Update [2005-12-15 11:13:32 by Steven D]: Note: Original text edited to make it clear — if it wasn’t before — that I don’t think everyone living in Texas is a monster who celebrates Christmas by cutting off life support for fully conscious patients.
Christmas celebrates the birth of Jesus. At the Baylor Regional Medical Center in Plano, Texas apparently, they celebrate his birth by taking fully conscious people off life support (link courtesy this diary by YucatanMan at Daily Kos). And why do they do that? Because, just like Ebeneezer Scrooge, they like to save money:
The family said doctors told them they would have to remove her from life support in 10 days.
It would be nice if this got picked up by all those conservative “news” programs like the O’Reilly Factor, and all the conservative blogs that trumpeted the Schiavo case as an injustice. It would be nice.
But I’m not expecting it.
When the family disagreed, the hospital’s Clinical Ethics Committee met and decided to take Habtegiris off the ventilator.
The hospital declined an on-camera interview, but in a statement said they “contacted 12 facilities including hospitals, long term acute care facilities and nursing homes, all of whom declined to accept the patient.ā
Salvi believes this would not have happened if his sister had health insurance.
“If you don’t have money in this country, you’re nothing. You’re not a human being.”
And what did this woman who died 15 long agonizing minutes after being removed from her ventilator want for Christmas? Only to die in her Mother’s arms. Except her mother was in Africa, and no one at the hospital was willing to wait to pull the plug until arrangements could be made to bring her to Dallas. From YucatanMan’s searing diary (quoting a story that is behind a subscription wall at this Dallas News Station:
“They handed me this letter on December 1st. and they said, we’re going to give you 10 days so on the 11th day, we’re going to pull it out,” said her brother Daniel Salvi.
Salvi was stunned to get this hand-delivered notice invoking a complicated and rarely used Texas law where a doctor is “not obligated to continue” medical treatment ….
…Tirhas still responded and was conscious. She was waiting one person.
“She wanted to get her mom over here or to get to her mom so she could die in her mom’s arms,” says her cousin Meri Tesfay.
Ten days was not enough time, they say, to get a mother from Africa to America.
The family and hospital desperately tried to get Tirhas moved to a nursing home but they say no one would take her.
“A fund issue is what I understand. Because she is not insured and that was the major reason the way I understood it,” Salvi said.
A statement from Baylor Plano disputes that and says the hospital did its best to comply with the family’s wishes in every way.
Still, on the 11th day, Tirhas Habtegiris was taken off the respirator and died.
Why couldn’t they wait? Because God and Texas waits for no black woman. Well, God maybe, but not Texas.
And why should they since Texas passed a law while President Bush was governor that lets hospitals off the hook for any criminal or civil liability for pulling the plug:
The law that Bush signed as governor sets conditions for how a patient’s relatives or other surrogates may make end-of-life decisions, and it spells out procedures for cases where the surrogates and medical providers disagree on whether to continue or to suspend life-sustaining care. . .
. . .[T]he Texas law lays out procedures for physicians to follow when they think a patient’s condition is hopeless, even if family members disagree. Doctors can make a case to their hospital’s ethics committee. If the ethics committee agrees, life support can be removed.
But first, dissenting families are given 10 days to find another facility willing to care for the patient.
“That was a law that President Bush did not just allow to become law without his signature. He came back from a campaign trip to sign it,” Wasserman Schultz said.
It would be nice if all the right wing cable “news” shows like the O’Reilly Factor, or the conservative blogs that trumpeted the injustice being done to poor brain dead Terri Sciavo, would take note of this story. It would be nice.
But I’m not holding my breath. There are Satanists infesting Madison, Wisconsin, after all.
But nary a peep from the wingnut blowhards. I can’t imagine why …
Why couldn’t they wait? Because God and Texas waits for no black woman.
Enough said. But what about this:
“You can call me anything you want,” Mr. Bush said. “But do not call me a racist.”
Okay, George, you’re not a racist, you only play one on TV.
“You can call me anything you want,” Mr. Bush said. “But do not call me a racist.”
