The Tragedy Of Emilio Gonzales

This came to my attention because of a recent comment with more information here.

Some stories we read can't help but make one feel guilty for pains and slights endured with perhaps too much self-pity in the grand scheme of things. They make you appreciate the simple grace behind a cliche, there but for the grace of God go I. They make you want to reach into the darkness and pluck out a simple answer to a question no man or woman should have to decide.

Ultimately the equation becomes, should man decide, or should we leave it to the will of God. Unfortunately, to define God's will within the context of a society is also not an easy thing. And there we are, left alone in darkness, our greatest fears circling, our greatest hopes struggling to shed the least bit of light.

We can and will wander away, move on, see light and breath fresh air again. That opportunity is not available to those most directly effected. They must live with that unfathomable darkness until the end of their time.

Catarena Gonzales is trying to cope with the fact that her baby may die in 10 days.

This week, the Children's Hospital of Austin Ethics Committee determined 16-month-old Emilio was suffering and should be removed from his respirator, but Gonzales said she doesn't want to lose her only son.

"Let God take him when he's ready, because my son is fighting," said Catarena Gonzales. "I see my, my son moving, moving his feet, his legs. Every time they suction him, he'll gag."

Under Texas law, hospitals have the right to decide if treatment is medically impossible.

Emilio suffers from Leigh's Disease, which doctors said was tearing away at his muscles and nervous system, and would only get worse.

"She wants her baby to be able to live for as long as he can, but we are making this baby suffer right now, with no benefit to the baby, in a case where the baby will die," said commission Chairman Michael Reiger.

Gonzales' only hope is to find another hospital to treat her son, but no one will take her case.

"She would like to live the last days of Emilio's life without these complications and this threat of a respirator being withdrawn hanging over her head," said Jerry Ward, Gonzales' attorney.

Catarena has contacted hospitals across the state and the country, but her attorney said it was unlikely another hospital will help, because they don't normally take "futile" cases.

"I'm not going to be able to play with him, and the only thing I wanted was to see him healthy and grow up," said Gonzales.

Comments

[Cindi]

As you know Dan, I have been there.

The chances of Channon living past birth were not good. But she did. We had the best of the best working in her favor. All without expectation to be paid. Not because we were poor, but because the amounting medical expences far exceded our insurance. I had a government job at the time, and yes, it does run out.

I am forever greatful for the DRS that gave their services without expectation to be paid.

But had I had anyone tell me that my childs life would be better off had they not attemtped anything they could, would have set me off.

One of the major problems with out daughter was getting her to the place she most needed to be, and that was the University of Alabama. The only hospital in the country at the time willing to try surgery on her. The Airforce stepped in and decided to fly her to Alabama. At the University of Alabama, she died 8 hours before her surgery. Gods will as I saw it and do today. Her problems were much more than her heart.

But how dare anyone, DR's included decide what kind of treatment our child should recieve. We were very fortunate in 1982 to have the compassion from the community as well as the government to be able to make a decision to give it our best for our daughter. That decison should always remain with a parent.

Sad now a day how little value some put on life. I have three cousins who were told to abort their babies. Two of them had babies that are now 10, 12 years old and quite healthy. The other is autistic(sp).

Some world we now live in when a parents right to keep their child alive is ignored.

[scarshapedstar]

I don't generally think of a respirator as an instrument of God's will. If God wants someone to live then they will, by definition, live. At least I thought that was the point of the whole Shadrach, Meshack, and Abednego story.

[Phoenix]

Wow, Cindi. I am very sad to hear your story. The only solace is that you were able to make things happen. I feel for this mother that no one is understanding her need. Maternal love might be the most powerful force of human nature, and this woman is having to fight that as well as fight the system. Very upsetting.

I had my son in 1982 and within weeks of getting pregnant, my doctor gave us the news that because of a drug I was taking he might not live more than 72 hours after birth. The chances were slim, but the doctor told us we had to weigh the possibilities and go with the pregnancy or opt for abortion. I went with the pregnancy and all was well except for that solemn possibility that I made quiet in the back of my mind. I was teaching at the time, and a bunch of us had babies within a few years and everyone got a great baby shower. I told one of my friends about the chance that my baby might die, and she told everyone. I didn't know everyone knew, but realized it when frantic last-minute preparations were made for a shower for me. This was the last week of school after the students had left. I still didn't know everyone knew until I opened a little outfit and took it out of its original package and held it up just as one old bat barked out - "Don't do that! You might want to take it back!"

