UPDATE: Mrs. Jones Is Dying Right Now via TADA; SB 2089 Is More Important than Ever

Many of us have talked and written about Mrs. Jones, the conscious woman who Memorial Hermann Hospital in Houston decided they just did not want to treat anymore; not that her care was ineffective or harming her more than benefitting her. Well, today is the 10th day and as they said they would, they withdrew her ventilator. Not only that, if she is not dead by tomorrow, they will withdraw her dialysis. 

Emily Kebodeaux Cook, of Texas Right to Life, has been trying to help the family. Unfortunately, Mrs. Jones could not be transferred in time and there were financial hurdles. The new news outlet, The Texan, covered the story again today in more detail. 

Just a bit ago, Emily posted this update:

This would not be legal if SB 2089 was passed. It will not save Mrs. Jones, but it could stop this in the future. There is very little time left in this session. I've heard that today might be the last day the Senate can vote on the bill, but I've also seen indications that we might have another day or two, but I'd not count on that. I do know that time is of the essence. 

If the Senate does not pass it immediately, then the House cannot take it up. SB 2089 will die. Opponents are wanting this bill as dead as Mrs. Jones is going to be when Memorial Hermann is finished withdrawing her life-sustaining treatment. This must end. This session. 

I also know that very few people actually call their Congressmen to voice their opinions about things. So when people do, they assume that there are even more of that viewpoint. The net result is that your one call or email count vastly more than your one vote come election time. 

The phones and inboxes of our Texas Senators need to be flooded with calls and emails right this second. You can send an email easily using this form and it will go to your proper senator.

The forces that oppose SB 2089 are in full swing and, frankly, more disgusting than ever in their support of involuntary passive euthanasia. They are claiming that patients will actually lose rights under SB 2089. 

What rights would those be that are lost by SB 2089 which just patients them more than 10 days to find a facility and requires treatment until they can be transferred? That is the only interpretation of this that makes sense - if you have to oppose SB 2089 to "protect patient" rights - then logically, they are claiming rights are lost. That is not true. That is a lie. 

Patients have no due process rights now under current law! I've talked about this many times. 

Some are claiming that this bill will harm patients at the end of life:

I ask that you do the opposite of what TAL says - that you to call Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick at that number and tell him to do the pro-life thing, stop euthanasia, and SUPPORT SB 2089.

The Texas Catholic Conference of Bishops are claiming: 

Remember, these are patients who want their care continued, such as Chris Dunn and Mrs. Jones. Some are unable to speak for themselves but their families are in the best position to know what they would want. (TAL is run by a Catholic and the TCCB and Catholic Health Association (another opponent of SB 2089 as I've written before) are presumably Catholic or run by or advised by Catholics. Read up on the Principle of Subsidiarity. I've written about it here, here, and here.) Remember, Sec. 166.046 overrides your Advance Directive and any Medical Power of Attorney you may have given someone. They don't have to listen to you. If you're in an 046 situation, they are not intending to or you'd not be in this quagmire. There is no one better able to decide what is in your best interest and what you would want than your family. And, no, contrary to what many of these opponents to SB 2089/proponents of the current involuntary passive euthanasia law say, these patients are not all in the situation where the patient is being harmed by the continued care. I discussed those scenarios before (see the footnote and the link in the footnote). That's not what we're talking about. But in the majority of these cases, the care is not being withdrawn because it is not working or harmful, but because it is working and those in authority don't think the life is worth living; they've made a quality of life determination for you or your loved one. That's not their job.  

Here's one more point I'm not sure I've made on this blog but I had this discussion on Facebook with the below-mentioned particularly vocal proponent of current law and a doctor's right to decide whether you live or die and when. She made the same claim that the TCCB is - that the care will go on indefinitely. That's just not true as a matter of logic and science...and common sense. What I said then was:

Sometimes transfer takes time and is difficult. Many of these patients are going to die with their life-sustaining treatment in place as their underlying conditions overtake them. The families understand that and just don’t want the deaths hastened by imposing involuntary passive euthanasia on them. Thus, the care is not indefinite. Many will eventually be transferred especially if obstacles are cleared. Some will actually recover to a point where it’s not needed. 

Currently, this very reasonable bill is trying to be killed by those who simply think they should decide when you live or die. They support euthanasia and have supported existing law in legal briefs before court. Don’t buy what they say now.