How about a smug, stammering bastard with a God complex?
That works for me.
The only thing missing is the word sociopathic- and it will fit perfectly after smug and stammering.
What george did for Texas, he is now doing for America – poisoning everything.
Where’s what’s his name when you need him? Terry Randall/Randell Terry wingnut supreme all around the Shiavo case? Racism and/or money is the problem here now isn’t it? Yeah, we can once again thank dear ol God talks to me George for this Texas state law.
So, the Shaivo case rivets the nation for weeks and this story doesn’t even get heard?!
Do we need any more affirmation that the media in this country is a lost cause?
It’s show biz now, not a “media”. All that counts is keeping the backers happy and pushing ticket sales (ratings). News like letting poor people die, (or helping them along), irritates the bosses, which isn’t so good for the actors careers. It’s utterly disgusting.
Sorry, but waking up yet again to a Texas is the bastion of all evil diary (Tuesday’s offering in this genre can be found here.
Today though, here it is right up on top of the front page. It is just a bit much.
This is a horrible story and I might have had a lot of things to say about it (including refelctions how often it happens, and what happened with Tom DeLay’s mother, to name just two), but I just can’t get past the gratuitous Texas-bashing.
I seriously DO NOT UNDERSTAND why this is so acceptable on the blogs. It makes me angry and not just a little sad — can someone please explain to me why this is “ok”?
There are good people in Texas. Sadly, they do not control it’s government.
I am not bashing Texas so much as the politics and laws that allow this type of travesty to occer. I have no doubt that many other people in other states would do the same if their state’s laws permitted them to.
If I offended you, my apologies. That was not my intent.
…and some of my best friends are black.
Thanks for the response, just because there was no intent to cause offense, though, doesn’t make it any less so.
I’m just tired of it — it goes on and on and on.
Brinnanne, I’m sorry that this story arose in Texas, and that it is the result of a law that passed in Texas, just as I am sorry that a professor in Kansas has been assaulted and forced to resign his chairmanship of KU’s religious Stidies Department because of right wing radical rage against his opposition to creationism. Just as I am offended that Ohio and Flrida are psoter children for crooked elections, or that Wyoming was the place Matt Shephard was crucified by homophobic thugs, or that Joe Coors gets to pollute the streams and creeks surrounding Golden CO with impunity, or that we (we being the CIA or soldiers or surrogates from other countries carrying out our policies)) are torturing “detainees” at Gunatanamo Bay and Abu Gharaib and Bagram and god knows where else.
It isn’t the place, its what’s happening in that place. And what’s happening is wrong.
It isn’t the place, its what’s happening in that place.
If that is true, then what possible necessity is there for writing this?
“they” “they” “they” — you are implicating everyone in Texas, and in a horribly offensive manner
or this?
You say it’s not the place , but what is happening in the place, yet you manage to insult not only the place, but everyone who happens to live there and/or call themselves a Texan. It is gratuitous, not necessary to tell the story of what is happening. Please tell me that you aren’t seriously telling me you can’t see that?
I don’t wish to get into a flame war with you. I’ve changed the wording you found objectionable to specify that it was the specific hospital in Plano TX rather than some unspecified “they”.
If that isn’t satisfactory, I’m sorry. The story imo is more important than any disagreement we might have between the two of us.
I will refrain from posting in your diaries in the future. Sorry for having distracted from “the story”.
since you are a front-pager, are we now defining “flame-war” as any postings of disagreement or opinion contrary and/or critical of the diary on which it was posted?
Brinnanne
If you would like to email me about your concerns, feel free to do so. I have tried to accomadate your feelings by changing my text. Obviously that did not suffice. So feel free to email me if you like.
ssearls1atrochesterdotrrdotcom
If you don’t like the tone of my story that’s fine. And anyone can disagree with me at anytime. Having the privilege (which Booman can withdraw at any time) of posting to the front page here at Booman doesn’t make my opinions or beliefs or arguments better or more true or whatever than anyone else’s.
