And who signed this horrible bill into law? Yup, the individual who would become "pro-life President in history" (barf).
For those interested, here is the section of the law spoken about in this piece.
BTW, though this comes from a source normally associated with the "religion" forum, I thought it was of sufficient general interest that it would be more appropriately posted in the "news" forum.
Looks to me that Texas has found something else to claim to be #1 in! So you Texans (and KoTexans) can be certain, that if I leave California, it won’t be to move to Texas. But Nevada looks better every day.
For all the bombast, Texas law is very comfortable edging into the authoritarian. Almost all drone photography is illegal. Gun laws will never get to constitutional carry. The MVD goes through the DPS so it’s very slow. You have to get mandatory “safety inspections” on cars that are a relic of the 1930s. And then things like this hospital policy. And Texas is far too welcoming to the camel jockeys thanks to the Bush wing of the GOP.
Texas is a mix of individual freedom, you can hut hogs with a machine gun from a helicopter, but you cannot fly your drone and take a photo from the air. That’s because someone caught a slaughterhouse near Dallas dumping raw offal directly into a creek. So the Texas legislature quickly passed a law banning aerial photography.
Capitalism works best overall. You should be able to get any treatment you can afford.
Though not as bad as the rest of the world, it’s not surprising to see stories like this given our continued devolution towards socialism.
The belief system of hospital administrations is generally in favor of people dying sooner. Same with physicians.
It’s a belief system partially but insufficiently influenced by clinical science.
They don’t need a law, just send em off for a test or two. Most hospitals assembly line them to wait alone in a hallway without anyone watching or caring for them. If that doesn’t get em the test will.
This law needs to be repealed prontissimo.
Later
this is about money.
if you have a ton of money,
you can go somewhere else
if you expect someone else to pick up the tab,
other people will be involved in pulling
the plug on you
I’ve been a Texan all my life and had no idea this was ever passed! Time to start raising a ruckus!
I live in Houston and am unfamiliar with this law.
However, what I do know is that the medical profession, and particularly hospitals, have too much legal power. Even if one is admitted to a hospital on someone else’s say so then that patient is, in effect, a prisoner until such time the hospitals and doctors decide if the patient can go home. Any patient who objects and leaves of his own free will then he has left the hospital “AMA, Against Medical Advice!” Translation: ‘”AMA” = We refuse to pay your medical bills’ and you get stuck with the entire tab!
I once called the police to report that I was being held as a captive by a hospital. The copthug showed up and asked the nurse if I was being held against my will. She replied, “ He is a threat to his own life!” He turned and walked away without even asking me any questions! I was a prisoner in that hospital and Big Brother let it happen!
Things changed with organ transplant and brain death. Beware all.
The Catholic teaching as put forth by JPII on brain death and paraphrased here, is that a person whose ENTIRE brain function is IRREVERSIBLY ceased may be declared dead.
This position often results in under treatment initially upon admission to the hospital or under feeding and hydrating. Such attitudes save money, avoid medicare fines because of excessive re admissions and make more organs available for transplant among other financial motives.
To go further and put treatment decisions in ethics boards or doctors should result in a swastika on the front of the hospital.
Palliative care & hospice.
Worth knowing the difference; the pros and cons.
https://www.nia.nih.gov/health/what-are-palliative-care-and-hospice-care
Been my experience..that we keep them alive as long as possible. $$$$
The physician practices medicine under Texas law, not the hospital or committees.
TADA lays out the process which allows the patient’s doctor to practice medicine according to his/her best medical judgement, a combination of education and experience. Otherwise, the doctor would have to indefinitely and repeatedly act against his will and conscience.
When the patient’s attending doctor in the hospital determines that a treatment demanded by the patient or his legal surrogate (in most cases, it’s a family member as also laid out in the Act) is not appropriate, the doc can’t just stop or abandon the patient.
Under the TADA, the doc notifies the patient or surrogate of his decision. If they disagree, the doc must involve the hospital ethics or medical committee.
The committee then notifies the patient/surrogate that there will be a meeting to decide whether the doctor’s decision is medically appropriate. If the committee doesn’t believe the doctor is correct, he should order the treatment. If the committee agrees that the treatment isn’t medically appropriate, the patient/surrogate is informed that the treatment will be stopped in 10 days *and* the hospital must help look for another doctor - and facility - who will agree to accept the patient.
We’ve been trying to amend the law for over 10 years, to increase the time before the committee meeting and before the treatment in dispute is stopped. We had agreed to a total of 30 days back when Patrick was a Senator and Dewhurst was still Lieutenant Governor and Perry was Governor - I think back in 2005. We keep getting blocked by the opposition, and a bunch of lawyers.
The opposition to TADA wants every single one of these disputes to go to court, where lawyers will make their arguments- sometimes with doctors as expert witnesses - and a judge would end up making the medical decisions, possibly forcing the doctor to act against his conscience.
The case in court was much more complicated than presented. The patient had metastatic pancreatic cancer that had damaged his liver so much that he stopped making clotting proteins and nearly bled to death on the day of admission, when he was transferred from another hospital. He had liver and kidney failure, he was jaundiced because the poisons from liver failure were building up in his blood and he was on a ventilator.
He was sedated in order to help him tolerate the breathing tube, was clearly no longer competent to make decisions and hadn’t named a surrogate. His (divorced) parents disagreed about keeping him on life support.
His father believed his wouldn’t want to continue on the ICU treatment and pointed out that he had refused treatment until he passed out.
His mother wanted extraordinary treatment that the doctors believed was causing him pain and suffering. She is suing the hospital although they never stopped the absolutely excellent treatment that kept him alive much longer than anyone could have expected.
No one refused to allow him to be moved to another hospital. Instead, every doctor that was contacted agreed with the attending doctor at Methodist.
Do a search on his name and read the media reports for a better understanding. I can’t follow this thread closely because I’m travelling.
Beverly B Nuckols,MD aka “hocndoc”