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.”
[…]
By 
I fully admit that whether or not the clergy should be celibate is beyond my payscale, but if a married (former) Protestant can become a Catholic priest, why can’t a married Catholic? My best friend is an Orthodox priest. He’s a husband, a father, and a grandfather. He tells me that he understands all the reasons for opposing a married priesthood, but he feels that the benefits far outweigh them. (And believe me: I have no iron in this fire. Though married, I feel not so much as a whisper, let alone a call, to the priesthood.)
Married men can be ordained as deacons in both the Roman and Eastern Rites.
In the Byzantine Catholic Church, as well as the other various Eastern Catholic Churches, it’s not against tradition to admit married men to the priesthood, whereas in the Roman Church, priestly celibacy is viewed as a discipline. Many of the early Church fathers were married.
I’m in full support of a married Roman priesthood as an option.
Two of the best Byzantine priests I know are married, and they are very good in confession, because they have experienced the ups and downs of marriage.
There is no controversy with the prospect of a married priesthood.
Once they become a priest, they have to be celibate, married or not.
They do? Huh. News to me. As a longtime Eastern Catholic, I know quite a few married priests who have children and who are continuing to have children.
I think she means if their wife should die. I think that is the norm but may be dispensed.
Never heard of that rule…
No, we had an Episcopal priest who grew up in our hometown converted and became a Catholic priest. It seemed to work out fine
I agree with your friend that there are real struggles in having a celibate priest stood, but I believe the benefits far outweigh the difficulties. A celibate man better images and conforms too the image of a celibate Christ, who is totally wet to his bride the church and lays down his life for her and not his own will see Ephesians 5 and Matthew 19. Additionally living a life, totally committed to God now without the mediation of a wife is more a kin to, and is a sign of the heavenly reality where everybody will be totally devoted to God without mediation. The celibate is offered graces to do that now. I encourage you to make friends with happy celibate clergymen who can tell you of the grace of the sacraments and the way that prayer and a relationship with Mary has transformed and sustained him.
Since the article by Professor Spinello, The Second Vatican Council: A Guiding Star for the Church? is not available I wish to post a comment here on the Vatican II controversy.
Or a death star? A snare for large contingents of the progressive and traditional Church. Spinello apparently alludes to the multitude of progressive carpetbaggers who misused the Counsel’s documents to promote their new paradigm.
Reaction to the new paradigmers by traditionalists is that they, the radical left, are drawn into the alluring glitter of the death star only to be gripped by the devil. Whereas new paradigmers will contend it is the traditionalists who have closed their ears to the voice of the Spirit of the Council.
Ironically, Vat II has unfairly become a cause for distancing within the Church. Both reject what the Council actually teaches, injuring their faith in obedience to the Magisterium. Taking themselves to extremes that freeze compassion and Christian brotherhood.
For a test of manifest devotion to Christ present in the Holy Eucharist turn around at the consecration and note how very few are looking directly at the Eucharist, and are rather looking down piously or at a missalette. This is a hangover from the TLM. So the NO was intended to engage the parishioner in what is actually occurring before their eyes. To engage and participate, to learn what is being taught through the liturgy.
Professor Spinello analyzes all the pertinent Council documents to clearly demonstrate, one would wish once and for all, that both are out in Left Field. That if read properly sans a preconceived agenda will find the Council is indeed a Guiding Star.
If you are going to accuse people of rejecting what the Council teaches, perhaps you should include a quote of what that teaching is, and some evidence of rejection besides behavior. Sin is not generally evidence of heresy, and the direction of one’s gaze does not even amount to sin. Nor does it necessarily indicate what a person’s mind is on.
His argument subverts itself. He says the NO was intended to engage the parishioner in what is actually occurring before their [sic] eyes. And he now, as a practitionre of the NO, observes that few look.