For myself, I don’t believe further discussion by me in this thread of your objections to my post is something that I wish to continue. You are, of course, free to continue to post whatever comments you wish here, whether they disagree with me or not. if you wish to continue having a discussion with me about the issue however, I’d prefer we do that through email.
My understanding of flaming is posting comments that are deliberately hostile and insulting. Bri has not done this, and you need to be careful of your language in suggesting that she is doing this. In fact, that is exactly what Bri is saying to you: Be careful of your language.
The difficulty, Steve, is that when anger over a horrible, corrupt act bleeds over into the rhetoric condemning where the act takes place, it is easy to incite readers to attack the place as well the situation. And Brinnianne is not flaming you to be angry at this.
It is much too comments about Texas, or the South, or anywhere a Bush lives, or any Red State. Perhaps this is done innocently, or for the effect and for release of the anger that the writer feels.
However, you need to consider how this affects readers who are from those places. Being a native of the South, and a former resident of Texas, I did not like this conflating of the state with what was done to this child, either.
I simply ask that you think about this when you write: Do you want the people outside this country to lump progressives, specifically yourself, who did not support Bush, into a uniform group of “Americans commit torture and lie about it without shame or apology”, or ” The U.S. believes in human rights only for its own citizens”, etc? I certainly don’t like to hear those sort of things. And I don’t like being assumed to support George Bush. But when all the citizens of a state are tarred with his deficits and excesses, that’s what happens. If we want to win votes, we can’t be calling out citizens who happen to live where unfortunate things happen that they didn’t do. Separating ourselves from the people of Texas or Florida or anyplace runs dangerously close to regional chauvanism that we progressives cannot afford, if we want to take back the country from the right wing.
I’m glad you changed your wording (I haven’t read it yet). However, I hope that you will think about the broader issue here. You are a very good writer, and I like what you do. Just please, watch this regional prejudice and keep it from slipping in. Mercifully, this blog has been freer of this than some other sites have been. I hope it will continue to be.
I have no idea how you can criticize the tone of the reply to the reply to the reply, etc. It seems to me, a non-Texan, that this last reply was incredibly civil.
Perhaps Texans should consider the notion that they are way too sensitive about being from Texas. I have rarely seen these kinds of comment strings when the act being described has taken place in Minnesota, or Pennsylvania or many other states or even Louisiana where I’m from. (Of course we love to make fun of Texas; can’t help it).
The fact of the matter is that a lot of terrible things happen in Texas, are done by Texans to Texans. JFK was killed in Texas, a lot of people were killed from the UT clock tower in Austin by a sniper, David Koresh seemed to like living in Texas. If we can’t discuss these people and events without making refernce to where they happened we’re more than half way to rewriting history. JFK could have been killed anywhere in the country (although I’m certain this is a false assumption) but he was actually killed in Texas. To say that isn’t to attack the state or any one of its citizens: it’s simply to state a fact.
Texas sensitivity seems real close to the kind of thinking that leads to teaching creationism in science class.
We who live here, are MORE than happy to talk about what sucks about things that happen here, OK?
That is not the fucking issue, and saying
Perhaps Texans should consider the notion that they are way too sensitive about being from Texas.
is assholish in the extreme. I am offended and feel unjustly smeared, so I am beig too sensitive — this sound terribly familiar to anyone??
I have lived here since 1994 and, newsflash, I have lived other states, other countries, four of them, even. Not “from here” in the traditional Texan sense. Guess what? There are total dickheads everywhere. Another newsflash, I suppose.
And the REASON that you don’t see these comment strings in the other cases that you mention is that people do not go out of their way to include gratuitous smears about Minnesotans (provide a link, if I am wrong), or, fates forbid at this point, Louisiana!!
I notice you couldn’t help but get one last gratuitous dig in, eh?
Texas sensitivity seems real close to the kind of thinking that leads to teaching creationism in science class.
All hail the wide brush with which you paint!
There are total dickheads everywhere.
Hey… I resemble that remark… š
Thanks for validating my comment.
