By: KALEY JOHNSON
Anti-abortion group Texas Alliance for Life, the Texas Catholic Conference of Bishops and eight other Texas groups filed a brief in support of Cook Children’s and the Texas Advance Directives Act on Tuesday.
By: Lauren Zakalik
Texas Alliance For Life, a pro-life group, spoke Tuesday in favor of the statute, breaking from Texas Right To Life’s position against it.
“We believe the dispute resolution process in Texas law is both good public policy and is unconstitutional,” said Joe Pojman from Texas Alliance For Life.
By: ANDREW GREENSTEIN
But Joe Pojman, executive director of Texas Alliance for Life, says the appellate court should uphold the law.
“We believe the proper place to improve the dispute resolution process is in the legislature,” says Pojman. “And we don’t think that the court should short-circuit that process by being an activist court.”
Fort Worth, TX — Today the Second Court of Appeals will consider an appeal of a lower court’s decision regarding the medical interventions provided by the doctors and nurses at Cook Children’s Medical Center to a terminally ill baby, Tinslee Lewis. The court was asked to order the interventions to be provided indefinitely against the advice of the medical team and to declare a provision of Texas law that resolves disputes between the family and doctors to be unconstitutional. However, the lower court did neither.
Compelling testimony in the lower court revealed that the interventions prolonging Tinslee Lewis’ death are causing her continual pain and suffering and require her to be sedated and paralyzed.
Texas Alliance for Life and several other pro-life, disability rights, and health care organizations filed an amicus curiae (friend-of-the-court) brief defending the law, and representatives of Texas Alliance for Life will be present in the courtroom.
That brief is here.
“We believe the dispute resolution process in Texas law is both good public policy and is constitutional,” said Joe Pojman, Ph.D., Texas Alliance for Life’s executive director. “The Texas law is among the best in the nation. It balances patients’ rights to make end of life decisions with the rights of physicians to not indefinitely order painful, medically inappropriate interventions to terminally ill patients that only prolong their deaths with no proportional benefit.”
First passed unanimously by the Legislature and signed into law by then-Governor George W. Bush in 1999, the Texas Advance Directives Act has been amended three times, all of which were supported by Texas Alliance for Life: 2003, 2015, and 2017. “We believe the proper place to improve the dispute resolution process is in the Legislature with input from stakeholders and the public. We don’t think the court should short circuit the legislative process through judicial activism,” added Pojman.
While the plaintiffs’ attorneys claim that the Texas law fails to guarantee “due process” protection from the State, we point out that just the opposite is true.
First, the dispute resolution process in Texas law, Sec. 166.046 of the Health & Safety Code, compares very well with other states’ dispute resolutions laws. Twenty-two states provide safe harbor for physicians as does Texas, but Texas provides more due process to protect patients’ end of life decision-making autonomy.
A list of the 22 states is provided here.
Second, a doctor treating a patient according to his or her best medical and ethical judgement is not the State or a state actor. “A doctor following the dispute resolution process in Texas law is no more a state actor than a taxi driver following the laws of the road,” said Pojman.
The case is on expedited appeal, but it is not known when a decision will be handed down.
Joe Pojman with Texas Alliance for Life says Tinslee is terminally ill and doctor’s have done the best they can to save her but keeping her on life support is just hurting her more.
“We think the law is very clear.. Doctor’s should not have to order nurses to perform medical interventions that harm patients even when the family, with all good intentions, thinks that’s the best thing,” said Pojman. “Family are not doctors,” he said.
In the brief, the hospital states, continuing treatment goes against physician’s ethical or moral beliefs.
“The most humane and medically ethical position is to remove those interventions which is causing this baby pain and suffering day by day,” Pojman said. “Continuing to do medical interventions and forcing that baby to stay alive is harming Tinslee,” he said.
Texas anti-abortion groups split over the case of 11-month-old on life support | Washington Examiner
By: Cassidy Morrison
Other state anti-abortion groups, such as the Texas Alliance for Life, believe, as do Tinslee’s doctors, that the girl is in constant pain and will never recover. Texas Alliance for Life has avoided intervening on Lewis’s behalf, and Dr. Joe Pojman, the group’s executive director, said the hospital is justified ethically in following Texas law, which says an ethics committee of physicians may remove a patient like Tinslee from life-sustaining machines after 10 days if they conclude that her health will not improve.
“The ethics committee at Cook Children’s Medical Center in Fort Worth, the facility that has wonderfully kept Tinslee alive since birth, agreed with the doctors’ assessment that the best course of action was to discontinue life-sustaining intervention causing her undue harm,” Pojman wrote in the Federalist.
The groups, both dedicated to opposing abortion, euthanasia, and assisted suicide, disagree on the constitutionality of the 10-day rule. The Texas Alliance for Life supports a Jan. 2 court decision allowing Tinslee’s doctors at Cook Children’s to remove Tinslee from life support. While also seeking out other hospitals for Tinslee, Lewis is working with Texas Right to Life to appeal the decision on the grounds that the 10-day rule denies patients due process.
Texas Right to Life argues, despite physicians testifying otherwise, that Tinslee’s condition is not fatal and that the 10-day rule “allows a hospital committee to pull the plug on the child against her mother’s will for any reason.” The group called a press conference with Lewis on Jan. 6 to advocate for Lewis’s right to make health decisions for her daughter.
“Just like any parent, I want the best for my daughter. I definitely respect Tinslee’s physicians’ abilities and their opinions, but I have not had a voice in her current care plan,” Lewis said.
The Texas Alliance for Life, on the other hand, said the rule allows parents and doctors to work together to decide whether keeping a patient on life support is prolonging his or her suffering with no hope of recovery.
“We regret that there is a pretty stark difference between Texas Right to Life regarding the dispute resolution process,” Dr. Joe Pojman told the Washington Examiner. “We believe it’s the best part of the law because it allows doctors and families to decide what the best options are to provide for the terminally ill patient and gives the family time to find an alternative provider.”