Californian businessman to turn over care of her to his wife's parents.

++++++++++++++++++++++++

Things the US Media finds hard to mention:

In '99 GWBush sighed into law a"cut off life support over family obj."bill

Q: Who signed a Texas law allowing hospitals to cut life support over a family's objections? A: GWB.

Why does the media not discuss this Hypocrisy. Is this supposed to be a state secret or is it just more of our RW GOP controlled media?

In 1999 then governor Bush signed a law which allowed hospitals to withdraw life support from patients, over the objections of the family, if they consider the treatment to be nonbeneficial.

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/3...

Hospitals can end life support
Decision hinges on patient's ability to pay, prognosis
By LEIGH HOPPER
Copyright 2005 Houston Chronicle

Bill Olive / Chronicle
(L-r)Mario Caballero, Spiro Nikolouzos Jr. and Jannette Nikolouzos. St. Luke's notified Jannette Nikolouzos in a March 1 letter that it would withdraw life-sustaining care of her husband of 34 years, Spiro Nikolouzos, in 10 days.

A patient's inability to pay for medical care combined with a prognosis that renders further care futile are two reasons a hospital might suggest cutting off life support, the chief medical officer at St. Luke's Episcopal Hospital said Monday.

Dr. David Pate's comments came as the family of Spiro Nikolouzos fights to keep St. Luke's from turning off the ventilator and artificial feedings keeping the 68-year-old grandfather alive.

St. Luke's notified Jannette Nikolouzos in a March 1 letter that it would withdraw life-sustaining care of her husband of 34 years in 10 days, which would be Friday. Mario Caba-llero, the attorney representing the family, said he is seeking a two-week extension, at minimum, to give the man more time to improve and to give his family more time to find an alternative facility.<snip>


http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/3073295

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/healthscience/stories/031605dntexbaby.bc467.html

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/3079622

Just a coincidence, of course.

When I worked in the medical field, feeding tubes were not considered 'life support'. They are most often used when the patient's swallowing reflex is weak, or uneven (dry, thick foods do not go down easily)and it is feared the patient will aspirate food into his/her lungs, causing pneumonia--or when it is feared he/she will not eat enough of the right foods for proper nutrition.

There was a nurse testifying that Terri could eat a number of foods normally, but it was her husband who allowed only the feeding tube...

Fellow Seattleite.... :)

I have seen so many falsehoods on this subject.

And here's a copy of the state statute:

Texas Health & Safety Code - Chapter 166

§ 166.046. PROCEDURE IF NOT EFFECTUATING A DIRECTIVE OR
TREATMENT DECISION. (a) If an attending physician refuses to
honor a patient's advance directive or a health care or treatment
decision made by or on behalf of a patient, the physician's refusal
shall be reviewed by an ethics<0> or medical committee. The attending
physician may not be a member of that committee. The patient shall
be given life<0>-sustaining treatment during the review.
(b) The patient or the person responsible for the health
care decisions of the individual who has made the decision
regarding the directive or treatment decision:
(1) may be given a written description of the ethics<0> or
medical committee review process and any other policies and
procedures related to this section adopted by the health care
facility;
(2) shall be informed of the committee review process
not less than 48 hours before the meeting called to discuss the
patient's directive, unless the time period is waived by mutual
agreement;
(3) at the time of being so informed, shall be
provided:
(A) a copy of the appropriate statement set forth
in Section 166.052; and
(B) a copy of the registry list of health care
providers and referral groups that have volunteered their readiness
to consider accepting transfer or to assist in locating a provider
willing to accept transfer that is posted on the website maintained
by the Texas Health Care Information Council under Section 166.053;
and
(4) is entitled to:
(A) attend the meeting; and
(B) receive a written explanation of the decision
reached during the review process.
(c) The written explanation required by Subsection
(b)(2)(B) must be included in the patient's medical record.
(d) If the attending physician, the patient, or the person
responsible for the health care decisions of the individual does
not agree with the decision reached during the review process under
Subsection (b), the physician shall make a reasonable effort to
transfer the patient to a physician who is willing to comply with
the directive. If the patient is a patient in a health care
facility, the facility's personnel shall assist the physician in
arranging the patient's transfer to:
(1) another physician;
(2) an alternative care setting within that facility;
or
(3) another facility.
(e) If the patient or the person responsible for the health
care decisions of the patient is requesting life<0>-sustaining
treatment that the attending physician has decided and the review
process has affirmed is inappropriate treatment, the patient shall
be given available life<0>-sustaining treatment pending transfer
under Subsection (d). The patient is responsible for any costs
incurred in transferring the patient to another facility. The
physician and the health care facility are not obligated to provide
life<0>-sustaining treatment after the 10th day after the written
decision required under Subsection (b) is provided to the patient
or the person responsible for the health care decisions of the
patient unless ordered to do so under Subsection (g).
(e-1) If during a previous admission to a facility a
patient's attending physician and the review process under
Subsection (b) have determined that life<0>-sustaining treatment is
inappropriate, and the patient is readmitted to the same facility
within six months from the date of the decision reached during the
review process conducted upon the previous admission, Subsections
(b) through (e) need not be followed if the patient's attending
physician and a consulting physician who is a member of the ethics<0>
or medical committee of the facility document on the patient's
readmission that the patient's condition either has not improved or
has deteriorated since the review process was conducted.
(f) Life<0>-sustaining treatment under this section may not be
entered in the patient's medical record as medically unnecessary
treatment until the time period provided under Subsection (e) has
expired.
(g) At the request of the patient or the person responsible
for the health care decisions of the patient, the appropriate
district or county court shall extend the time period provided
under Subsection (e) only if the court finds, by a preponderance of
the evidence, that there is a reasonable expectation that a
physician or health care facility that will honor the patient's
directive will be found if the time extension is granted.
(h) This section may not be construed to impose an
obligation on a facility or a home and community support services
agency licensed under Chapter 142 or similar organization that is
beyond the scope of the services or resources of the facility or
agency. This section does not apply to hospice services provided by
a home and community support services agency licensed under Chapter
142.