FUCK YOU&!
can all parties tone this down a bit please?
everyone has their own level of what they find offensive and not every one is going to agree. We don’t need to fight about it
just to TALK about it — apologies for my last post (to you Boo, not to the poster I responded to), but I am just sick and tired of hearing about how people who are offended by some remark or lackidsical use of language for “effect” should just “get over it”.
More and more divisions, very little bridging of divides.
No conflict=happy blog, eh?
not no conflicts, just no disrespect. See how quickly it devolves into name-calling?
the disrespect( mmmmm, yummy), and never react to any of it.
People get banned for questioning things but smearing an entire group of people is A-OK (please check out the Tuesday diary too to see why I reacted to this FP one so strongly).
I seem to be trying to make a point that everyone is missing.
I say “fuck you” in response and that is deemed name-calling, but calling Texans schitzphrenitc, blood-lusting, human sacrificers, who “wait for no black woman” is just fine??
Still don’t get it.
I think we northerners, or blue-staters, if you will, sometimes get frustrated with how states like Kansas or Texas vote and we lash out at those states, which ignores that 40 plus percent of any state votes democratic.
So, I understand your point very well. But I also think there is a difference between taking a short cut or painting with too broad a brush and intentional name-calling.
I don’t think Stephen meant any offense.
But Brinnainne, you do know the rules. And anytime someone starts a nasty flamewar I’m likely to ask people to tone it down. It’s not about conflict and disagreement. It’s about maintaining a certain level of discourse.
I share Bri’s pain. I can’t speak as clearly, but I feel it just as deeply. That it seems to be one person’s war against certain states makes it seem more personal.
I’m sure I have lashed out at certain red states from time to time. I’ll try to keep in mind how this can be hurtful.
Thank you.
On thrid thought, I DON’T know the rules!! I think, intentional or not, that StephenD was being a prick when he posted his diary, again when he posted his condescending respone, and AGAIN when he posted his “if it wasn’t already obvious” update — that’s the thing:
I think he was being a prick. I think Mr./Ms. Experimenter (can’t remember the handle) was being EXTREMEMLY Prick-ish, prick-worthy, essence of prick, prick-tacular, if you like.
So, I posted fuck you — that broke a rule, I assume. Post more specific rules, try to apply them fairly accross the board, without favor and things will most likely get heated any way–and just for future reference, TECHNICALLY, “FUCK YOU!” is not name-calling.
Once again, I totally agree with you. Every step of the way.
We come to the BoomanTribune from all over the world. If we can’t be more exact in our condemnation of evil (which certainly exists) then we will lose tehe effectiveness of our message(s).
It is your stance that I am the one who started the “nasty flame-war”?? Is that your take on the situation?
My take is that you had a valid criticism of Stephen’s diary and that you pointed it out. And my take is that Stephen attempted to respond to your concerns, evidently not to your satisfaction.
I think you and katiebird have made a valid point and I think it pertains to me and probably to Susan, and perhaps Jerry, and a lot of other bloggers. We should be careful not to use Kansans or Texans as shorthand for wingnuts from Kansas or Texas or wherever else. It’s insensitive.
But, it is a very difficult thing to write these stories without an editor and not make errors, or craft sentences that always mean what we intend them to mean.
So, I would ask you to cut us all some slack.
Booman, Stephen is the only person I’ve noticed reaching towards prickishness. He seems to take a certain amount of pleasure from it. His sorry seems more from being called on it that from actual regret. And his attacks a little more direct.
We are all trying to do our best, Katie. And from my personal experience, I know that I have learned as I have gone along. It’s part of the fun of writing in and for a community of people.
for over two decades, of The No Slack Cafe. If feelings are such that this kind of attitude is not welcome, just say.
that’s funny (no-slack cafe)
I think you made your point. All I ask is that you don’t assume the worst about us. We’re trying to provide content for everyone in a timely manner.
Re: Susan, she always has my “benefit of the doubt” but just ’cause I love her doesn’t mean she gets extra slack, you, well, haven’t had much {“getting to know you” convo, aside from the brinn would you knock it off kinda stuff, but I respect the hell out of you (though no extra slack for you either) and would never presume to shit all over the walls, lessee, oh, catnip ALWAYS got the MAJOR bennies of the doubt, but I didn’t cut her X-tra slack either….