Oh wow.... feel bad now telling the story. It was so terrible as everyone gasped and I realized they all knew and had wondered whether or not to bother with giving me presents.

I guess if there is one thing we can all identify with it's the birth of a child. It is probably the first time people understand the true power of love. I can't imagine the agony of losing a child. Especially as you love it more than life itself before it's born. Very sad.....

[yyy]

So the mother doesn't care that her baby is in PAIN, she wants the baby to be alive as long as possible??

Sorry, I don't find that sympathetic. If the baby is in pain and is going to die within a few days why should he be kept alive and in pain because the mother is irrational?

Oh wait, I know, the baby jesus might come down and work a miracle and save the child as long as the mother has faith in the respirator.

[Buzzy]

Actually PAIN isn't a characteristic of Leigh's disease the hospital has decided to allow the baby to die because treatment is FUTILE with no hope of improvement or cure.

[johna]

this kids already DEAD! get over it

[yyy]

Maybe Dan is hoping for Terri Schiavo Part II.

[Cindi]

YYY, you are nothing but a HATE filled person. I truly feel sorry for you. Surely you will die as you are now. Alone.

Thank the baby Jesus that you have never been able to reproduce. But then again, that would be of your own doing. Hate is not very attractive, is it?

[Phoenix]

Despair - the death throes of hope. No wonder this mother is irrational.

It is hard to believe someone would mock this mother.

Just when I think I've seen the worst of man, I get surprised. YYY, you are a piece of work. Human detritus.

[yyy]

I've no doubt that you bible thumpers think it is the epitome of LOVE for this mother to want to keep her baby alive even though it's suffering. I don't. I think it's the height of selfishness and irrationality. She doesn't care what the baby is feeling, she wants what SHE WANTS.

She says 'let god take him when he's ready' but doesn't want him on the respirator. Either she believes in the will of god or she doesn't. If god wants her baby alive then the baby will recover, if not, then the respirator is only prolonging the inevitable.

[Buzzy]

But yyy isn't that exactly the same argument you use to support abortion. The mother wants what she wants when she wants it except that in the case of abortion there is no disease that makes the baby's life in doubt without the doctor killing it it would live to be an adult human (of course barring fatal incidents which can't be prevented or forseen).

So I finally figured out exactly what the common thread is, you guys get your kicks killing babies. Kill them if their sick and blame the mother for her choice that they live, kill them when they're not sick and praise the mother for her choice. Exactly how can anyone view such a sick and twisted logic as progressive?

[tally]

The decision of what to do should be left in the hands of the patient's family.

[yyy]

Again, I know how you guys hate facts, but a living baby and a fetus are not the same thing. In fact, throughout most of history the fetus wasn't considered a life until after "quickening" which is well after conception.

The abortion issue is the right of the woman over her own body, since the fetus can't survive on its own.

Whereas this case is the woman's desire to have the right to keep another human being alive and suffering because it eases her own suffering.

[Purple Avenger]

"I don't generally think of a respirator as an instrument of God's will."

But food is right?

[Mark]

tally said,"The decision of what to do should be left in the hands of the patient's family."

This is a good idea. Where the state has no overwhelming interest to interfere, it should butt the hell out of family matters.

Good luck. The woman has an attorney and has thus invited the state to interfere via the court system. Who is paying for the baby's care? The Family? Insurance? The state? Unless the family is paying, or has the most benign insurance carrier, the state becomes the defacto arbiter. I know it stinks.

[Buzzy]

Liberalism is truely a cult of death in which the State decides who lives and dies. How soon before they decide its easier to kill the elderly because they aren't ever going to be spry again, or maybe they're suffering, draw too much social security.

[yyy]

Yeah, yeah, yeah and Terri Schiavo was looking direclty at her insane parents in all those videos. Except that she wasn't because she was blind.

Much better to leave medical decisions to grieving, unbalanced parents rather than doctors. Way to go.

For my money, if you can't afford health insurance then you shouldn't have children, the state shouldn't be involved at all.

