 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / General / January 2006When Baylor had to terminate a patient who wanted to live
It's the law in Texas that if medical care is "not beneficial," you can be disconnected from life support even if you are conscious and say you want to live, and your relatives want to keep you alive. That's the conclusion that seems inescapable from these two news stories, apparently the ONLY press attention that was given to an incident occurring at Baylor Regional Medical Center. Here are the relevant URLs, still good as of Jan 26: Dec 14; CBS Ch. 11, Dallas-Ft.Worth http://cbs11tv.com/topstories/local_story_348124802.html Dec 14; WFAA, Ch. 8 Dallas-Ft.Worth http://www.wfaa.com/sharedcontent/dws/wfaa/latestnews/stories/wfaa051214_lj_afri can.bb0e76d.html [sorry, tinyurl.com couldn't make a short URL of this] Am I naive in wondering why there wasn't at least a little more public debate about pulling the plug on a conscious patient against her wishes? -- Charles Packer mailboxATcpacker.org http://cpacker.org/whatnews > It's the law in Texas that > if medical care is "not beneficial," [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > the plug on a conscious patient > against her wishes? I have never heard of this. I would suggest that you start calling nationwide syndicated radio talk shows. And, start asking these big mouths. The local shows would be a waste of time. > I would suggest that you start calling nationwide syndicated radio talk > shows. And, start asking these big mouths. The local shows would be a > waste of time. Unfortunately, I wouldn't know which ones to call, because I don't listen to any of them. My impression of them (gotten from the print media, of course) is that this topic would be too intellectually challenging for them. -- Charles Packer mailboxATcpacker.org http://cpacker.org/whatnews > It's the law in Texas that > if medical care is "not beneficial," [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Dec 14; WFAA, Ch. 8 Dallas-Ft.Worth http://www.wfaa.com/sharedcontent/dws/wfaa/latestnews/stories/wfaa051214_lj_afri can.bb0e76d.html > [sorry, tinyurl.com couldn't make a short URL of this] > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > the plug on a conscious patient > against her wishes? That's because she was a terminally ill patient without any chance for recovery. It only prolongs the pain with the end coming. It is unethical to prolong pain without any hope of recovery. Death is a natural process. > That's because she was a terminally ill patient without any chance for > recovery. It only prolongs the pain with the end coming. Tell that to the Florida woman (Schaivo) kept alive by religious zealots and attorneys for almost ten years after she was declared brain-dead. The tell that to the US government, who stepped in near the end of the legal battle with another futile attempt to make this out to be a "christian" and "moral" issue. > It is unethical to prolong pain without any hope of recovery. So you support Jack Kervorkian ?? > Death is a natural process. Hmmm.... indeed. >> That's because she was a terminally ill patient without any chance for >> recovery. It only prolongs the pain with the end coming. > Tell that to the Florida woman (Schaivo) kept alive by religious zealots > and attorneys for almost ten years after she was declared brain-dead. She wasn't "kept alive" -- she was LIVING ON HER OWN. Terri Schiavo was NOT on any kind of life-support equipment, she was simply being nourished intravenously. > The[n] tell that to the US government, who stepped in near the end of the > legal battle with another futile attempt to make this out to be a > "christian" and "moral" issue. Which is EXACTLY what it was. The atheistic culture of death in our society was clamouring to have her feeding tube removed, so that she would be starved and/or dehydrated to death. >> It is unethical to prolong pain without any hope of recovery. > So you support Jack Kervorkian ?? You apparently do. >> Death is a natural process. > Hmmm ... indeed. And after this the Judgment. So what do you propose to say to God when you stand before Him at the Final Judgment?  SignatureTheodore A. Kaldis kaldis@worldnet.att.net > And after this the Judgment. So what do you propose to say to God when you > stand before Him at the Final Judgment? "F*ck you, God." He won't have a clue what I'm saying. Right, Toad? WMD >>>That's because she was a terminally ill patient without any chance for >>>recovery. It only prolongs the pain with the end coming. