WASHINGTON, DC - Unfortunately, today the White House accused Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) of making an "uninformed assertion" when she stated that the President Bush that supports federal intervention in the Terri Schiavo case is in conflict with the Texas Governor Bush who signed into law the 1999 "Advance Directives Act" that allows doctors to decide -even against the wishes of the guardian- to remove life support from patients whom doctors deem in an "irreversible condition." Responding to this comment, Rep. Wasserman Schultz made the following statement:

     "The facts in this case are black and white," said Rep. Wasserman Schultz. "It's in direct conflict with the President's position on the Schiavo case.

     The White House's comments today are especially troubling because the "Advance Directives Act" which then Governor Bush signed into law in 1999 does not call for federal intervention.

     "Obviously, as Governor of Texas the President felt that state courts, not federal courts, were the proper venue in which families could appeal end-of-life decisions," said Jonathan Beeton, Communications Director for Rep. Wasserman Schultz. "Now the President wants the federal government to supersede the decision of an individual's guardian or spouse."

     Attached: 1) Rep. Wasserman Schultz floor statement discussing the Texas "Advance Directives Act."

     2) Sec. 166.046 of the Texas "Advance Directives Act."

     1) Excerpt of Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz's Terri Schiavo floor statement - 3/20/05

     "I noticed today that President Bush has returned from Crawford hoping to sign this legislation if passed by the Congress. It is important to note that President Bush, when he was Governor of Texas in 1999, signed a Texas law that was just used a few days ago, to allow a hospital to withdraw, over the parent's objections, the life-support of a six-month old boy.

     President Bush signed a law, the Texas Advance Directives Act, when he was Governor of Texas. This law, that has been used several times and as recently as a few days ago, liberalized the situations under which a person in Texas can avoid artificial life support. Under it, life support can be withheld or withdrawn if you have an "irreversible condition" from which you are expected to eventually die. Indeed, this law, signed by then Governor Bush allows doctors to remove patients from life support if the hospital's ethics committee agrees; only allowing the family 10 days finding another facility that might accept the patient, barring any state judicial intervention.

     It appears that President Bush felt as Governor, that there was a point at which when doctors felt that no further hope for the patient had been reached, that it is appropriate for an end-of-life decision to be made -even if it was just by the hospital or long-term-care facility treating the patient.

     There is an obvious conflict between the President's feelings on this matter now as compared to when he was Governor of Texas. So I think that it's an interesting conflict to what he's saying today."

     2) (section 166.046 of the 1999 Texas Advance Directives Act)

     Sec. 166.046. PROCEDURE IF NOT EFFECTUATING A DIRECTIVE. (a) If an attending physician refuses to honor a patient's advance directive or a treatment decision under Section 166.039, the physician's refusal shall be reviewed by an ethics or medical committee. The attending physician may not be a member of that committee. The patient shall be given life-sustaining treatment during the review.

     (b) The patient or the person responsible for the health care decisions of the individual who has made the decision regarding the directive or treatment decision:

     (1) shall be informed of the committee review process not less than 48 hours before the meeting called to discuss the patient's directive, unless the time period is waived by mutual agreement; and

     (2) is entitled to:

     (A) attend the meeting; and

     (B) receive a written explanation of the decision reached during the review process.

     (c) The written explanation required by Subsection (b)(2)(B) must be included in the patient's medical record.

     (d) If the attending physician, the patient, or the person responsible for the health care decisions of the individual does not agree with the decision reached during the review process under Subsection (b), the physician shall make a reasonable effort to transfer the patient to a physician who is willing to comply with the directive. If the patient is a patient in a health care facility, the facility's personnel shall assist the physician in arranging the patient's transfer to:

     (1) another physician;

     (2) an alternative care setting within that facility; or

     (3) another facility.

     (e) If the patient is requesting life-sustaining treatment that the attending physician and the review process have decided is inappropriate treatment, the patient shall be given available life-sustaining treatment pending transfer under Subsection (d). The patient is responsible for any costs incurred in transferring the patient to another facility. The physician and the health care facility are not obligated to provide life-sustaining treatment after the 10th day after the written decision required under Subsection (b) is provided to the patient or the person responsible for the health care decisions of the patient unless ordered to do so under Subsection (g).

     (f) Life-sustaining treatment under this section may not be entered in the patient's medical record as medically unnecessary treatment until the time period provided under Subsection (e) has expired.

     (g) At the request of the patient or the person responsible for the health care decisions of the patient, the appropriate district or county court shall extend the time period provided under Subsection (e) only if the court finds, by a preponderance of the evidence, that there is a reasonable expectation that a physician or health care facility that will honor the patient's directive will be found if the time extension is granted.

     (h) This section may not be construed to impose an obligation on a facility or a home and community support services agency licensed under Chapter 142 or similar organization that is beyond the scope of the services or resources of the facility or agency. This section does not apply to hospice services provided by a home and community support services agency licensed under Chapter 142.

     This is the excerpt from the White House Gaggle 3/21/05:

     Q Scott, you may remember this from your Texas days. A member of

     Congress in Florida, Deborah Wasserman Schultz, got on the floor yesterday and said that the President, when he was Texas Governor, signed a piece of legislation into law that, she said, would allow -- when there's a dispute, would allow a feeding tube to be removed and that -- she was a little bit murky on exactly what the law was, but, essentially, she was saying that the President signed something into law that's contradictory to what he is doing now.

     MR. McCLELLAN: That's absolutely incorrect. The legislation he signed is consistent with his views. You know, this is a complex case and I don't think such uninformed accusations offer any constructive ways to address this matter. The legislation that he signed into law actually provided new protections for patients. He had previously vetoed legislation in 1997, when he was Governor, which essentially would have sanctioned current law in Texas that allowed hospitals to stop providing life-sustaining treatment -- because under Texas law, prior to the passage of the '99 legislation that he signed, there were no protections. And so this legislation was supported by many; it enjoyed strong bipartisan support; concerned citizens, various groups came together to support this legislation and put in place new protections for patients.

     The legislation was there to help ensure that actions were being taken that were in accordance with the wishes of the patient or the patient's family. And let me give you an example. Prior to that legislation being passed I think there was a 72 hour period where if the hospital notified a patient -- or the family that represented the patient that they were going to deny life-sustaining treatment, then they had just that 72 hour period to find a place to transfer the patient, that would provide the treatment.

     This legislation, some of the new protections it put in place were --included, the ethics committee review by the hospital, in working with the families as well, making -- you know, to discuss those decisions, determinations. And it also provided a 10-day period, so they had 10-day notice to be able to transfer the patient to another health care provider. And it also authorized court proceedings to extend that 10-day period in order to extend that transfer, if necessary.

     So it's just an uninformed accusation.

Copyright 2007