Sorry, but SD has bigtime NO SLACK, and you should see the logo for said cafe….
hmmm, maybe I should go start my own blog
you know, I might replace ‘troublemakers’ with ‘wallshitters’.
I’m happy that you respect me. I know we don’t always agree with the type of site that this should be. There are trade-offs in everything.
For what it is worth, I could triple the pageviews of this site overnight if I started encouraging people to have heated and disrespectful debates. I have been advised that flamewars are the best way to artificially boost traffic and therefore advertising rates.
And I believe this to be the case. But I am willing to forego the added hits to maintain a site that I want to spend time in.
I don’t want lots of flamewars and I don’t want the site to serve as one long interblog flamewar either. People question my motives for that, but I actually pay a financial price for it. I like the site the way it is and want to protect it.
To do that I have to make tough decisions every so often, and then I have to take the heat for making those decisions.
I love you Booman, thanks for everything.
phronesis (Mr./Ms. Experimenter) sez:
in response to my post.
I took this personally — but, appraently, because no names were called, just IMPLIED, it’s all ok, and I should be called out for my response, are them the rules??
This is like an experiment to me. How many times can an individual show us who they really are, all the time trying to tell us with words that they’re something else?
I’m actually fascinated by the level of personal outrage.
Mr./Ms. Experimenter? Please tell me some particulars so that I can turn things ’round.
Since you have next to no comment history here, I’ll need you to provide some details…
Sun Hudson and his mom were Texans, the lady in this story was an adopted Texan. And all the others who have been martyred by the grace of this sickening piece of legislation but did not get press coverage so we do not know their names, were Texans, too. And their grieving families still are.
Not too long ago, many Texans worked hard to prevent another hate law from passing. They failed.
To point out that the majority of Texans did not rise up in outrage and storm the capital demanding that either of these laws be repealed immediately and the perpetrators arrested for crimes against humanity is not to condemn Texas, rather to point out the plight of the Victims, once again, Texans.
Well, yes, but….
I will be painted as a victim just about as easily as I will be painted a monster.
That is, not without a fight, er, I mean a conflict, um, I think, with no name-calling, or prickishness, but that’s not possible, so I’ll just be very, very quiet.
Bri, I have to think that he’s just a lazy writer who is using state names as substitutes for more creative groupings.
He’s been doing this to Kansans as well. We are supposed to take the high-road and not feel personally attacked.
While he continues to take the lazy low-road of sloppy language.
It diminishes his credibility, but he shouldn’t take that personally.
thanks for saying so — thought it was just me, not that that ever stopped me before, but having company is MOST grand — especially when it’s YOU!
š
Maybe someone should do a diary and start a thread about the Texas/collective guilt issue.
It certainly has deflected from the horror of having a fully conscious person murdered by money-grubbers with the full assistance and backing of a state legislator and apparently its governor.
Texans aside, we all bear responsibility for this if we allow it to happen.
It is not an abstract issue to me. This is how I could die.
Bri, I’m sorry I disappeared on this, had to go pick up my spouse (we are down to one car) and nothing had been said to my response. I hear exactly what you are saying and I agree with your response and Katie’s. I’ve been thinking a lot about expressions of regionalism and regional bigotry in our country and its effects on our country’s politics – maybe something like that will come out of the fingers in the next few days. Meanwhile, I’ll say that I appreciated Katiebird’s comments, and Ductape’s as well. I’m not going to write about this more here, it’s too far gone; this isn’t the diary. However, it really is a big issue.
Excuse me? Are you requesting that I die by having my life support taken away?
NO. That you diary on the subject that you suggested.
My response to your concerns about my diaryis here.
your diary, but thanks for taking the initiative and for attempting to bridge a divide.
No hard feelings here, was trying to make a point, as I suspect you were, and I apologize for taking away from what you had to say.
Don’t apologize for saying it though, as apparently, some things needed aried out, not just for me.
It took me awhile to figure it out, but I finally realized that’s probably what you meant. Glad to have that confirmed!