Our friend Holly R tipped us to this post at Hot Air:
"Disabled man with COVID-19 left to die of starvation in Texas over “quality of life” judgment?"
Michael Hickson, a 46 year old Lone Star State citizen, was diagnosed with COVID.
He was also paralyzed with a brain injury.
Certainly not a likely candidate for a long, healthy life.
But: he seemed to be recovering, kinda:
"[H]e was moved out of the ICU, was stable and breathing on his own, and that hospice care would be calling her. "
Why hospice?
Well, because shut up, explained the doc and "the state."
And that's where it gets, well, fuzzy:
Pay special attention to the doc at 3:21, where he explicitly says "at this point, we are going to do what we feel is best for him, along with the state." [emphasis added]
So first, who is this we you're referring to, Doc, and what do you mean by "the state?"
The closest explanation of the latter that I could find was that thepatient victim had been appointed a guardian 'ad litem' as the result of an intra-family dispute. But it seems a stretch to go from guardian "only for the duration of a legal action" to agent of the state, replete with the power of life and death (but mostly death).
And let's circle back to that initial statement, itself particularly chilling:
"This is a calculated decision, we feel like this is what is going to be best for him."
Who thinks this is best for him? Hickson certainly didn't seem to think that:
"He was still responsive, puckering his lips when she said “Can I get a kiss?” and answering that he would like her to pray with him."
Well, now we know.
And there's this: there is perhaps an argument to be made for withholding life support for someone in, say, an irreversible coma (although even that presents challenges). But Mr Hickson was certainly awake and cognizant of what what was happening, and from what we can tell was not asking for a referral to Dr Kevorkian.
This case has an overwhelming stench to it.
"Disabled man with COVID-19 left to die of starvation in Texas over “quality of life” judgment?"
Michael Hickson, a 46 year old Lone Star State citizen, was diagnosed with COVID.
He was also paralyzed with a brain injury.
Certainly not a likely candidate for a long, healthy life.
But: he seemed to be recovering, kinda:
"[H]e was moved out of the ICU, was stable and breathing on his own, and that hospice care would be calling her. "
Why hospice?
Well, because shut up, explained the doc and "the state."
And that's where it gets, well, fuzzy:
Pay special attention to the doc at 3:21, where he explicitly says "at this point, we are going to do what we feel is best for him, along with the state." [emphasis added]
So first, who is this we you're referring to, Doc, and what do you mean by "the state?"
The closest explanation of the latter that I could find was that the
And let's circle back to that initial statement, itself particularly chilling:
"This is a calculated decision, we feel like this is what is going to be best for him."
Who thinks this is best for him? Hickson certainly didn't seem to think that:
"He was still responsive, puckering his lips when she said “Can I get a kiss?” and answering that he would like her to pray with him."
Well, now we know.
And there's this: there is perhaps an argument to be made for withholding life support for someone in, say, an irreversible coma (although even that presents challenges). But Mr Hickson was certainly awake and cognizant of what what was happening, and from what we can tell was not asking for a referral to Dr Kevorkian.
This case has an overwhelming stench to it.
Posts
