Fort Worth, Texas, Feb 7, 2020 / 11:16 am (CNA).- An appeals court heard arguments Tuesday regarding the medical treatment of a terminally ill child in Fort Worth, and whether a law regarding the dispute resolution process is constitutional.
Tinslee Lewis was born prematurely Feb. 1, 2019, and has since been in the cardiac intensive care unit at Cook Children’s Medical Center.
Physicians at the hospital believe life-sustaining treatment for Lewis is medically inappropriate, a decision affirmed by an ethics committee. Lewis’ mother, Trinity, wants treatment to continue, and has gone to court to prevent the life-sustaining treatment from being withdrawn.
The Texas Advance Directives Act allows physicians and health care facilities to withdraw life-sustaining treatment considered medically inappropriate after 10 days.
The Second Court of Appeals of Texas heard arguments in the case Feb. 4. It is unknown when it will rule in the case, and it has ordered that medical treatment for Lewis be continued until it does so.
Joe Nixon, the attorney for the Lewises, said TADA grants “medical paternity over autonomy,” the Fort Worth Star-Telegram reported.
Texas Solicitor General Kyle Hawkins argued that TADA should be halted.
Cook Children’s attorney, Amy Warr, argued that doctors may decline to provide care if it “causes suffering without medical benefit,” citing conscience rights.
The case has divided the pro-life community in Texas.
Dr. Joe Pojman, Texas Alliance for Life’s executive director, said ahead of the hearing that “We believe the dispute resolution process in Texas law is both good public policy and is constitutional.”
He added that “the Texas law is among the best in the nation. It balances patients’ rights to make end of life decisions with the rights of physicians to not indefinitely order painful, medically inappropriate interventions to terminally ill patients that only prolong their deaths with no proportional benefit.”
Texas Alliance for Life, along with the Texas Catholic Conference of Bishops and several other pro-life groups, disability advocates, and medical groups, filed an amici curiae brief Jan. 29 supporting TADA.
The brief said TADA has given physicians and families “a structure for having difficult end-of-life conversations—and for reaching a resolution if the families and treating physician do not ultimately agree.”
“A medical intervention that could further prolong life can also, directly or indirectly, inflict significant suffering without proportionate benefit to the patient. A physician might conclude that making further interventions on a patient near the end of life, in a medical situation with no meaningful prospect for cure or recovery, would inflict only harm on the patient—violating one of the oldest and most deeply held principles of medical ethics. Medical providers in that position face not only an ethical dilemma but also feel moral distress over being the instrument used to inflict that non-beneficial suffering on a patient.”
The amici curiae brief called TADA a “carefully balanced statute” that should be upheld by the appellate court.
It added that striking down TADA would constitute judicial activism, stating that “disagreements about a policy decision made by the Legislature, however deeply felt, do not state a constitutional claim.”
In explaining its interest in the case, the Texas bishops’ conference said it rejects “medical decision-making based on flawed “quality-of-life” arguments which are often used to falsely justify euthanasia. “The bishops have consistently supported the truth that decisions regarding treatment should be made through this lens of the inherent sanctity of all human life while recognizing that underlying medical conditions can have an impact on the effectiveness or appropriateness of certain medical interventions.”
“They believe that treatment decisions should be based on whether or not the expected benefit of the treatment outweighs the burden to the patient. Some may claim that this is a quality of life decision, or one that allows discrimination, but they are wrong—it is an assessment of the quality or effectiveness of the treatment or intervention, not the quality of life for the patient.”
The Texas bishops’ conference said it supports “continued legislative improvements” to TADA, “particularly those that safeguard against any discrimination in providing necessary and effective life-sustaining treatment,” but it “generally supports” the law’s framework “as a balanced dispute resolution process that respects both patient dignity and healthcare provider conscience.”
Trinity Lewis is being supported by Texas Right to Life, which has said that “the 10-Day Rule has robbed countless patients of their Right to Life and right to due process.”
Texas Home School Coalition is also supporting Trinity, in light of its concern for parental rights. In an amicus curiae brief of Jan. 27, it argued that “in permitting an ethics committee” to substitute their decisions regarding Tinslee’s best interest for Trinity’s decisions,” TADA “violates the substantive due process rights of [Trinity] and potentially all parents seeking medical care for their children.”
The home school group charged that “the quality of one’s life is so personal that the decision must belong to the one living it or the person designated to make that decision. The doctors believe that pain and suffering without a medical probability of recovery is immoral. Mother believes that God still has a plan. The state cannot determine whose beliefs are superior.”
