Texas Futile Care Law: “Death Panels” Signed Into Law… By Bush

6:21 pm EST August 23rd, 2009 | News | 19 Comments

The Texas Advance Directives Act (1999), also known as the Texas Futile Care Law, describes certain provisions that are now Chapter 166 of the Texas Health & Safety Code. Controversy over these provisions mainly centers on Section 166.046, Subsection (e), which allows a health care facility to discontinue life-sustaining treatment against the wishes of the patient or guardian ten days after giving written notice if the continuation of life-sustaining treatment is considered medically inappropriate by the treating medical team.

The law was signed by George W. Bush, when he was governor of Texas. Death panels!

Topic: George W. Bush, Health Care

« Drill Baby Drill: Australia Edition
Cowboys New Arena Punt Fail »

19 Responses to “Texas Futile Care Law: “Death Panels” Signed Into Law… By Bush”

passerby says:

August 23, 2009 at 9:39 pm

IOKIYAR!
MatanteDodo says:

August 23, 2009 at 10:03 pm

In Québec, we have a largeish third party that suggests that a commitee would evaluate if a patient would pay back free care provided to him in his lifetime, ex. a retired person won’t pay much taxes anymore, a welfare child will likely have lower income than a middle-class child, etc.
That party openly admires the American right. (actually, part of America’s bad reputation might be due to the fanatism and stupidity of the pro-americans – they take the worst of the USA as a model)
Jaim says:

August 23, 2009 at 10:26 pm

IOKIYAR, exactly.

Black Presidents want to kill gramma. White ones want to save her.
jrfunkenstein says:

August 24, 2009 at 12:54 am

God told Bush to save Gramma by killing her.

Big difference.
jr says:

August 24, 2009 at 2:22 am

“Rush told me to ignore this story”-Chris Wallace
Frank DiSalle says:

August 24, 2009 at 11:09 am

You get to kill Grandma after 7 conditions are met , all conveniently ignored by ~~the Redactor – in – Chief~~ Oliver. I wonder if all these conditions are present under Obamacare?
As I am certain none of you have read it, I don’t expect an answer.

Incidentally, having been a trainer in Advanced Directives in Mental Health, I have some familiarity with Advanced Directives in medical situations, and DNR documents. Similar laws exist in many states.

To put it simply: If the cost of medical care has become prohibitive, AND there is little chance the patient will survive, AND there is no pre-existing document, AND there are no family members to provide guidance, AND there is no alternative medical facility that will take the patient, THEN you can send Grandma off to the Heavenly Choir.

It’s Not Wrong If You Do It Right
Sean D. Martin says:

August 24, 2009 at 1:19 pm

Frank DiSalle: I wonder if all these conditions are present under Obamacare?

Stay with wondering, Frank. Much easier than actually finding out, right?
Sean D. Martin says:

August 24, 2009 at 1:22 pm

Frank DiSalle: AND there are no family members to provide guidance

Not exactly true, now is it. The wishes of family members can be overruled by the Drs and court.
Duros62 says:

August 24, 2009 at 3:15 pm

I wonder if all these conditions are present under Obamacare?

No they are not, because the “Kill Gramma” provision doesn’t exist.
As I am certain none of you have read it, I don’t expect an answer.

And you’d be wrong.

Again.
Frank DiSalle says:

August 24, 2009 at 3:25 pm

Yes , it is true. Reread the specs in the Texas law as cited in WikiPedia , where family is mentioned:

* The family must be given written information concerning hospital policy on the ethics consultation process.
* The family must be given 48 hours’ notice and be invited to participate in the ethics consultation process. Family members may consult their own medical specialists and legal advisors if they wish.
* The ethics consultation process must provide a written report to the family of the findings of the ethics review process.
* If the ethics consultation process fails to resolve the dispute, the hospital, working with the family, must try to arrange transfer to another provider physician and institution who are willing to give the treatment requested by the family and refused by the current treatment team.
* If either the family does not seek an extension or the judge fails to grant one, futile treatment may be unilaterally withdrawn by the treatment team with immunity from civil or criminal prosecution. [2]

It seems as if the court and the medical facility can overrule the family, but it;s not easy – remember Terri Schiavo? And that was a case of conflicting family members.

My “wondering” was a literary device. You and I both know that “end – of – life counseling” is about whether your life should end, and you are talking to a doctor, who has God-like attributes in your eyes. You are required to do this regularly as you get older. How do think that frail, elderly person is going to feel ?