Added by Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 450, § 1.03, eff. Sept. 1,
1999. Amended by Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 1228, § 3, 4, eff.
June 20, 2003

and the claim that Terri could eat by herself, without a feeding tube.

- which "right to life" signed off on!

Are they gonna give her an apple and send her home??

And here's a copy of the state statute:

Texas Health & Safety Code - Chapter 166

§ 166.046. PROCEDURE IF NOT EFFECTUATING A DIRECTIVE OR
TREATMENT DECISION. (a) If an attending physician refuses to
honor a patient's advance directive or a health care or treatment
decision made by or on behalf of a patient, the physician's refusal
shall be reviewed by an ethics<0> or medical committee. The attending
physician may not be a member of that committee. The patient shall
be given life<0>-sustaining treatment during the review.
(b) The patient or the person responsible for the health
care decisions of the individual who has made the decision
regarding the directive or treatment decision:
(1) may be given a written description of the ethics<0> or
medical committee review process and any other policies and
procedures related to this section adopted by the health care
facility;
(2) shall be informed of the committee review process
not less than 48 hours before the meeting called to discuss the
patient's directive, unless the time period is waived by mutual
agreement;
(3) at the time of being so informed, shall be
provided:
(A) a copy of the appropriate statement set forth
in Section 166.052; and
(B) a copy of the registry list of health care
providers and referral groups that have volunteered their readiness
to consider accepting transfer or to assist in locating a provider
willing to accept transfer that is posted on the website maintained
by the Texas Health Care Information Council under Section 166.053;
and
(4) is entitled to:
(A) attend the meeting; and
(B) receive a written explanation of the decision
reached during the review process.
(c) The written explanation required by Subsection
(b)(2)(B) must be included in the patient's medical record.
(d) If the attending physician, the patient, or the person
responsible for the health care decisions of the individual does
not agree with the decision reached during the review process under
Subsection (b), the physician shall make a reasonable effort to
transfer the patient to a physician who is willing to comply with
the directive. If the patient is a patient in a health care
facility, the facility's personnel shall assist the physician in
arranging the patient's transfer to:
(1) another physician;
(2) an alternative care setting within that facility;
or
(3) another facility.
(e) If the patient or the person responsible for the health
care decisions of the patient is requesting life<0>-sustaining
treatment that the attending physician has decided and the review
process has affirmed is inappropriate treatment, the patient shall
be given available life<0>-sustaining treatment pending transfer
under Subsection (d). The patient is responsible for any costs
incurred in transferring the patient to another facility. The
physician and the health care facility are not obligated to provide
life<0>-sustaining treatment after the 10th day after the written
decision required under Subsection (b) is provided to the patient
or the person responsible for the health care decisions of the
patient unless ordered to do so under Subsection (g).
(e-1) If during a previous admission to a facility a
patient's attending physician and the review process under
Subsection (b) have determined that life<0>-sustaining treatment is
inappropriate, and the patient is readmitted to the same facility
within six months from the date of the decision reached during the
review process conducted upon the previous admission, Subsections
(b) through (e) need not be followed if the patient's attending
physician and a consulting physician who is a member of the ethics<0>
or medical committee of the facility document on the patient's
readmission that the patient's condition either has not improved or
has deteriorated since the review process was conducted.
(f) Life<0>-sustaining treatment under this section may not be
entered in the patient's medical record as medically unnecessary
treatment until the time period provided under Subsection (e) has
expired.
(g) At the request of the patient or the person responsible
for the health care decisions of the patient, the appropriate
district or county court shall extend the time period provided
under Subsection (e) only if the court finds, by a preponderance of
the evidence, that there is a reasonable expectation that a
physician or health care facility that will honor the patient's
directive will be found if the time extension is granted.
(h) This section may not be construed to impose an
obligation on a facility or a home and community support services
agency licensed under Chapter 142 or similar organization that is
beyond the scope of the services or resources of the facility or
agency. This section does not apply to hospice services provided by
a home and community support services agency licensed under Chapter
142.

Added by Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 450, § 1.03, eff. Sept. 1,
1999. Amended by Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 1228, § 3, 4, eff.
June 20, 2003