covici@ccs.portal.com (John Covici) (03/08/91)
Index Number: 13853
BUSALACCHI ON THE REBOUND! MISSOURI
FIGHTS FATHER'S PRO-DEATH DEMAND
CLLUB OF LIFE
by Linda Everett
A 20-year-old woman who has been
seriously disabled for nearly four
years, who depended on a stomach tube
for her daily nourishment, and who had
little activity outside of turning her
head or following nurses with her eyes,
is now, after six days of therapy,
sitting up, eating pureed foods (after
not swallowing for three years), and
using special devices to tell nurses
when she wants more food or when she
wants them to ``talk to me.''
This is an incredible story--not
because the patient now smiles at the
taste of ice cream and laughs at comic
behavior. That's a predictable result
of basic occupational therapy. It is
incredible because there are people in
this country, including her own father,
who allege that--even with her
improvement--it is medically and
ethically appropriate and ``routine''
to starve and dehydrate her to death.
The patient, Christine Busalacchi,
has rebounded in the short period since
her father, Pete Busalacchi, made it
known he intended to move her out of
the Missouri Rehabilitation Center and
into a Minneapolis facility to escape
Missouri's ``draconian'' law, which
prohibits killing incompetent patients
without ``clear and convincing
evidence'' of their wishes. A lower
court ruled on Jan. 17 that Pete
Busalacchi had the right to decide
whether Christine lives or dies. But
the Department of Health, which
represents the Missouri Rehabilitation
Center--that's the facility which was
ordered to starve Nancy Cruzan in
December--on Feb. 4 appealed the
lower-court ruling, saying Busalacchi,
as Christine's guardian, is denying her
constitutional rights.
- Lying Lawyers -
Busalacchi's attorneys, John Kilo
and Willam Colby (who brought the
pro-starvation appeal in the Cruzan
case), rage that no one told Busalacchi
that the feeding tube would be used to
keep Chris unconscious for the rest of
her life (the tube kept her alive, and
she is conscious). They point out that
parents have the right to make medical
decisions for minor children, and those
challenging such decisions ``must prove
by clear and convincing evidence that
the decision constitutes neglect.'' In
the real world, denying someone food,
water, or any life-sustaining care
kills him--and that is surely neglect.
Although Busalacchi reportedly has
visited his daughter only seven times
in the last four years (at least twice
with reporters and cameras), his
lawyers have the gall to speak of the
``natural bonds of affection that lead
parents to act in the best interest
of their child.'' Chris's recovery from
a vegetative state is ``suspect,'' they
say, since doctors said for two years
she was not a rehabilitation candidate.
Well, Chris proved them wrong,
especially the fools who persist in
tagging patients ``permanently
unconscious.''
Joining Missouri's appeal to keep
Chris alive are disability rights
groups who point to the Missouri
Supreme Court ruling which holds that
the state's interest in preserving life
applies as much to people with
permanent cognitive impairments as
to people with no disability.
Reprinted from New Federalist V5 #9