One particularly vocal involuntary passive euthanasia activist who claims the mantle of pro-life asserts that getting two days' notice, being able to attend the hearing, and being about "to go to court" are rights under current law. That there are a few things provided in the procedure do not make them due process rights. A family gets to sit there and be told what's going to happen to their loved one against their will that ultimately is the withdrawal of their life-sustaining care which will thereby hasten their death. Those aren't rights. That is certainly not due process which requires sufficient notice, the right tot be heard (attending is not being heard), the right to representation (I know for a fact that attorneys and patient advocates have been prevented from attending medical ethics hearings), the right to a tribunal free of conflicts of interest (that cannot occur as a matter of fact when all the board members are employees of the hospital or otherwise connected with it), the right to appeal (the right to go to court is to beg for a few more days within that limited 10 days requiring evidence you may not yet have; that's not really going to court to address the merits and receive a review of what happened), etc. Due process is a specifically defined term under the law as I mentioned in the post linked above. 

This is serious. Every one of us will end up in the hospital one day or have a loved one there with some serious illness or injury. How can anyone not relate to this and not want someone with this mentality calling the shots about pulling their plugs? I just still can't understand it. 

Remember, all of the alleged concerns of the opponents of SB 2089 and those who justify TADA - including the conscience rights for doctors - can be addressed in ways other than killing the patient that someone no longer wants to treat. They refuse to see this. They are dangerous. This law is dangerous. It is not pro-life, it is euthanasia in Texas. And once euthanasia begins, it expands. Remember what I talked about last time. 

There is simply no way to justify this or characterize it as anything other than involuntary passive euthanasia. 

Please pray for the Jones Family. Pray for Texas Right to Life and everyone there working to get SB 2089 passed, including its author Sen. Bryan Hughes. Please pray that those who oppose SB 2089, support TADA, and thereby support involuntary passive euthanasia are converted. Pray for the Senate including your Senator by name, even if you think they will not pass this. Pray anyway. Pray for Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick that he will assert his influence as the leader of the Senate to move this legislation. Pray for its passage. Pray for the House to take it up and pass it. Pray for Gov. Abbott to sign it into law. Pray for the Culture of Life and its success. Pray that the Culture of Death be beaten back and defeated. Pray without ceasing. 

Thanks for reading!

❤️☦

P.S. Incidentally, at least one well-positioned Catholic has taken to criticizing me for calling out the TCCB now that I'm not a Catholic anymore. (I've chosen not to post the screenshots here.) As you know, I publicly announced my conversion to Russian Orthodoxy in December. What I did not write then was that I did so in part because I anticipated just such a "response" to my advocacy. In fact, this person at least at one point was a board member of the organization I expected such an "attack" to come from. The response was a poor attempt at an ad hominem (a logical fallacy) and an example of the error of clericalism and the bandwagon fallacy, which, as you know, I've written about before in this context. 

To state the obvious: I do not have to be a Catholic to call out Catholic clerics for creating yet another scandal for faithful Catholics to endure as they promote euthanasia. (I have many Catholic friends. Not a single one of them supports TADA or the Bishops on this. A number of them aren't certain they will remain Catholic as they've had more than anyone should have to endure of scandals, including this one. They do not like this either. They are just not all called to say so publicly. But the idea that everyone does as the Bishops say on this matter is completely incorrect. The Catholics I know are fully aware of their moral obligation to understand what the RCC teaches and apply it correctly to each context. They have done the proper analysis and reached the same conclusion I did - SIX YEARS AGO - when I was still a Catholic who thought that the Bishops might right the ship on this (among other things).) 

To put it another way: Do we have to be abortionists to oppose abortion and call out other abortion proponents and abortionists? Do you see how illogical this is? 

A Christian or pro-life justification for TADA cannot be found. (And, by the way, none was offered here, except that the Bishops are right.) We simply don't involuntarily passively euthanize people. We just don't. We don't treat humans like animals. It's dehumanizing. It's immoral. It's unethical. It's unconstitutional. And, as I said in December, I'll call out any person or group that does this. My religion has nothing to do with it except that it has taught me right from wrong and a consistent life ethic that I have chosen to take into the Public Square. But I know others who argue from a secular position, as I do from time to time as well, and we are just as correct from that standpoint. All life has value. All life should be protected. 

We err, if we are to err at all, on the side of life. Always.

