Kos Frontpages It Wrong: McClellan [GASP!] isn't lying
Mon Mar 21, 2005 at 05:55:26 PM PDT
I know, this is a sort of "Stop the Presses" moment, but McClellan didn't
grossly distorts the nature of the law that Bush signed in 199, the Texas Futile Care Law.
There seems to be a significant misunderstanding about what the law did differently than previous hospital practice in Texas. If I'm wrong about this, I'll appologize in advance; I've been supporting BiminiCat's interpretation during the day, which, after some sleuthing, still appears to be right.
More over the hill . . .
The short story: previous to Bush's 1999 law, there weren't much of any constraints on hospital ethics committees that decided to end life-care to patients without hope of recovery. The Texas Futile Care Law provided a short 10-day window for family members to challenge hospital decisions and search for other facilities that might accept the patient. The bill was a compromise with right to life people.
Now the story . . . and where people have been getting it wrong.
Here's the full quote from Scotty:
Q Scott, you may remember this from your Texas days. A member of Congress in Florida, Deborah Wasserman Schultz, got on the floor yesterday and said that the President, when he was Texas Governor, signed a piece of legislation into law that, she said, would allow -- when there's a dispute, would allow a feeding tube to be removed and that -- she was a little bit murky on exactly what the law was, but, essentially, she was saying that the President signed something into law that's contradictory to what he is doing now.
MR. McCLELLAN: That's absolutely incorrect. The legislation he signed is consistent with his views. You know, this is a complex case and I don't think such uninformed accusations offer any constructive ways to address this matter. The legislation that he signed into law actually provided new protections for patients. He had previously vetoed legislation in 1997, when he was Governor, which essentially would have sanctioned current law in Texas that allowed hospitals to stop providing life-sustaining treatment -- because under Texas law, prior to the passage of the '99 legislation that he signed, there were no protections. And so this legislation was supported by many; it enjoyed strong bipartisan support; concerned citizens, various groups came together to support this legislation and put in place new protections for patients.
The legislation was there to help ensure that actions were being taken that were in accordance with the wishes of the patient or the patient's family. And let me give you an example. Prior to that legislation being passed I think there was a 72 hour period where if the hospital notified a patient -- or the family that represented the patient that they were going to deny life-sustaining treatment, then they had just that 72 hour period to find a place to transfer the patient, that would provide the treatment.
This legislation, some of the new protections it put in place were --included, the ethics committee review by the hospital, in working with the families as well, making -- you know, to discuss those decisions, determinations. And it also provided a 10-day period, so they had 10-day notice to be able to transfer the patient to another health care provider. And it also authorized court proceedings to extend that 10-day period in order to extend that transfer, if necessary.
So it's just an uninformed accusation.
Scotty explains the facts pretty much like I summarized above. ASTONISHING, but true.
Jerri Lynn Ward at Sue Bob's Diary explains the situation surrounding the Texas Futile Care Law and how Bush supported the idea. I don't know nothin' about Jerri, but the story seems to hold up from other Googling I did. She simply explained it clearest . . .
I want to take this opportunity to address concerns that Bush has been hypocritical in the Terri Schiavo matter given the fact that he signed the Texas Futile Care Statutes back in 1999.
First, the legislation was passed to prevent hospitals from withdrawing life-prolonging treatments from patients and the fear that the hospitals were creating and implementing such protocols because of money. Not only were the hospitals withdrawing treatment contrary to the wishes of patients and family members, they were giving these people only 72 hours to find a facility that would take them and continue the treatment.
In 1997, a bill was passed regarding Advance Directives that allowed health providers to withdraw medical treatment and nutrition and hydration against the will of patients. Bush, vetoed it for that reason. Unfortunately, hospitals continued to withdraw treatments because there was no law preventing these protocols.
In 1999, a group of stakeholders got together to again draft legislation that would provide at least some measure of protection to patients. The group included medical providers, attorneys, disability advocates and advocates from both right-to-life and right-to-die groups.
As a result, patients now have ten days to find alternative placement and hospitals cannot withdraw treatment during that period. This was the best compromise that could be worked out between the competing interests. Bush signed the bill--and hospitals no longer had the freedom to stop treatment so easily. Patients had other options.
So the facts seem to be that previous law allowed hospitals to make life-ending decisions essentially without any limits. The law Bush signed was a compromise position that allowed family members to challenge the decision of a hospital ethics committee, and provided a 10 day window in which to place the patient in another facilty. This is EXACTLY what happened in the Sun Hudson case:
Sun's death marks the first time a hospital has been allowed by a U.S. judge 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 chronic vegetative state at another Houston hospital is before a court now.
. . .
On Feb. 16, Harris County Probate Court Judge William C. McCulloch made the landmark decision to lift restrictions preventing Texas Children's from discontinuing care. However, an emergency appeal by Hudson's attorney, Mario Caballero, and a procedural error on McCulloch's part prevented the hospital from acting for four more weeks.
Texas law allows hospitals can discontinue life sustaining care, even if patient 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.
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.
It looks like Kos and the rest of us here have fell for the oldest one in the book; McClellan's lips were moving, so he must have been lying. In fact, in the essential story of that bill, it seems Bush did indeed work to extend the length of time for life-ending treatments and established a last-minute process for trying to get the patient ongoing care at another facility.
Just the facts, ma'am. But the whole Schiavo thing---and Bush's part in it---are still world-class awful.
Permalink | 24 comments