Baby Doctors Wanted to "Let Die," Dies.

I'm amazed that the "Catholic" news service soft pedaled the headline on this story. This is the case where a Texas hospital wanted to suspend treatment on an infant, unquestionably leading to his death, over the objections of his parents!

So much for the libertarian posturing of the left that their "March of Death" on abortion and euthenasia is about "empowering" individuals.

(I thought the paintings by Mary Cassatt were a mild palliative for the Orwellian and Kafka-esque overtones of this story.)

___________________________

Texas boy on life support dies; case prompted debate on medical care

By Catholic News Service

AUSTIN, Texas (CNS) -- Emilio Gonzales, a 19-month-old boy whose care became the focus of a debate over what constituted proportionate medical care, died May 19 at Children's Hospital of Austin.

Emilio, who had been blind and deaf since birth, was admitted to the hospital Dec. 27 with a collapsed lung. He was also diagnosed with Leigh's disease, an incurable disease which causes the central nervous system to break down.

Emilio's mother, Catarina Gonzales, had obtained a restraining order forcing Children's Hospital of Austin to keep her son on a respirator. He was on life support when he died.

Bishop Gregory M. Aymond of Austin, in Rome for a meeting, said in a May 20 statement: "I join with Catarina and her family in accompanying Emilio with prayer as he goes home to the Lord. I pledge my prayers for Catarina and her family in this time of loss and as I pray at the tomb of Pope John Paul II this week in Rome, I will ask him to accompany Emilio and his family with his prayers."

Children's Hospital had argued that Emilio's condition was such that he should be given "comfort care" -- water, pain medication and other ordinary medical treatment. Children's Hospital is part of a 31-facility Catholic health system in central Texas hospitals called the Seton Family of Hospitals.

The legal wrangle added to the debate over when to use life-sustaining care and when such care is considered futile treatment.

Bishop Aymond had said in an April 15 statement that moving to comfort care "would be morally acceptable" in Emilio's case. Continued extraordinary treatment, he said then, "will only result in greater pain for Emilio, without curing or improving the condition from which he suffers."

Texas law permits hospitals to override the wishes of patients or their families and provide comfort care rather than extraordinary measures they deem "inappropriate," but the law also gives patients and families the option of transferring to a hospital willing to provide extraordinary care.

Since the law was signed in 1999 by then-Gov. George W. Bush, transfers have been rare. Catarina Gonzales was trying to get a Florida hospital to take her son at the time he died.

In his April statement, Bishop Aymond noted that some compared Emilio's situation to that of Terri Schindler Schiavo, the brain-damaged Florida woman who became the center of a highly publicized debate on end-of-life issues and who died in March 2005 after a court ordered her feeding tube be removed. But he said the two cases "are very different; in the Schiavo case ordinary means -- food and water -- were withdrawn, which caused her death."

Schiavo's sister, Suzanne Vitadamo, though, had asserted in a statement that the hospital was wrong to try to take away Emilio's life support. "That a hospital 'ethics' committee would vote to end the life of a child against his mother's wishes is unbelievable," Vitadamo said in her April 20 statement.

A funeral Mass for Emilio was to be celebrated May 23 at St. Mary of the Visitation Church in Lockhart with burial immediately following at St. Mary Cemetery in Lockhart.

Comments

[Janus]

It's terrible that the hospital wanted to act against the wishes of the parent, but by the bishop's own admission, denial of life support in this case would not have constituted euthanasia.

[Jason]

This is the first post on this blog I completely disagree with. The headline is uncharitable at best. Did the doctors really want to kill this baby? Or were they merely acknowledging the reality that this child had a terminal illness for which there is no cure.

When does artificial means to extend life become cruel and unethical? Even the Bishop seems to have sided with the hospital.

Implying that the doctors are baby killers (at least in desire) is unworthy of this blog.

Thankfully God had mercy on this child to deliver him from the pain his parents were insisting on putting him through ini their grief.

[carolg]

I don't know the specifics of this case but from the article it sounds like what was being 'removed' was extraordinary care - which as the Bishop said is very different from the Terry Schiavo case. I can certainly understand that the mother wanted to hang onto every breath her child could take, but it doesn't sound like what the hospital did was immoral. Maybe handled poorly in terms of being sensitive to the mother's desires to find another facility to take her daughter, but I don't know that it was immoral.