Judie Brown of the American Life League Writes about SB 2089; Why This Issue Is Important

Initially, I was going to make this Update 4 to my previous post which I continue to update with relevant information, but I decided this one warranted its own post.

Judie Brown of American Life League has written an article entitled "Death: The Definitive Painkiller." She notes that the use of the term "palliative care" used to just mean providing comfort and relief to a suffering or dying patient, but in more recent times it is used to mean, basically, euthanasia. (I have come to learn this as well. "Comfort care" may very often be code for "snowing" a patient - that is, providing so much morphine they die. It's a way of getting around the prohibition against active euthanasia and speed the effects of passive euthanasia at times. More on that another time.) 

Mrs. Brown writes about death by organ donation and how that plays into these euthanasia cases as well. Read that. It's truly stunning. Bobby Schindler has been bringing awareness to this issue this week as well. At some point I'm going to discuss that. There was a bill brought up this session in Texas to make organ donation automatic and opt-out only. I don't think it has gotten anywhere, but we are going to have to confront this issue very soon as politically unpopular and as misunderstood as it might be. Organ donation plays a roll in a too many of the euthanasia cases we see. We have to confront realities and bring truth and light into the darkness. 

Getting back to the article, Mrs. Brown then writes about SB 2089 and provides cites, among others, to this blog for which I am honored and grateful. It made me aware of this fact: The nation is watching Texas. Will it do the right thing? That's entirely up to the Senate right now and, frankly, they need to have a fire lit under them. That's where you come in! 

Mrs. Brown states: 

In the state of Texas, pro-life Senate Bill 2089 is up for consideration right now. This proposal would undo the negative effects of the Texas Advance Directive Act. TADA violates the personal liberties of conscience among those who do not ascribe to euthanasia practices. How? According to Texas Right to Life, TADA—the 10-Day-Law—has

“been accurately described by people across the political spectrum as ‘death panels.’ The patient and his or her legal surrogate have a mere 10 days to arrange an emergency transfer to another facility that would be willing to continue treatment. Such a transfer is often extraordinarily complicated in such cases, and there are no practical means under the 10-Day-Law for a typical patient to stop the ticking clock on their own.”

She wrote and tweeted:

She stated also: 

Too many within the healthcare community embrace philosophies and practices that threaten those patients who truly need relief from suffering so that they can live the balance of their lives in comfort rather than literally being put down like dogs by any means possible.

Note that this is in the example of the definition of euthanasia I so often cite to on this blog, straight out of Merriam Webster's Dictionary. But people are not dogs and ought not be treated as such. 

She then reminds us: 

We must be clear: Ventilators and feeding tubes keep patients comfortable. They are not extreme. But perhaps the unspoken idea here is that palliative medication, when given in very high doses, represents a better use of resources and a quicker way to end a life deemed without quality or purpose.

Recall that Mrs. Jones has a ventilator and is on dialysis. Neither is extreme. But Memorial Herman wants her dead anyway, despite the fact that other facilities will take her once her funding is approved which will take a few more days than the 10 it gave her to get out or be dead. On what rational, moral basis is this justified? It's not ethical either. But some people call things what they clearly are not. Some people lie. Some people distort. But all people deserve better and need to know the truth. Read the rest of her article. It is enlightening and information from another source that you can use to educate yourself and promote the true cause of life from conception until natural death. 

Why do I spend so much time on this? Is it really that important? Yes. Because, as Wesley J. Smith wrote an hour ago: 

Once euthanasia consciousness grabs a culture by the throat, it never stops squeezing.

The plain and simple fact is that Texas has a law that allows involuntary passive euthanasia right now. It is unconstitutional. It has no due process rights for patients and that law is used by hospitals to sentence them to death. We can't have that and call ourselves pro-life. And, it won't stop there. The Culture of Death never stops. and the Culture of Death is alive and well and is here in Texas. It has taken hold of and is promoted by groups that call themselves pro-life and yet promote euthanasia and by an organization that speaks for and lobbies for the entirety of the Catholic Church in Texas and all of its bishops. So far, I've not seen a single bishop break ranks and speak out in favor of SB 2089 except for Bishop Gracida who the rest ignore (to their shame!). Silence is complicity. The Catholic Church has had too much of that. It's time for them to speak out now and actually promote the Culture of Life that Roman Catholic Church doctrine teaches. Every single one of us needs to promote the Culture of Life and light and truth in this dark, fallen world. We have an unceasing duty and moral obligation to do this. In this context, lives depend on it. 