[Buzzy]

So you're against Federally funded health care.... have you told Hillary?

So if this child's mother had health care you wouldn't kill him? You only want to kill poor children?

Terri Shivo had plenty of money and the State wasn't out a cent in keeping her alive. She also was able to breath on her own, you finally had to starve her to death. Did it make you sad that her husband didn't just smother her with a pillow?

[yyy]

The fact that they kep Terri Schiavo alive against her wishes and against the wishes of her husband is truly disgusting.

She should have been given a nice big dose of morphine so she would have died quickly and painlessly, but it is you religious nuts who won't allow that to happen, even for people who aren't in persistant vegitative states but who are awake, terminally ill and don't want to live in pain anymore. Nope. You can't have that morphine shot, the only thing you can do is refuse food and water and let yourself die.

Yeah, that is respect for life alright.

The doctors say keeping him alive is causing him to suffer. I would listen to the doctors, just like I would have listened to the doctors in the Terri Schiavo case.

Yes I am against universal healthcare funded by the government. The last thing we need is another giant bureaucratic boondogle. Historically, federal programs run out of DC don't do well when they are trying to deal with things that occur in real life at the state level..like education, housing and health care.

[seekeronos]

"since the fetus can't survive on its own."

Neither can the average 10-year old, nor a senior citizen of greatly advanced age.

So, YYY: When do you propose the legislation that will give the State the right to terminate preganancies of "insufficient racial characteristic (i.e. European/white lineage)", or if you decide to let the poor white dhimmis live, then will you kill off those with poor genetics in general (ppl. with markers for autism or the "religious gene") ?

Or how about killing off people of insufficient income, or those who harbour ecologically/politically incorrect ideas?

When do you start up the euthanasia camps for all people over 65 years of age (why even bother with SS when you can just turn them into ecologically friendly compost logs, or into soylient green chowder)?

Will it be about the same time that we surrender the federal and selected state government to Mexico in the south, and the Caliphate elsewhere?

Maybe we will luck out and balkanize into new nations that will no longer be limited by short sighted and illogical dicates from whacked out nutjobs who succeeded in selling our once great USA down the river... pah!!

Is the above extremely idiotic??

Definitely. But this is where policies predicated on pinning human life to a set dollar figure head to.

[Buzzy]

Y3, I appreciate your stance on universal health care, it would be a huge mess and waste of billions of dollars of tax money. I believe that 90% of federal issues should be decided and administered on the State level too.

I'm torn on the issue of Emilio and his mother. I can understand exactly why his mother refuses to abandon hope in his case but it certainly looks like it will end with his death as there is no effective treatment or cure. At the same time I think it's important to strive to treat illnesses like this, even in novel and ground breaking ways. That is exactly how we've found treatments and cures for other diseases that once were 100% fatal. I respect the mother's wishes on this matter just as I respected the wishes of Teri Schiavo's mother and father.

[Jeff]

I come from the socialist mecca called Canada, universal health care sucks. If you like waiting in a waiting room for twelve hours while puking your guts out its awesome. In Canada I was never in an ER for less than 3 hours, and that was because I passed out from blood loss... Other than that, I was in for as little as five hours. But of course, in America, it would work differently, at least in the liberal mind.

[yyy]

I thought Teri Schiavo's mother and father were destructive, hateful, controlling, unbalanced and dangerous people who had zero respect for their own daughter, they wanted to keep her alive to feed their own twisted emotional needs.

This mother here isn't asking for any new, novel or experimental treatment, if she were, then I would support her 100%, what she is asking is that her baby be kept alive artificially when the doctors tell her that the child is suffering. To my mind that is selfish and misguided,just like Terri's parents saying they would keep their daughter alive even if it meant cutting off all of her limbs. Ghoulish.

The federal goverment should stick to things that are too macro to be handled any other way: international trade, military and defense, treaties, funding of basic research, setting baseline health/safety/efficacy standards, diplomacy and as a lefty I would add environmental protection, since unless it is viewed in its totality, local economic interests will always trump environmental ones. I was a big fan of the block grant system...the federal government sets some basic guidelines and benchmarks and then gives the money to the states.

