BuzzFlash Reader Contribution

CONTRIBUTOR ARCHIVES  

George W. Bush, King of Hypocrisy

A BUZZFLASH READER CONTRIBUTION
by Dan DeLisio

It is simply a monumental outrage that Mr. Bush, who enthusiastically slashes budgets for programs that help poor and sick people stay alive, is now in a hurry to sign an unconstitutional, invasive piece of legislation to keep Terri Schiavo alive. Never mind that he is using the power of the federal government to interfere in a wrenching personal decision made by a husband for a wife in a persistent vegatative state, consistent with her expressed wishes, and, in so doing, overriding the reasoned medical opinions of a vast number of experts who are familiar with the case, as well as overriding the final decisions of Florida's highest court. (Of course he is quite comfortable with that since federal court interference with the decision of Florida's highest court is what put him in office in the first place)

Though that is outrageous enough, what makes it most outrageous is that as governor of Texas, he signed a piece of legislation enabling a patient's physician and health care facility appointed review committee to involuntarily terminate the life support of those who have executed a living will, even if they expressly indicated their wish in an advance directive to be kept alive through extraordinary means and even if it is AGAINST THEIR FAMILY's or GUARDIAN'S EXPRESS WISHES.

Under Bush's law, once a physician and health care facility "review committee" makes the decision that further life sustaining medical treatment requested by a patient is "inappropriate," the patient's family or guardian is then obligated, at their expense, to find another facility which would agree to take the patient within ten days. Bush's law is vague as to what is "inappropriate treatment." It is whatever the physician and health care facility review committee decide it is under the circumstances. The fact that a grieving spouse or family member has ten days at their expense to find other care is woefully inadequate and can be an insurmountable burden if they have no means to pay.

See:

Section 166.046 (e)

e) If the patient is requesting life-sustaining treatment that the attending physician and the review process have decided 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).

* * *

(subsection g is if a judge orders them to continue care pending transfer but that is all the judge can do)

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.

The law affords the family only a tiny chance, again at their own legal expense, ask a judge to review the case; however, this review itself is grotesquely circumscribed by the law. Under Bush's law, the standard of review for the judge is not the decision to terminate itself, but, instead, the judge is restricted to merely deciding whether there is a reasonable chance that another facility can be found which will take the patient. The patient's family thus has no real opportunity to contest the validity of the decision to terminate. Indeed the law does not even provide a guaranteed right to present contrary medical testimony to the review committee nor does it allow a neutral factfinder like a judge to review the propriety of the decision to terminate.

This law creates situations which are infinitely worse than the Schiavo case. In the Schiavo case her wishes are being honored, and her guardian and the courts have approved the termination. Indeed, Terri Schiavo has gotten more of a court hearing into the propriety of the termination than is allowed under Bush's Texas law. So what we have here is a situation where, to score cheap political points, as the recently disclosed memo from House Republicans indicates is the real motivation here, Bush is going to keep this person alive against her wishes, even though he knowingly signed a law allowing many people to be terminated, legally, against their wishes. The latter situation allowed by Bush's law, state sponsored termination of life against the patient's or family's wish, is euthanasia and exactly what pro-life people who are his base are supposedly committed to stopping.

Bush's law has already had real world effects on real people. Bush's law has been used to involuntarily discontinue treatment of an infant and person who was the victim of a medical accident, against their guardians' express wishes.

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/front/3087387

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/3079622

In a way though, Bush is being perfectly consistent. By ruthlessly pursuing the draconian slashing of health care budgets to preserve his tax cuts for the rich he is ensuring that, as with the practical effect of his Texas law, more people will die prematurely because they have become "too expensive" to keep alive. Anyone who considers themselves "pro life" and who is supporting Mr. Bush ought to take a hard look then at his actions, not his words. His actions show that his real compassion is reserved for corporations and money lenders and the very wealthy, his base, certainly not for real human beings in dire need.

Dan DeLisio

A BUZZFLASH READER CONTRIBUTION