Please continue to contact your senators and let them know that you support SB 2089 and want it brought for a floor vote immediately. Session is over in about 19 days. We are close. That's why TAL, the TCCB, and others are fighting it so hard. We have to fight back.

Thanks for reading! 

MORE UPDATES: Texas Woman in the Crosshairs of TADA; SB 2089 Is STILL Being Opposed by the Usual Suspects

See below for Updates, currently there are 3.

Friends, a Texas woman - right this second - is being victimized by the Texas Advance Directives Act. Her 10-day clock has started ticking. Texas Right to Life has the full story because they are helping her. In that article, there is a video of Mr. Jones testifying in favor of SB 2089 in April. Watch it. Listen to what he's gone through. No patient or family victimized by TADA testified against SB 2089. Think about that. 

Mrs. Jones is conscious, on dialysis and a ventilator. Memorial Hermann Southwest Hospital in Houston wants to kill her against her and her husband's wishes. 

Right now, the Usual Suspects, Texas Alliance for Life, the Texas Catholic Conference of Bishops, Texans for Life Coalition, the Texas Medical Association, the Texas Hospital Association, etc., are still waging war against SB 2089 which would end this 10-day deadline, thereby giving patients like Mrs. Jones treatment until transfer is possible. 

The Usual Suspects right now are telling people - publicly - that this law will take away patient rights which means that they are also claiming that patients have rights now. Follow the #SB2089 thread on Twitter. But here are some screenshots to give you a taste and note that they never answer my questions:

Their tweets and representations are that families force patients to undergo painful interventions and suffering indefinitely. Their tweets are that families and the patient cannot determine when they will cease life-sustaining care and when they wish to continue. Of course, if you read this blog, if you've read the current law, if you've read SB 2089 - which have all been linked to in my previous posts and are here again because I want you to have that information - then you know better. You can see that they are lying right now and the consequences are disastrous. 

Mrs. Jones is on dialysis and a ventilator. People live for a long time on dialysis. People can live a long time on breathing assistance. (NOTE: ventilators do not breathe for you; they aid in breathing, the body still has to perform respiration on its own and breathe out). This is not necessarily painful or causing them unnecessary suffering. TAL claims this sort of care has no medical benefit. That's untrue. There is medical benefit to providing a patient air and dialysis, it is sustaining their lives. It's not complicated. 

But here's the thing about suffering and determining what life-sustaining care to continue: that is for the patient or their family to decide (because the family best knows how the patient would want to face their serious illness, injury, or death). People often need medical interventions but that does not mean they are always "terminal." Now, their lives would certainly be prematurely terminated without this intervention which is apparently what these organizations support. And, even terminal patients deserve air and other life-sustaining interventions as their diseases or conditions overtake them.* Withdrawing that life-sustaining care hastens their death prematurely, and, in these cases, against their will. That is the result of it. If the care was not actually sustaining life, it would not be an issue. (See Wesley Smith's testimony. As he noted, the care is not being withdrawn because it is not working, but because it is.) But the point is that someone else has determined that time is up for these people and their life-sustaining care must be withdrawn. That, my friends, is involuntary euthanasia. That, my friends, is what these organizations support. 

(NOTE: If the patients or families agreed with the withdrawal of care, the TADA Sec. 166.046 procedure would not have to be invoked because there would be no disagreement.) 

More to the point - this law - which is supported by people who claim to be religious and pro-life is being used to kill a conscious woman against her will. Just as it was used to sentence Chris Dunn to a premature death had he not sued to challenge the law.

I find it rich that TAL and the TCCB claim that this is all about doctors' consciences (when, as I've written before, it is clearly not and that could be addressed simply by transferring care to another doctor or facility) and yet their consciences are untroubled by withdrawing air and kidney aid from a conscious woman and allowing her to die as her kidneys fill up with waste, her system is poisoned, and she chokes for lack of air. Really? That's the morally superior position, the one that assuages consciences? Don't buy it. 

