<p>OK, I’ll explain it to you. As usual, there are two sides to every issue. Unfortunately, the media is not always good about showing both sides - in particular when Bush is involved. Here is the full story:</p>
<p>In August 1996 the Journal of the American Medical Association published an article describing procedures then in effect in Houston hospitals. Under these procedures, if a doctor wished to deny a patient lifesaving medical treatment and the patient or the patient’s surrogate instead steadfastly expressed a desire for life, the doctor would submit the case to the hospital ethics committee. The patient or surrogate would be given 72 hours notice of the committee meeting would be allowed to plead for the patient’s life at it. During that short 72 hour period, the patient or surrogate, while preparing to argue for life, could also try to find another health care provider willing to give the lifesaving treatment, food or fluids. </p>
<p>If the ethics committee decided for death, under these procedures there was no appeal. There was no provision that the food, fluids, or lifesaving treatment be provided after the decision while the patient or family tried to find another hospital willing to keep the patient alive.</p>
<p>So under these procedures, the hospitals in Houston were denying life-saving treatment, food and fluids against the wishes of patients and their families, when the hospital ethics committees said their quality of life was too poor. Patients and families were being given only 72 hours after being notified of the proposed denial to find another health care provider. </p>
<p>In 1997 there was an advance directives bill going through the Texas legislature that would have given specific legal sanction to such involuntary denial of life-saving treatment. An effort in the Texas legislature to amend the bill to require treatment pending transfer to a health care provider willing to provide the life-saving treatment had been defeated. When that bill reached Governor George Bushs desk, he vetoed it, and said he was vetoing it precisely because it authorized hospitals to deny lifesaving medical treatment, food, and fluids against the will of the patients. </p>
<p>But even without that bill, these procedures were still going on. So there was an effort in the next sitting of the legislature, in 1999, to pass protective legislation. Unfortunately, the votes just werent there to require lifesaving treatment, food, or fluids be provided by unwilling hospitals. So there were negotiations that resulted in a bill that gave partial protection. That 1999 bill: </p>
<p>first, formalized more protections for in-hospital review
second, gave patients 10 days of treatment while seeking transfer, and
third, authorized court proceedings to extend the 10 days for reasonable additional periods to accomplish transfer. </p>
<p>Now this was not what patient advocates wanted and it wasnt what Governor Bush wanted. However, it was an important advance over the existing situation of no legal requirement of treatment pending transfer, for any period of time. The votes were not there in the Texas legislature to accomplish a more protective bill. So Governor Bush signed it because it was an improvement over the existing law.</p>
<p>Edit: When I saw your post, I assumed I knew how the situation was portrayed in the media - that Bush was acting hypocritically. That is why I gave you the full story to show he wasn’t. However, I then read the article that you linked and noted that they did indeed include much of the detail that I provided above. In typical fashion they slanted the headline and provided the stuff that is most damning of Bush up front - knowing that liberals will read as much of the article as they think they need to confirm their pre-existing beliefs and then stop reading. True enough - you read what you wanted and then posted based on what you wanted to post to convey a negative and hypocritical image of Bush. Too bad the facts of the case show him to be remarkably consistent.</p>