Replies

Chris Vogel has a lengthy and detailed story in Thursday's Houston Press, titled "Doctors vs. Parents: Who Decides Right to Life?" It describes a compelling and serious futility dispute that is now headed to court.

14-year-old Sabrina Martin's surgery for a sinus infection did not turn out well. She developed a brain abscess and brain swelling. The staff at Children's Memorial Hermann Hospital told Sabrina's parents that Sabrina "had two strokes and because of them, she was in a coma that they didn't think she was going to come out of. And if she did, she would be a vegetable." The staff then "began pressuring them to withhold treatment and feeding."

But they allegedly went far beyond just trying to persuade the parents what they thought was the best course of action. In addition the Memorial Hermann staff:

Attempt[ed] to turn relatives and friends against Lopez and Murray by encouraging them to persuade the parents to withhold treatment, all the while violating federal privacy laws by discussing Sabrina's healthcare information
Enter[ed] two separate do-not-resuscitate orders against her parents' wishes
Threaten[ed] the family with convening the hospital's ethics committee, which under Texas law can overrule the family's wishes and withhold life-support treatment from a patient.

But most serious of all is the allegation that “Memorial Hermann and the doctors and nurses working on the case wanted Sabrina to die to bury the evidence of malpractice and limit the potential damages in court.”

Yesterday, the Boston Globe reported the recovery of Haleigh Poutre, a 14-year-old girl once diagnosed as being in an "irreversible vegetative state." Haleigh was almost removed from life support by Masachussets DSS after doctors had declared her condition hopeless. She began to breathe on her own just as the state's highest court ruled that she should be allowed to die.

More recently, Haleigh has "provided police with dramatic testimony about frequent use of corporal punishment during her childhood." Haleigh, who has "spent the last two years at a pediatric rehabilitation hospital in Brighton, communicated with simple words and hand gestures in an interview last December. She also spelled out full sentences by pointing to letters of the alphabet on a board."

This is obviously a remarkable recovery for Haleigh. And it may ensure that the parties culpable for her injuries are held criminally responsible. But the downside of this story is that it s publicity may undercut public trust in diagnoses. If we use terms "irreversible vegetative state" with respect to patients who recover, surrogates may be less willing to accept diagnoses and recommendations to stop LSMT. Their patient may be another Haleigh Poutre. I readily concede that diagnoses can almost never be made with 100% certainty. My point is that in our use of language, we ought not imply certainty where none exists.