These organizations are behaving like vultures. I'll just say it that bluntly. That is the only logical conclusion given facts like these. Look at Mrs. Jones and Chris Dunn. People conscious and begging for their lives are being killed and these orgs say nothing about it, do nothing about it, support it, and lie about the reform bills that could change it. They continue to support the current law and oppose treatment until transfer and any due process rights for patients. If you call them on it directly, they slink away and never answer these questions. (I engage with them only to demonstrate this to others; I am under no illusion that I can change their minds. But the grassroots need to see this issue for what it is and these orgs for who and what they are. That is best demonstrated in their own words. Go to the thread and read it for yourself.)

But let me be clear - even if Mrs. Jones were not conscious - I would not support withdrawing her care against her family's wishes in order to kill her prematurely. Her state of consciousness just emphasizes how doctors and hospitals who use this procedure, and the orgs who support and enable this, abuse and dehumanize patients and how badly they have lost their way. These orgs cannot be saved right now. But Mrs. Jones and patients like her in Texas can be. By you. 

Contact your Senators right now and ask them to co-sponsor and vote for SB 2089. Ask them to push this for a floor vote in the Senate immediately. Time is of the essence for Mrs. Jones and for this session. Tell them not to be dissuaded from doing the right thing just because some other organizations oppose it. Time is running out. Tell them not to fail to do something just because not every organization agrees. Sometimes you cannot split the baby. The fact is, sometimes those who claim to be pro-life really are not. Sometimes they don't support the Constitution and due process. SB 2089 needs to be passed immediately with or without the support of the Usual Suspects.

Do not support these orgs or listen to anything they have to say. Surely, you can see that they are dangerous to every Texan. Following any religious org that supports this law could be dangerous for your soul. Distance yourself. Find the truth and pursue it and only it. Pray for all involved: Mr. and Mrs. Jones, Texas Right to Life, our state representatives, for the passage of this bill, and for a conversion of heart and mind for those who oppose all that is right and holy and pro-life. Yes, even if you have to do it through gritted teeth. Do it. 

Thanks for reading! 

UPDATE: Life News has picked up this story and provides more details. In pertinent part:

The hospital first attempted to invoke the 10-Day Rule on March 8, 2019, but the Jones’ lawyer negotiated with the hospital to pause the countdown.  Since then, Carolyn’s health has improved and three facilities in Houston have agreed to care for her, pending Donald’s ability to secure Medicaid coverage.  Donald has spent the last two months trying to clear complicated legal and financial hurdles to save his wife’s life, which the hospital has scheduled to end on Monday, May 13. 

Now, he’s begging Texas legislators to eliminate the 10-day countdown for patients like Carolyn.  “This law has to be changed.  How can I care for my wife when I’m forced into this 10-day situation?” said Donald. “This could actually happen to anyone.” 

Texans who want to help Donald and Carolyn should contact their state legislators at TexasRightToLife.com/10.

So, Mrs. Jones has actually improved since the last time this hospital invoked the 10-day deadline. Further, there are three facilities willing to transfer Mrs. Jones. This hospital will NOT have to care for her anymore if she were allowed a transfer. This hospital still seeks to kill her anyway. This is what Texas law allows and what SB 2089 would stop. SB 2089 is opposed by the Usual Suspects. This is unconscionable and outrageous. 

You can read the rest yourself. 

You should also know that TAL continues its great efforts to thwart any successful vote on SB 2089. Currently, its Facebook pages has this pinned to it.

You can see that I commented with a link to the Life News article. Let's see how long it stays there and what they have to say about it. I suspect more "untruths" shall we call them. 

Tell me how existing law protects patients like Mrs. Jones? What about SB 2089 takes rights away from her? It's absurd and it preys on people's ignorance. Not everyone can spend the time it takes to follow the Texas legislature. They rely on being able to trust various organizations. You can't do that. TAL and its "coalition" - the "Usual Suspects" as I've started calling them - are not trustworthy. They don't have your best interests at heart. You have all they information you need here and links to source documents. Use it wisely. Protect yourself and your loved ones. The Usual Suspects are not going to do that for you. Texas Right to Life is trying to but needs your help. Please call your Senators now.

Thanks for reading this update! 


UPDATE 2: And, lest you think this law only applies to the "old" (as if that would make it better), this law applies to the young as well. I blogged before about how while Alfie Evans was being euthanized in Great Britain, a child here in Texas, a six-month old, was being killed under the law.

Well, he is far from alone. Read this story and tell me if you think that this law is right, moral, just, ethical, or constitutional? Tell me how you justify religious or support for it that some claim is "pro-life." 

