Fort Worth, Texas, Jan 3, 2020 / 05:12 pm (CNA).- After a Texas judge on Thursday allowed a hospital to stop medical treatment for Tinslee Lewis, a terminally ill child in Fort Worth, the local bishop offered to help her family seek care in a Catholic healthcare facility.
Lewis was born prematurely Feb. 1, 2019, and has since been in the cardiac intensive care unit at Cook Children’s Medical Center. She 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, Trinity, regarding her treatment. The girl’s doctors believe her condition to be fatal and that she is in pain.
The Texas Advanced Directives Act 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, and was amended in 2003 and 2015. The 2015 amendment was adopted unanimously in the House vote, and by a voice vote in the Senate.
A Tarrant County judge had issued a temporary restraining order to prevent the removal of life-sustaining treatment Nov. 10, but the hospital “filed a motion questioning his impartiality and saying he had bypassed case-assignment rules to designate himself as the presiding judge,” the AP reported.
The case was then transferred to Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice of the Texas Fourth Court of Appeals, who held a hearing in December.
At that time, Marion said she would allow more time for an alternative facility to be found for Lewis’ care. And 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.
Marion ruled Jan. 2 to deny the application for a temporary injunction to require indefinite medical interventions for Lewis.
The decision “restores the ability of the Cook Children’s medical staff to make the most compassionate and medically appropriate decisions for Tinslee,” Cook Children’s said.
“Our medical judgment is that Tinslee should be allowed to pass naturally and peacefully rather than artificially kept alive by painful treatments. Even with the most extraordinary measures the medical team is taking, Tinslee continues to suffer,” the hospital said.
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.”
He said Jan. 2 that “healthcare decisions involving the vulnerable and severely ill are best made in the patient’s interests by family and healthcare providers and not by judges, by politicians, or lobbyists.”
A spokesman for the Diocese of Fort Worth told CNA Jan. 3 that the bishop’s offer of assistance had been passed to the Lewis family by Cook Children’s, and that “a representative of the family has contacted the Diocese.”
For its part, the hospital said it “has been devoted to this precious baby her entire life, providing compassionate, round-the-clock, intensive care and attention since she arrived at our hospital 11months ago. Her body is tired. She is suffering. It’s time to end this cycle because, tragically, none of these efforts will ever make her better.”
The hospital also noted that it had 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.”
Trinity Lewis stated, “I am heartbroken over today’s decision because the judge basically said Tinslee’s life is NOT worth living. I feel frustrated because anyone in that courtroom would want more time just like I do if Tinslee were their baby. I hope that we can keep fighting through an appeal to protect Tinslee. She deserves the right to live.”
Trinity Lewis had also asked that the ’10-day rule’ be found unconstitutional by the court.
She is being supported by Texas Right to Life, which said that “the ruling not only disregarded the Constitution, but also sentenced an innocent 11-month-old baby to death like a criminal. The 10-Day Rule has robbed countless patients of their Right to Life and right to due process. We pray the appellate court will identify how the law violates Baby Tinslee’s due process rights, revoke her death sentence, and strike down the deadly 10-Day Rule.”
Not all pro-life groups agree with Texas Right to Life’s assessment.
Texas Alliance for Life, another pro-life organization, noted that the case centers on the dispute resolution process in TADA.
“We don’t see how [Marion] could have ruled any other way. As we have stated previously, Texas Alliance for Life supports TADA. It is good public policy, it is constitutional, and it provides a balance between the patient’s autonomy and the physician’s conscience protection rights to do no harm.”
Texas Alliance for Life, along with the Texas Catholic Conference of Bishops and several other pro-life groups, disability advocates, and medical groups, submitted an amicus curiae brief in the case Dec. 11 stating that TADA “helps achieve their essential objectives” and arguing for its constitutionality.
The brief noted that the Texas bishops’ conference “generally supports the framework” of the act “as a balanced dispute resolution process that respects patient dignity and healthcare provider conscience,” while also supporting “continued legislative improvements to the act.”
