Death Panels ARE for real. In...Texas!

[anigbrowl]

Only they enable private healthcare facilites to withdraw care. I encourage you to read the wikipedia link carefully before going off: it's not too long, but it's not as simple as it might first appear.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advance_Directives_Act

Edit: I decided to add the relevant text since it seems some people are too lazy to click on the link. wikipedia text is on a creative commons sharealike license and thus quoting > 4 paragraphs is not a violation of copyright law.

The Texas Advance Directives Act (1999), also known as the Texas Futile Care Law, describes certain provisions that are now Chapter 166 of the Texas Health & Safety Code. Controversy over these provisions mainly centers on Section 166.046, Subsection (e),<1> which allows a health care facility to discontinue life-sustaining treatment against the wishes of the patient or guardian ten days after giving written notice if the continuation of life-sustaining treatment is considered medically inappropriate by the treating medical team. For the hospital personnel to take advantage of legal immunity from prosecution for this the following process must be followed:

- The family must be given written information concerning hospital policy on the ethics consultation process.
- The family must be given 48 hours' notice and be invited to participate in the ethics consultation process. Family members may consult their own medical specialists and legal advisors if they wish.
- The ethics consultation process must provide a written report to the family of the findings of the ethics review process.
- If the ethics consultation process fails to resolve the dispute, the hospital, working with the family, must try to arrange transfer to another provider physician and institution who are willing to give the treatment requested by the family and refused by the current treatment team.
- If after 10 days, no such provider can be found, the hospital and physician may unilaterally withhold or withdraw the therapy that has been determined to be futile.
- The party who disagrees may appeal to the relevant state court and ask the judge to grant an extension of time before treatment is withdrawn. This extension is to be granted only if the judge determines that there is a reasonable likelihood of finding a willing provider of the disputed treatment if more time is granted.
- If either the family does not seek an extension or the judge fails to grant one, futile treatment may be unilaterally withdrawn by the treatment team with immunity from civil or criminal prosecution. <2>

The bill was signed into law while George W. Bush was Governor of Texas. Prior to the passage of this law, no protections or "grace period" existed.<1> Critics have compared this law and its effects with Bush's response to Terri Schiavo's situation, in particular his signing of the Incapacitated Person's Legal Protection Act. <3>

[Catshrink]

1. I immediately thought of GWB's death panels

or death row. Was that Act passed when he was governor?

[anigbrowl]

5. That was indeed signed into law by GWB as gov...but there is a but

prior to that law, a hospital medical team could just cut of treatment with no warning or consultation at all. So in that sense the law is in fact a bit more pro-patient than you might at first assume. This is why I say it's worth reading the wikipedia link.

[Th1onein]

8. Bullshit, anigbrowl. Like most of Bush's misnamed laws, it did the opposite of it's name.

It's called the Advanced Directives Law. What it did was allow the hospital staff to agree with each other to withdraw life sustaining treatment to a patient and give them IMMUNITY against any judicial action against them for doing it. Before this law was passed, a hospital could be sued for withdrawing treatment from a patient in Texas. This law made it possible for them to withdraw treatment with impunity, without fear of a lawsuit.

What most people don't realize when they read the title of the law is that the hospital only has to obey the advanced directive if that advanced directive says to withdraw treatment. They don't have to obey it if it says that the patient wants to continue treatment.

[anigbrowl]

14. It's not bullshit. I just went out of my way to be accurate, not to endorse it.

I think it's worth drawing attention to the existence of such panels, but since I don't want to be accused by some casual reader of dishonest propaganda, I make a point of drawing attention to context, even if that slightly distracts attention from the main point.

Next time you want to call bullshit consider the fact that I went to the trouble posting this in the first place to point out that a Republican governor in a Republican state signed off on a law that created exactly the kind of 'death panel' republicans are falsely claiming they would be subjected by 'Obamacare'.

[Th1onein]

17. I appreciate your original post, however....

I quote you: "...prior to that law, a hospital medical team could just cut of treatment with no warning or consultation at all. So in that sense the law is in fact a bit more pro-patient than you might at first assume."

This law is not "pro-patient" in any way. It ABSOLVES the hospital of any fault. It IMMUNIZES them from lawsuits. IMMUNIZES them. HOW is that "pro-patient" in any way?

Now, suppose they don't go through the "death panel" process that these hospitals are NOW protected by? THEN, they can still be sued. But this Advanced Directives law says that as long as they have their "ethics panel" convene and vote, hey, they can kill at will. That is not "pro-patient."

[anigbrowl]

18. Because that behavior wasn't criminalized

Yes, people could sue, but only if thy had the resources to do so, which they frequently didn't, so hospitals were getting away with it. 'They could be sued' isn't that strong of a legal sanction. In that sense, I stand by my statement that it's 'a bit more pro-patient' - not a whole lot, but a bit, because it requires the hospital not take any action for 12 days after coming to their decision.