Tell me why we shouldn't give families more than 10 days? That's what SB 2089 does. 

Thanks for reading this latest update! 

UPDATE 3: The local news in Houston covered Mrs. Jones story and brought awareness to both TADA and SB 2089. What you need to know out of that is that Memorial Herman admitted that physicians make the decision about care. From the article: 

Now, they are dishonest when they say they do so in consultation with the family, etc. Remember, the family has no right to speak or even representation at these hearings. The processes usually come about faster than "many months." They are dishonest when they say that there is balance. There is no balance when there is no due process, no requirement that there be an independent tribunal free of conflicts of interest, no appeal, no right to representation or to speak, etc. We've been through all of that before on this blog and others have been saying the same thing elsewhere. There is no evidence that Mrs. Jones is suffering as she clearly wants her care to continue. And, remember, the very definition of euthanasia is killing to stop suffering. 

Thanks for reading this latest update! 

* As I have before, I qualify this with unless those interventions are actually medically (or physiologically) ineffective but that is not how this is limited right now except for one of the exceptions allowing the withdrawal of artificially administered nutrition and hydration. The truth is that MOST of these cases are based on a doctor/ethics committee deciding a patient has no "quality of life" based on their subjective criteria and not the patient's or family's. I hope to be able to show you more proving this in writing very soon. 

MORE UPDATES: The Usual Suspects Double Down - RESIST THEM & SUPPORT LIFE

SEE THE END FOR UPDATES.

Friends, not only have the usual suspects signed onto a coalition letter opposing the life-affirming SB 2089, they are really showing their true colors, their incessant, unyielding promotion of euthanasia, and continued support for the deprivation of due process rights for patients. I have a lot to show you and time is short. Read on.

I was provided with this call to action from the Texas Medical Association. Pro-life doctors are concerned. 

TELL THE LT. GOV: DO NOT SET SB 2089 FOR A VOTE Dear Dr. Deciding how to spend the final days and hours of life is a highly personal decision, and it’s one we encourage our patients to make long before the need arises.  Yet a bill just voted out of the Senate Health and Human Services Committee would subvert the Texas Advance Directive Act (TADA), signed into law in 1999 by then-Gov. George W. Bush: Senate Bill 2089 by Sen. Bryan Hughes (R-Mineola). Simply put, SB 2089 would violate our personal liberties of conscience and force extra suffering on our patients.  SB 2089 would require hospitals, physicians, nurses, and other health care professionals to provide medically inappropriate and potentially harmful care for an unlimited period of time. Requiring care in perpetuity would prolong the dying process, exacerbate suffering for both patients and loved ones, and violate the standard of care to do no harm.  Yesterday, the Senate State Affairs Committee voted to approve SB 2089. It now rests with Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, who will decide if and when to set the bill for debate on the Senate floor. That cannot happen. SB 2089 must be stopped now.  Please contact Lieutenant Governor Patrick today and urge him NOT to set SB 2089 for a floor debate.  It's imperative that you help us educate the lieutenant governor that this bill interferes with professional medical judgment.  You can use the new TMA Grassroots Action Left to quickly and easily share your message with Lieutenant Governor Patrick via email or Twitter. Or you can call his office directly at (512) 463-0001. Either way, you’ll find talking points to use in the Grassroots Action Left.  Please call or write today. We must prevent SB 2089 from being heard on the Senate floor. Sincerely, Douglas W. Curran, MD President Texas Medical Association

The TMA lies. That's right. I'm not mincing words. Listen to me: THEY LIE.

This bill would require treatment until transfer. Transfer being the goal when a doctor decides a patient is better off having his death hastened by withdrawal of life-sustaining (not unlimited interventions of any type, by the way - that is a red herring they use constantly - NO ONE ARGUES FOR THAT - they argue against something no one else supports).

As I have said to Dr. Joe Pojman, Dr. Beverly Nuckols, in my testimony, and on this blog and my other posts for years - as have many others - not all doctors have the same conscience formation. For instance, some think abortion is fine and have a conscience untroubled by it being legal or even performing it. Some think euthanasia is fine - clearly we see that here - including involuntary euthanasia by refusing and withdrawing life-sustaining care to patients against their will and think only they should make that life and death determination for a patient. We often seek second opinions. Why? Because not all doctors have the same opinions about care, morality, ethics, and who makes the final decision about whether you die early or not.

