Hospital Acts as Toddler's Judge Jury and Executioner

[Texsox]

By KELLEY SHANNON

Associated Press Writer

AUSTIN -- As 17-month-old Emilio Gonzales lies in a hospital, hooked up to tubes to help him breathe and eat, his mother holds him close and cherishes every movement.

 

Catarina Gonzales knows her baby is terminally ill and that one day she'll have to let go. But it's not yet time, she and her attorneys contend in their legal clash with hospital officials who want to stop Emilio's life-sustaining treatment.

 

An unusual Texas law signed by George W. Bush when he was governor lets the hospital make that life-or-death call. The latest legal dispute over the law -- Emilio's case -- goes to court again Tuesday, the day his life support is set to end.

 

"The family has made a unified decision" to keep Emilio living through artificial means, said Joshua Carden, an attorney for the Gonzales family. "The hospital is making quality of life value judgments. That's a huge source of concern."

Linked

 

Earlier the family faced this . . .

 

 

 

By Mary Ann Roser

AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF

Tuesday, March 13, 2007

 

Saying that continuing treatment would be hopeless and possibly painful, doctors at Children's Hospital of Austin notified a young mother Monday that they will withdraw a respirator from her critically ill baby in 10 days unless another hospital can be found to take him.

 

They received a repreave from Texas lawmakers.

 

So who decides if someone should live or die? Lawmakers? Judges? Doctors? Family? Some combination?

[Jenksismyhero]

I think it depends. Health care is a service oriented business right? If the service provider isn't getting paid and is taking on extreme costs, then it's their call. It's a sad situation, but that's reality. They shouldn't have an obligation or duty to continue to spend their own money and resources if they're not being compensated.

 

If on the other hand she is paying for it (or has some insurance that pays for it) then they shouldn't have a say in whether the kid lives or dies. They should keep their mouths shut and continue to provide the service.

[CanOfCorn]

Lawmakers...definitely not! (I'm talking to you Bill Frist!)

 

Honestly, it should probably be some combination. Doctors don't know everything and family is too close to the patient. There needs to be open communications between the two.

 

if you put my feet to the fire, I'd have to say the final judgement should be made by the family...paying or not.

[Balta1701]

"Do it for Terri."

[Texsox]

While no choice is perfect, I think the final decision should come through our legal system with input from the family and Doctors.

[Rex Kickass]

I think it depends. Health care is a service oriented business right? If the service provider isn't getting paid and is taking on extreme costs, then it's their call. It's a sad situation, but that's reality. They shouldn't have an obligation or duty to continue to spend their own money and resources if they're not being compensated.

 

If on the other hand she is paying for it (or has some insurance that pays for it) then they shouldn't have a say in whether the kid lives or dies. They should keep their mouths shut and continue to provide the service.

 

So what you're saying is that a person who has a long odds treatment option that gives a slim chance of survival and recovery should be able to be legally euthanized by the hospital providing the treatment because that person is unable to pay for health costs?

 

Cause that's what I'm reading.

 

And hospitals absolutely have a legal obligation and duty to provide necessary lifesaving medical treatment.

[FlaSoxxJim]

"Do it for Terri."

 

Glad to see the irony of the this Gov. Bush-backed law is not lost on everybody.

 

Sanctity of LIFE! SANCTITY OF LIFE!! Oh, wait, you mean our Special Friends in healthcare and in the insurance industry are paying for this? Where the hell is the damn plug?!

[Rex Kickass]

The truth is that this is a decision that should be made by the patient or the patient's family with the input and assistance of their physicians providing treatment. Nobody else should get that decision.

[Texsox]

The truth is that this is a decision that should be made by the patient or the patient's family with the input and assistance of their physicians providing treatment. Nobody else should get that decision.

 

Who exactly is the patient's family? Estranged spouse? Parents? Children?

 

Who mediates?

[Jenksismyhero]

So what you're saying is that a person who has a long odds treatment option that gives a slim chance of survival and recovery should be able to be legally euthanized by the hospital providing the treatment because that person is unable to pay for health costs?

 

Cause that's what I'm reading.

 

And hospitals absolutely have a legal obligation and duty to provide necessary lifesaving medical treatment.

 

Children's Hospital of Austin has been caring for Emilio since Dec. 28. He's believed to have Leigh's Disease, a progressive illness difficult to diagnose, according to both sides.

 

The boy cannot breathe on his own and must have nutrition and water pumped into him. He can't swallow or gag or make purposeful movements, said Michael Regier, general counsel for the Seton Family of Hospitals, which encompasses the children's hospital.

 

Emilio's higher order brain functions are destroyed, and secretions must be vigorously suctioned from his lungs, Regier said.

 

"The care is very aggressive and very invasive," Regier said. Though the treatment is expensive, the hospital contends that money is not part of its decision. Emilio has health coverage through Medicaid.

 

In this case there is no long shot. The kid is gone. Obviously it's a different situation if there's a chance, but here there isn't one. And yes, hospitals are under a legal obligation to provide life saving treatment. But that's not an indefinite obligation. It's been three months here, is that long enough? A year? A decade? How long would they have to continue worthless treatment?

 

I'm surprised Medicaid hasn't jumped in yet to put a time limit on this treatment. Surely there's a regulation about this sort of thing so it doesn't go on forever.

[mr_genius]

Who exactly is the patient's family? Estranged spouse? Parents? Children?

 

Who mediates?

 

the Goracle shall mediate

 

[Rex Kickass]

In this case there is no long shot. The kid is gone. Obviously it's a different situation if there's a chance, but here there isn't one. And yes, hospitals are under a legal obligation to provide life saving treatment. But that's not an indefinite obligation. It's been three months here, is that long enough? A year? A decade? How long would they have to continue worthless treatment?

 

I'm surprised Medicaid hasn't jumped in yet to put a time limit on this treatment. Surely there's a regulation about this sort of thing so it doesn't go on forever.

 

That is, as far as I'm aware, absolutely an indefinite obligation.

[Jenksismyhero]

That is, as far as I'm aware, absolutely an indefinite obligation.

 

Guess you were kinda right:

 

Texas is one of the few states with a timetable allowing hospitals to decide when to end life-sustaining treatment, according to studies cited by activist groups. Other states allow hospitals to cut off treatment but do not specify a time frame.

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/04/10/...in2669077.shtml