Hijacked for Political Gain?

I was reading the Austin American-Statesman's editorial, "Baby Emilio ordeal puts focus on suffering, community's obligation", (Editorial Board, March 24, 2007), regarding the 16-month old (Emilio Gonzales) that is scheduled to be removed from life-support on April 10th, unless a facility is found to take him into their care. It was an editorial that actually sounded as though it was advocating "Obligated Death". Amazing how that attitude has taken hold right under the nose of the majority of Americans. Where were we when this was happening?

I found one of the comments to be curious.

"It's unfortunate that Gonzales' tragedy has been hijacked for political gain. Some disability rights advocates have used this situation to allege that the medical community wants to kill people with disabilities, and accuse the hospital of murder. Without medical intervention, Emilio would have died long ago. "

Hijacked? Such an unusual term to use. Does this mean that the tragedy belonged to the hospital, doctors and members of the ethics committee and advocates came along and stole it from them? It must be what was meant. It has to belong to someone to be hijacked by another. And if we are to believe that someone hijacked the tragedy for political gain, does this mean that the hospital et al then lost political advantage and their gain?

Another interesting statement:

"Not only is that care expensive, it is taking staff and resources — doctors, nurses and equipment — from other patients who could benefit from them. There needs to be a limit on how long physicians and hospitals have to provide costly, aggressive care with no benefit to the patient. Adversaries argue about those definitions, but the diagnosis of trained, experienced physicians carries much weight. "

(Like physicians never make mistakes and malpractice suits are merely figments of someone's imagination.)

And another:

"Emilio's situation cannot be considered in a vacuum of individual rights. When a case is diagnosed as hopeless, irreversible and fatal, the burden on caregivers and the community has to be counted. Indefinitely extending care with no benefit is a burden that must be considered. "

Are these comments nice ways of saying ... Burden on society? Useless? Waste of money and resources? No-value life? "Obligated Death?"

We need to wake up and see what is happening around us. We need to study the consequences of our acts and lack of action. First today it is little Emilio and those such as him, but who will be next? Who next will be receiving the expensive care that is needed for someone it might benefit? And then who will be after that?

The editorial closed with...

"It is painfully difficult for Gonzales to accept her first and only child's fate. It would be for anyone.

But her claim for Emilio is a claim that is not infinite. Many of us have to face the reality that, at some point, whether or not to sustain the life of a loved one is a medical decision, not an emotional one. "

A medical decision? Are we to take it that the medical decision is in spite of the family's wishes, not to mention the patient's? Are we to accept that someone else has the right to decide when we are too big a burden for our potential value?

The editorial spent a great deal of care in using words like comatose to paint a hopeless case. What about Andrea Clark? What about the conscious woman that expressed her will to live who was given a 10 Day Notice? These notices are too easily given and as proven by Ms. Clark's case, not all recipients are comatose and without a chance to live. The decision should rest with the patient and family, not the hospitals, doctors and so-called ethics committees that do have an agenda that does not necessarily have the well-being of the patient first and foremost.

Hijacked for political gain? It sounds more like someone is worried about the hospitals, doctors and ethic's committees losing their political ground and absolute power over life and death of the most vulnerable. Yes, that is what it sounds like! Could it be?