Opponents to this bill think only doctors and the ethics committee members (which, by the way, often are without an ethicist even if such were always reliably ethical). They don't believe you have that right or the capability to make that decision. Don't believe me? See the tweets and calls to action below and note the tone and dishonestly of the TMA missive. Go to the thread on Twitter for #SB2089 and read. You will be illuminated and probably a bit horrified by what certain alleged pro-life groups, religious groups, and doctors believe about you and your right to life! 

Understand that while the TMA may be the lobbying arm of the largest medical association in the state, not all doctors subscribe to their pro-abortion, pro-euthanasia, anti-patient, and anti-due process ways. For instance, see this by the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons:

The AAPS Texas Chapter supports Advance Directive Act reform that strengthens patients' rights. pic.twitter.com/xjfDsphJZ8

— AssocAmerPhys&Surg (@AAPSonline) May 1, 2019

I am so grateful that other doctors and their organizations are promoting life and a balanced, due process for these tough decisions. (Doctors can't easily control who represents them in the lobbying arm of their organization (lawyers have the same problem, this is why I'm not a member of the American Bar Association any longer) and I don't believe for a moment that even most doctors would support this. But their lobbying arm is out of control and bloodthirsty. They must be stopped. The grassroots is larger and always show up in greater numbers than they do when these bills are heard in committees, as I mentioned in a prior post.)

Texas Right to Life's Emily Cook responded correctly:

You need to know how extreme these views by those opposing SB 2089 are. For instance, this doctor tweeted that only doctors can made these decisions.

Understand, she was saying this to an ETHICIST, Wesley J. Smith, who is pro-life and an attorney who understands due process and the requirements of it that are utterly lacking in the current law. He handily addressed her and the Executive Director of TAL who had the audacity to question whether Smith had training in ethics and medicine (this, the man who sat next to Chris Dunn's mother and lied about Chris' case and condition under oath during the hearing on SB 2089).

This is the same stuff as what the Texas Medical Association and former Sen. Bob Deuell tweeted on this very date in 2013 - things never really change for these people:

(Deuell lost his re-election bid to pro-life Bob Hall by a mere 300 votes. I do not think that is a coincidence, the losing or by what amount.)

Then you have Texas Alliance for Life (Dr. Nuckols is a former board member of TAL and wrote an opinion piece in Public Discourse in the wake of the Chris Dunn case along with a current member of TAL which outright wrote in favor of euthanasia, as I covered here, see section II.B.). 

TAL also has tweeted its support of involuntary passive euthanasia and against patient rights and due process - repeatedly:

And, not to be left out, so has the Texas Catholic Conference of Bishops (note the similar graphic used by both TAL and the TCCB; I have in the past surmised that TAL calls the shots for the TCCB and I think that's a pretty safe assumption; their publications are usually very, very similar if not identical):

I was asked by a concerned and authentically pro-life Catholic how to refuse this. This is what I posted on Facebook. It is succinct and it is accurate.

You can also look back at the entirety of this blog and see how these orgs and people use extreme cases as if that is the only time this statute is ever used. That is a lie. Elizabeth Graham testified that they were promised that these were the only cases this statute would ever be used for in 1999. That is not the case and that is well-established. They are the exception not the rule for the invocation of this statute. I've never worked on such a case. Rather, every case I worked on - and most every one that Texas Right to life has - involves a determination by doctor and committee that a person's life is simply without "quality" as far as these eugenicist persons are concerned. Thus, they are better off dead. This is the case even when more time may result in a recovery which has been the outcome of some of these patients saved from TADA.

These fraudulent, pro-euthansia orgs and persons need to be exposed for the dangers they are to each of us. You are one accident or illness away from being in the cross-hairs of this law - or a loved one. Don't you think that your opinion matters in such a grave decision? If a doctor doesn't want to treat you, wouldn't you rather have sufficient time to be moved to another place or have your care left in place until you expire naturally? Or recover?

Why is death the only result they accept? It matters not except to know that that is the truth. Go read the tweets. I can do no better job explaining it to you than they can in their own words.

Now, what do you do? The full Senate may take up both SB 2089 and SB 1033 (the Preborn Non-Discrimination Act) as early as Monday. Please contact your Senator to ask them to support these life-affirming, life-saving bills.

