Posted on 02/18/2005 3:36:08 PM PST by FreeMarket1
CRIPPLED CHILD SENTENCED TO DEATH WITHOUT TRIAL
Feb 18, 2005 - FreeMarketNews.com
by Craig McCarthy
In Texas, a baby has been in effect sentenced to die. He is hospitalized with a disease called thanatophoric dysplasia. A website devoted to genetic disorders says that “Infants with this condition are usually stillborn or die shortly after birth from respiratory failure; however, some children have survived into childhood with a lot of medical help.” The child in question, Sun Hudson, is four months old and has obviously survived the danger of stillbirth and has not died shortly after birth. Sun’s mother wants him to live. Doctors at the hospital where Sun was born no longer want to supply him with the “lot of medical help” he needs, and plan to shut off his oxygen supply.
Powerless against the wishes of her son’s doctor, Sun’s mother Wanda found an attorney and went to court to save her son’s life. Without a single evidentiary hearing, Judge William C. McColloch has decided that the hospital has the right to take measures to end the baby’s life, if the hospital happens to want to do so. Free Market News has interviewed the attorney for the child’s mother, Mario Caballero, and reports the facts that have been excluded from every other news account of this story.
This is not about money. Sun Hudson is covered by Texas Medicaid (his mother is penniless) and the hospital is no danger of suffering financially by continuing to treat him. Under Texas law this would not be an issue in any event, as hospitals are prohibited from failing to treat a patient for lack of ability to pay or if there is an emergency condition.
This is not about a condition so rare or horrible that treatment would be inconceivable. Ironically, the website for Texas Children’s Hospital, where Sun is a patient, includes this statement about dysplasia: “This genetics clinic provides diagnosis, treatment and follow-up care for patients from birth to adulthood with abnormalities of skeletal growth and strength. A staff of geneticists with consulting orthopedists, endocrinologists, neurologists and ophthalmologists evaluate patients during their visits for routine, chronic or acute care.”
This is not about right-wing pro-life politics, either. Ms. Hudson’s attorney is a self-described twenty-year legal aid attorney who only opened his solo practice with one staff member in the last year. Attorney Caballero went so far as to state that “I’m not part of the right to life movement; in fact, personally, I’m not quite in that political camp. But in this case it is about someone who is already alive.”
This is about one judge who has by any objective standard allowed no due process to the child who may soon be killed or to the child’s mother. Attorney Caballero subpoenaed hospital records of Medicaid payments for the child’s treatment. The judge quashed the subpoena (meaning that he voided it) and refused to allow the mother to view those hospital records. Caballero subpoenaed the person in charge of records who could testify about the medical bills and payment. Judge McColloch quashed that subpoena. Instead, the judge ruled that the mother, in seeking to save her child’s life from a deliberate cessation of medical treatment, had “no cause of action”.
The judge made that ruling based only on the petitions filed, not allowing the mother’s attorney to conduct any discovery under the normal rules of court procedure.
Before the court was involved, the hospital first gave the mother notice that they intended to evict the child from the hospital. Under Texas law, a hospital must give ten days notice of intent to make Sun leave the hospital despite his medical needs. In this case, they gave Ms. Hudson notice just before the weekend prior to Thanksgiving week.
By the time she found an attorney the next day, he was left with only three working days in which to get into court. During weeks of legal under a supposed agreement by the hospital that it would not remove the child from child support before a court hearing, the hospital changed its mind and informed Caballero that they intended to go ahead and remove child support. Only a temporary injunction temporarily delayed the hospital’s action.
Finally before the probate court, the mother was not given the opportunity to call any witnesses or present any evidence in an evidentiary hearing. Instead, the judge ruled that the hospital may discontinue treatment of the child, based on facts not even alleged by the hospital, specifically that the judge believed the child was suffering “significant pain.”
According to Caballero, when he asked how the judge had reached that finding of fact without ever having heard any testimony or conducting a hearing on the merits of the case, the judge replied, on the record, that he “probably got it from the newspaper.”
Having visited the baby in the hospital, Caballero flatly denies that the child is in pain. After reflection, Caballero asked Judge McColloch to recuse himself from the case. McColloch refused.
This left the mother with only one issue to present to the court, whether or not any other hospital would be willing to admit the child as a patient.
It is not clear what the scope of that question is legally. Should the court consider whether another hospital within city limits has a bed for the child before removing child support, or whether there is another hospital reasonably available in the State of Texas or the rest of the country? ......................Full Article www.FreeMarketNews.com
Hmmm. Im thinking there is more to this story. Im fairly certain that a hospital doesnt have the power to arbitrarily to "pull the plug.."
In other words, the kid has been sentenced to death by God and the State has simply decided not to fight God's decision on the matter since they will inevitably lose.
So9
Yes, but doesn't the State have the ultimate authority over God?
Oh, wait a minute...nevermind. :)
Denote heavy sarcasm.
One of my children had the umbilical cord wrapped tightly around his neck when he was born. Did God sentence him to die and was it wrong for the hospital to "keep him alive" by removing the cord from his neck?