The brief concludes by saying that “through the Texas Advanced Directives Act, the Legislature has provided families and physicians with a framework for resolving difficult end-of-life decisions. This design includes a safe harbor encouraging physicians and medical institutions to provide multiple layers of review, culminating in a period of time for families to secure a transfer to another medical facility, during which life-sustaining intervention will continue to be provided. The amici believe that the framework created by TADA is essential and constitutional.”
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.”
In its Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services, the US bishops’ conference notes regarding the seriously ill and dying that “we have a duty to preserve our life and to use it for the glory of God, but the duty to preserve life is not absolute, for we may reject life-prolonging procedures that are insufficiently beneficial or excessively burdensome.”
The directives state that “a person has a moral obligation to use ordinary or proportionate means of preserving his or her life. Proportionate means are those that in the judgment of the patient offer a reasonable hope of benefit and do not entail an excessive burden or impose excessive expense on the family or the community,” and that “a person may forgo extraordinary or disproportionate means of preserving life.”
“Disproportionate means are those that in the patient’s judgment do not offer a reasonable hope of benefit or entail an excessive burden, or impose excessive expense on the family or the community.”
Texas Governor Greg Abbott and Attorney General Ken Paxton released a joint statement Jan. 2, after the temporary injunction was denied, saying that “the state will continue to support Ms. Lewis’s exhaustion of all legal options to ensure that Tinslee is given every chance at life.”
“The Attorney General’s office is involved in the ongoing litigation, fighting to see that due process and the right to life are fully respected by Texas law. The Attorney General’s office will be supporting an appeal of this case to the Second Court of Appeals. The State of Texas is fully prepared to continue its support of Ms. Lewis in the Supreme Court if necessary. We are working diligently to do all we can to ensure that Tinslee and her family are provided the care and support that they seek.”
[…]
Bravo.
Response (or lack thereof) should be interesting.
The adage is “don’t ask for permission, but later for forgiveness.” But, an apology only, or what else?
Besides, the IOC might harmonize polarities—a recent theological trick—by suggesting that the float was “non-liturgical, spontaneous, and therefore not scandalizing” (why not bless the float, two-by-two, under Fiducia Supplicans?). The sin is not only anti-religious blasphemy, but also an underlying STUPIDITY. Or, maybe the French novelist Georges Bernanos is even more perceptive:
“The modern world will shortly no longer possess sufficient spiritual reserves to commit genuine evil. Already . . . we can witness a lethal slackening of men’s conscience that is attacking not only their moral life, but also their very heart and mind, altering and decomposing even their imagination . . . The menacing crisis is one of INFANTILISM.” (Interview with Samedi-Soir, Nov. 8, 1947, cited in Hans Urs von Balthasar, “Bernanos: An Ecclesial Existence” [San Francisco: Ignatius, 1996], 457, caps added).
For an historical take on blasphemy/stupidity/infantilism on the Seine, yours truly humbly suggests my own letter to the IOC (July 30), found in the thread to an earlier CWR article: https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2024/07/27/how-the-olympic-committee-violated-its-own-charter/ From a back-bleachers layman! Very synodal, that.
So, in addition to a minimal apology, how about restitution from the IOC for violating its own charter? Maybe an IOC resignation, plus housecleaning of float organizer Thomas Joystick or whatever.
It does not matter so much that we mere humans are offended but that God was mocked. Those who committed these blasphemies should be called to repent, lest they be cast into Hell. The IOC sins grievously against the first of the commandments, and they will be held to account before God, if not by men. Now I applaud the small cadre of bishops for their letter, but it could have been stronger. And yet, the letter is much louder than our pontiff’s voice, which remains silent in the face of this international blasphemy. Perhaps he is ambivalent and is still in a hangover from his Pachamama blessing, or perhaps he is embarrassed, as he had just endorsed the Olympics for its peacefulness. Perhaps there are prelates inside the Vatican whispering in our pontiff’s ear, who, like Sr Jeanne Grammick, are looking for an angle of endorsement “I applaud the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence for their financial assistance to those in need. I support them because of all their good works.” That quote is from last year. Maybe someone is waiting for the IOC to make a donation (of sorts) to the Vatican, and then all will be OK.
