Judge: Baby to remain on life support

KHOU.com ^ | Tuesday, January 25, 2005 | Amy Tortolani

[Anita1]

HOUSTON -- A Houston judge has ruled that Texas Children's Hospital can't remove a baby from life support even though doctors say he is suffering a slow death...

The baby's mother said she was pleased by the decision.

"I choose life and I love my son," said Wanda Hudson. "When I see him he looks like a normal child so he just needs to finish growing and developing. He has his arms, his legs, his eyes, ears, nose, everything."

"There is a chance the baby will survive," said Mario Cabellero, Hudson's attorney. "And as long as there's a chance, the hospital ought to give him an opportunity to live."

[Anita1]

Also see: baby Sun Hudson in the Houston Chronicle:

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/3010022

And pray for them.

[Anita1]

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/3010022

This case represents one of many ethical dilemmas created by advances in medical technology. In Florida, a protracted battle over whether to continue life support for a brain-damaged woman has been in the news. In that case, the woman's husband wants her taken off life support.

Hudson, a dental assistant and mother of a healthy 17-year-old son, calls Texas Children's diagnosis of her baby's condition "a pack of lies. He sucks on his tooth. He poops, he pees. He smiles and wiggles around. When I see him, he looks like a normal child. He just needs to finish growing."

Texas Children's officials said the baby is not conscious and doesn't move.

Who is right? Those who believe God can or...

[TigersEye]

Hudson, a dental assistant and mother of a healthy 17-year-old son, calls Texas Children's diagnosis of her baby's condition "a pack of lies. He sucks on his tooth. He poops, he pees. He smiles and wiggles around. When I see him, he looks like a normal child. He just needs to finish growing."

Texas Children's officials said the baby is not conscious and doesn't move.

One of the two is lying here.

"There are rare cases that do survive the neonatal period," Peasley said. "I do not believe any child with this condition has lived into adulthood. I believe the quality of life is not particularly good. ..."

The qualities of life are always superior to the qualities of death.

[caseinpoint]

This is a really difficult ethical situation. The issue is not whether the child should be kept alive but at what cost? I know this sounds crass but it seems to me that we ignore that at our peril. I see no evidence of a father involved here. I see that the hospital has agreed to pick up the mother's attorney fees. I suspect the cost of maintaining this child on life support is being picked up by the taxpayers or the hospital through higher bills to other patients or less discretionary money for the hospital. If the taxpayers or hospital pays, then the money has to come from somewhere else and that somewhere else might be another dialysis machine or resuscitation equipment or other equipment needed to keep someone else alive. Therefore, some may die if this child is being maintained with public monies.

I am all for maintaining life as long as there is hope. I am all for allowing parents to have the say on their own children (including Shiavo, by the way) but we must understand that others might die to keep this hope alive so I don't think there is a clear, clean answer here. If this child's bills could be picked up by a charity or other private source, I would be all for honoring the mother's request. If not, it is a tragedy without a win-win solution.

[pageonetoo]

God calls everyone, sometime... babies die, so do old folks, and fathers/mothers/brothers/sisters, et al...

Compassion is one thing. It's always easy to ask everyone else to help. Surely, it hurts to hear "No"... but they often should!

Just because you can make a bably live, does not mean you should! God has usually made a decision, and we can only flail or ..do like Job! Accept what happens and live! Blessed be the name of the Lord...

[TigersEye]

I didn't see lack of money mentioned in the article as the issue. It may be but it wasn't brought out here. Since there are no guarantees of success in any medical procedure, just odds, I'd hate to be the one makeing the priority list saying who lives and who dies.

Someone has to, that is a fact, but the cost of healthcare isn't exploding because of the cost of procedures or equipment. Litigation, bureaucracy and insurance are sucking the life blood out of it.

What I did see was a glaring contradiction between the mother's statement and the hospital's. A real investigative reporter would have seen the baby for his/herself and given us a third opinion. I don't think there are any real investigative reporters anymore. Maybe John Stossel.