Where do you draw the line?
If this is all there is to the story, then the hospital should be treating the child if the parents want to. It didn't say all kids with this problem are doomed to death. Who in the hell in the hospital has the right to say this kid should be left to die against his parents' wishes?
Agreed. I know we're sensitized to this now thanks to the Terry Schiavo case but it seems to me that delaying God's will through incredible artificial means is bound to cause tragic suffering sometimes.
I was also about to make some comment like, "this is what you get when you let someone else pay for your health care." But the story seems to suggest that money has nothing to do with it.
At some point, someone will have to "pull the plug" because the baby will not be coming off it.
Oh please. Are you truly unable to differentiate between unwrapping the umbilical cord and the continued application of an artificial breathing apparatus?
Just in case you can't, here's an important distinction: the removal of the cord is an act that is finite in duration with permanent positive consequences. In contrast, the child mentioned here will die without the continued, permanent application of artificial life support.
I think that there is a little more to this story. There was a thread here a day or day about it. IIRC, the child's disease doesn't allow for the lungs and ribcage to grow, so as the rest of the body grows, the lung capacity doesn't keep up with the need for oxygen. It seems that the child will slowly suffocate, even with a ventilator. I'll have to go look it up for sure. I can't rely on my memory here.
Well, likewise, who in the hell has the right to tell a hospital what it must and must not do? Must a doctor perform a medical treatment he is not ethically comfortable with?
Perhaps. But that is not my point. I dont think a hospital can just pull the plug the way it is described in this article. Which is why Im inclined to believe there is more to the story..
The first thing I thought of when I saw that headline was "abortion"....
How long should a baby have to suffer life support? Sometimes family members cannot let go, they cling to hope, sometimes false hope.
Indeed, where do you draw the line?
I believe you are correct.
Found the thread: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1345350/posts?page=25
From the article:
"Texas Children's Hospital officials said Sun was born with a fatal genetic defect known as skeletal dysplasia that will not allow his chest cavity and lungs to grow. Sun is slowly suffocating to death because his lungs lack the capacity to support his body, according to hospital officials."
First Florida and Terri,
Now Texas and a baby.
I wonder if there are any type of connections in the hierarchy or affiliates.
Not everything is abortion, and this poor baby is not merely crippled.
More news articles:
http://news.newkerala.com/india-news/?action=fullnews&id=73614
Key quote: "The hospital claims continued treatment is inhumane, but the infant's mother, Wanda Hudson, disputes the doctors' diagnosis."
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/17/national/17brfs.html
Key quote: "Under state law, a hospital must continue care if there is a reasonable probability that another hospital will admit the patient. Ms. Hudson's lawyer, Mario Caballero, argued there was a reasonable chance that another hospital would take Sun, but hospital lawyers said that state officials had contacted almost 40 hospitals and found none willing to care for him."
Knowing the outcome, and only going by my hospital experiences, the hospital is "drawing the line." Meaning there is no hope that the baby will be able to come off life support.
Not only that, but the way I read the description of the condition, even standard life support will eventually fail.
Spiff---just so you know my daughter's umbilical cord was constricted as well, necessitating a quick forceps delivery. So I certainly identify with your example :) But I do think that the difference between our situations and this child are quite significant.
It just made me think "abortion"...meaning, I fully expected the article to be about it. I of course realize that it was about a baby that was already born, what a terrible situation.
When my husband was an intern, there was a case where an elderly man was on a ventilator. He had no brain activity, and the hospital wanted to take him off life support (and we're not talking food and water here - we're talking ventilator). The poor old man was so far gone that parts of his body were actually starting to, er, um, return to the elements, not to get too graphic. Still, his family wanted to keep him on life support. I don't recall what the outcome was, but I think that eventually the hospital was able to persuade the family that their loved one wasn't coming back, and that keeping him on a ventilator wasn't in his best interest.
Yes, I believe that is also correct. Another question would be, what would be the outcome of long-term use of life support?
I wonder if this is about money. Think I read in another thread that the hospital had been covering the costs. If so, then maybe that is the reason pulling the plug has come up. If the parents or insurance were to cover the expenses then maybe the hospital would continue with the care. The hospital may feel that their funds could go to help others that could really benefit instead of just prolonging the inevitable. Just wondering if expenses are the real issue here.
One of my children had the umbilical cord wrapped tightly around his neck when he was born. Did God sentence him to die and was it wrong for the hospital to "keep him alive" by removing the cord from his neck?
Where do you draw the line?
You draw the line at what you can fix.
Your Child was fixed once the cord was untangled. If it had required someone to hold the uncut cord away from his neck 24/7 for as long as he was to live, that would have been unreasonable.
Nothing could keep this condition from killing this child. All that could have been done was to pour vast ammounts of public money into staving off death for a few years and that is unreasonable.
Yes, I realized that after I went back and looked at it. It is very misleading and abit imflammatory.
In earlier stories about this case, it was reported that the hospital is paying the attorney fees for the mother. And that this attorney was the only one that would take the case....sad case all around.
