Fight over baby's life support divides ethicists

Emilio is 17 months old and has a rare genetic disorder that's ravaging his central nervous system. He cannot see, speak, or eat. A ventilator breathes for him in the Pediatric Intensive Care Unit at Austin Children's Hospital, where he's been since December. Without the ventilator, Emilio would die within hours.

Under Texas law, Children's has the right to withdraw life support if medical experts deem it medically inappropriate.

The law, signed in 1999 by then-Gov. George W. Bush, gives Texas hospitals the authority to stop treatment if doctors say the treatment is "inappropriate" -- even if the family wants the medical care to continue.

Now, what I find odd about this case is that the law was signed by then governor George W. Bush. Isn't this the same George Bush who in the middle of the night tried to get the federal courts involved in the Terry Schiavo case in going against the husband's wishes and forcing her to stay alive via machines? Even when doctors said there was no quality of life, no hope for survival--you know, "inappropriate"? Because this was about life, ya'll. And he's pro-life because, well...that's what he says.

I was in Florida when this circus occurred and I recall that is when Bush stood upon his high horse, claiming that this country needs to be a country that valued the "sanctitity of life". Mind you, this coming from a man who signed more death warrants in Texas than any other governor in history. Seems his pro-life values only apply to certain people and he gets to decide which lives are worth saving and which aren't. He has designated himself to be The Decider you know.

I also believe that Repulicans are are always screaming about less government, less government. If this is true, then why would he have gotten involved with Schiavo? Why would he have signed a law allowing hospital adminstrators to make what are supposed to be family decsions?

The right to die was the forefront of the Schiavo case. Her husband claimed she never would have wantd to be kept alive in that manner and her parents fought against it. Since she was married, her power of attorney was in fact her husband. Which is why in the end, he won and Terry was taken off her feeding tubes. All the "pro-life" groups were screaming that it was murder, murder, murder! And the president supported them and the parent's wishes by speakijng about life, cherishing life...blah, blah.. Yet, as Texas governor Bush signs a law allowing this so-called murder by giving the power to hospital adminstrators.

This seems so hypocritical to me. Why is it ok for a hospital to decide to terminate machine-use for life, yet families aren't allowed to decide the same fate?

I'm all for the right to die. But I believe that families, NOT hospital adminstrators or politicians should be making those decsions. This case is a tragedy because the mother can't separate her wish from that of which is best for the child. There is no survival or cure. There is no quality of life. And there never will be. But, I support that it is HER right and no one else's to decide his fate.

However, if she really believed her own words, that he should be allowed to die "naturally, the way God intended", then machines wouldn't be supporting his life right? What's "natural" about that? If she truly believed that then she would take him off the machines and allow him to die naturally, the way God intended. Her words.

Full story here: http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/04/25/baby.emilio/index.html