Students and Citizens Against Futile Ethics
S.A.F.E. Keeping Disabled People Safe
"It is the Nature of love to create. It is the Nature of hate to destroy."-Madeleine L'Engle, A Wrinkle in Time
Futile Care Action Records
The following letter is a formal complaint under Canada's Human Rights Code against Manitoba Grace Hospital, its intensive care staff, and its ethics committee, alleging illegal discrimination against Mr. Samuel Golubchuk, on the basis of age and disability, which is prohibited by the aforementioned law. The purpose of this complaint is to ask Winnipeg's Human Rights Commission to investigate the situation and bar Winnipeg Grace Hospital from discontinuing supportive measures against Mr. Golubchuk and his family's wishes.
Letter to Manitoba Human Rights Commission:
Dear Sir or Madame:
According to Canada's Human Rights Code, it is unlawful to discriminate against someone due to age or disability. This Code does not grant exception for an individual doctor or institution's discretion in involuntarily withdrawing sustaining measures based on the patient's age or condition. Despite the Royal College of Physicians' recent statement on the removal of life support, the removal of Mr. Samuel Golubchuk's feeding tube and respirator against his/his family's wishes is unlawful discrimination against Mr. Golubchuk because of his age and disabled condition. This kind of bias is prohibited by Canada's Human Rights Code and must cease immediately, to prevent a miscarriage of justice against Mr. Golubochuk. Otherwise, the assistance he needs to continue living will be withdrawn, causing his death via suffocation and dehydration, which would constitute assault and negligence on the part of Winnipeg Grace Hospital, its Intensive Care Staff, and its Ethics Committee, actions which are also prohibited by law. Manitoba's Human Rights Commission must act swiftly to prevent this from happening, per its duty to implement Canada's Human Rights Code.
Sincerely,
Meghan Schrader
President
Students and Citizens Against Futile Ethics
http://studentsandcitizensagainstfutileethics.org
Letter to the ACLU in the Emilio Gonzales Case:
Dear Texas Branch of the ACLU:
Although I filed a complaint regarding this situation, I have been extremely surprised by the ACLU's lack of action concerning the plight of Catarina Gonzales and her son, Emilio.
Emilio's condition requires continued care in an intensive treatment facility. Because of the Texas Futile Care Law, doctors at Children's Hospital of Austin are planning to discontinue his treatment against his mother's wishes, saying that their efforts are futile, as the child's condition is terminal.
This law clearly violates the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, which forbids doctors to deny treatment to a patient based on the severity of his or her disability. Many illnesses are terminal and lead to the person being incapacitated, yet that individual's family is normally accorded the legal right to make decisions on his or her behalf. There is medical research that was unavailable years ago, and proof that doctors can be mistaken in advising people that there is no hope in their condition. Moreover, even in terminal cases, it should be the individual or his family who decides whether or not to terminate life-sustaining treatment, not doctors, which gives the state and the medical profession an inordinate amount of social control.
Worst of all, Emilio's Guardian ad litem recently submitted a legal brief saying that because there is no Constitutional right to medical care, doctors at Children's Hospital have not violated federal laws, as Emilio does not have the right to life-sustaining treatment.
This is clearly a gross misinterpretation and manipulation of Constitutional language to fit the Texas legal system's definitions of compassion and human integrity. The Constitution clearly protects the Declaration of Independence's ideals of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." The Constitution guarantees that one's life and possessions will not be taken from him through self-incrimination or state laws that violate basic human rights. All these laws have their basis in protecting the individual's entitlement to life. To say that Emilio has no right to life sustaining treatment is to say that he is not a person and that even if he were, it is legally acceptable for the state and his doctors to euthanize him. Moreover, disability legislation elucidates how these principles relate to the rights of disabled citizens even in the absence of specific language in the Constitution. Emilio's guardian ad litem seems to have ignored this legislation.
As an American citizen, I know that I do not want doctors to decide whether or not I am entitled to medical care with the state's blessing. No state should decide whether an individual has the right to life, any more than it should be allowed to control peoples' reproductive rights. This is a violation of everything America stands for and mocks the people who died or sacrificed to make America a free nation, liberated from the tyranny of an oppressive ruler. Please intercede in this pressing matter.