I wonder if she gets to hold him? Can he be bottle fed, or is he fed by a feeding tube? Supposedly, according to reports, he's sedated for the pain. Poor little soul.
Yes that was a point I was incapable of making. My head and my tongue are not jiving right now.
That chance of this baby being able to come off the machines is extremely small. This is a point where the hospital knows there is no hope, and have decided to let nature take it course. The mother is not yet ready to let go, and I can't say I blame her, and she's clinging to hope.
I don't know about being able to hold the baby. But, he is not being bottle-fed, the IVs are sustaining him. It's a very terrible situation indeed.
"At some point, someone will have to "pull the plug" because the baby will not be coming off it."
BINGO!!
Sorry, Free, but there's more to the story. First, the parent does have legal right to see the medical record. Second, the hospital does not have any right to pull the plug without the family's consent. Third, where's the child's attorney ad litem? Fourth, why wasn't CPS called back in November? Fifth, I'm assuming this case would be in a large city for the hospital to be so equipped, hence the mother's attorney should have requested the case be heard in children's court by a judge with experience with minors and if it wasn't then could request it be transfered with minimal effort. Nope, there's much more to this story than what's being reported.
A lot of people here are saying that they don't mind this article much because the baby would eventually die anyway. This surprises me.
What makes this article so wrong, imo, is that they are doing this against the mother's conset. She doesn't want her son to die, and I understand that. When you have a loved one that's dying, don't you want every last moment that you can have with them? What if the hospital came and told you, "Hey, we're cutting off life support to your son/daughter/mother/father/relative. Oh, you want him/her to live? C'mon, he/she has a terminal illness; it's not like he/she is gonna be around much longer anyhow. We have a court order and there is nothing you can do to fight it"? How would you feel?
The real heart of this article is the court coming in and deciding if innocent people have the right to live to die, despite the family's wishes. That is playing God; that is dangerous territory. When a kid goes somewhere he's not supposed to, he gets punished. America might get a spanking real soon.
Do you not really see the difference?
While arguing over in one of the many "Million Dollar Baby" threads I realized that the euthanasia debate would not be nearly so compelling (even though I remain against the practice) if it weren't for the fact that medical science has advanced to the point that we can keep people "alive" despite some rather amazing injuries.
I mean, I sure am thankful for the medical advances that allow me to walk normally after shattering my femur in 2001. But I just don't find myself all that thankful that we can keep this little fellah alive despite the fact that is body is just not meant to continue.
Texas Children's Hospital officials said Sun was born with a fatal genetic defect known as skeletal dysplasia that will not allow his chest cavity and lungs to grow. Sun is slowly suffocating to death because his lungs lack the capacity to support his body, according to hospital officials.Doctors claim the child is in pain and that it is unethical to prolong his life.
The infant has been on life support since his birth in September.
Texas Children's Hospital is paying Hudson's attorney fees and asked that the case go to court in order to reach a fair resolution.
The hospital is paying the attorney fees.
>>>Do you not really see the difference?
I can't. I just picture that mother and baby....
I can't.
That's rather selfish, isn't it? Shouldn't the physical welfare of the child trump her feelings?
Yes, I know, that's easy for me to say, as I'm not the one grieving over my dying child. But that's partly the point. The mother is simply incapable of making the right decision here. Her little boy is suffering terribly and someone needs to step in.
Certainly we would step in if the baby were otherwise healthy and she were physically abusing it... well, I believe the hospital is making the case that keeping the baby alive is tantamount to that.
Finally, it is simply NOT the case that the hospital is playing God by letting this baby die naturally. He is only being kept alive through signficant artificial means. No, 4mycountry, they are playing God now by keeping the baby alive.
Right or wrong, I would be doing the same as her. And she needs support. There is no logical thinking when it comes to wanting to save your baby.
Now return to the mother, and ask yourself whether it might be just a wee bit selfish for her to insist that this child remain suffering due to the artificial intervention of the hospital.
If you're still not convinced, ask yourself what you would do if that baby were perfectly healthy, but the mother was causing him an equivalent amount of pain through physical abuse.
Just wondering why doctors can't remove his ribs and replace them with artificial ones that can be enlarged or replaced as he grows?
Do you know that? Or are you going by the article?
Because I've seen a lot of misreporting of the information in Terri's case.
*If* you know that....ok. But it is VERY hard to separate the emotion from the logic. The mother only knows, I want my baby. And she is post pardum.
You can't expect her to think logically. She is hormonal and instinctive right now.
Is saving a baby's life not ethical?
As would many of us if faced with the same situation. Agreed.
And she needs support.
Yes, what she needs is grief counseling. Her child is dying and she needs to let go.
There is no logical thinking when it comes to wanting to save your baby.
Indeed and that's why in rare cases such as this it is ethical for the doctors to go against the wishes of the parent.
(All I have said here is predicated on the facts as I understand them; if I am wrong I may have to change my mind.)
In that case, maybe we should get rid of pacemakers, heart surgeons and organ transplants...
And exactly how do you know that?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.