Its amicus brief asked, “How can the state possibly have a compelling state interest in ending the life of a child for no other reason than the doctor no longer wishes to provide care for her?” It also characterized TADA as having “no limitations on the reason for the doctor refusing to honor the patient’s directive,” saying it “is so vague that a doctor could decide not to continue providing services for any reasons, such as the color of the patient’s skin or the religious beliefs of the patient.”
The state of Texas also filed an amicus curiae brief in the case Jan. 17 asking that the court declare TADA unconstitutional, arguing the statute “allows the government to deny an individual his or her life, and it does so without constitutionally sufficient process.”
It characterized the statute’s dispute resolution process as denying patients and their proxies “sufficient notice and opportunity to be heard,” as well as “a neutral arbiter to decide their fate.”
TADA includes a ’10-day rule’ that says when the attending physician has decided and an ethics or medical committee has affirmed that a life-sustaining treatment is medically inappropriate, but the patient or their responsible continues to request the treatment, the attending physician and the health care facility are not obligated to provide life-sustaining treatment after the 10th day after the decision is provided to the patient or their responsible.
The rule says the physician is to make a reasonable effort to transfer the patient in such a case to a physician who is willing to comply with the directive.
TADA was adopted in 1999, without a dissenting vote. It passed the Senate unanimously, and the House on a voice vote. It was amended in 2003 and 2015. The 2015 amendment, which removed artificial nutrition and hydration from its scope, was adopted unanimously in the House, and by a voice vote in the Senate.
Joe Nixon, who is representing the Lewises, was a member of the Texas House of Representatives from 1995 to 2007.
Tinslee Lewis has Ebstein’s anomaly, a congenital heart defect; chronic lung disease; and severe chronic high blood pressure, according to the AP. She has been on a ventilator since July, and also requires cardiac support, painkillers, sedation, and medical paralysis. She currently has severe sepsis.
The hospital said that Lewis’ healthcare providers agreed by August that continued care was futile, and had begun discussing with her family the withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment by September. The hospital’s ethics committee decided unanimously Oct. 30 that further treatment was medically inappropriate.
The hospital intended to stop Lewis’ treatment Nov. 10, after disagreeing with the decision of her mother regarding her treatment.
At a December hearing, judge Sandee Bryan Marion said she would allow more time for an alternative facility to be found for Lewis’ care. Cook Children’s said at that time that it would take no action to withdraw life sustaining treatment from Lewis for seven days from the court’s decision, to allow plaintiffs to file a notice of appeal and a motion for emergency relief with an appeals court.
Dr. Jay Duncan, a physician attending Lewis, said at the hearing that until July, there had been hope she might be able to go home, but it became clear that surgical and clinical options had been exhausted and her treatment was no longer beneficial.
A judge acting for the Tarrant County district court ruled Jan. 2 that indefinite medical interventions for Lewis could be stopped, in accord with the Texas Advance Directives Act, but Lewis was granted emergency relief the following day by the appeals court.
Bishop Michael Olson of Fort Worth has offered to assist Lewis’ family “in seeking compassionate and appropriate care for her in a Catholic health care facility.”
Cook Children’s has said it has contacted “more than 20, well-respected healthcare facilities and specialists over the course of several months, but even the highest level of medical expertise cannot correct conditions as severe as Tinslee’s.”
Disagreement over end-of-life reform is among the three criteria on the basis of which the Texas bishops’ conference urged parishes in March 2018 not to participate in the activities of Texas Right to Life.
The bishops said they “have been compelled to publicly correct Texas Right to Life’s misstatements on end-of-life care and advance directives, in which Texas Right to Life implied that the legislation the bishops were supporting allowed euthanasia and death panels rather than the reality that the legislation reflected the long-standing Church teaching requiring a balance of patient autonomy and the physician conscience protection.”
[…]
Julia Mc Stravog and the theology of job security…
Wondering here if these warmed-over leftovers will again redefine bishops–the Successors of the Apostles–“primarily as facilitators,” as the half-pregnant topics of “structures, organization and leadership” are groomed toward, what, “inverted-pyramid” congregationalism?
Is the agenda less to talk about it, than by default to already to do it? The Anglicanization of the Catholic Church…this as the Anglican ecclesial communion, itself, is rupturing over the same militant ambiguities: https://theweek.com/religion/1021097/african-anglican-leaders-threaten-split-from-church-of-england-over-same-sex-union
Some “synthesis!”
