Courts Ordered Life or Death? posted by Ben

Of course, the big discussion this past week has been over the Terry Schiavo case.

What the media has missed, however, is how a law that Bush signed in 1999 as governor of Texas just allowed the courts to end the life of a 15-month-old baby against the wishes of its mother.

Confused? Read on.

In 1999 then governor Bush signed a law which allowed hospitals to withdraw life support from patients, over the objections of the family, if they consider the treatment to be nonbeneficial. [Thanks to Atrios]

The first recipient?

Baby dies after hospital removes breathing tube

Case is the first in which a judge allowed a hospital to discontinue care

By LEIGH HOPPER
Copyright 2005 Houston Chronicle

The baby wore a cute blue outfit with a teddy bear covering his bottom. The 17-pound, nearly 6-month-old boy wiggled with eyes open, his mother said, and smacked his lips.

Then at 2 p.m. Tuesday, a medical staffer at Texas Children's Hospital gently removed the breathing tube that had kept Sun Hudson alive since his birth Sept. 25. Cradled by his mother, he took a few breaths, and died.

"I talked to him, I told him that I loved him. Inside of me, my son is still alive," Wanda Hudson told reporters afterward. "This hospital was considered a miracle hospital. When it came to my son, they gave up in six months. ... They made a terrible mistake."

Sun's death marks the first time a U.S. judge has allowed a hospital to discontinue an infant's life-sustaining care against a parent's wishes, according to bioethical experts. A similar case involving a 68-year-old man in a vegetative state at another Houston hospital is before a court now. [snip]

Texas law allows hospitals to discontinue life-sustaining care, even if a patient's family members disagree. A doctor's recommendation must be approved by a hospital's ethics committee, and the family must be given 10 days from written notice of the decision to try and locate another facility for the patient.

Now, the rest of the article clearly indicates that (surprise) this is an ethically complicated issue that often depends closely on the specifics of a situation. To find an expansive and inclusive policy is less of a matter for political wrangling than it is one for so-called serious discussion.

But don't tell that to the Rupublicans, who circulated this memo last week:

ABC News obtained talking points circulated among Senate Republicans explaining why they should vote to intervene in the Schiavo case. Among them, that it is an important moral issue and the "pro-life base will be excited," and that it is a "great political issue — this is a tough issue for Democrats." [snip]

In this case, the Republican's political wrangling in the Schiavo case does not seem to reflect the majority of American's opinions.

Beyond that, the Republican's "political wrangling" showcases an astonishing hypocrisy: they only seem to be willing to fight for life when they can gain political traction from it. As AmericaBlog points out:

Yes, as you already know, Bush ended his vacation early -- a virtually unprecedented act for a President who spends a LOT of time on vacation -- and rushed back to DC so he could score political points on the painful private decision surrounding Terri Schiavo. Obviously, this took hours and hours of time when the papers he went to sign could have been flown to him in Texas without much difference. But this issue was too important and he wanted to spend hours flying there to emphasize to the far right how he had come through for them.

Now let's think about the many other times when Bush couldn't be bothered to spend an hour or two on an issue and decide if any of them were more important.

1. The tsunami victims -- More than 100,000 people died in the worst natural disaster of our lifetime. Millions were left homeless. It happened just after Christmas and hit hard our staunch ally, Thailand. (Many, many Muslims were devastated by this disaster.) Bush couldn't be bothered to step outside for FIVE minutes and offer his heartfelt sympathy to an event that had the rest of the world riveted and shocked. It took Bush DAYS to do anything, even after his aides had bungled our first offer of aid.

2. Investigating 9/11 with Congress -- Bush spent months hemming and hawing and avoiding having to meet with the bipartisan panel trying to look into the worst attack on US soil in history. He finally, grudgingly, spent a few hours but insisted he appear with Cheney by his side, cause they were busy and needed to get this over with.

3. Heck, 9/11 itself -- On the day of the worst attack on US soil in our history, Bush spent hours and hours flying around the country when he could have just spent a few minutes to get in front of a camera and reassure the nation that he was in charge and we'd get through this.

4. Military funerals -- Bush is the first President in US history during wartime (and presumably peacetime as well) who has refused to attend a SINGLE military funeral to honor one of our fallen soldiers. It's not just the couple of hours he can't be bothered to spend; Bush thinks it would be bad politics to remind people that young men and women die in war, so why bother honoring them? They can take a hit on the battlefield, but Bush won't risk taking a hit in the polls. And if things are going so swimmingly in Iraq, why does he STILL refuse to honor our military?

Or in simpler terms: The Terry Schiavo case has been irrevocably muddled by Republicans who sought to use it purely as a political wedge, rather than as an opportunity to take an ethical position with any weight, substance, or actual concern for life. And in doing so, they have denied dignity to Shiavo, denied moral authority to their conservative constituents, and showcased a neverending Republican hypocrisy over a swath of right-to-live issues. Until they are willing to fight for every life, their claims to any moral high ground will forever be undercut by those who they choose not to see.

(Of course, Bush laughing about the notion of giving mercy to a woman on death row in Texas when he was governor doesn't really help his position either.)

But, as Bush told the constituent who asked him a difficult moral question at a party a few years ago, "Who cares what you think?"