The last two federal bureacracies that have been created, the Department of Education and the Department of Homeland Security both appear to be hopeless failures, creating a lot of rules, paperwork and busy work but not producing any tangible positive result. The same would be true of any kind of government administered universal health program. That isn't to say it isn't a scandal that there are 45 million people in the country with no health insurance, it is, but more big government isn't the answer.

[seekeronos]

"The federal goverment should stick to things that are too macro to be handled any other way: international trade, military and defense, treaties, funding of basic research, setting baseline health/safety/efficacy standards, diplomacy and as a lefty I would add environmental protection..."

"The last two federal bureacracies that have been created, the Department of Education and the Department of Homeland Security both appear to be hopeless failures..."

"but more big government isn't the answer."

Wow, YYY... are you sure that you aren't a closeted conservative...?

Notwithstanding certain social views you have supported, and your undiluted hatred for the current administration and the "religious right" (heck, I will even admit that B43 could have done many things better)... some of your points are not far off from mine.

*scratches head in wonderment*

[seekeronos]

That said, my only other contribution to this is that parents should have the last say in the "live-or-die". If indeed the child is suffering, pain medication could be administered until she is critically terminal, although by the same token, if I were the parent, I'd probably opt for requesting removal of the respiratory apparatus if there was no other means of resolving her condition.

After all, God is most merciful toward children, and would quickly receive her spirit.

[yyy]

Very libertarian leanings. Fiscal conservative, social liberal..the government should stay out of my private life and leave me alone unless there is legal probable cause that I have committed a crime, otherwise, the door stays closed.

It might surprise you that I am pro-death penalty and a member of the NRA, though I don't hunt. I also hate Hillary Clinton, though not as much as I hate Bushlite.

I wouldn't say I 'hate' the religious right, but I think their views are very dangerous in a democracy. I find ALL religious extremism to be dangeorus. You think I am 'defending' Islam when I say it isn't a religion of hate or that all muslim's aren't terrorists or terrorist wannabe's. Islam as it is practiced is pure CRAP, the Sharia law is no better than the Christian witch burners and adulteress stoners.

I do think though that the religious right and Islam have more in common than you would care to admit...gays are a no go, women are subservient, gotta have the virgins, violence in the name of the lord, our god is the one god....That's why I find ALL religions in practice, with the possible exception of buddishm, to be pretty ugly.

[Buzzy]

The libertarian position on a lot of subjects keeps me from going that way. I can't abide in the no borders argument. I believe in free trade but view global corporations as free trade run amuck and think it will be the downfall of our nation. I view the governments control over what and how much medication a MD can prescribe as wrong but I can't get in line with the legalize heroin, meth, and LSD crowd. My desire for a strong State government system come from knowing that my vote counts much more in my State than it ever will on the Federal level and I am all about "we the people". I only voted for Bush because I believe that AlGore was worse. I had to suck it up real hard to vote for Bush a second time but Commie Kerry made it possible. I couldn't stand Clinton (Bill or HIllary) but there were some things he handled a lot better than Bush has. I thought that impeaching Clinton for MonicaGate was stupid but would have supported his impeachment for accepting campaign donations from agents of the PRC. I actually was a Democrat, very active in local politics, until the 2000 campaign.

I guess I'm still hoping for a limited government conservative takeover of the GOP from the neocons and I believe that the Department of Homeland Security is a joke. I actually would have fired a lot more AG's than Gonzales did but for refusing to enforce immigration laws.

[yyy]

What's wrong with legalizing drugs? Tax them and regulate them. Same with prostitution. The reason I hate the evangelical right wing conservatives is because they are obsessed with the private choices of others: gay marriage, drugs, sex, abortion, contraception, creationism. The need to impose their own morality on everyone else runs counter to everything this country is supposed to stand for.

If you don't want your child getting any sex education then home school them or put them in a religious freak school, don't syphon off my tax dollars to pay for abstinance only crapola. You don't like gay marriage, don't associate with gays, don't go to a church that performs gay marriage. Don't get an abortion. But leave me the hell alone.

This country has been held hostage by the culture wars, all the while the infrastructure is crumbling, education system continues to be a pathetic failure, China owns all our T-bills, but everyone is all worked up over preventing some poor woman from having an abortion. Silly.

[Buzzy]

Tax and regulate drugs..... but now we're back to more government. Tax and regulate prostitution.... another government agency and more taxes going out for the government run rehab programs. All big federal program too I'll bet, the Federal Department of Whore and Whore services?