Listening sessions?? Do they not mean “gripe sessions”??? This has already been a large disaster in Germany. I suppose the Vatican has learned nothing. People who are content with church structure and theology will not bother to attend these sessions mostly likely, because they have no agenda to push and have better things to do. The sessions will then be over-run by the shrill and the demanding, who are a definite minority but always make the most noise.I am seriously sick of hearing over and over about the idea of women in the diaconate and the celibacy issue. Further, where do they get off giving special attention to migrants ( who already absorb too many church resources) and the poor? What makes the poor more deserving to be listened to than those who are in actual fact donating money so the church can accomplish it’s mission and “stay in business” if you will. Evidently these days following the rules and the law and achieving enough success to help your church financially now makes your opinions less worthy to be heard. A lot of us have had more than enough of this garbage.
Wow – seems like you have your own agenda!
I am sick to death of the synod. Enough already.
Can we meet and talk about talking more about meeting?
We’ll do that at some future Synod on Synods on synodalites called for by Pope Francine I.
Dialogue: ˈdīəˌlôɡ Definition: As a verb, Take part in a conversation or discussion to resolve a problem where I pretend to listen to you and then I do what I had already planned to do. Synonym: synod
This type of activity has been oftentimes referred to as “contemplating one’s navel.” As a male of the species I can say that men are not wired to sit around and talk all day. It’s not our mode of operating.
I tend to agree: “The emphasis on conversation between clergy and laity is good in principle, but much of it, again, is navel-gazing. Lumen gentium (37–38) envisions a mature laity who are confident in living their faith in the world…” (“A Muddled Report for a Messy Synod”, Dec 5, 2023).
Carl, I swear, I did not plagiarize your piece. 🙂
Dreaming of Synodaling…
Me: “Hello everyone. I’m Fool.”
Fellow Synodalers: “Hello Fool! Welcome.”
And just like that, I begging to finally feel empowered…
I thought we already did these listening sessions last year…??
What? No trip to Rome?
During Lent? Marzo è pazzo!
No, the next paid vacation for the Synod of Sycophants is in October.
To be fair, Synodaling is no fun. It’s like sitting through Kabuki Theater, slowly inventing religion with weaponized boredom.
It is probably appropriate that these Synodal listening sessions are taking place during Lent, a penitential season.
The purpose is to replace penitential Lent with the post sin-odd dally-meetings. No time for Stations of the Cross?
And the synodal topic is the new trinitarianism: structure/ organization/ and leadership:
Structure: the fluid opposite of a needed spinal implant?
Organization: roundtable talk as the needed replacement for pre-Vatican II and “backwardist” Friday night Bingo?
Leadership: leadership-from-behind, which finds its analogue in the piggy-backed posturing of Fiducia Supplicans?
Keep the peasants distracted with synodality’s new trinitarianism…
…whilst the embedded leadership elites, behind the Wizard-of-Oz curtain, decide (deicide?) about such oxymorons and deaconesses and the blessing of same-sex pairings; aka “irregular” couples, unions, serial bigamy, and cohabitation;….And, gradually [“gradualism”!] not clearly excluding [inclusivity] polygamy, incest, bestiality, and rape as unilateral outreach?
Our former priest, in dealing with both the parish and the k-8 school issues, remarked once that, “some Catholics are born with a lemon in their mouth.”
A bishop or priest’s job would be a lot easier if the world did not run on money, or on staying compliant with the state and local authorities on questionable mandates and rules. Which political party in power actually cares about the poor, and not their voting power?
Good luck with the America’s synod. Might want to include the corporations that are running the country in your invitations, in order to get their perspective.
It does dishearten good Catholics when we seem to be experiencing deja vu in this round 2. My heart goes out to the poor and the migrants, but clearly the Church is ignoring the faithful as an earlier comment stated. Those good people who go to daily Mass are the ones the Church should really be talking with. They will tell you to keep your eyes on Jesus. Nothing else is worth talking about.
“Where have I seen or experienced successes — and distresses — within the Church’s structure(s)/organization/leadership/life that encourage or hinder the mission?”
I’ll tell you where I’ve seen distresses…half of the priests I’ve encountered since childhood presented as overtly homosexual and one tried to get me in bed when I was 18. I know they’ve made my life harder as an evangelist because I constantly have to answer for their misdeeds, but the Bishops won’t even admit the source of the issue. Additionally, multiple priests have warped the liturgy and thumbed their noses at the rubrics because of their personal agendas. A Monsignor I currently work with, at the beginning of Mass, rather than saying, “Let us call to mind our sins” says, “Let us call to mind the places in our lives that need healing”. Monsignor, stop trying to soften it. We sin. We need to know that we sin. God wants us to know that we sin so that we can get serious about changing.
Lastly, I’ve noticed that the only bishops who publicly promote orthodoxy are silenced, ridiculed and fired without explanation. There. I’ve participated in the synodaling.
