Families need more time in tragic cases such as infant Tinslee Lewis’ heart defect
There’s no probable outcome to the Tinslee Lewis case that isn’t unrelentingly sad.
Tinslee is the Fort Worth infant who has spent every day of her nine months in the Cook Children’s intensive care unit. She has a rare heart defect, among other problems, and doctors have concluded there is no hope for recovery. Her condition is fatal, they say, and the life-support measures keeping her alive are actually prolonging her suffering.
Her family, quite understandably, is not ready to let go. They’re willing to attempt to duplicate her care at home, a monumental task even for highly trained medical workers. Their commitment is worthy, even heroic, but if Cook Children’s officials genuinely believe Tinslee would only continue to suffer, they have a duty to act as they have.
Texas’ law on life support questions is designed for these intently difficult cases. Life must be fiercely protected, but futile suffering must be minimized, too. In Tinslee’s case, medical professionals at Cook Children’s believe her treatment is causing her pain.
They’ve consulted nearly 20 other hospitals, including top pediatric institutions, and none have disagreed. When that many experts concur, it’s time to pay attention.
TEXAS LAW
Under Texas law, a hospital, having determined that life-sustaining treatment is what’s keeping a patient with a fatal condition alive, can give a family 10 days’ notice that it will remove treatment. In that period, the family can seek another facility to care for their loved one. It’s a compromise aimed at an otherwise intractable dispute.
That’s not to say the dispute-resolution process is perfect. The 10-day clock is too short for such a serious task. Past efforts in the Legislature to lengthen the period have failed, though, as some political activists demand that families’ wishes be respected no matter what, even if that means years more of futile care and false hopes.
BEHIND THE STORY
MOREHey, who writes these editorials?
Editorials are the positions of the Editorial Board, which serves as the Fort Worth Star-Telegram’s institutional voice. The members of the board are: Cynthia M. Allen, columnist; Steve Coffman, editor and president; Bud Kennedy, columnist; Ryan J. Rusak, opinion editor; and Nicole Russell, editorial writer and columnist. Most editorials are written by Rusak or Russell. Editorials are unsigned because they represent the board’s consensus positions, not the views of individual writers.
Read more by clicking the arrow in the upper right.
How are topics and positions chosen?
The Editorial Board meets regularly to discuss issues in the news and what points should be made in editorials. We strive to build a consensus to produce the strongest editorials possible, but when we differ, we put matters to a vote.
The board aims to be consistent with stances it has taken in the past but usually engages in a fresh discussion based on new developments and different perspectives.
We focus on local and state news, though we will also weigh in on national issues with an eye toward their impact on Texas or the Dallas-Fort Worth area.
How are these different from news articles or signed columns?
News reporters strive to keep their opinions out of what they write. They have no input on the Editorial Board’s stances. The board consults their reporting and expertise but does its own research for editorials.
Signed columns by writers such as Allen, Kennedy and Rusak contain the writer’s personal opinions.
How can I respond to an editorial, suggest a topic or ask a question?
We invite readers to write letters to be considered for publication. The preferred method is an email to letters@star-telegram.com. To suggest a topic or ask a question, please email Rusak directly at rrusak@star-telegram.com.
Starting the clock on removing care is a last step, and hospitals often wait months before taking it. And even then, courts often step in to lengthen the period; a judge did so Sunday in Tinslee’s case. So, lawmakers should clearly extend the timeframe, perhaps to 21 days or even 45, as the Senate briefly voted to do this year. (The bill was later changed and was never considered in the House.)
It’s important, if painful, to recognize that the time period is not to allow for a last-gasp miracle, welcome as that might be. It’s to see if a true medical difference of opinion will emerge, and if not, to give the family time to come to grips with their loved one’s true situation.
Ten days isn’t enough. But it can’t go on indefinitely, either.
The ultimate question is how to minimize suffering and pain for all involved. In Tinslee’s case, there’s no reason to believe her outcome will change.
Cook Children’s officials have done their part. Lawmakers need to do theirs to make difficult situations a bit easier.
And we should all hope that Tinslee and her family find peace.
This story was originally published November 13, 2019 at 5:04 AM.