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > on any kind of life-support equipment, she was simply being nourished > intravenously. Some "life." If there was ever any question that your god is dead, it was answered conclusively by Terri Schiavo. I hope that we acquire the maturity as a society to let go of our loved ones when the time demands. >>The[n] tell that to the US government, who stepped in near the end of the >>legal battle with another futile attempt to make this out to be a [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > was clamouring to have her feeding tube removed, so that she would be starved > and/or dehydrated to death. IIRC, the courts determined that that was Ms. Schiavo's wish, but the madcap mullahs of Main Street insisted on imposing their will on others, regardless of how much suffering they inflicted. >>>It is unethical to prolong pain without any hope of recovery. >> >>So you support Jack Kervorkian ?? > > You apparently do. I support what he was fighting for, as did the Oregonians who voted to allow those people who so choose to end their lives with some semblance of dignity. You are free to suffer terminal cancer for twenty years and all the excruciating pain that accompanies it, if that is your choice -- and I will respect and support that choice. But don't you *dare* impose your nonexistent god's will on me; I might be inclined to send you there to meet him myself. >>>Death is a natural process. > >>Hmmm ... indeed. > > And after this the Judgment. So what do you propose to say to God when you > stand before Him at the Final Judgment? "F*ck y*u, y*u s*d*st*c c*cks*ki*ng b*sta*d!" He won't understand a word I say ... uh, right, Teddi? ;) > >> That's because she was a terminally ill patient without any chance for > >> recovery. It only prolongs the pain with the end coming. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > NOT on any kind of life-support equipment, she was simply being nourished > intravenously. The woman was by all rights, legally dead. No brain, no abilty to survive without outside assistance. What do you call forced "intravenous feeding"? Yes... supporting life. This is without any shadow of doubt, *outside influence*. "ON HER OWN" implies that she inserted a needle into her arm, went into a deep sleep and continued to consciously change her IV drip each day. > > The[n] tell that to the US government, who stepped in near the end of the > > legal battle with another futile attempt to make this out to be a [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > was clamouring to have her feeding tube removed, so that she would be starved > and/or dehydrated to death. It was not the "atheistic culture".... it was a husband who could no longer afford to spend the money (after 10 years of personal suffering at the hands of the legal system) on -for your sake we'll call it maintaining- the shell of a physical body who's brain was long gone. IMHO, this was an abomination of the legal system, a travesty of justice bent on serving the consolidation of christian fundamentalism and the political system... two things that the founding fathers of this nation were keenly aware should NOT intertwine. The concept of *God* was everywhere among our founding fathers, but _religion_ was definitely understood to be a sociopathic problem. > >> It is unethical to prolong pain without any hope of recovery. > > > So you support Jack Kervorkian ?? > > You apparently do. Nice jab, yet uncalled for. > >> Death is a natural process. > > > Hmmm ... indeed. > > And after this the Judgment. So what do you propose to say to God when you > stand before Him at the Final Judgment? Ted, if we are to believe the master teacher, Jeshua bin Joseph, then we are ALL to be forgiven our sins and accepted into the body of eternal life. This includes everyone from George Bush to Mahammed Atta, et al.. I will ask how I could have better served His will... but I will leave knowing that I had used the faculties He had given me to the best of my ability. Fear is not a part of my life. Fear is a tactic of the weak, used to control the minds of others. > > That's because she was a terminally ill patient without any chance for > > recovery. It only prolongs the pain with the end coming. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > with another futile attempt to make this out to be a "christian" and "moral" > issue. Most cases involve acceptace of the outcome by all. One case only illustrates one case. > > It is unethical to prolong pain without any hope of recovery. > > So you support Jack Kervorkian ?? Acceptance of death does not mean one can kill somebody else. Death comes on it's own. Hospice care is more appropriate with relief from pain. > > Death is a natural process. > > Hmmm.... indeed. > > "Robert" <Robertsnospam2@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:sPadnSURY4vJgkTeRVn-gg@got.net... [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Most cases involve acceptace of the outcome by all. > One case only illustrates one case. Agreed... but at the time, the US Government was without a doubt, attempting to set a 'precedent' ruling (establish case law) on the basis of religious beliefs, which could have had serious impact on the medical and insurance fields, say nothing of impact on generic human rights. It would also have lashed together chuch and state, and I think you can see what happens when those two mesh. > > > It is unethical to prolong pain without any hope of recovery. > > > > So you support Jack Kervorkian ?? > > Acceptance of death does not mean one can kill somebody else. So... I take it you oppose the death penality for convicted murderers? This time, tell it to the Commander In Chief of the military. > Death comes on it's own. Hospice care is more appropriate with > relief from pain. Agreed again... but if I know that I am going to die and I am mentally and ligistically prepared to do so; and meanwhile I am either suffering great pain or creating a serious burden on others as a non-contributing member of society, why would you stop me from moving on to the next plane of existance? It would be very selfish of you to do so, not to mention that it's really none of your business. > > Most cases involve acceptace of the outcome by all. > > One case only illustrates one case. