Health Care Reform: Protecting the Disabled (Part 3)
July 22, 2009
[Editor's note--Below is the third part of the interview I conducted on July 19th with Bobby Schindler, the brother of the late Terri Schiavo, whose untimely and unnecessary death in 2005 drew nation-wide attention to the issue of how Americans believe we should care for the disabled in our country. Since that time, Bobby has spoken around the United States about the issues and misinformation surrounding his sister's condition and her painful death and the bigger issues of properly defining what kind of health care needs to be provided for the disabled and providing assistance and support to the families caring for these disabled children and adults.]Question: We know that there was action taken by Florida governor Jeb Bush and then, of course, President George Bush, and this became a focal point. What laws wer changed, and when were they changed that place you are her husband in opposition to each other? Was it these things that were changed during the time that she was unable to communicate after the brain injury set in? Was this a case of laws changed that shouldn't have been applied to a situation that arose before? Our constitution prohibits
expos facto laws, after the fact laws. So how were they able to do some of these things? It sounds like at best they were extra-legal, if not illegal.
Answer: It's interesting that you raise that question, because, it gets a little confusing with the time line. Terri collapsed in 1990. Prior to her collapse, feeding tubes were not defined as artificial life support. So, if you take Terri's wishes [as put forth by her husband, Michael] as to be true, which they weren't, but let's just say hypothetically, Terri's wishes were true and she would not want an[y] artificial support to sustain her, so back when she supposedly made these wishesfeeding tubes were not defined as artificial life support. They [the laws classifying feeding tubes as artificial life support] were changed in 1999 in the state of Florida. So now--follow along here-Michael Schiavo petitioned the court to remove Terri's feeding tube, saying she would not want artificial life support if she were became incapacitated in 1998. At that time, the law stil did not recognize feeding tubes as artificial life support. It was challenged in 1999 by Michael Schiavo's attorney, George Felos, and then it went to trial in 2000. so without that law being changed prior to the trial starting in 2000, the court would not have been able to recognize her feeding tube as artificial life support. It would have been recognized as basic care.
I need to stop the transcription of the Bobby Schindler interview at this point and report on the panel discussion portion of the health care forum on Monday, July 20th. Joining me were two physicians, one of whom is a primary care physician in private practice and the other being a specialist. Each of us made an opening statement talking about our background, with mine including a discussion of the miracle that occurred in 2005 when God raised up our daughter Kristina from brain death (a lengthy story which I will discuss in another column) and the medical situation facing another of our daughter's presently. I then was permitted to show a short PowerPoint presentation (which will be posted on the Web site later this week) addressing some of the significant provisions of the bills, especially as they pertained to health care options and provisions that would affect the elderly.
This presentation included statements and page references from both the Hour and Senate bills, a recent New York Post article, and a flow chart of activity and various government that would be involved in health care drawn from the House version of the bill as reported by a ranking Republican member of the House of Representatives. After I completed, the presentation, questions were addressed to the three members of the discussion panel, with the discussion progressing amiably.
That tone changed abruptly whenone older gentleman very nicely and succinctly raised a question about the information presented and focused his comments on the three goals that Mr. Obama wants to see new health care reform legislation address. At that point, the discussion degenerated quickly into a series of sharp exchanges involving not only the three panel members but also at least one member of the audience whose comments rather concisely, if somewhat pointedly, refuted what appeared to be the gentleman's pre-prepared "talking points".
I also addressed his contentions, pointed out that the propsed legilsation neither reduced the federal government's outlays for health care nor preserved Americans' ability to retain their present health insurance coverage if they were satisfied with its provisions, and cited the sources for the information included in the PowerPoint presentation. Soon after the exchanges ended, the gentleman left, and the tomne of the discussion changed before ending a few minutes later as it had begun--amiably.
And that is the point we need to remember. While vitally important life and death issues, just like the ones facing the Schindler family as they sought to save Terri's life, are being discussed, how those issues are discussed affects the perception of the points being made, the people making those points, and the reporting of those discussions. Remembering this fact is essential if the focus is to be on the issues at hand, not the parties involved. We all, regardless of our point of view, need to remain civil, no matter how passionately we present our views of "the truth".
Tomorrow, part 4 of my interview with Bobby Schindler, as well as information about Mr. Obama's press conference on July 22 devoted to answering questions about health care reform.
Until then, be blessed.
From the Editor's Desk ArchivesHealth Care Reform: Protecting the Disabled (Part 2) (July 21, 2009)
Health Care Reform: Protecting the Disabled (Part 1) (July 20, 2009)
And Liberty and Justice for All (July 13, 2009)
