Terry Schiavo versus Sun Hudson

[Millard]

The cases are very similar.

Judges in both cases have gone against the wishes of the mother and ordered that life support be removed from their child.

In the case of Terry Schiavo...

Invalid Embedded Image Removed

The media, talk show hosts, right to lifers, the Christian right, the Congress and even the President -- when early this morning (awaken from sleep at 12:42 am) he signed into law the "Terry Schivao" bill. A wealthy man in California even offered MIchael Schiavo $1 million to allow Terry to "live."

"In cases like this one, where there are serious questions and substantial doubts, our society, our laws, and our courts should have a presumption in favor of life. This presumption is especially critical for those like Terri Schiavo who live at the mercy of others. I appreciate the bipartisan action by the Members of Congress to pass this bill. I will continue to stand on the side of those defending life for all Americans, including those with disabilities." statement by President Bush, March 21, 2005

In the case of Sun Hudson...

Silence.

And Sun Hudson dies.

In a precedent-setting case last Tuesday (March 15, 2005), doctors decided to remove life support of 6-month old Sun Hudson AGAINST the wishes of the mother. They were legally justified in their decision by the http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/statutes/docs/HS/content/htm/hs.002.00.000166.00.htmsigned in 1999. This is the first time that the Government has permitted the removal of life support against parental wishes.

The law allows hospitals to remove life support against parental wishes if further care would be futile, and the patient or legal guardian is unable to pay for the life support procedures. The patient is given 10 days to find another hospital. In the case of Sun Hudson, every hospital contacted refused to accept Hudson.

Texas is the only state in the country to have a law of the books that permits the termination of life of a child against the wishes of the parents and permits hospitals to refuse life support in such 'futile' cases.

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/3087387

--

Why all the concern about Terry Schiavo but none for Sun Hudson?

Political expediency, maybe? It would be nice if people stood by their principles instead.

 

[Grizzly]

Hey, I was going to bring something up about the Schiavo case, too. Judging by the parenthetical "futile", I think I can assess your stance on the issue.

To really have any principles in which to stand on in cases such as these(and abortion, too, for that matter) one must develop of definition of life. What is life? What constitutes a person who is alive versus a person who is dead?

In the Schiavo case, her body is alive and functioning, but is she really alive? Clearly, the definition must go beyond, "someone who's heart is beating and who is breathing".

 

[CyniQ]

I think I've heard alive defined as "utilizes energies to maintain order integral to its function". Or something along those lines.

Based on that definition, Terri Schiavo and Sun Hudson are (or were) both dead prior to the termination of "life support". That Texas law has been discussed at length recently because it allows facilities to make the decision to terminate someones life for financial reasons. That's a little scary. Even though I don't necessarily want to spend tax dollars prolonging the lives of "vegetables".

I think some people would call this a race issue, the diff between Sun and Terri, I mean. I'm not sure that I would disagree. White people get more press than minorities in these situations, I think that's a fact. I wouldn't be quick to call it racism though. I think it may have more to do with economics. In general, whites can more often afford better lawyers who may do a better job of exploiting the system and media.

 

[greyowl]

"In general, whites can more often afford better lawyers who may do a better job of exploiting the system and media."

Such as O.J. Simpson and Michael Jackson?

BTW, has anyone mentioned yet that it was George Bush who signed the "Futile Care Law"?

 

[CyniQ]

I could have. I don't necessarily believe that it's pertinent.

BTW. Are you trying to say that because MJ and OJ are "black" and can afford high priced attorneys. That I'm wrong???

 

[CyniQ]

BTW, has anyone mentioned yet that it was George Bush who signed the "Futile Care Law"?

Since you brought it up. It should be noted that under the law as GW Bush signed it there was NO provision for discontinuing life support in the case of minors. That was an update signed into law in 2003.

 

[Millard]

Hey, I was going to bring something up about the Schiavo case, too. Judging by the parenthetical "futile", I think I can assess your stance on the issue.

To really have any principles in which to stand on in cases such as these(and abortion, too, for that matter) one must develop of definition of life. What is life? What constitutes a person who is alive versus a person who is dead?

In the Schiavo case, her body is alive and functioning, but is she really alive? Clearly, the definition must go beyond, "someone who's heart is beating and who is breathing".

This is a worthy discussion in and of itself. But I was particularly interested in the different responses to Schiavo vs. Hudson

Everyone has heard of the Schiavo situation. But few have heard of the Hudson case. And the ONLY reason they have heard of it was due to the political grandstanding of those who support the decision to remove life support for TErry Schiavo and/or those who was to highlight Bush and his direct/indirect involvement in each case. It's not out of true concern for Hudson.

Tom Delay said something to the effect that God handed Terry Schiavo to the conservative movement to highlight their agenda.

Maybe someone should give a damn about the individual rather than using these tragic situations for political gain and to promote a political agenda - and I'm referring to left and right on this.