Yesterday, a Dominican priest homilied on what “active participation” per Aquinas intends. One’s senses are not necessarily engaged. One’s spirit IS participating in sanctifying grace. One gains grace is through reconciliation and receipt. Reconciliation and receipt of Holy Eucharist are spiritually mindful, not sense-based acts.
One would have hoped that a doctorpriest would, late in life, have come across such notions.
“This is a hangover from the TLM.”
The stunningly arrogant bias and assumption by one human-mind led me to gasp. Have you been ill, Fr. Dr.? One who cares nothing for Who He Is will level such thoughtless uncharity to another of His Own.
Other persons adore the Eucharist at His Elevation within UA rubrics since that is the first time during the Mass the parishioner may view The Presence of the King. He is elevated. Not manhandled.
The premise underlying the changes to the Mass was to present the liturgy as a means to engage and instruct the faith. Few persons understood was was occurring at the altar, except for a few like yourselves who made the effort.
I don’t accuse you, although I accept your insults as a blessing.
Few persons understood [what] was occurring at the altar. A miracle of love to be adored. If laity continue to disregard the immense beauty of Christ’s real presence it’s in part due to those who condemn Vatican II and attempts to promote the Novus Ordo as a means of fulfilling the ancient dictum, ut legem credendi lex statuat. To allow what Benedict XVI envisioned as a parallel embellishment of the two liturgical forms.
If there’s sin, is may be in vilification. Examine your consciences before the Blessed Sacrament.
Seems odd that a married non Catholic can become a priest while denied to a life time Catholic. All the while we have a shortage of priests. Does not make any sense when you consider that we have always recognized the non celibate priesthood of the many Eastern Rite Churches. Since we now have severe financial problems in the Church and many congregations are struggling to afford a priest, it seems to me that new ways need to be found to solve these problems. A married priest with a family does not necessarily put a greater financial burden on a church. I have known many Protestant ministers who were self supporting by working at secular jobs. Another possibility would to look at the “worker priest model “ movement experimented with in post Vatican II France. The idea was that priests would take secular jobs in order to evangelize in the secular work place. This would also allow them to say masses on Sunday. Lay people could easily be employed to run the every day nut and bolt operations of the church- maintenance, business management etc. married deacons could also handle many of the sacraments as allowed. What I am trying to say is that we must be creative in trying new ways of meeting needs as they present themselves. Some of our traditions can be broken without damaging our faith. The life of the diocesan priest is becoming harder and harder as more and more have to live alone in their parsonages. Many also have to do their own cooking and housekeeping. This causes loneliness extra burdens and opens them to many needless temptations. Perhaps religious order priests living together and serving several nearby parishes would be another consideration. I think that it is becoming increasingly apparent that the old ways of doing things are no longer working and we must change.
Brilliant reply. You are so right. It makes no sense at all. Unfortunately, what you say here just continues to fall on deaf ears. Things will just have to get worse before they begin to consider more prudent alternatives.
I concur.
What bothers me MUCH MORE is that singular “right” of a priest to withhold the confession of a crime–no matter how heinous–from the authorities. How CONVENIENT: and no wonder so many boys were violated again and again! No womN of any faith would allow this outrage to continue, year after year after year. Seems God cannot protect the violated as long as the RC protects the violators!
Would you apply the same standard to a doctor/patient relationship or a lawyer/client relationship. If I was accused of sexually abusing a minor and retained legal council, should my attorney report my guilt to authorities?
A good chunk of the reason for repeat offenders was that a bunch of bishops decided to ignore their obligations under canon law and instead follow the advice of psychologists (who claimed they had cured the priests). It’s not like the only evidence they had was obtained in Confession.
Our legislators seem to also want to believe it can be easily solved in a few years too, judging by the typical penalties for child molesting.
The Catholic views on marriage for priests is incredibly short cited! Also denial of communion to CHRISTIANS of other faiths is DENIED!!! Now this former Baptist pastor can receive and GICE COMMUNION TO OTHERS BECAUSE WHY????
What’s changed?? Some Man priest said it’s okay now???? Surely God is amused by the teachings of the CATHOLIC RELIGION….
