Tuesday, May 7, 2019

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.