Originally Posted - April 30, 2006

return home

In Texas, the case of Andrea Clark is bringing forth a groundswell of attention to the little-known topic of medical futility practices.

Andrea is a 54-year-old woman who suffered brain injuries following open-heart surgery at Houston's St. Luke's Hospital and was apportioned both a respirator and dialysis treatment in the hopes of promoting her recovery.

At some point during Andrea's care, the ethics committee at St. Luke's, behind closed doors and without any type of oversight, decided that providing her with life-prolonging care had become futile.

They informed her family that they intended to remove medical treatment from Andrea, even though her family protested such an action and Andrea remained alert and oriented. Doing so would surely cause the death of the beloved sister and mother of a 23-year-old son.

Through a limited number of news reports and some vigorous online activity by bloggers, Andrea's case gained a bit of recognition and St. Luke's took a bit of heat. When the hospital agreed to allow Andrea to be moved to another facility, attorney and author Wesley J. Smith noted in his own blog, "I am convinced that this would not have happened but for the heat people put on St. Luke's Hospital."

I'm waiting for a mainstream outlet to start flinging epithets around, but -- as yet -- they've been relatively quiet. Why? Simply put, Andrea's case got to all of us -- left, right and everywhere in between. You may be surprised to learn that one of the more active internet message boards discussing Andrea's situation is housed at the Democratic Underground (www.democraticunderground.com). The people there are supporting Andrea's right to live.

I tell you that so that I can tell you this: All that rhetoric about clinical killing being a religious or right-wing speak-piece? Rubbish.

The access to appropriate healthcare and medical treatment is neither a political posture nor a religious one. Certainly, America's social conservatives have long called upon the sanctity of life as a cornerstone of their social philosophies. Additionally, Christians, Jews and Buddhists all recognize life as a gift from a just and loving omnipresent and something to be treated with the utmost reverence.

But, I'm not talking about passive or personally held attitudes. I'm talking about what causes people to spring into action when they understand a wrong for what it is. Andrea's case has united people, previously divided by rhetoric and failed social ramblings, simply because it is what it is: denying a woman what she is entitled to -- a chance at survival.

Andrea's family states that she is responsive, oriented and wants very much to survive. The hospital states that continuing treatment is simply futile. So, who decides?

Those promoting the duty to die culture will reach deep into their propaganda purses to find an excuse to off people like Andrea if ever the question comes up. People with some common sense and empathy will likely tell you the choice belongs to her, not the hospital and surely not the government.

In a word, they're right.

When Terri Schiavo was being dehydrated to death in 2005, the cameras were studiously focused on people protesting with crosses and Rosary beads firmly in hand, in an effort to marginalize the arguments for allowing Schiavo to live. Never did they show you the scores of wheelchair-bound individuals assembled in demonstration against what they see as aggressive eugenics. Ask yourself why that is.

Could it be that the mainstream doesn't want you to fuss over issues of life and death or access to healthcare because you represent a liability to the system if your choice is to live? Could it be that the act of keeping us divided and spitting nails between ourselves allows the real dangers to fly through under the radar?

Terri Schiavo, minus any clear directive of her own, should have been left alone to live out her natural life without interference or encroachment on her person from the authorities. I know that. You know that. But, frame it as a right v. left argument and you'll easily distract the average person from the real issue at hand: we're killing people.

A good many political analysts and experts have weighed in on the Schiavo case, reducing the life of Terri Schiavo to a talking point in the hopes that we'll keep arguing and ignoring what is actually going on.

Disability advocates have long warned about just this sort of pandering. Largely, we've ignored them and the imaginary wrangling continues.

Andrea's case, though tragic, might actually offer a single ray of hope in that it has decimated a couple of walls on social and political lines.

Clearly, right-leaning folks aren't the only ones who value life. Also clear is that left-leaning folks aren't the only ones who want the authorities to stay the hell out of our lives.

Andrea should be entitled to the appropriate care necessary to sustain her life and promote her recovery. We all get that. Her family gets that. St. Luke's, apparently, does not.

And that is the conundrum we've created for ourselves. So long as we politicize, polarize and objectify medical ethics into the pigeonholes of politics or religion, people will continue to be denied what is appropriate in the interest of culling the herd. 4-30-06

© 2006 North Country Gazette