Can Anyone Verify - Bush Signed Law as Gov of TX to Shut-off Life Support

for children, even if their parents wanted the life support to be continued, if the parents were not able to pay for the care.

If this is true, the corporate media REALLY MISSED BIG (AGAIN), because that would have exposed Bush's hypocrisy.

P.S. I think we ought to frequently mention that Bush holds the record for executions, whenever Bushies are crowing about that "culture of life" crap.

http://www.markarkleiman.com/archives/_/2005/03/schiavo_hudson_and_nikolouzos.php


George W. Bush, while governor of Texas, signed a law allowing hospitals to terminate life-support for incapacitated patients, even against the wishes of the family. Especially if the patient cannot pay.

Here's the Houston Chronicle's story referencing the state law signed by Bush:

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

Hospitals can end life support
Decision hinges on patient's ability to pay, prognosis

and another recent Chronicle story regarding the termination of life support of an infant against the mother's wishes:

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

(This weekend Tom DeLay gave a press conference stating that (1) patients in this condition deserve due process and (2) doctors can be wrong about a prognosis ). Where was Tom DeLay? This story was in the news for several weeks - in his own district.
____________________________

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

They appear to have been purged.

NGU.

http://onoekeh.blogspot.com/2005/03/remove-life-support-says-george-w-bush.html

Seems the whore media doesn't want to investigate this, just like the thousand other things * has done since becoming our commando-in-chief.

all during the Schiavo debacle. Delay pulling the plug on his father should have been the "and also" story.

Bush's life-support terminating law should have gotten at least as many front page headlines and been mentioned as many times as "forged documents" during Rathergate.

Does Air America radio know about this? Shouldn't some anti-Bush, anti-GOP 527 be running attack ads right now? I just can't believe he gets away with this crap. And the material to make him look like a cruel sadistic liar is right there in front of our faces over and over again.

but I'm not sure anyone can explain the reasoning behind the media to withhold these stories. I've heard they're controlled by *, I've heard they're a bunch of fundies; but you know what? As long as the Dems don't fight on these indescrepancies, then why are we getting so livid? We're only stressing ourselves out. We're not in power and won't be until 2006. Until then, I'm just going to keep a record of who does what, for my own personal sanity.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7305206/site/newsweek/

(was posted earlier on DU)

tomorrow. was going to talk about one thing, only to see today they are organizing to fight abortion, euthansia, and gather for voting, but when they talk about not killing i am going to bring up this law. and if this isnt their number one issue, this law here in texas theya re no more than hypocrits

Bush said that your ability to pay limited options?

I did hear it discussed on some shows, however, they all seemed to just underplay it, which wasn't right. There was just a case where they took an infant off the vent against his mother's wishes. I must say, however, that it was a very appropriate action, because he was ancephalic, with only lower brain functions. The mother was a charismatic person who thought there would be a miracle. Sometimes, the miracle isn't what we ask for.
morcatknits

i think that could be argued in both cases.

I believe the TX Futile Care (?) law Bush** passed in 1999 only applied to adults. An amendment by the TX legislature in 2003 extended it to children. It's a very small technicality, and while it doesn't make an iota of difference to the rampant hypocrisy we're seeing from the Right I thought I should clarify.

The absolute bottom line is the RW discriminates between the haves and have-nots in everything, including their blessed "Culture of Life".

this is a fact that everyone needs to know.

I cannot believe the corporate media did not crow about this. It is blatant hypocrisy and would have really exposed * as a lying fraud.