Impeaches and Cream
Tom DeLay wants to Schiavo foot up the judiciary's ass by impeaching the judges who dared to follow the rule of law against the wishes of a vocal minority in the Terri Schiavo matter. (Hat tip: Bashman). I say we tar and feather them. No, wait, scratch that. Why reinvent the wheel? There have been and still are plenty of countries that use creative methods to get their judges to toe the government line. Using Congress's power to impeach comes dangerously close to following the law. Hogwash.
Oh and for you strict textualists and/or religious fanatics who think that governments were ordained to execute the will of God as seen through the eyes of men, I don't see the words "separation of powers" anywhere in the Constitution. Let freedom ring.
Sometimes my head hurts. I don't even want to bother mentioning the earlier Florida Supreme Court decision tossing Jeb Bush's effort to circumvent the court rulings through an act of the Legislature.
Oh and for you strict textualists and/or religious fanatics who think that governments were ordained to execute the will of God as seen through the eyes of men, I don't see the words "separation of powers" anywhere in the Constitution. Let freedom ring.
Sometimes my head hurts. I don't even want to bother mentioning the earlier Florida Supreme Court decision tossing Jeb Bush's effort to circumvent the court rulings through an act of the Legislature.
Labels: Rabid Conservatives
posted by Armen Adzhemyan at 7:06 PM
3 Comments:
Ahh, I love the law. Especially when it starves the handicapped to death. Just wonderful!
Maybe we can starve the liberals next – I certainly wouldn’t want to live like that.
Tom DeLay, Go Home
posted by Sean Sirrine @ 4/4/2005 01:20:00 PM 0 comments
I think it is time for House Majority Leader Tom DeLay to go home and take care of his own community. There has been a lot of hype in the media following his statements following the death of Terri Schiavo. DeLay claims that the judiciary is responsible for the mishandling of the Schiavo case, and that these judges may need to be impeached.
I was directed to a story by RapNews.net, which I’m sure some of you have seen. Findlaw reports that the death of Sun Hudson came about two weeks before Terri Schiavo’s death, but where was the outcry from DeLay? This case seems to me to be every bit as important as the Schiavo case, and it even happened in Texas:
Sun Hudson had been diagnosed with a fatal genetic disorder called
thanatophoric dysplasia, a condition characterized by a tiny chest and lungs too
small to support life. He had been on a ventilator since birth.
Wanda Hudson unsuccessfully fought to continue her son's medical care. She
believed he needed time to grow and could eventually be weaned off the
ventilator.
"I wanted life for my son," Hudson said Tuesday. "The hospital gave up on
him too soon."
Texas law allows hospitals to end life support in cases such
as this but requires that families be given 10 days to find another facility to
care for the patient. No hospital was found to take the baby.
So, DeLay is up in arms about the decisions of some judges over in Florida, but back in Texas we see that it is okay to allow people to die based on the decision of the hospital. I thought this was all about a “culture of life”, not about who could afford the medical care.
Now, I obviously disagreed with Congress’s actions involving the Schiavo case, but I would expect that even those that disagree with me politically would have a hard time swallowing the garbage that DeLay is throwing around these days. At least in Florida someone that had no vested interest in the parties to the case made the decision. In Texas, a hospital that doesn’t want to provide care anymore can legally disconnect their patients regardless of the wishes of the patient.
I believe in the rights of the patient, or in the case of Sun Hudson, the rights of the mother to decide whether or not to cut life support. The Schiavo case came about because there was some argument as to who should be making the decision for Terri. There was no such question in the Hudson case, the hospital made the choice.
Why isn’t everyone more upset at this? Do you want the hospital that is providing your care to decide if you should live or die?
These laws can be found in Chapter 166 of the Texas Health and Safety Code. The particular issue at hand is found in § 166.001, also known as the Advance Directives Act, which was signed into law in 1999 by then Governor George W. Bush. Interestingly, at least three Montgomery County state and federal legislators believe the law deserves a second look according to The Courier, but where is DeLay?