Ms Brechtel:
God is not amused by the teachings of the Catholic religion. God IS the founder of the Catholic religion.
Catholic priests are not allowed to marry after ordination, no matter whether they are Roman or Eastern.
Married men are admitted to the priesthood, even those who were formerly Roman, but underwent a formal change of rites, which transfers their canonical status from Roman (or Latin) to Eastern (Byzantine, Alexandrian, Maronite, etc) but again, most married men who are admitted to the priesthood are in the Byzantine Churches, or other Eastern-Rite branches of the Catholic Church.
Denial of Holy Communion to non-catholic Christians is a long standing law that will not change. Communion is for those who are in good standing with the Catholic Church, and who truly believe and profess that the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. How can someone who rejects the True Presence of Christ in the Eucharist receive Him in Holy Communion? They can’t, and you know it.
From the tone of your posted comment, I’m guessing that you are either a non-catholic, or someone who doesn’t like those who are.
Connie: I’m curious. Are you Catholic?
What changed is that he converted and then was ordained
In what way is Fr. Moger’s journey unique?
Fr Moger didn’t know there was a pathway for him to become a priest after converting.
Either way, even if it’s not unique to you, it is to him as a convert. If you’re a cradle Catholic like myself, it’s often harder to see the uniqueness of someone’s conversion.
In general, a typical Baptist believer is regenerated and saved according to the Bible. Christ lives in them and they have a relationship with God. A typical catholic is not regenerated, not saved, and has religion,which is void of a normal loving relationship with God. Therefore, this person never knew God and regressed to religion where there is no God. Pity
JF Acosta: Say what????
I am a trad. Catholic my whole life and always look up at the Eucharist during the Consecration and the 3x: Lord, I am not worthy. It is all about the presence of Jesus, of course.
Unfortunately many of Catholics do not believe in the Transubstantiation which is why so Sadly many Catholics drifted
Miss Connie , Christ may be amused or saddened sometimes by our actions but He founded the Catholic Church.
If you believe in Catholic teaching, especially about the Eucharist,and wish to be received into the Church the door is open. There’s a process though. You don’t just show up at the Communion rail.
Jesus Christ was celibate. Vatican II Council unequivocally endorsed priestly celibacy.
From Fr. John Hardon (Servant of God):
“If anyone asks me, and I have been asked more than once, what positive good has come from the Second Council of the Vatican, I could give a dozen answers. But somewhere near the top is its unmistakable support for priestly celibacy. As the following statement of the Council makes clear:
‘Based on the mystery of Christ and its mission, celibacy, which at first was recommended to priests, was afterwards on the Latin Church imposed by law on all who were to be promoted to Holy Orders. This Sacred Council approves and confirms this legislation. (Presbyterorum Ordinis, 16).'”
See: https://www.therealpresence.org/archive/archives/Priesthood/Priesthood_010.htm
Didn’t Think So above (8:16 p.m.) –
What I was getting at is that Fr. Moger is not the first Protestant pastor/minister/priest to become a Catholic priest.
Fr. Dwight Longenecker, e.g.
Maybe Fr. Moger is the first (American) Baptist pastor to make the trek?
Cleo
It almost seemed slightly downplaying to me.
I’m sorry for my snappy response.
Fr Moger could be the first American baptist minister to be ordained as a Catholic priest. As you said, many Lutheran and Anglican ministers have been ordained.
Fr. Longnenecker is a former Anglican priest. He became a Catholic priest under a special provision made by the Holy See for Anglican priests. Fr. Moger was given a dispensation from celibacy by Pope Francis to be ordained a Catholic priest in the Latin rite. These circumstances are not the norm in the Latin rite. The discipline of celibacy remains in the Church, that to be ordained a priest in the Latin rite one takes a vow of celibacy, which the Church teaches is a higher calling because Christ, himself, was celibate.
I bet that there are married, permanent Deacons who would be good priests.