“It is hard to understand how the faith of 2 billion people can be so casually and intentionally blasphemed” say the prelates.
WRONG – It is NOT hard AT ALL to understand. Can we at least agree on that much?
Thomas Jolly and Anne Descamps – you could at least have the decency to admit what is obvious to anyone with half a brain – you INTENTIONALLY meant to offend billions of Christians.
For what seems to be the umpteenth time – has the pope had anything to say about this? 8 days after the fact that doesn’t seem like too much to ask for.
Or does it?
Addendum – Apology?
Don’t hold your breath.
How telling that the saying of the centuries old Latin Mass is apparently more offensive to Bergoglio than this evil mockery of Christ in His holiest of Sacraments.
Acceptable to Bergoglio:
Abominable Paris blasphemy.
Rupnik abuses, both sexual and artistic.
Martin and others encouraging sinful acts.
Not acceptable to Bergoglio:
The celebration of traditional form of the Mass in which Christ Jesus Himself is praised and adored.
What does that tell us?
I wonder. If this same group had submitted an application to mockingly act out verses from the Koran, would it have been approved? Of course, we know the answer. Only Christians are fair game.
Athanasius, may I suggest that Christians are fair game for freemasons in France ever since the genocidal Freemasonic coupe d’état described as a “Revolution” sought to eliminate them?
Even if a raunchy parody of Muslims had been approved it would probably be the last time. There would be consequences far greater than polite letters from clergy.
Exactly my thought. I can imagine a similarly extremely offensive “parody” and what the reactions would be ..
The Good News amidst the bad – that many would have obtained the Portiuncula indulgence today – https://spiritdaily.org/blog/news/how-can-you-get-the-portiuncula-indulgence-tomorrow
France and Francis and Francis … Holy Father visiting the amusement park to remind the persons there that they too are capable of being set free from undue attachments to creatures which is the temporal punishment of sins that are removed through indulgences , to strengthen our ‘bones ‘ of holy relationship with the Famly of heaven ..The bears who came to tear up the children who mocked Prophet Elisha – our times too , millions have been torn up by the bears of scorn and mockery towards God and the Sacraments …the call to bring them all again and again unto The Mother – to her many manifestations of the role given her in France alone – The Immaculate Conception – to be set free from the carnal flood waters of our times …manifested by those who are drowning in same… Lord never tires of throwing the ring of His holiness and Love unto us ..and tell us to be ever ready to be struck on the other cheek for doing same ..to keep at it without expecting honor from those who indirectly are demanding that they be seen as family in excess of tolerance without any demands of love as responsibility …
The Winning Family of Heaven – Sts Francis , Holy Fmly and all – flood waters of that Love to wash out the dragon waters … in the hidden springs of holiness such as at Lourdes and The Immaculate Conception … Glory be!
I will leave the link to the video of an Eastern Orthodox priest (based in California) speaking about the blasphemy and those who designed it. He also speaks about so-called “apology” (I agree with him and this is why I do not care about “apologies” from those people)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEMx33nsIyA
That they could only gather 27 out of thousands of bishops is itself a scandal.
I don’t think there will be an apology.
In any case, I think an apology won’t do.
Heads need to roll.
The Eastern Orthodox priest has it right.
I’ll be pleasantly surprised if it happens.
No desire to denigrate? No intention of disrespect? It’s unfathomable that anyone with a functioning brain can be that clueless.
Oh, and btw, if there was an outraged response from James Martin, SJ, the go-to guy for all matters rainbow, I must have missed it. I’m serious when I say, please, someone, let me know if he commented, and if so, how. Apparently, a response from the current pontiff is still forthcoming.