Hell, you ought to be happy with Bush in the White House, he's our softest President since Carter on drugs. Immunity to traffickers crossing our borders, our AG's setting a 500 lb minimum for taking a federal marijuana sales case. At least Clinton had the decency to fire Jocelyn Elders for suggesting that cocaine should be made legal. Bush would make her his drug czar.

But the big problem with the "pipe dream" of legalizing drugs is that they can't be controlled. Legal "taxed and regulated" drugs would always be more expensive and more tightly controlled than illegal or untaxed and unregulated drugs. Do you think the cartels will stop shipping cocaine, heroin, pot, etc. across the border just because we have a federal agency to regulate it? No, it soon becomes another tax stamp issue with federal regulators knocking on doors to see your tax stamp for that meth your using, busting up your hydro pot grow set up, chasing down the potshiners in their souped up cars making deliveries. Prostitution legal, yeah right the crack whore at the truck stop giving 40 BJs a day is going to collect and pay taxes to the government. She'll have to hand out (bad pun) sales receipts to document how many sales she made and pay quarterly taxes. Then the local governments will add a penny to each sex act to build a new stadium at the local high school. What of unlicensed whores, will a whole new federal whore inspection division make the rounds to check their cards. Will illegal aliens be allowed to be a licensed whore? How about underaged whores, will that be legal, gay whores, Sadistic whores. Exactly who is going to decide what sex acts a whore can take part in, can she beat her customers? Will pimps also have to get licensed or will the government take their place in the whole whore / client registration. I'll bet the government makes each client sign a waiver form so they won't get sued about 100 times a day too.

And what of the social costs legalized drugs and prostitution will bring let alone the additional huge invasion the federal government make into all aspects of citizen's lives in their efforts to tax and regulate vices.

For these reasons I prefer the term liberaltarian to these types of beliefs. There is always bigger government, bigger control and 1984 one step closer whenever these progressive plans break surface.

Give these things a thought. For myself, I'm no bible thumper but at least I'm consistent in my thoughts on limited government. I know the costs of hard drug use, I know the costs of prostitution and no I don't mean prison or jail, I mean the real personal costs.

[seekeronos]

An interesting turn of discussion this is becoming!

I'm more for de-regulating a lot of what should belong in the venue of the states. Obviously, different states have differing majority groups.

For example, if the questions of legalizing of certain recreational drugs, abortion, gay marriage, prostitution,and all those other nasty wedgie issues that clog up the discussions of what is truly important federal level (int'l trade, defense, border control, etc) were left to the state governments, I think we would be a lot better off.

Texas and S. Carolina could have their schools teaching creationism (which, as it is taught, I cannot agree with 100% even as an "evangelical" Christian) or forbidding the practice or performance of gay marriage.

Meanwhile, Massachussetts and California could go the other direction and forbid the teaching of creationism and mandate that all 2d grade students be taught how to use condoms. Disgusting in my opinion (2d graders should be learning how to play nice in groups and do maths, write, read, and basic sciences,... not about fellating each other or how to properly roll on a condom onto a dildo) but if that's what folks in CA want, then so be it: I need not live there.

To paraphrase Buzzy --- my vote tends to go further the closer to home I vote.

I would much rather see sensible attitudes taught (such as "this is what happened when Bob and Rhonda had unprotected sex in 9th grade, and had a kid they couldn't afford: both parents dropped out and work full time at Walmart whilst earning GEDs") than the dirty particulars of what goes where and how --- at least before 9th grade, after which it becomes quite practical to discuss sex in its detail (since that is when kids are apt to sexually experiment).

Concerning religion:

ANY extremism is a bad thing. Christianity tends to set strict limits on extremism, insofar as one is willing to hold their actions in light of God's word. People who refuse to read God's word and so be converted by it (my meaning here is not in the "proselytizing" sense of the word "convert", but rather, "transforming one's actions in light of new knowledge") will tend to take certain things out of context.

Do some "christians" take things way out of Scriptural context? Definitely. An old axiom comes to mind: "It is never right to do evil to achieve good". By this, abortion clinic bombers are just as vile as the jihadist who straps 10kg. of TNT to his boy and packs him off to the mall with visions of a bordello paradise to steel him for his grisly fate.