But this Advanced Directives law says that as long as they have their "ethics panel" convene and vote, hey, they can kill at will.

No, that's just hyperbole. I prefer accuracy. I am not going to continue this pointless conversation.

[Th1onein]

21. INCORRECT.

They can, now, and they could, before this law was passed, withdraw treatment with the only consequences to them being civil ones. In other words, the family could sue. The family could always sue before, but NOW, with this law, the family CANNOT SUE. The hospital is protected from any kind of legal action against them, because of this law.

Before the law: they could be sued.

After they law: they cannot be sued.

How in the world is that "pro-patient?" This law takes away the right to sue from the patient's family. The hospital can pull the plug, law or no law, but NOW they are immunized from the legal consequences of doing so. That gives NO protection to the patient; it WITHDRAWS protection from the patient. How can you not see that?

[Ian David]

2. See also: ... stand in front of Obama's "death panel"

... stand in front of Obama's "death panel"
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Ian%20David/6554

[zeos3]

20. Thanks for the info

See this post for more on death panels. Let's shed some light on the lies!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6295532

[nightrain]

3. apparently you do not work in the healthcare field... Advance Directives

are something that a person/family member initiates and it is the patient's preferences with regard to what they want/don't want as they near the end of their life. It is NOT a facility's preference.

Advance Directives/Living Wills/Medical Power of Attorney etc have been used for 20 years. This is absolutely nothing new.

Withdrawing care is done per a patient's wishes.

Get informed.

[anigbrowl]

7. apparently you did not read the link in the OP

Just because it is called the 'advanced directive law' does not mean it is the same thing you are talking about.

[nightrain]

10. no I didn't read it. I only glanced at it.

The Texas situation is very different than what the protestors are saying though about the proposals. Glad that advance directives are being followed despite hospital and insurance pressure. I apologize. I had it wrong.

[anigbrowl]

15. No problem. I'm sure the confusing name of the law is deliberate.

[Th1onein]

9. Not in Texas. BZZZZT Wrong.

You are absolutely INCORRECT.

I lived the effects of this fucking law. Andrea Clark is my sister. And the only reason that hospital backed down on withdrawing life sustaining treatment is because their ass was beaten to shreds in the press. My family went out in the hot Texas heat, in front of that hospital, and picketed that hospital. They drugged my sister so much that she couldn't even say a proper goodbye to her family, because they wanted her to be incoherent. But she would come out from under the fentanyl every once in a while, and she was scared out of her mind. She knew what they were trying to do. No one should spend their last days on this earth knowing that their caregivers are trying to kill them.

Before you lecture someone else to "get informed," you need to follow your own advice.

[nightrain]

11. I apologize for not reading the wikipedia article through.

Good for you for following her wishes.

[Th1onein]

12. All is forgiven, nightrain.

I get a little riled up about the topic. I guess most people would, though, when it's a family member.

I'm still pissed off at what they tried to do to us, and what they managed to fuck up, at the end of my sister's life. God damn them.

[nightrain]

13. thank you. take care.

[Th1onein]

4. Andrea Clark is my sister.

St. Luke's Episcopal Hospital in Houston tried to withdraw lifesaving treatment from her. My family picketed the hospital. The rightwing helped us, as did the leftwing. We drew so much publicity that the hospital backed down.

My family, instead of having to fight to keep St. Luke's from killing Andrea, should have been able to be with her, like a normal family, when a person they love is near death. These heartless bastards took our time from our sister's side.

George W. Bush made it possible for them to do this. And the insurance companies love this law, because it cuts their expenditures in these kinds of cases. You are of more value to them if you are dead. If they don't refuse to pay for your care, they will pass laws that allow the doctors to do their dirty work for them. And, they pressure the hospital to pull the plug, or they won't pay them as much in cases that require intensive measures.

They negotiate these contracts with the hospitals every year. The unsaid agreement is that they will pay so much a day for an intensive care patient as long as the hospital doesn't keep a patient too long in intensive care.

It's just like signing a death warrant. And the insurance companies are behind it.

[zbdent]

6. Bush didn't get the media hype when he signed that into law like when he

flew in to Washington D.C. in his jammies to sign the "Save Terri" symbolic legislation ...

[ellenfl]

16. i forgot about this! i remember now that when the fundies were

trying to keep terry schiavo on life support, a hospital in texas was forcing a child off life support and out of the hospital . . . but he was black so no one paid any attention. heck, dubya coulda just stayed home and made his bones by saving that life support patient instead of flying to dc.

republican hypocrisy is just mind boggling.

ellen fl

[zeos3]

19. Wow!

I didn't realize this. Thanks for posting.

Check out this for more currently existing death panels.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6295532