Feudal Care
And another thing.
By now most people who read liberal blogs are aware that George W. Bush signed a law in Texas that expressly gave hospitals the right to remove life support if the patient could not pay and there was no hope of revival, regardless of the patient’s family’s wishes. It is called the Texas Futile Care Law. Under this law, a baby was removed from life support against his mother’s wishes in Texas just this week. A 68 year old man was given a temporary reprieve by the Texas courts just yesterday.
I didn’t know that until I read it on a blog. It doesn’t surprise me – of course Bush would sign a law like that. What else would he do, support ‘socialized medicine’? That would take away the whole point of being rich, talentless, lazy, and well-connected. It doesn’t surprise me, but it does disgust me that little bit more. All that sanctimony – that crap about the presumption in favour of life. What did he do, whisper so softly that the mikes didn’t pick it up ‘if you have the money, that is‘? Mark Kleiman has more.
Good challenge to Bush on moral consistency.
I think the opinion pieces here are wrong: this is a case to stay the hell out of.
Both sides of opinionated noisemakers are making good points. And both are really beating up the other side for self-righteous pleasure.
We had a case here where a ‘terminal’ woman insisted on her right to die, went through an assisted suicide – and an autopsy showed she was healthy, not about to die at all.
The case as we see it has such a layer of selected information, made-up misinformation and emotional manipulation that we cannot trust our own reactions. That, now that I think of it, may be what a court is there for. Maybe we should exhort the court to try and get it right, and live with their decision?
I’m still trying to find where it is that this old law Bush signed says anything about being indigent (it’s at http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/statutes/docs/HS/content/htm/hs.002.00.000166.00.htm if there are any lawyers out there:)). Looks to me (and from what I’ve read) that it made it harder for hospitals to pull the plug, not easier, and that it wasn’t so much a case of ‘pull the plug if they can’t afford it’ so much as ‘if your family has the money to pay for hospital care then if they can find anyone willing to take it that’s up to you.’
Critically any decision to overrule a parent or guardian must go through the hospital’s ethics committee – so unless you make the presumption that ethics committees base their decisions on ability to pay then the latter factor is a theoretical non-issue.
From other things I’ve read Bush would have been more than happy to go for legislation prefering a balance still more in favour of preserving ‘life’, but was not in a position to do so politically.
Not that the whole thing doesn’t reek of rightwing hipocrisy – I just think this Texas law is a bit of a red herring.
Well done on investigating, Out.
‘Not in a position to do so politically’ – so his principle gave way to a self-interested consideration? That happens – it just doesn’t seem to sit well with all the sanctimony now.
Yes, but is it ACTUAL sanctimony or the sanctimony projected onto the Right Wing Death Beast by his critics? Plenty of sanctimony on both sides, but especially from commentators on blogs and media, from either ‘side’.
Well, I was thinking of the Bushy sanctimony. The ‘culture of life’ drivel, from Mr Death Penalty. Actual sanctimony, in my book.