Now , if “end – of – life” counseling involved the clergy and family members, I’d be all for it. I get a DNR folder and Medical Proxy information every time I go to the ER – and that’s too often – but I just leave it unread. I don’t have to discuss with a doctor what I want to do if “I become a burden on my loved ones”, or “Can’t lead a normal life, anyway”.
Quaker in a Basement says:

August 24, 2009 at 3:27 pm

You are required to do this regularly as you get older.

That’s not in the bill.
Sean D. Martin says:

August 24, 2009 at 4:36 pm

SDM: Not exactly true, now is it. The wishes of family members can be overruled by the Drs and court.

Frank DiSalle: Yes , it is true. …

…If either the family does not seek an extension or the judge fails to grant one, futile treatment may be unilaterally withdrawn by the treatment team…

…It seems as if the court and the medical facility can overrule the family, but it;s not easy

Nobody said it was easy, Frank. Only that it was possible. That the wishes of the family could be overruled.

And yet, even when you refer to exactly that passage yourself, admit it could be done and providing an example, you’re apparently compelled to start with a contradictory “Yes, it is true.”

wingnut Pavlovian conditioning, ladies and gents.

You and I both know that “end – of – life counseling” is about whether your life should end, and you are talking to a doctor, who has God-like attributes in your eyes. You are required to do this regularly as you get older.

God, you really are insistent on lies as truth, aren’t you? “Death panels have been touroughly discredited yet you still flat out proclaim they exist and that things are mandatory.

I know no such thing. I do not “know” that end-of-life counselling is about whether your life should end. I.e., about whether you should be allowed to continue living. I do know that such counseling is about you choosing what you would like to have done at the end of your life including whether you would like heroic life sustating measures used to perpetuate your life at all costs.

And I do know that such counseling sessions are completely, entirely voluntary.

I don’t have to discuss with a doctor what I want to do…

Nobody does, Frank. Nobody is forced to have a counseling session with anybody. And you know it.

So, just STFU, Frank.
freD says:

August 24, 2009 at 5:03 pm

So the moral of the story really is IOKIYAR. Amazing. I’ve experienced self-righteous zombies in my own travels, but what intrigues me most, is the question: Who’s the architect, the brains, the Genghis of this wingnut horde? It can’t be coincidence that most American crapeaters are conservatives.
Frank DiSalle says:

August 24, 2009 at 7:00 pm

The so-called “death panels” piece of the legislation , yes , so it’s not in the bill – now …

Apparently, none of you know how government regulations work. First, it’s truly voluntary. But then there is something that will be withheld if you don’t have the counseling — even if you make no decision at all.

As a former government employee ( 15 years ) I knew exactly how to make taxpayers think that things that were voluntary, were compulsory, or, at least, let them believe it, because it made our job easier.

and , oh yeah, Derf, when you and your ilk stop regurgitating the NYTimes LATimes WAPO and MSNBC, you can talk about independent thinking. ‘Til then , don’t bother me with your mindless cogitations.

And a special message to you, derF (you can ask someone who you’re sure has been to Viet Nam what it means) du’u mi’ami!
Frank DiSalle says:

August 24, 2009 at 7:02 pm

The so-called “death panels” piece of the legislation , yes , so it’s not in the bill – now …

Should be : The so-called “death panels” piece of the legislation was removed, so , yes , so it’s not in the bill – now …
Quaker in a Basement says:

August 24, 2009 at 7:07 pm

The so-called “death panels” piece of the legislation , yes , so it’s not in the bill – now …

It’s not in the version that cleared one Senate committee. Still in the House bill, tho. Still in the version that came out of other Senate committees.

None of the versions made counseling mandatory, your vast experience in governmental deception notwithstanding.
Sean D. Martin says:

August 24, 2009 at 7:35 pm

Frank DiSalle: The so-called “death panels” piece of the legislation , yes , so it’s not in the bill – now …

Nor was it ever. As you admit was the case in your very next sentence.

Apparently, none of you know how government regulations work. First, it’s truly voluntary. But then there is something that will be withheld if you don’t have the counseling — even if you make no decision at all.

God, Frank, you used to have some semblance of sense. What happened to you, guy?
Sean D. Martin says:

August 24, 2009 at 7:36 pm

SDM: in your very next ~~sentence~~ paragraph.
Sean D. Martin says:

August 24, 2009 at 7:38 pm

Quaker in a B: Still in the House bill, tho. Still in the version that came out of other Senate committees.

Nope, not in those either. The voluntary end-of-life consultations is. “Death panels” or anything remotely like them haven’t been in any of the bills.