§ 166.039. PROCEDURE WHEN PERSON HAS NOT EXECUTED OR ISSUED A
DIRECTIVE AND IS INCOMPETENT OR INCAPABLE OF COMMUNICATION. (b) If the patient does not have a legal guardian or an agent under a medical power of attorney, the attending physician and one person, if available, from one of
the following categories, in the following priority, may make a treatment
decision that may include a decision to withhold or withdraw life-sustaining treatment:
(1) the patient's spouse;
(2) the patient's reasonably available adult children;
(3) the patient's parents; or
(4) the patient's nearest living relative.
(f) The fact that an adult qualified patient has not executed or issued a
directive does not create a presumption that the patient does not want a
treatment decision to be made to withhold or withdraw life-sustaining
treatment. (g) A person listed in Subsection (b) who wishes to challenge a
treatment decision made under this section must apply for temporary guardianship
under Section 875, Texas Probate Code. The court may waive applicable fees
in that proceeding.
So, we see that there are very similar issues in Texas as were found in Florida. The husband is the priority decision maker, but the parents could have tried to wrestle that decision away in the courts. Should the courts get involved? They have to, it’s the law. Also, I’d like to note that the law in Texas doesn’t presuppose that the patient wants to stay alive. Now, if I understand correctly, the argument that Congress made was that there should be a presumption of life. Texas explicitly denies this concept.
§ 166.046. PROCEDURE IF NOT EFFECTUATING A DIRECTIVE OR TREATMENT
DECISION.(e) If the patient or the person responsible for the health care
decisions of the patient is requesting life-sustaining treatment that the
attending physician has decided and the review process has affirmed is
inappropriate treatment, the patient shall be given available life-sustaining
treatment pending transfer under Subsection (d). The patient is
responsible for any costs incurred in transferring the patient to another
facility. The physician and the health care facility are not obligated to
provide life-sustaining treatment after the 10th day after the written decision
required under Subsection (b) is provided to the patient or the person
responsible for the health care decisions of the patient unless ordered to do so
under Subsection (g). (g) At the request of the patient or the person
responsible for the health care decisions of the patient, the appropriate
district or county court shall extend the time period provided under Subsection
(e) only if the court finds, by a preponderance of the evidence, that there is a
reasonable expectation that a physician or health care facility that will honor
the patient's directive will be found if the time extension is
granted.
If the patient cannot find a place to be moved after the hospital decides to end life sustaining activities, the patient is unable to challenge the hospital’s decision. Maybe this it what DeLay wants though, at least you don’t have the judiciary making decisions on issues like what the patient might want.
§ 166.158. DUTY OF HEALTH OR RESIDENTIAL CARE(b) The attending
physician does not have a duty to verify that the agent's directive is
consistent with the principal's wishes or religious or moral beliefs.
This is the most ominous portion of the code. Not only can the hospital make decisions for patients, if an agent of the patient decides against life, the hospital doesn’t even have to consider whether or not this was the wish of the patient. Here, we see that Texas code gives little value to patients’ rights. I think there are enough problems with the code in Texas that Tom DeLay could get involved if he truly cares about this issue.
So, Tom DeLay, please go home and fix your own problems. It is much easier to point the finger at someone else’s mistakes than fix your own, but we all know we’ll see you in the media shortly decrying this outrageous injustice.
Ahh, I love the law. Especially when it starves the handicapped to death. Just wonderful!
Maybe we can starve the liberals next – I certainly wouldn’t want to live like that.
I love the law too...about 50% of the time. The rest of the time I just rely on my elected representatives to use everything in their power to make sure that number is as close to 100% as possible.
Frankly, I'm just shocked that Congress has not created indoctrination camps for judges who are, you know, "not independent enough" *wink wink* *nod nod*.
Post a Comment
<< Home