DallasMN and ABCNote: Bush 99 Futile Care law consistent with RTLife

[papau]

But on its face it is a pull the plug law. And no one provides pre-99 law to review/compare as to Bush assertion that old rule was only a 3 day delay - so new (99) law's 10 day is an asserted increase in delay the pull the plug of 7 days. And we all know that Bush assertion - and ABC repeats of the assertion - are subject to future corrections.

So who sent the memo to the media demanding they praise Bush for being consistent (while not checking on and reporting on pre-99 Texas Futile Care Law)?



http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/TheNote/story?id=156238
<snip>(the Texas Advance Directives -or "Futile Care" law - signed by then-Governor George W. Bush in 1999) The press coverage at the time, as well as many policy entrepreneurs who are familiar with it, represent it to us as a law that strengthened, not weakened, protection for the dying and incapacitated.

It expanded, as White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan says, a 72-hour waiting period after a formal, post-appeal decision has been made by seven days. It also required a hospital to spent those 10 days in total looking for another facility who would care for a patient.

It created a mechanism for an independent, outside panel to review decisions made by doctors that disagree with court-appointed surrogates (rather than, as the existing law seemed to allow, the doctors' word to be presumed final).

And it was written with help from Texas Right To Life. As McClellan hinted at, after a controversy involving allegedly death-happy doctors in Houston, Bush in 1997 refused to sign a law that allowed hospitals to essentially disregard the rights of surrogates if doctors felt another way, and he worked with legislators from both parties and to craft a newer law that reflected his own values.

So while the law clearly does allow for treatment to be discontinued even over disagreements, it also represented for Bush a significant tightening on what had been a relatively loose, hospital-centric futile care law.

So it's hard to argue, on the basis of this law alone, that Bush is being anything but consistent. Perhaps a case can made on the basis of some other concept, but not here. <snip>

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/texassouthwest/stories/032205dntexlaw.4e640.html

As governor of Texas in 1999, George W. Bush signed into state law procedures for hospitals to end life support for hopeless patients. As president, he signed a federal law over the weekend aimed at prolonging the life of Terri Schiavo. A contradiction? Not so, said Texans familiar with Mr. Bush's action. <snip>

The 1999 state law Mr. Bush signed allows hospitals to disconnect patients if the doctor and a hospital ethics committee agree it's appropriate. But in a nod to right-to-life groups, the law requires hospitals to give families 10 days to find another institution to provide care. <snip>

Letting Congress step into the Schiavo dispute is a big-government decision by Republicans who consistently argue for a smaller federal government and more states' rights, said University of Houston law professor Joan Krause. <snip>


http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=2270&e=4&u=/krwashbureau/20050322/ts_krwashbureau/_bc_braindamagedwoman_bush_wa_1

Law Bush signed as Texas governor prompts cries of hypocrisy

Mon Mar 21, 7:22 PM ET Top Stories - Knight Ridder Newspapers

By William Douglas, Knight Ridder Newspapers

WASHINGTON - The federal law that President Bush signed early Monday in an effort to prolong Terri Schiavo's life appears to contradict a right-to-die law that he signed as Texas governor, prompting cries of hypocrisy from congressional Democrats and some bioethicists.

In 1999, then-Gov. Bush signed the Advance Directives Act, which lets a patient's surrogate make life-ending decisions on his or her behalf. The measure also allows Texas hospitals to disconnect patients from life-sustaining systems if a physician, in consultation with a hospital bioethics committee, concludes that the patient's condition is hopeless...

[BrklynLiberal]

1. Isn't that called "doublethink"

[papau]

4. I think so - but why is ABC News leading with Bush not inconsistent?

And if they want to lead - should they not verify that it was a flat 3 days - and not a random number determined by a Judge - as I suspect was the case.

[Inland]

2. Life is sacred for ten whole days vs. three.

How much more pro life can the man get? AFter all, these are people with NO MONEY! Life is sacred, but it ain't free, so there!

[glarius]

3. Here's Molly Ivins's column on this subject.....She is a credible

and honest writer living and writing in Texas.....She wrote this scathing column about Bush and his Texas law...
<snip>
"For your information, while he was governor of Texas, George W. Bush signed the Advanced Directives Act in 1999, which gives hospitals the right to remove life support in cases where there is no possibility of revival, when the family cannot pay, no matter what the family's wishes are in the matter. In Texas, you can only live in a persistent vegetative state if you are accepted in one of the few institutions that provide such care or if your family is both willing and able to take care of you. And if Bush is so concerned about the right to life, why didn't he give death-row inmate Carla Faye Tucker more than 10 minutes consideration and some cheap mockery?"

http://www.freepress.org/columns/display/1/2005/1097

[BrklynLiberal]

5. She is great..and she knows what she is talking about when it comes to *

[grannylib]

6. "...when the family cannot pay...." read that part very carefully.