For SB 2089, you can use this handy form. Then I recommend calling as well.

Time is of the essence. The life you save may literally be your own! There are merely 25 days left in this session. We are about to lose a rare opportunity to do something really big and important here and the pro-death crowd knows it. They are in full force making sure you remain without rights in these life and death situations. Don't let them win!

Remember, we err, if we are to err at all, on the side of life. Always. 

Get on your computer, work the phones. Get to it!


Thanks for reading!



UPDATES: Not to be left out, Texans for Life Coalition offered this tweet just to make sure the whole gang is represented in their continuing support of euthanasia in Texas:

I have written about the issues with this particular organization before, principally their support for research on aborted babies so long as the mother gives consent. Recall that the TCCB says that this organization and TAL speak for it.

Then, I thought it was worth noting this tweet by TAL to Wesley Smith who must have really stuck a nerve - and that's always telling - which literally makes no sense given their opposition to this bill.

As I have written elsewhere this is a lie. The law does NOT require that an alternative provider be located and the patient transferred. If that were the case, logically, we'd not need this reform, would we? Further, if that is how they see this law now, this law that they support, why do they oppose this bill that would do what they claim is already in the law? They cannot keep their misrepresentations straight and this should be a significant red flag to you. 

The truth is that there is no standard for what sort of attempts have to be made and our experience is that some hospitals interpret this as the family's responsibility and not theirs. Not only that, the patient can still be killed at the end of the 10 days against his will by having his life-sustaining care removed against his will under current law. Further, 10 days is not enough time to find a facility in most cases. 

And, to be clear about this 60 attempts they keep citing, that claim was made by the Methodist Hospital employed social worker, Justine Moore, in the Dunn case. Importantly, there was no substantiating evidence for these alleged attempts. And, her affidavit was hearsay as to over 30 of them as she stated what she claims others did. Those others did not file affidavits of their own. 

In that sworn affidavit she also claimed she did not request guardianship of Dunn. As you can see here, she did, in fact, request guardianship of Dunn in the probate court on behalf of Methodist, although she claimed she did not in her sworn affidavit in the trial court. If you go to the entire pleading which is embedded in my post and look at page 6, there is a highlighted sentence that requests the following relief: "that upon hearing, Applicant be appointed Permanent Guardian of the Person of Proposed Ward." If you go to the first page, you see that it begins, "JUSTINE MOORE ("Applicant")...." and that "David Christopher Dunn (the "Proposed Ward")..." Actually, I'll save you the trouble of scrolling:

For a variety of reasons, had this person been put on the witness stand and cross-examined under oath, I suspect her credibility might have been found wanting. 

Also, please remember that Dunn died on December 23, 2015. They sought to withdraw his care in October of that month and Moore sought guardianship over him on December 3, 2015. His care was not withdrawn, and as Methodist and even the courts agree, he died naturally of the underlying issues he faced. All patients should have that right. There was no allegation he was suffering. Recall, he begged for his life on video well after the hospital had made the decision to withdraw his care. 

Only because Dunn sought court intervention by Temporary Restraining Order, did Methodist agree to continue care even as it attempted to obtain guardianship over him.

But the law does not require that life-sustaining care be continued until transfer or if a doctor or hospital think it should not and disagree with the patient. The law should do that but it does not. TAL, the TCCB, etc., all oppose this reform. 

Also, recall that no doctor claimed their conscience was bothered by maintaining his life-sustaining care. 

The extreme cases they mention as if those are the only ones that ever occur in this context are not the usual case as I discussed above. Rarer still is the doctor who claims conscience motivates him rather than a verdict he and the committee render on their view of this patient's quality of life. That is wrong. That is not for them to decide. But should conscience be an issue, another doctor can take over, as we have discussed. 

I have contacted by state Senator Nathan Johnson. Have you contacted yours and asked them to support this bill? Please do so immediately! 

So there you have it.

Thanks for reading this update!

UPDATE 2: Not to be left out either, the Texas Hospital Association has taken to tweeting lies as well.

I'm guessing I don't have to break it down further at this point. Regarding the continuing false allegation that all this care is painful and doctors will be forced to provide it, we've covered that above and in prior posts. Simply not true. Also simply not their call to make. Life-sustaining care should be transferred not withdrawn against a patient's wishes. 

Please email & call your senators and ask them to support SB 2089.

Thanks for reading this latest update!