Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ish who wrote (99478)	3/28/2005 10:10:19 PM
From: Grainne	Respond to of 108807

In response to your earlier inquiry, here is an article about the law Bush signed when he was governor of Texas, taking rights away from the terminally ill: Texas law Bush signed lets hospitals pull plug By CRAIG GORDON Newsday 03/22/2005 WASHINGTON - As Texas governor, George W. Bush signed a law that allows hospitals to pull the plug on critically ill patients despite family objections - the kind of court-authorized move the president and fellow Republicans are challenging in the Terri Schiavo case. The White House said Monday that Bush's position is consistent and that the Texas bill focused on expanding the rights of the critically ill and their families to prevent hospitals and doctors from denying life-saving treatment. Bush spokesman Scott McClellan told reporters that Bush vetoed 1997 legislation that would have put into law Texas hospital policies that gave families virtually no protections and as little as 72 hours to find alternate care after a hospital decided to stop treatment. Under the 1999 law, another White House official said, Bush expanded that time to 10 days and authorized family members to seek extensions in court but acknowledge that if the challenges fell short, "under the legislation, the hospital still could authorize the end of life." Just last week, the Texas law resulted in what some call a first in the United States: A Houston hospital cut off life support for a badly deformed 6-month-old baby after his mother lost a court challenge. The baby died almost immediately. Democrats and even some medical ethicists are citing the 1999 Texas law to charge that Bush's position in the Schiavo case is hypocritical compared to the stance he took as governor. "The Texas statute that Bush signed authorized the ending of the life, even over the parents' protest. And what he's doing here is saying, 'The parents are protesting. You shouldn't stop,'" said John Paris, a medical ethicist at Boston College. A hospital association lawyer who helped draft the Texas law said it would have allowed for the removal of Schiavo's feeding tube if all legal challenges had been exhausted because the Texas law would make her husband the primary decision-maker. In Texas, Bush's position had the backing of the Texas Right-to-Life Association, whose national headquarters, along with other Christian conservatives who make up a key part of the Republican base, has taken up the fight to prolong Schiavo's life. Burke Balch, director of the Powell Center for Medical Ethics at National Right-to-Life in Washington, said he represented the Texas chapter in more than two dozen negotiating sessions over the 1999 bill. He acknowledged that the legislation could allow a hospital to move to end a patient's life over the family's wishes but denied that was inconsistent with Bush's positions now, or his own group's as well. "Does this mean that we or Gov. Bush are hypocrites because we supported that law? The answer is, it was the best we could achieve at the time, better than the existing state of the law. It's not what we wanted to achieve, it's not the right decision. But when we have the ability to change the law to be more protective, certainly we would do that," Balch said. Elizabeth Sjoberg, an associate general counsel with the Texas Hospital Association, helped draft the 1999 law, and said it added various procedures to ensure that a patients' final wishes regarding care were carried out, while still protecting the hospital if it determined that care should be stopped for terminal or irreversibly ill patients. stltoday.com