I’ll tell you where –
Navigator, thanks for your truth-telling. We need more witnesses like you to indict the bad players in the Church.
Even in the guitar swinging 70s we were taught in religion class that you cannot take away the core parts of the mass but can only add on.
You were sent to heal the contrite…
You came to call sinners…
You plead for us at the right hand of the Father..,
Simple, powerful, directly to the point of the existence of the Church and our faith in Christ.
Rediculous. A tried and true way to imply you are listening while pursuing your own agenda.
Exactly, Mr.Carl.
🙂
Several years ago I joined a Daylily gardening club hoping to learn more about growing that flower.
Each meeting began with a review of the minutes of the previous meeting, talk about when the next meeting would occur, and updates on members who were under the weather, etc. Then door prizes were given out and they’d adjourn the meeting for refreshments. Never once did I hear anything about daylilies.Nada.
You should have brought a petunia to a meeting and asked the group if anyone knew what was wrong with your daylily. ha ha
The chatting reminds me of our phone service being on a party line growing up, competing with a lot of stay at home moms for phone line time.
Julia McStravog, the USCCB’s senior adviser for the synod is the equivalent of a school marm instructing her class of third graders. Except her wards are grown men wearing purple zucchettos instructed to Listen, listen, listen and continue to listen. As if they have nothing to convey. Apostolic successors reduced to buffoons. Another travesty product of the Synodal Church.
Saying that they’re reduced to buffoons is unfair, rather bishops are neutralized from fulfilling their mission. There are many who do well within their dioceses, what they require is the right leadership from Rome. If there were ever a time for bishops and all clergy to convey the Gospels with clarity and conviction it is now, when the world is on the path of self annihilation. This Synod is conceptually antithetical to the saving message of Christ.
AAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!
(Sorry to text yell, I just wanted some validation…)
I remember going to one of those “listening sessions” 30 some years ago when the topic was the US Bishops’ attempt to write a document about Women in the Church. The manipulative setup of the affair helped radicalize me into the critical person I am today. The voices of normal, faithful Catholics aren’t the ones that such programs are designed to “hear.”
1. I believe this is “the structure” of the Church established by Jesus:
A. Jesus = Head of the Body, and governs as King;
B. Bishops who are in Union with Jesus, as his Apostles were, and united around a faithful steward of Jesus, the Bishop of Rome, and by virtue of their union with Jesus, in union with their pastors and flocks.
C. Pastors who are in Union with Jesus, and by virtue of that, in union with their Bishop, etc.
D. Faithful laity, in union with Jesus, and by virtue of that, in union with their pastor, etc.
2. The “synod-bureaucrats,” led in their objectives by the Eminent Cardinal Hollerich, SJ, who has, with tacit approval of the Pontiff Francis, SJ, publicly declared himself opposed to the commands of Jesus regarding sexual morality, and very specifically so declaring that the revelation against sodomy is wrong, indicates that he and his fellow Synod bureaucrats are “colonized” by psycho-sexual-Marxist ideology, and as such they declare themselves opposed to Jesus, as he and his apostles are, in their high estimation, “wrong-headed” about sexual morality, and therefore not fit to rule the “new-Church” they seek to establish, to replace “The Body of Christ,” by decapitating it.
3. It is noteworthy that among the scriptures cited by “the-long-lent-of-the-2024-synod-bureacrat-series” is St. Paul’s Letter to the Romans, Chapter 12, encouraging us to “offer our bodies as a living sacrifice” and warning us “do not be conformed to the world,” a piece of revelation in gigantic contradiction to the ideology animating the psycho-sexual Marxist-idelogues who are animating the “synod-manufactured-by-the-Pontiff-Francis.”
4. The only question to be answered is which characters, along with “His Emenince Hollerich, SJ” in the “publicly-apostate-anti-Christ-synod” are just using the quotation from Romans 12 as a Trojan Horse for their new-anti-Christ-ideological-cult.
Answer to question 1: distresses include women lectors and talk about deaconesses and blessings of “irregular” (i.e. sinful) unions. Also limiting access to the Traditional Latin Mass especially at the parish level. Let the bishop run the diocese, not Rome. Answer to question 2: more Adoration, more Holy Hours, Rosaries, prayers. More reverent masses with Catholic Gregorian chant and other music, not Protestant type music and church architecture. As to why the idea that discussion about liturgy might not come up because discussion is about organization, what about letting the organization discussion include the choice of Latin mass, kneeling for communion, Ad Orientem, etc be at the very local level, parochial and diocesan, not at Rome? That is part of the organization picture, isn’t it?
I recommend this, from Fr. kirby, at TCT, today:
https://www.thecatholicthing.org/