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > would also have lashed together chuch and state, and I think you can > see what happens when those two mesh. The the law would and does get involved only when people are at odds. Most of the time that is not the case. The family along with the medical personnel reach an agreement. Without such agreement and when there is a void then the law settles the conflict or void. > > > > It is unethical to prolong pain without any hope of recovery. > > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > So... I take it you oppose the death penality for convicted murderers? The law has decided that based on the peoples wishes. One forfeites rights when they don't conform to society. That is by design. If you don't believe in killing then you shouldn't be killed. If you take a life and are convicted of murder then how can that person say they don't believe in the death penalty. > This time, tell it to the Commander In Chief of the military. I don't have to tell anybody anything. We live with personnel choices within a society. Anybody that goes into the military must be able to kill and they know that they can be killed because of it. > > Death comes on it's own. Hospice care is more appropriate with > > relief from pain. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > next plane of existance? It would be very selfish of you to do so, not > to mention that it's really none of your business. Their is a finality and the value of life that holds against taking a life. There are ways around that in by rendering less pain with medication that can bring on death earlier. > Dec 14; WFAA, Ch. 8 Dallas-Ft.Worth > [long url elided] > [sorry, tinyurl.com couldn't make a short URL of this] Sure it could: <http://tinyurl.com/dt2cl> (But the original site may redirect you to a registration page.) SignatureTheodore A. Kaldis kaldis@worldnet.att.net > > Dec 14; WFAA, Ch. 8 Dallas-Ft.Worth > > [long url elided] > > [sorry, tinyurl.com couldn't make a short URL of this] > > Sure it could: <http://tinyurl.com/dt2cl> (But the original site may > redirect you to a registration page.) Thanks for showing me that. I got an error message when I tried. It's possible that I didn't manage to paste in the complete URL at the time. And, incidentally, what's happened to this thread answers my original question, why no debate about the Baylor incident. The answer is: Terry Schaivo. Her story still eclipses all other such debates. -- Charles Packer mailboxATcpacker.org http://cpacker.org/whatnews > > > Dec 14; WFAA, Ch. 8 Dallas-Ft.Worth > > > [long url elided] [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > the Baylor incident. The answer is: Terry Schaivo. > Her story still eclipses all other such debates. IMHO, it wasn't that her story did so much to 'eclipse' similar controversy... it's simply a prime example of how the media (especially when influenced by government) can manipulate it's coverage and successfully influence the recipient. People are put to death in this manner every day, in this country and around the world... but one single case that had dragged on for 10 years was brought to the forefront and very nearly altered American society by way of government influence (the propaganda machine) and 'editorializing' under the guise of news reporting. >It's the law in Texas that >if medical care is "not beneficial," [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >was given to an incident occurring at >Baylor Regional Medical Center. Here's another relevant URL: http://www.baylorhealth.com/aboutus/press/2006/011606.htm PF I heard on NY Channel 1 that she woke up, walked out of the hospital, called a friend, WHO SUED THE sh.t OUT THEM. Unfortunately, she was left partially blind and disabled, but she is alive. > I heard on NY Channel 1 > that she woke up, walked out of the hospital, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > she was left partially blind and disabled, > but she is alive. Gotta watch those Baptists. Secretly, genetically they're notsies. > Here's another relevant URL: > > http://www.baylorhealth.com/aboutus/press/2006/011606.htm Thanks for pointing out this item. I notice that Baylor issued this press release on Jan 16. By this time there was one other article about the incident, in Slate on Jan. 3: http://www.slate.com/id/2133518/ It wasn't a news story per se; it analyzed the economic aspects of withdrawing life support from the patient. It begins "A woman who couldn't pay her bills is unplugged from her ventilator and dies. Is this wrong?" Presumably the Baylor press release was in response to this provocative article, which didn't question the truth of any of the original sparse reportage. -- Charles Packer mailboxATcpacker.org http://cpacker.org/whatnews
|
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.