In true, fundamental, Bible-believing Christianity... there is little if any room for violence. I could build a case for fighting a defensive war, and certainly for equipping police forces to protect the innocent and the weak from the predatory and wicked... and that is about it. (an ongoing issue I am studying from God's word is connected to our ongoing efforts in SW Asia to determine if it is indeed a just or a defensive war, an area of utmost importance).

Yet... I still find that there is a certain hope in Christ which all other faiths which I have spent a very long time exploring (incl. and especially Islam) lack.

Particular stances?

Well: Gays --- are an aberration, but I am no more free to criticise them for their choices than any other sin. They need to be saved. I do oppose their lobbying for marriage rights and adoption rights, and I'll vote against it every time. But I am not going to advocate murder or violence against them.

Women: God created male and female as perfect complements to each other. Unfortunately, the fall of man from grace resulted in a particular judgment: because the woman had displayed a natural desire to rule the man when she went along with the Devil's plan and enticed her husband to also partake of the forbidden fruit. (husbands: tell me how many times the missus hasn't tried to take away the pants in the relationship --- and how many more times you went 'Yes, dear'... Me? Guilty as charged!)

That judgment also provided for the natural ordering of relationships - God is the head of Christ, Christ the head of the Church (the greater _ekklesia_ of believers, not any particular denominational group) - the men submitted to Christ's rule, and the wives submitted to their husbands _as_to_Christ_.

This is not toward chattel slavery of women (for husbands are commanded to love their wives) but rather to a proper ordering of things --- that God Himself might get the glory. And, God also exalts the Godly woman who provides for her children and her household (Proverbs 31)

These things are taught in the Bible, Paul's Epistle to the Ephesians, Chap. 5:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=56&chapter=5&version=9

Please, please read it to understand what God's view on a what a family should be like!
we

Bringing all of this full circle though --- we are a nation of many faiths, creeds, and ethnicities. The Constitution (while regretably devoid of an affirmation or endorsement of Christianity as a source of governing principle -- as I believe at the time of its writing that the framers had not a vision of us becoming the multi-faith stew of religion we are today) is still the best working document we have for the governance of a nation.

Restoring power back to the states, and ridding the federal government of burdensome, expensive, and bureaucratic encumbrances such as the Dept. of Ed. and the HUD, and perhaps paring down the DHS (and releasing those funds or a sizeable portion thereof to the states for their efforts in those areas) would be a much greater blessing for the people to use as they see fit.

[Cindi]

My question is this. WHY does anyone feel obligated to respond to anything yyy has to say?

There are many posters here at RWV who have a different opinion, which I respect. Triple Y is just plain ugly in all of their posts. Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhh DAN.....

[Buzzy]

Cindi, I just can't help myself. Fair and reasonable debate is the cornerstone of democracy (I like to poke trolls with sticks).

[yyy]

It would seem to me that it should take far fewer government resources to regulate something like prostituion or the drug trade than the current resources that are in play to eradicate same. Surely it wouldn't cost the same billions to regulate pot growers as is spent now trying to imprison them? There are also plenty of cash businesses that are regulated.

I can't believe the social cost of legalized drugs would be any greater than the social cost of prosecuting drugs.

Think prohibition. It didn't eradicate drinking but it did give rise to the mob, a pretty poor trade off if you ask me. Nevermind all the good people whose lives were disrupted or lost in the idiotic pursuit of banning liquer.

[Dana]

I have to comment here. Please do not take all liberals into the "fold" of where yyy is. We are not all like this person.
I know a lot about this situation personally as my aunt was a victim of this same law as little Emilio. The child is in no pain, he has morphine for pain if that is the case, he is in a state that his body will eventually give out on him. The only thing the mother asks is that this child go in his own time. She is not asking for a miracle, she knows he will not be with us very long. But she does not condone the hospital making such a decision to actually cut off his life support. This is not a decision that she as the mother has chosen to take and the hospital should respect that decision. She is the mother, the caregiver, and guardian of this childs best interests.

This is a law in the state of Texas that allows hospitals a God-like power to take human life. It is an extremely fallible law and several mistakes have been made by these committees. I know of two cases where the people recovered and went back to their homes. Two, now how many others can you say may have died because people couldn't handle the fight with the hospitals?