Or, maybe NOT a direct response from Pope Francis or from any pope? Would such an action be twisted to confer a kind of equivalence and legitimacy to a tribe of lunatics floating through Paris or wherever?
Another proposition is that the Holy Spirit already works in subtle but concrete ways…
The demand for an apology comes from bishops from around the world (just as the Olympic Games include nations from around the world). And the demand was possibly fostered by Cardinal Burke who, by incoherent circumstance, no longer lives in the Vatican. And, therefore, now is more free to say what must be said without engaging in an historic pissing contest between the perennial Catholic Church and moral mutants feeding on what’s left of the West.
The brief letter also evangelizes clearly and concisely, in only a few sentences, rather than in thousands of unread words on Vatican letterhead. The only fly in the ointment (fly, so to speak), is the earlier Vatican blessing of irregular “couples” under Fiducia Supplicans… butt surely pairs of drag queens are not to be excluded.
Better that oblique harmonizers of “polarities” stay out of this.
I would like to know if there was a pre parade briefing for the press as to the theme and nature of the depiction. Also what were the actors told by the artistic creators as to what they were portraying? If they say it was a pagan scene why the discrepancy? Why the misunderstanding? It seems that “there is something rotten in the state of Denmark “
I think that an apology will not be issued. The designers of the Opening Ceremonies will continue to insist that their display had nothing to do with Christianity.
So instead of continuing to demand an apology, I think we should drop it and concentrate on getting devout Catholic and Protestant Christians involved with planning/designing the 2028 Olympics which will be held in Los Angeles, California, U.S.A. I know that there are plenty of Catholics who have experience and expertise in designing/managing large events–put out the call for them to get involved with the 2028 Olympics, especially those who live in/near L.A. We need to act rather than react, volunteer rather than boycott, and pray rather than fuss. I fear that if Christians choose to avoid any involvement with the Olympics, as well as other secular “big events” (e.g., anything in entertainment, or sports), and instead, wait til the offence is committed before we cry out “Foul!”, we will continue to see even greater offences against what and WHO we know to be sacred. The reason there are so many beautiful works of architecture and art in Europe is that Catholics designed and built them!
If they truly believe that it had nothing to do with Christianity make them prove it? What were the actors told that they were representing? Was the press briefed beforehand as to what it was all about? What scenario did the artistic creators present to those who made decisions about the presentation? Things were known, decisions were made and the people involved should be held accountable.
If you had to debate this issue from their point of view, what would you say?
I see that the Biden-Harris administration got the message re their odious deal with the 9/11 organizer.
Didn’t pussyfoot around pleading for/demanding an apology either.
An apology will not happen, primarily because they operate with no moral framework and no religious sensibility of right and wrong. So, we have the defaming of the Last Supper. Then we have the attack on normal sexuality by their allowing men to pummel women in physical contact sports, which could easily end in injury or death to the genuinely female opponent.But of course death appears to be preferable to these folks, compared to telling a small and clearly mentally ill minority that not only is allowing them to compete physically dangerous for their opponent, but also gives them a grossly unfair advantage to win. How much of a “win” is it, when you win by cheating? In my opinion, none. Its clear we are on a path to eliminating womens sports. Trying to continue in this way will inevitably end in tragedy. Sadly I do believe that for their own safety, women athletes should refuse to compete when paired with a male opponent. Finally, all people should be making their voices on this issue heard loud and clear to your political representatives. The democrats have been pandering to this abnormality and trying to normalize it for years. Its disgusting. Good old Joe Biden has just pushed through the changes in title 9 allowing bio men to change in womens locker rooms and play on womens teams at our public schools. To the parents of young women: no scholarship is worth the potential danger and sexual harassment of your daughter in this situation. Remember which party has been pushing this through when next you vote.Only the blind cant see this is a societal turning point.