W signed it into law.

Yep. Not one of his finest moments either.

In fairness, the state is not deciding anything in Texas. The state law only says that there's a point at which, and a procedure through which, private parties can abandon care-giving.

And Reality imposes a limit to care-giving. People do not have unlimited time, energy, money, or other resources; and the number of people they could potentially give to (6 billion) is very large. They cannot give infinitely to all.

We concluded, after the Civil War, that coerced care-giving ("involuntary servitude") was unjust.

So I do not see that the Texas law is, on its face at least, immoral or unjust. It may be that the Houston hospital is insufficiently compassionate. I certainly hope that some other medical institution will step forward and take in this woman, and that donors will step forward and help fund her care if that is necessary. But if there is a problem here, it is with the morality of St. Luke's hospital. And they have agreed to wait and give the family time to find another institution.

On the side of the law, an improvement I do see would be more of a mechanism for inviting other institutions to step forward and take care. Ten days notice to the family may not be enough in many cases.

The state law only says that there's a point at which, and a procedure through which, private parties can abandon care-giving.

If that's your understanding of the Texas law, then your understanding is erroneous.

The Texas law gives authority to hospitals to terminate the care of patients if such care is deemed futile by said hospital, irrespective of the wishes of the patient or the ability of the patient to pay.

This law is NOT about empowering patients to make end-of-life decisions. This law is about empowering hospitals to cut off care when such care is deemed futile with the full backing and authority of the state. That involvement by the state means this isn't merely a law that allows private parties to come to conclusions about the end of life.

We can debate the morality of said law, but the specifics are as I've described.

Thanks, pj, that's what I wanted to say, only you've done it better and much more thoroughly than I would have.

kevin:

In a free society, shouldn't there be a mechanism for hospitals or other facilities/care-givers to decide to stop caring for someone, provided that the state isn't barring anyone from providing care, should they desire to do so ?

Hospitals have limited facilities. Ability to pay isn't the only factor.

The mechanism should not be state sanction of the decisions of a hospital ethics committee with no recourse for patient appeal to any higher authority or even transferring care to a doctor within the same facility who might not agree with the ethic committee's declaration that a life is futile, no.

That's not the sort of legislation a culture-of-life society ought to support.

Thankfully, this case and that of Spiro Nikolouzos (another St. Luke's patient, interestingly enough, whose family didn't want the facility to pull the plug) are prompting some legislators here to take a closer look at this law, and rightly so.

Kevin - I haven't read the law so I can't be sure I understand it properly. There may be something faulty in it, but the facts that are clearly stipulated don't prove that.

There is no state sanction of particular decisions. The state is leaving it to the various parties to work things out. Does anyone doubt that, if someone offers St. Luke's enough money -- say, a billion dollars -- they will build the patient her own building, and staff it round the clock with a hundred doctors? Meanwhile, if they are serving the patient without pay (or with insufficient pay) until someone else steps up to take over her care, what ground is there for complaint? And if no one in the whole world is willing to offer care to the patient, why is St. Luke's obliged to care for her indefinitely? If the rest of us aren't willing to step forward to help pay for continued care for this woman, the problem is every bit as much our lack of compassion as it is St. Luke's.

I would agree that it would be desirable to have a more extensive procedure for abandoning care-giving that makes it easier for alternative care-givers to step up to the plate. I hope Texas creates some such mechanism. But I don't think the law is, in its structural outlines, faulty.

PJ: The hospital is a slave? Please.

We give hospitals tons of benefits, for instance exemption from real estate taxes. In return, is it too much to expect them not to murder their patients? Because that is what this is, no use making it pretty with things called "ethics committees" (oxymoron alert) and "futile care".

The law was an error, best remedied.

The 'involuntary servitude' angle has been used by tax protestors, draft dodgers, you name it. Judges routinely throw it out.

I would agree that it would be desirable to have a more extensive procedure for abandoning care-giving that makes it easier for alternative care-givers to step up to the plate. I hope Texas creates some such mechanism. But I don't think the law is, in its structural outlines, faulty.

As it turns out, latest reports suggest that Clark is recovering somewhat. That's incredible news, considering that she was originally scheduled to be terminated yesterday.

The delay caused by the outcry from pro-life groups and the negative publicity for St. Luke's seems to have bought Clark and her family enough time to find a doctor (with St. Luke's privileges) who agrees that her case is not medically futile and St. Luke's so far is going along (although under this law, they could have gone ahead and pulled the plug).

That's just dumb luck, frankly, although dumb luck for which the family and others are very thankful.

In my view, there is certainly a flaw in a law that bestows state sanction on hospital ethics committees to pull the plug on a patient with ten days' notice, with no recourse available to families other than hoping for dumb luck. This woman ought to be the poster child for pro-life groups who want this law revised, given her odyssey from medically-futile-and-about-to-be-terminated to recovering.