Sun Hudson case

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Sun Hudson case concerned Wanda Hudson and her infant son, who was allowed to die via removal of his breathing tube, contrary to her wishes.

Contents

[edit] Chronology

Hudson gave birth to a son with an unknown father (she is said to believe his father was the Sun) on September 25, 2004, at St. Luke's Episcopal Hospital in Houston, Texas, with thanatophoric dysplasia, a typically fatal form of congenital dwarfism. She was informed that the infant was most likely unable to survive, and should have his breathing tube removed pursuant to Chapter 166 of the Texas Health & Safety Code, the Advance Directives Act. Under this act, a doctor's recommendations to withdraw medical treatment can be followed, after they have been reviewed by the hospital's ethics committee and after 10 days' notice is given to the patient or guardian. Hudson was given 10 days from written notice to find a new facility to accommodate the infant, but was unable to do so. Texas Children's Hospital states that it attempted to contact 40 facilities without finding a willing one.

Legal delays prevented the removal of the breathing tube, which would have occurred on November 28, 2004, but a judge ruled that the removal of the tube did not require Hudson's agreement. On March 15, 2005, Texas Children's Hospital personnel removed the breathing tube. Official reports state that he was sedated, and asphyxiated in under a minute. Hudson disputes this, and told reporters, who were not permitted entrance, "I wanted y'all to see my son for yourself, so you could see he was actually moving around. He was conscious."

The hospital lacked confidence in Ms. Hudson's mental competence; she was quoted by The Dallas Morning News as saying that she didn't seek prenatal care "because I trusted in the Sun", which she claimed fathered the baby. She also made similar comments during an interview with Greta Van Susteren [1].

[edit] Bioethics implications

Bioethicists note that the case is the first time a U.S. hospital has been allowed to remove life sustaining support contrary to the wishes of the legal guardian and lacking advance directives from the patient themselves.[citation needed] This, the bioethicists claim, makes the issue precedent-setting in further cases where it may be applied. Early speculation as to its application was the case Spiro Nikolouzos. Mr. Nikolouzos, however, was accepted at a San Antonio nursing facility on March 21, 2005, where he died of natural causes on May 30.

[edit] Comparisons to the Terri Schiavo case

Critics of the federal government's involvement in the Terri Schiavo case in March 2005 note that the Advance Directives Act was partially drafted by the National Right to Life Committee, which promoted the cause of Terri Schiavo's "right to live". Furthermore, they note that the Act was passed without opposition bicamerally in the 76th session of the Texas Legislature and was signed into law by then Texas Gov. George W. Bush. They claim that these actions, and the subsequent consequences to Sun Hudson, are contradictory to the positions of Republicans (especially Texas Republicans, but also specifically Tom DeLay), Democrats, and especially the President who supported the Palm Sunday Compromise, and that they were merely grandstanding to associate themselves with a high-profile case to appeal to a select interest group of voters.

Conversely, despite the similarities and differences of the case, the Houston Chronicle writes that commentators have stated that Terri Schiavo would not have been affected by the Texas law. It is noted that the feeding tube kept Terri alive, and was therefore not futile care. It is not stated why the Hudson infant's or Spiro Nikolouzos's continued mechanical respiration was futile when it had kept them alive in the two cases.

v • d • e
Notable cases in medical ethics

[edit] See also

[edit] Sources

Languages