[verity]

The qualities of life are always superior to the qualities of death.

You have no idea what you said.

[TigersEye]

But I do! ; )

[valkyrieanne]

In the Houston Chronicle article, the mom says, "I don't believe in death and sickness anymore. When Sun calls me, I go. He speaks to my mind," Hudson said."

I'd say this mom's pack is short a couple of cards. Her child has a genetic disorder incompatible with life, and she thinks he's telepathically communicating with her.

[valkyrieanne]

If you are sensitive, pregnant, or don't like medical pictures, don't do this - but otherwise, those interested can scroll down halfway for a photograph of an infant afflicted with thanatophoric dysplasia. There is no way you are going to confuse a child with this affliction with a normal child. This mother sounds like she's either mentally ill, or unhinged with grief because of her birth tragedy, and it's getting turned into some kind of "pro-life" issue when it's *not.*

[Fruitbat]

Heck, if "suffering" is an excuse for death, then why are all the libs still living...? /sarcasm.... :D

[caseinpoint]

You have a valid point. I did not mean to imply that the cost of treatment is the sole reason for financial problems for hospitals. It is, however, how some hospitals have to control their costs--by rationing treatment options--because much else is out of their control.

Lawsuits is a definite problem. People look for a scapegoat when things go wrong and insurance companies over the decades have often, in their quest for premiums, agreed to insure doctors who were uninsurable under any rational analysis. Bureaucracy is a problem also. Political correctness, anti-discrimination laws, tangled federal and state regulations each require their own full-time staffs to deal with the red tape. And insurance is a problem, except the bigger problem is the uninsured. I have no problem with people uninsured because of situations beyond their control like losing their jobs, a catastrophic illness and so forth. I have a real problem with people who deliberately forego insurance for more spending money and who rely on charity in case of serious illness (I know some, twenty-somethings who think they are invulnerable), and I have a problem with illegal aliens and others who use our hospitals as doctor offices and then don't pay the bills.

My point, not that effectively made, is that choices have to be made in these cases and they are all painful.

[Salvation]

Thank you, God!

[Salvation]

**It's so different from the Terry Schiavo case, which is only about food and water. **

You have got to be kidding! The Shiavo case is basically about a greedy husband and his wife's money!

Get the facts!

[Salvation]

The Catechism of the Catholic Church

Euthanasia

2276 Those whose lives are diminished or weakened deserve special respect. Sick or handicapped persons should be helped to lead lives as normal as possible.

2277 Whatever its motives and means, direct euthanasia consists in putting an end to the lives of handicapped, sick, or dying persons. It is morally unacceptable.

Thus an act or omission which, of itself or by intention, causes death in order to eliminate suffering constitutes a murder gravely contrary to the dignity of the human person and to the respect due to the living God, his Creator. The error of judgment into which one can fall in good faith does not change the nature of this murderous act, which must always be forbidden and excluded.

2278 Discontinuing medical procedures that are burdensome, dangerous, extraordinary, or disproportionate to the expected outcome can be legitimate; it is the refusal of "over-zealous" treatment. Here one does not will to cause death; one's inability to impede it is merely accepted. The decisions should be made by the patient if he is competent and able or, if not, by those legally entitled to act for the patient, whose reasonable will and legitimate interests must always be respected.

2279 Even if death is thought imminent, the ordinary care owed to a sick person cannot be legitimately interrupted. The use of painkillers to alleviate the sufferings of the dying, even at the risk of shortening their days, can be morally in conformity with human dignity if death is not willed as either an end or a means, but only foreseen and tolerated as inevitable Palliative care is a special form of disinterested charity. As such it should be encouraged.

[Salvation]

**A greedy bastard is trying to deny his wife the basics of life: food and water. **

You are correct here -- so that he can get the $$!

[nmh]

Meanwhile Terri in Florida is about to be murdered legally by her husband.