I am now convinced that the opening salvo for pushing medical futility to the forefront, which I have been predicting for several years was on its way, has begun. This note was sent to me from Elizabeth Graham of Texas Right to Life, which I reprint here with her permission. Remember, this is just her take, and we don’t yet know all of the facts. But I know Elizabeth and she is not given to exaggeration. I have asked Elizabeth why the doctor thinks treatment for the patient is inappropriate and I will post her answer when I receive it.
“We have two new cases this week: one is a pediatric case in Dallas, and the other is in Houston. The Houston family is not ready to go public yet, or I would be shouting for assistance from the rooftops…I was invited to participate in the futility review process at the Houston facility, and it was disgusting and appalling. The attending physician stated that the patient was definitely NOT brain dead, simply brain damaged from a stroke. The patient is NOT experiencing organ failure, meaning her lungs, heart, kidneys, liver,…everything is working. The patient has a trach collar, but she breathes on her own, and she processes food and hydration appropriately. She is free from infection. During the meeting, I pointed out that the withdrawal of food and water would effectively starve the patient to death, and the doctors dismissed me as if I did not understand medical science. I am not sure what exactly is scientific about starvation, but the patient’s mother agreed and was bewildered at the discussion of withdrawal of treatment including food and water. Oh yes, did I mention that the patient has NO insurance? The medical folks involved in these cases adamantly avow that financial considerations never enter into the futility decisions; however, I have yet to hear from the family of any patients with good, adequate health insurance.
Our Dallas attorney is working on the pediatric case, and the family was granted some additional days because the facility did not follow proper statutory procedure. This patient has only Medicaid.”
One correction: The patient would dehydrate to death, not starve, if tube sustenance were stopped. Talk about a distinction with no meaningful difference! And yes. In the end, futile care theory is about money.
Dear Reader,
Can I be direct with you?
War abroad. Socialists on the rise. AI upending human life. Endless uproar online. The modern attention economy doesn’t want readers — it wants users enslaved to the tyranny of the present.
First Things is the antidote: literary excellence, timeless truths, and a fixed point of reference in a culture that has lost its bearings.
But we can’t do it without readers like you.
Our goal: Raise $150,000 by November 1 to sustain First Things in the year ahead.
Your gift anchors readers in the permanent things.
Make your Fall Campaign gift now using the button below.
If you have any questions or would like more information, please contact Giovanni Del Piero, Director of the Editor’s Circle, at gdelpiero@firstthings.com or 212-627-1985.
YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE
The Church in the Age of Therapy
In 1966, Philip Rieff wrote in The Triumph of the Therapeutic that “Religious man was born to…
Canada’s Deadliest Blind Spot
On September 20, the Daily Mail ran a story with the provocative headline, “Our 83-year-old Christian grandmother…
The Faithful Joy of Dolly Parton and Fulton Sheen
Dolly Parton and Fulton Sheen seem to have had little in common. She favored rhinestones; he wore…
