Over the past weekend, the Chronicle reported on another instance of a local hospital invoking the Texas futile-care law in an effort to terminate care of a patient. As Todd Ackerman writes, this latest instance raises concerns we’ve expressed previously about this ultimate authority over life residing with a hospital committee:
Texas’ controversial futile care law is at the center of a drama at Memorial Hermann Hospital involving a patient who suffered brain damage after her breathing tube became disconnected.
Doctors invoked the law, which allows hospitals to remove life support in cases deemed medically futile, two weeks later, after deciding 29-year-old Kalilah Roberson-Reese was in a vegetative state.
“This case raises questions of whether the law might be used to bury mistakes,” said Jerri Ward, an Austin attorney who this week asked a judge to stop Memorial Hermann from withdrawing life support from Roberson-Reese. “At the very least, there is an appearance of a conflict of interest that should preclude a futility review committee from making a life-or-death decision before an independent investigation is made.”
Dr. William Winslade, an ethicist at the University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston, said the case “raises questions about how quickly these decisions should be made in the face of potential litigation.”
The story indicates that the hospital has said it will hold off on terminating Roberson-Reece for a time, while the family tries to find a facility willing to accept her. There is further coverage from the Associated Press.
We’ve expressed concerns about the Texas futile-care law in previous posts about Andrea Clark and Spiro Nikolouzos, and in other posts. There’s no real need to revisit that debate, but it does seem that Houston, with its fine medical facilities, is likely to remain ground central in the debate over the Texas futile-care law.
BLOGVERSATION: Pro-Life Blogs, Brothers Judd.