Complaint with the Texas Health and Human Services Commission in the Emilio Gonzales Case:
Form of Abuse: Proposed Denial of Medical Treatment
Against: Children's Hospital of Austin, Seton Family of Hospitals, Breckenridge Hospitals, Dr. David Anglin
Complainant: Meghan Schrader
Person endangered: Emilio Gonzales
Person's Legal Guardian: Catarina Gonzales
Situation:
Emilio Gonzales has a terminal illness that requires specialized treatment. Because of his neurological condition, he cannot chew on his own and his lungs cannot expand enough to take in adequate oxygen without the help of a respirator. Dr. Anglin and his staff assert that Emilio Gonzales' treatment is futile because he cannot be cured. While this is true, a terminal illness does not usurp an individual's constitutional right to medical treatment, nor does it prevent the denial of such from being included in the classic definition of abuse.
Catarina Gonzales is a mother who has no record indicating that she is unable to care for or make decisions on behalf of her child and thus has legal guardianship over him. What's more, if she were to deny Emilio the help of a hospital, she could be charged with child abuse. Thus, it stands to reason that a hospitals move to withhold medical care against her wishes is also abuse.
This argument is particularly compelling because the doctors refuse to give Emilio a tracheotomy that would allow him to breath on his own or equip his stomach with a feeding tube. They have refused this treatment on the premise that Emilio's lungs are too weak to be weaned from the respirator and give no reason for withholding that type of feeding tube. Given that they plan to disconnect Emilio from life support on the premise that Emilio has "lost human dignity," there is reason to suspect that their compassion is motivating them to withhold life-saving medical treatments. Because their assessment of Emilio's condition leads them to feel that death would be in his best interests, they continue to present excuses for not performing these procedures.
Given these factors, the hospital and its staff should be investigated for their proposed withdrawal of medical care.
Sincerely,
Meghan Schrader
MA Resident
Letter To Legal Counsel involved in Emilio Gonzales Case:
Dear Mr. Cirkiel and Ms. Ward:
I am faxing this one hundred and two signature petition created on behalf of Catarina Gonzales and her son, Emilio. I began this petition after learning of their dilemma on April 16th. I have notified the Associated Press of this, as well as Bill O'Reilly and Jesse Jackson. I also intend to send a copy to NOW and the ACLU. All of these entities have different values which I may or may not agree with, but I think that each of them could have a positive influence on this situation.
I also wanted to let both of you know that I filed a complaint against Children's Hospital of Austin with the Texas Department of Health and Public Services. Perhaps following up on this complaint may help you. I felt it was my moral responsibility to do this. The base problem here is that both the Constitution and the Americans with Disabilities Act forbid doctors to withhold medical treatment because of a patient's disability. This is what I would do if I knew of a local hospital where patients were being denied medical treatment. I filed this complaint around April 23, but have not heard back regarding whether an investigation has taken place. I hope that the DHPS will move to prevent its hospital from carrying out this abusive act.
I feel that they have not exhausted all treatment options and are denying treatments on illogical grounds, which further supports an allegation of abuse. For instance, they say that Emilio is too weak to be weaned from a respirator through a tracheotomy and will not put a feeding tube in his stomach, but they plan to withdraw his treatment and cause his death anyway. Given the fact that they plan to do this, they should not be unwilling to attempt such procedures on the premise that it would endanger Emilio's life. Given that they propose to deny Emilio the treatment he is being given now and refuse to explore other options, they are proposing to withhold medical care from a patient, which falls under the most classic definition of abuse.
I hope that these measures help in your case to protect Emilio and his mother's right to make medical decisions for him when the withdrawal of medical care is an issue. I fervently hope that American citizens will become aware of this situation and that more and more people will step in, so that those with the power to uphold the Constitution will hear and respond.
If you have any questions, please email me at or phone at [omitted].
My thoughts are with you and the Gonzales' as you prepare for their case on Tuesday.
Sincerely,
Meghan Schrader
