Since the John Peter Smith Hospital was following a particular interpretation of the law, I'm wondering if we should be looking at the attorney at the forefront of advising the hospital regarding what their actions should be.
Excerpt
"JPS legal counsel, Neal Adams, has taken a clear stance against abortion rights. According to the Star-Telegram, Adams led the drive to end abortions at JPS in 1988, and is also an advisory board member at the Northeast Tarrant County Right To Life Educational Association. According to the groups website, its focus is to educate the public on the value of human life from the moment of conception in the hope that the life of the unborn child will be protected from conception to natural birth.
http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2...resented-by-anti-choice-lawyer-family-to-sue/
I have had a very sick feeling that, based on the advice of NA, JPS undertook a course of action to prolong the use of medical intervention from the time Marlise Munoz died until gestation was forced to the point of legal viability. Marlise died during the 14th week of her pregnancy. A fetus is considered viable at 24 to 26 weeks, and Monday would have marked the beginning of the 22nd week of gestation.
In arguments presented to the court, JPS was represented by Tarrant County ADA Larry M. Thompson (perhaps to put distance between NA and JPS in the mind of the public). One element of contention brought forward by lawyers representing the Munoz family was that "section of the health code that says a person may not withdraw or withhold life-sustaining treatment
from a pregnant patient violates Marlise Muñozs Fourteenth Amendment right to privacy with regard to making decisions about her own body and equal protection under the law." (
http://www.star-telegram.com/2014/01/23/5509944/texas-law-didnt-anticipate-dead.html)
In response, Thompson insisted that, even if Judge R. H. Wallace found that the law was unconstitutional, a final judgement could not be entered "for at least 45 days after the Texas attorney generals office is notified, which would be Feb. 28." (
http://www.star-telegram.com/2014/01/23/5509944/texas-law-didnt-anticipate-dead.html)
By which time, the fetus could be considered legally viable. The objective would have been reached no matter what the judicial ruling might have been.
At the same time, JPS seems to have found a way to avoid paying the costs incurred by their experiment. JPS has been simultaneously billing Mr. Munoz while inflicting grievous emotional pain on him and the other members of his family. (The steps JPS had likely taken to keep Marlise's body supporting the fetus have been described in detail upthread and, JMO, could in effect be seen as the defilement of a dead body.)
At a time when medical expenses are the leading cause of bankruptcy for families (
http://www.cnbc.com/id/100840148), the billing of Mr. Munoz makes the intentions of JPS even more questionable. It's been estimated that the costs JPS has forced onto Mr. Munoz will be upwards of $300,000 (
http://thehairpin.com/2014/01/after-a-lawsuit-texas-hospital-finally-lets-marlise-munoz-go). While he will receive some support from his firefighters association, that is an incredible amount of money to be expected to raise. The average annual salary for a paramedic is around $51,000 (
http://www.indeed.com/salary/q-Paramedic-l-Texas.html) which means that this could be an incredible financial burden to this man for far too many years. Unless, of course, he sues JPS. And wins a settlement.
Several studies have been done regarding actual costs for procedures done in hospitals vs. the billing for those procedures. In one study (
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2013/03/16/high-health-care-costs.aspx) the chargemaster (a hospital's internal price list--see also
Chargemaster - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) was discussed. It has been found that in most, if not all cases, the costs for each item are highly inflated and are priced several times higher than the items would actually cost the hospital. This excessive charging for services, supplies, equipment usage, drugs, supplements, nutrition, medical procedures, diagnostic tests brings in revenue. When every pill, every tissue, every paper cup of water, is charged, costs skyrocket. It boggles the mind to consider how many procedures and IVs and diagnostic tests Marlise would have undergone since November. The costs for insurance companies is negotiated. The costs for someone who is uninsured, for instance a dead person, are to be paid in full. For example, in the study I'm referencing (
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2013/03/16/high-health-care-costs.aspx), 3 CT scans would cost Medicare $825. For an individual who earned a little too much to be covered by Medicare but could not afford other insurance, the cost would be $7,000.
The possibility of a settlement aside, if the administration of JPS felt so compelled to continue staggeringly expensive care for an unviable fetus within a dead woman for months should their CFO not have approached the state Texas to find out how much of the costs the state was willing to pay?
When insurance companies will normally cease to cover medical expenses once a client is dead, just who did JPS administrators, and advisors, think would be picking up the tab?
