Our Position on the Texas "Futile Care Law"
We have lived with the cruelty of the Texas Advance Directives Act of 1999 in real time. We have seen how the law robs patients of their most basic rights and how it torments the families of critically ill patients.
This law does not help families "let go" of their loved ones. In fact, neither our own family, nor any of the families we've come to know who've endured the cruelty of this law had a problem with "letting go". None were in denial of their loved one's grave state of health.
In fact, we all accepted our loved one may very likely die, but none of us were peaceful about having life snatched prematurely and against the will of our family member. At the same time, none of us minded moving our sick family member to another hospital, a facility that would offer them the medical treatment they deserved without trying to prematurely end their lives. But once a hospital ethics committee rules a patient's condition "futile," most other facilities become off-limits.
The Texas Advance Directives Act puts patients and their families in a double bind: Families must move their family member if they want them to continue receiving medical care, including life support; yet because the hospital judged a patient's condition futile, it is effectively impossible to find another facility for the patient.
Because of this double-bind, it will do little good to merely lengthen the 10-day period before hospitals remove life support: the double bind will still exist, even in a wider time frame. Even more troubling, it is likely that hospitals will invoke the Advance Directives Act earlier, even more aggressively with an expanded time frame. Further, if it is wrong to prematurely end a patient's life in 10 days, it is equally wrong to end a patient's life prematurely in 30 days, 100 days, or even a year. Realistically, if a patient is genuinely "terminal" it is unlikely they will live longer than a few months. But those remaining days, are no less precious than the remaining days of a healthy person.
For these reasons, we do not support any legislation that gives hospitals the right to remove life support against a patient's will, or against the will of the patient's surrogate. In cases where hospitals determine a patient's condition to be futile, the hospital must continue to treat the patient until the patient is transferred to a facility the patient agrees to that can provide adequate medical care for the patient.
Furthermore, we do not support blanket protection for medical professionals against civil and criminal liability for medical errors, negligence, conflicts of interest or any type of malpractice.
In addition, we demand that patients' rights be honored regardless of the state of their health.
Please join us in writing your legislators and letting them know where you stand on this issue. Let them know you are watching their actions in this matter.
Lanore Dixon