Kim,
I am not disputing your premise, but I wish you would clarify how the "conservative" blogosphere gets the credit, and not the "liberal" blogosphere or the two combined. Just so I'll know. I am sure that the lefties will have someting to say about that. Thx.

Jeff's right. The first I learned of this case was in a post here on Wizbang making the point that this was above partisanship.

A note: yes this post came from Democratic Underground, but this issue is bigger than politics.

Add me to the line up of paddlers.

Time to say a few Hail Mary's and rethink your partisanship.

None of you would have known about this if it had not been posted on DU.

But that is besides the point, people get credit, not the left or the right. Thank you for helping save her life. Both sides.

While I'm glad that there's movement on this, something still isn't adding up. If she does have an Advance Health Care Directive or Living Will, then depending on how it is written, the hospital board can decide whatever it wants without the power to carry it out. The family still can file an emergency hearing at the court having jurisdiction over the hospital for an injunction preventing the hospital from taking that action. Why all the protesting where there is clear, specific legal channels that can be used? Now, they might be doing some behinds the scenes - I haven't looked into this any deeper than here, or Misha's site, etc, but if there's supposively a lawyer on the case, where's the Injunction?

(nothing like some devil's advocate arguing...)

There is a law in Texas that does give the hospital the power to do this. Even in the case of a living will or advance directive. It's the Texas Futile Care Law.

Since you knew that the post you linked to orginated on the Democratic Underground:
"John Hawkins at Right Wing News has a heart wrenching story posted at Democratic Underground about Andrea Clarke whose doctors... (those are your words)...

but decided to credit the "conservative blogosphere" anyway, you're correction:
"The conservative and liberal blogosphere may have saved a life. (I was remiss to leave out the blogs on the other side of the "aisle" as we worked together on this one.)" is nothing short of amazing.

"Remiss to leave out the blogs on the other side of the aisle.."? Remiss? Try FACTUALLY INCORRECT WITH THE INTENT TO MISLEAD (please pardon my caps). If you are going to credit anyone, why are you continuing in your correction to leave out the Democratic Underground?

Not only did you start out lying about where the credit is due, but you can't even get the facts right when you are finally shamed by your own readers into correcting the lie.

Amazing. These are the people who whine about the MSM and whine about liberals and their evil ways of twisting the truth? Good f*cking grief. Wake up and smell the hypocrisy, Wizbang readers.

(Just to be clear, I'm not licensed in Texas)
§ 166.046(e) and (g) appear to be what you're referring to, Dana. Under (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.

Aw, poor Lee. Where should I send the wah-bulance?

I never said anythinga bout an injunction. Anyone knows that. I mean, even if she did have an advance directive *which she doesn't* or a living will, under the texas futile care law they still have the power.

Dana -

Other than reading the posts on here and a few other blogs, I'm not digging deeply into the whole matter; I hadn't seen any indication one way or the other on a AHCD/Living Will. However, the law in question talks about AHCD by name and "patient's directive" generically (including setting out what priority next of kin have in being a "person responsible" for making such directives" in the event there is no AHCD/Living Will), so using subsection (g) doesn't appear contingent on there being a AHCD.

But all that's tangential. What initially struck me, and what I continue to see, is the focus on calling the hospital, "shoing support" and so forth, and virtually nothing about what channels are available. According to that law, even if the request for an Injunction is unsuccessful, care must be provided during that request.

I'm her niece, that's how I know those things about a living will and advance directive. If they hadn't been able to show that they could find a new facility soon though, she would have died. Thank God they found the facility in Chicago. Although the hospital was very forceful in the way they played their hand.

Ok, Lee, time to stick your head back up your ass now.