Also, to note, in the case of Terri Schiavo, she was not on a respirator. She has being given food and water. I originally disagreed with the Schiavo family because I did not know all the facts. She was essentially starved and dehydrated to death, not a nice way to die at all.

In this Texas law it allows for any and all life sustaining measures to be ceased at the end of the 10 day period, meaning food and water. If you think someone is suffering from a disease, try giving them no water on top of that and see how much pain they are in. It is extreme, but it has happened. And it will happen again if people do not do something.

They will be voting on a House Bill that amends this law that changes the language of the law to "pending transfer" instead of giving them a ten day time limit, where it is almost impossible to find a facility within that time, trust me, my family had to do it as well.

If you believe in pro-choice (I happen to) then you have to see how a hospital may not be the most capable of making a decision to end your life, hospitals are companies that are backed by money. The longer they keep terminally ill patients the more money they are likely to lose. These hospitals do not play a game of humanitarians, they play a game of banker. And when they play your family member losing their life is the end result.

I am not a bible thumper, I am a human being, a liberal, and a person who believes that my family and myself are in charge of my well-being, not a financially backed Hospital.

[Jerri Lynn Ward, J.D.]

Dan,

Thank you for covering this story. To those who say Emilio is in pain, I wish to correct the record. Emilio is on a minimal dosage of morphine meant only to help with the discomfort of suctioning. He is NOT in excrutiating pain. In fact, had the hospital inserted a trach when requested and indicated, he would not have the discomfort of intubation.

When the hospital says he is "suffering" they are making a utilitarian argument that a person who has a disability or a degenerative condition, BY DEFINITION, is "suffering". Thus, every retarded person, every person with ALS or MS or MD or who is disabled is "suffering".

We asked for Emilio to have a tracheostomy placed so that he could go to long term care. The doctors claimed he wasn't a candidate. We had someone else review the chart who can find NO contraindications for traching.

People with Leigh's Disease can live months or years. There are cases into teenage years.

We want a trach and a transfer. He is not getting agressive treatment. He is getting air, water, food, vitamins and antibiotics, when needed.

He is not a dog to be put out of his misery.

[kms]

Why do we give dogs the dignity of being put out of their misery, but let humans suffer in the name of morality?

Where does it say (in the Bible or elsewhere) that life is to be prolonged for as long as necessary by any means necessary and that is our moral imperative?

Do you realize (and, believe me, I am a Christian so don't throw the "heathen's" book at me when I say this) that if this child were alive during Biblical days, that he would have died a long time ago? There were no artificial means of keeping people breathing. No intravenous feedings. Back in those days, if you could no longer perform the basic, GOD-GIVEN functions to keep YOURSELF alive, like eating, breathing, and getting rid of waste in a manner that you could move away from it and not get sick, then you died.

Other than babies who naturally need to be fed (but they can eat normally, through their mouths, the way they were intended to) and changed, how do we know that the loss of these basic functions is an indication that God's will is for your time to be over? When we keep people alive through medical intervention (people who have no hope of recovery, not temporary measures), are we living out God's plan or actively thwarting it?

Why do we generally agree that there is a time to medically intervene, but not agree that there is also a time to stop intervening? Where is the balance?

[Christina]

Where is Emilio's father in all of this?

[Lo]

Ventilators simply replace the activity of breathing much the way a prostetic leg replaces the limb that will not function. Being on a ventilator is not painful. Death by suffication is very painful. In England, ventilators are provided and people on them live ordinary lives, work and contribute to society. Here in the US we are misinformed and told life is futile. Maybe they want all of us to blow our brains out. We do not make a good cost benefit analysis for them. Oh and some children are on ventilators for a few years, heal, and are weaned off them to never never need them again. What do you say to them? Oh we didn't want to help you we'd rather see you sufficate to death. KMA

[Beverly]

YYY, why are you so obsessed with putting down different religions? isnt this really about the Gonzalez child? where did that get figured into all of this Federal mumbo jumbo? Someone help me out here. . . im confused. You seem to care more about getting on this website and voicing your opinioon on everything that is wrong with the world today. have you ever stopped and thought about all the GOOD things in the world today. . . ?
I highly doubt it.