Congratulations on a good work, Jerri. However the law is re-written, it needs to have provisions for when a doctor does not wish to follow Directives or surrogate/agent instructions to *remove* treatment when he thinks that it's inappropriate. I can imagine a doctor unable to follow his conscience when he is being told to let someone go - as in Terri Schiavo's case.
Congratulations on a good work, Jerri. However the law is re-written, it needs to have provisions for when a doctor does not wish to follow Directives or surrogate/agent instructions to *remove* treatment when he thinks that it's inappropriate. I can imagine a doctor unable to follow his conscience when he is being told to let someone go - as in Terri Schiavo's case.
God Bless you, Jerri Lynn.
Thank you so much.
God Bless you, Jerri Lynn.
Thank you so much.
It seems to me that the major problem with this law is that it expressly endorses the ending of care and protects doctors who do so under the protocols. It would be possible, and much preferable, to require them under some penalty to give at least the 10 days' notice but expressly _not_ to indemnify them against suit. That is, they'll get in some sort of legal trouble if they don't give the 10 days' notice, but the patient's family retains the right to sue even if they do so.
I have a question about food and water: Food and hydration, including by tube, _can_ be administered at home by family members. Suppose a hospital wants (in essence) to kick a person out who requires tube feeding but not a ventilator. This is then a (hypothetical) person who might live at least for a while under a home-care situation if he received food and water. Would the hospitals attempt to keep the patient in the hospital to die of dehydration, or would the family be able at least to take the person home and administer tube feeding themselves or do their best at mouth feeding? What power to hospitals have to prevent the person's going home under such circumstances, and would they be likely to try to exercise that power, or would they be glad to get rid of the person?
I've been rather chilled by reports from the UK of a child for whom the hospital "wouldn't let her go home." This would probably be the worst scenario, but hopefully it hasn't come to the U.S.
It seems to me that the major problem with this law is that it expressly endorses the ending of care and protects doctors who do so under the protocols. It would be possible, and much preferable, to require them under some penalty to give at least the 10 days' notice but expressly _not_ to indemnify them against suit. That is, they'll get in some sort of legal trouble if they don't give the 10 days' notice, but the patient's family retains the right to sue even if they do so.
I have a question about food and water: Food and hydration, including by tube, _can_ be administered at home by family members. Suppose a hospital wants (in essence) to kick a person out who requires tube feeding but not a ventilator. This is then a (hypothetical) person who might live at least for a while under a home-care situation if he received food and water. Would the hospitals attempt to keep the patient in the hospital to die of dehydration, or would the family be able at least to take the person home and administer tube feeding themselves or do their best at mouth feeding? What power to hospitals have to prevent the person's going home under such circumstances, and would they be likely to try to exercise that power, or would they be glad to get rid of the person?
I've been rather chilled by reports from the UK of a child for whom the hospital "wouldn't let her go home." This would probably be the worst scenario, but hopefully it hasn't come to the U.S.
First of all, I'd like to take this opportunity to thank you for all you're doing for both Andrea and Yenlang. God bless you for using your skills to fight for life. I agree with you. The law is horrible and should be eliminated.
I'd also like to ask a question to Lydia who posted comment #3. From Lydia's post - "I've been rather chilled by reports from the UK of a child for whom the hospital "wouldn't let her go home." This would probably be the worst scenario, but hopefully it hasn't come to the U.S."
I too, am concerned about the child in the UK. Unfortunately I lost the link I had on her case. Like you, I couldn't understand why the family was being prevented from taking her home. That type of control is chilling, indeed.
As I recall she caught an infection in the hospital, which is making her worse. I'd sure appreciate any udates you have on her case. Her family has a website. Do you possibly have the link to the site or do you know her name?
First of all, I'd like to take this opportunity to thank you for all you're doing for both Andrea and Yenlang. God bless you for using your skills to fight for life. I agree with you. The law is horrible and should be eliminated.
I'd also like to ask a question to Lydia who posted comment #3. From Lydia's post - "I've been rather chilled by reports from the UK of a child for whom the hospital "wouldn't let her go home." This would probably be the worst scenario, but hopefully it hasn't come to the U.S."
I too, am concerned about the child in the UK. Unfortunately I lost the link I had on her case. Like you, I couldn't understand why the family was being prevented from taking her home. That type of control is chilling, indeed.
As I recall she caught an infection in the hospital, which is making her worse. I'd sure appreciate any udates you have on her case. Her family has a website. Do you possibly have the link to the site or do you know her name?
I just read of Andrea's demise. I am thankful Andrea was able to spend her last days with her family.
Thank you for helping to make that possible.
This law that has done no good for any patient. It must be repealed.
Is there no group lobbying for it's repeal?
I just read of Andrea's demise. I am thankful Andrea was able to spend her last days with her family.
Thank you for helping to make that possible.
This law that has done no good for any patient. It must be repealed.
Is there no group lobbying for it's repeal?
God bless you, Jerri. I hope sometime I can talk with you and learn from your experience in this unfortunately growing field.
God bless you, Jerri. I hope sometime I can talk with you and learn from your experience in this unfortunately growing field.
Hi Jerri,
Dave Perkins here, down in Houston.. just wanted to say the more I read of you the more I'm feeling priveleged to have met you.. and if I'm ever unable to speak or act in my own defense, I hope the ones who advocate for me will be blessed with some small portion of the steel and moral foundation and heart and goodness I see in you.. 
We'll always have Crawford! 
)
Susan says hi
DP
Hi Jerri,
Dave Perkins here, down in Houston.. just wanted to say the more I read of you the more I'm feeling priveleged to have met you.. and if I'm ever unable to speak or act in my own defense, I hope the ones who advocate for me will be blessed with some small portion of the steel and moral foundation and heart and goodness I see in you..
We'll always have Crawford! )
Susan says hi
DP
176a2b 81bc8a2068
176a2b 81bc8a2068
Commenting by HaloScan
