I reported on Friday that Rachael Nyirahaabiyambere was back on a feeding tube by court order. I can now report that the ADF has–once again–leaped into the breach to help a family whose loved one was threatened with dehydration–just as it did in the Jesse Ramirez case. In doing so, it has attempted to bring a modicum of equal justice to Nyirahabiyambrere and her family in the outrageous dehydration of the African immigrant. From the story:
A judge ordered Friday that a Rwandan immigrant whose feeding tube was removed three weeks ago against her family’s wishes be given nutrition and hydration immediately. Rachel Nyirahabiyambere, 59, who has been in a vegetative state since suffering a major stroke, lay close to death in a Maryland nursing home early Friday, said her son, Jerome Ndayishimiye. Her family had felt powerless to save her after a court-appointed guardian ordered her feeding tube removed; the guardian, Andrea J. Sloan, believed that Ms. Nyirahabiyambere should be receiving only palliative care because she was “profoundly vegetative” and had no chance of recovery. After The New York Times published an article about her case, the Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian legal alliance, petitioned Judge Nolan B. Dawkins of Alexandria Circuit Court on behalf of her children. He ordered her feeding tube reinstated while the legal issues were weighed.
Nyirahabiyambere is near death because she was denied basic sustenance for more than two weeks. Do that to a dog, and you go to jail. Do it to someone with a profound cognitive disability, and it is called bioethics.
Moreover, the only reason Sloan was the guardian in the first place was Georgetown University Hospital’s lawsuit that removed decision making authority from Nyirahabiyambere’s blood family. Moreover, Sloan told the reporter in the original NYT story, that part of her decision making process involved the cost to society for her ward’s care. As I pointed out in my original post–that wasn’t her job. Making matters even more unjust, the family specifically asked the judge in the original guardianship case to appoint a lawyer for their mother–and he refused!
Had justice been done in the first place, Nyirahabiyambere would almost surely not have never been denied sustenance while a real case was litigated in the courts. Instead, she and her family received kangaroo court style justice and the bum’s rush–until the ADF rode to the rescue.
I can also report that the Terri Schiavo Life and Hope Network has been helpful to the family behind the scenes.
These life and death dramas involving the medically vulnerable are arising with increasing frequency, and certainly not all of them make the news or Secondhand Smoke. In such cases, the ADF and the Schiavo Network are often the advocates of last resort for people whose loved ones are threatened with being discarded.
March 13th, 2011 | 3:51 pm
Is the fund willing to pay for her on going medical care? Is her family? They have jobs and some resources?
There are limited funds for medical care. If we did everything humanly possible to treat and prevent diseases there would not be enough money for roads and schools.
I believe in life and I am prolife but I also believe in the reality of death.
The stroke has killed her not the lack of nutrition.
She made the decision to drop her health care.
Our decisions have consequences or do they?
The real issue is that a tube feeding is a medical procedure with known risks and complications.
Would this patient be ventilated or dialyzed in this state?
Why do we easily withhold air ( by not ventilating patients) and yet demand water to be provided? What is the difference between air and water as far as essential to life and quite basic?
What makes one a must do and the others optional or even in the event of prolonged mechanical ventilation in a patient with a large irreversible stroke seem almost obscene, even like a Robin Cook movie?
March 14th, 2011 | 12:45 am
David, please do us a favor and go and deprive yourself of medical care so that you do not deplete the resources of others. And, if you had bothered to READ the story, you would see that this was NOT her decision, nor that of her family, but was a draconian imposition upon them by outside forces. You have no right calling yourself pro life if you believe that outside forces should have the right to deprive this woman of care. Absolutely none. I’m embarrassed to share the pro life label with you.
March 14th, 2011 | 8:18 am
Wesley, any predictions about what will happen next in this case?
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
March 14th, 2011 at 9:10 am
If she lives, I don’t see how the family is denied guardianship, particularly given the judge’s refusal to appoint an attorney. But she was without sustenance for two weeks.
March 14th, 2011 | 4:04 pm
Actually, I think three weeks. It’s amazing that she survived that long.
March 14th, 2011 | 4:53 pm
Is the fund willing to pay for her on going medical care? Is her family? They have jobs and some resources?
There are limited funds for medical care.
Therefore, we should not grant anyone products and services, until after all the sick people are cared for.
To the extent that we must ration, we must start by providing for the sick, and let the healthy fend for themselves – not the other way around.
If we’re not going to care for the sick, there’s no reason to provide care for anyone.
March 14th, 2011 | 11:21 pm
Yes! Go Blake!
March 15th, 2011 | 8:44 pm
Blake for President!
March 21st, 2011 | 4:29 pm
[...] J. Smith writes at First Things: I reported on Friday that Rachael Nyirahaabiyambere was back on a feeding tube by court order. I [...]
April 4th, 2011 | 12:27 pm
[...] cases were futile care imposition cases–one involving Baby Joseph in Canada, and the other Rachel Nyirahabiyambere, an African immigrant in Virginia. From Schindler’s column, “Killing More Than Just the Patient:” In [...]
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact