Schiavo debate relived in Valley; Sanger woman in coma center of wide dispute

[Newsjock]

Source: Fresno Bee

Three years after the fight over Terri Schiavo pulled the nation into the end-of-life debate, the case of a comatose Fresno County woman is reopening old wounds -- and could prove even more inflammatory.

The family of Janet Rivera, 46, wants to keep her alive in a Fresno hospital. The county, acting as her legal guardian, wants the issue decided in court.

Among the questions her situation has raised: Should a government agency be able to overrule family members and withhold life support when the patient's wishes are unknown?

The Schiavo family has taken an interest in this case. The Terri Schindler Schiavo Foundation helped find a lawyer to represent the Rivera family, said Schiavo's brother, Bobby Schindler.

... A hearing Tuesday in Fresno County Probate Court could decide whether the Sanger woman remains on life support.

Read more: http://www.fresnobee.com/263/story/755203.html

[billyoc]

1. Paging Dr. Frist!

:eyes:

[Frisbee]

2. Ya beat me to it! n/t

[skooooo]

12. lol..Dr. Frist is the only one who can help now!! nt

[nvme]

3. apple to oranges

family wins this one hands down. That would deprive patient of life. constitution says the gov can't. I am in favor of allowing someone to die with dignity. The government should NOT EVER make that determination for a human being;the government making those decisions is an extremely dangerous.

[chemp]

4. Ding! Ding! We have a winner!

Of course the right will always side with either the corporation or the side that is not Democrat.

[pepperbear]

5. Right. Schiavo was husband vs parents. if the county wins, a dangerous precedent would be set. n/t

[Ian David]

8. Precedent already set by George W. Bush's Texas Futile Care Law. n/t

[fasttense]

6. The government needs to leave this up to the family.

In the Schiavo case the family had a dispute about what was best for the patient. In this case the family is in agreement and want her to live. The government wants to let her die contrary to the family's wishes. If the government has a choice in the matter, they will always side in favor of death, unless money hungry politicians can score points with their religiously insane base.

[Ian David]

7. THIS time, I'm siding with the Feed Terri group. However...

... the asshole hypocrites should also be working to repeal George W. Bush's Texas Futile Care Law, AND to hold him accountable for all the "Terris" that died in New Orleans.

[LiberalFighter]

9. Husband lost right to make decisions about wife's status cause he wouldn't make decisions.

I wonder what the details are regarding this.

[happyslug]

11. I suspect the Husband would NOT make the decision the Hospital wanted.

Thus why else go to court and seek a Guardian? If the Husband agreed to the removal of medical care, then no problem. If he DISAGREED then the medical care would have to continue UNLESS A JUDGE SAID OTHERWISE. How do you get a Judge to decide? Appoint a guardian and have the guardian make the recommendation you want. This would also explain why the Guardian proposed by her family was NOT made at that time NOR made since that time. The Hospital dislikes what the proposed Guardian would decide.

Lets be honest, the Hospital is losing money on this patient, Medical Assistance pays the lowest rate to any hospital, way less then private Insurance. The $200,000 probably covers the direct care only, but NOT the overhead, i.e. janitor service, management of the Hospital and even the building the Hospital and its utility costs and even insurance costs). Thus the Hospital is losing money. Hospitals tend to lose money on Medical Assistance recipients in the first place, only the fact that most hospital were built with Federal Funds keep the hospitals taking care of Medical Assistance people.

The problem here is of costs, the Hospital is looking at a huge lost, and it wants to minimize its lost. The family hopes the woman would recover and know that will NOT occur if life support is removed. Thus the dispute, how do we as a society handles this type of situation? Should the Hospital take the financial hit? Should we leave her just die for it would be cheaper? That is the problem and it is a problem no one wants to address for it requires putting value of people's lives. How much is she worth? Obviously the Hospital believes she is worth less then $200,000 for that is what they have spent on her and now want to cut off that financial support. The Family believes she is worth more, but does NOT have the money to pay what they believe she is worth. How do we decide such cases? A Judge will have to sooner or later, but it is a decision we have to make as a society and we do NOT want to so the problem is ignored by most people till you have a case like this and it comes right up to our face and we have to address it. Even then out representatives avoid the issue, they look at the polls and vote accordingly. This is something we have to talk about as a nation but have refused and such cases are the cost of that refusal.

[liberal N proud]

10. Is Congress going to get involved this time as well?

[haele]

13. This is totally different than Schiavo, the paper is going for sensationalism -

Reading the article, it's all about money the hospital is losing taking care of her, not a "end of life" issue. The HMO had already taken her off life support last month, but "she lasted longer than they expected" so they put her back on.
:wtf:
Does that mean they took her off after a regular family visit, then someone came by a day or two later and they had to put her back on quick to keep from being sued? Or does it mean she still has a few months of life, whether or not she's totally conscious, and to take her off life support now will cause greater trauma to her than easing her out - and the family isn't willing to make the decision to "not pay attention" while she's given a few too many pain meds and ODs her way out?

It's about money in this case, not husband v parents. The same issue that too many insurance companies are forcing families, hospitals, and government aid to deal with in determining when to pull the plug.

She's poor. She's not "worth as much" as someone who's family is important to the community or has enough money they don't have to worry about paying taxes.

Haele

[Zhade]

14. Just to remind some of the more science-ignorant here: TERRI SCHIAVO HAD NO CEREBRAL CORTEX.

There was NO WAY she would EVER AWAKEN.

[my2sense]

15. K &R

[crimsonblue]

16. this would be murder by the state

the state has no right to make end of life decisions. This case is not the same as the schiavo case at all.

[eilen]

17. Why isn't she in a long term care facility?

If this lady is not clinically brain dead, perhaps the doctors still feel that she will not recover. She is clearly a chronic or subacute case (needing ongoing care) and the hospital is having a hard time placing her in sub-acute long term care that provides ventilator support. If they can place her somewhere, she will go-- the family doesn't have much to say about that unless they plan to pay the bills. There are facilities that care for traumatic brain injury/coma patients.

Seems like an easier issue for the hospital than removing the life support (which didn't end her life after all anyway). They may be able to wean her off of it and then she'd be basically in a bed, comatose, -- maybe using a positive pressure machine at night and being fed with a feeding tube. Once she gets off a ventilator, theoretically, her family could take her home and care for her.

[klyon]

18. sounds right to me

the right would love another case like this to hammer on, they wouldn't care if was nothing like the other one
they only want to score points with their brain dead followers