And I agree with Jason - you don't know the doctors wanted to 'kill' this baby and it seems incorrect to say so.

Someone please correct me - am I wrong?

[Loyolalaw98]

I appreciate the nuance contained in the posts above, but I do not fell that they override the CAVEAT that the parents did not want the extraordinary means stopped.

Apply the hospitals position to a different scenario. Great grand dad has terminal cancer, but wants to live a little bit longer. Extraordinary means are required. Who gets the decision, the patient or the doctors?

A decade ago they had a nut case governor in Colorado? His name may have been Lamb? who proposed rationing healthcare to seniors on the premise that it wasn't cost effective to keep seniors alive with terminal illnesses, or illnesses that significantly effected their quality of life.

The day is coming when we will be debating such cases.

O tempora, o mores!

[Literacy-chic]

I was baptized & confirmed by Bishop Aymond, who also served as the parish priest for a friend when he was growing up in Louisiana. I have no doubt that Bishop Aymond's judgment is sound and that he is compassionate. It is clear that even though life support was continued, it did not and would not save the child. This is sad, but is false hope for the parents a better option? Or prolonged suffering for the child?

Having said this, the law deserves some attention. Perhaps if it appeared that life support would extend the life of the suffering patient for years--rather than months, as in this case--the transfer to comfort care would be more understandable. But then perhaps it would seem like God's will that the patient be kept alive.

One concern of mine is what role the finances of the patient's family plays in this delicate balance. If the family were paying cash, would the "transfer" to less costly care be as rapid? What about patients who received Medicare or Medicaid? When does it stop being about the good of the patient? Living in Texas, knowing about this law scares the heck out of me. Bishop Aymond's judgment I trust; the judgment of hospital staff and doctors in the area where I live? Not so much... And let's not even talk about the medical billing offices...

[Séamas]

Based on the information we have (or at least the information I have) it would have been morally permissible, as the bishop said, to move to "comfort care." Therefore it is incorrect and rash to say that doctors wanted to "kill" the child, since withdrawing extraordinary treatment is not euthanasia.

The question is whether the hospital has the right to withdraw extraordinary treatment against the wishes of the patient, or, in the case of children, the patient's parents or guardians (but the answer to that question has no effect on whether the act itself is euthanasia or not).

Put another way, does the hospital have an obligation to provide treatment which is not in itself morally required?

Do patients/parents have the right to demand of hospitals treatments that are not morally required?

Great grandpa can decide for himself if he wants to place the burden of extraordinary treatment on himself, but is it moral for parents to place that burden on a child, causing him suffering just to extend his life a little while, when there is no reasonable hope for a cure?

If not, then the parents would not have a moral right to make such a decision (we don't have a moral right to do what is immoral).

On the other hand, there have been times when parents have made such decisions, trusting in God, and God provided a miracle.

These are sticky issues and I don't have enough knowledge to make a judgment. But the questions perhaps need to be asked.

[carlos]

I think Seamas is correct in winnowing the question to whether the hospital had the right to withdraw extraordinary treatment. Assuming that the treatment that Emilio was receiving was indeed extraordinary (and I do not know if this was at issue or not), then it would seem to be most in accord with our common law and statutory schemes to allow the child's parents to make the decision as to whether the care should be continued.

[Jimbo]

I have to say that I, too, read the story without my moral conscience being piqued, although future problems did come to mind. The issue, at least to my limited mind/understanding, revolves around extraordinary measures/treatment. I think it is a bit troubling that the parents were ignored this time, although perhaps appropriately this time; but I'll wager in the near-future this decision will be made illicitly...when the cost of care will decide the issue over parental objections.

We're quickly coming to a Brave New World; unless these issues are hashed out a bit better, then the culture of death will greatly expand.

[Subvet]

The way this case has been presented in the Dallas media was a bit different from what you've got here.

According to the local fishwrap the parents were working against a very short time period allowed for the location of an extended care facility. The time period is cited in state regulations for cases such as these so an inordinate amount of expense isn't incurred. The hospital administration was cast in the role of bean counters more interested in the bottom line than compassion for a stricken family.

While the bishop's point was valid and I know the child had no hope for recovery short of a miracle, it still irks me to have life or death decisions reduced to counting the dollars and cents. Color me needlessly soft-hearted but I've always sided with the family on this one.