Posted on 04/07/2005 2:59:57 AM PDT by schmelvin
For Immediate release! To: All media, and supporters of life. From: The Family of Mae Magouirk Date: April 6, 2005 Contact: Kenneth Mullinax - Mockingbird@compuhelp.net
Shiavo case revisited in Georgia
Mae Magouirk…not comatose …not vegetative …not terminal
Why is Hospice LaGrange, Ga. withholding nourishment?
(LaGrange, Georgia) Mae Magouirk is being withheld nourishment and fluids and the provisions of her Living Will are not being honored at the Hospice-LaGrange, (1510 Vernon Street, LaGrange “Troup County” Georgia, 706-845-3905) a subsidiary of the LaGrange Hospital in LaGrange Georgia. Her family is desperately seeking to save her life before she dies of malnourishment and dehydration.
Mae Magouirk IS NOT comatose and she IS NOT vegetative. She is not terminal!
Despite these facts the Hospice and Beth Gaddy, a school teacher at LaGrange’s Calloway Middle School and granddaughter of Mae Magouirk have been denying her proactive nourishment or fluids (via a nose administered feeding tube or fluids via an IV) since March 28 without prior legal consent; against the wishes of her Living Will and against the wishes of Mae Magouirk’s closest living next of kin. Mae Magouirk’s next of kin are: Mr. A. B. McLeod (Her Brother) and Mrs. Lonnie Ruth Mullinax (Her sister) both of nearby Anniston, Alabama.
Under Georgia law, unless a medical durable power of attorney is in place, your closest living next of kin are stipulated to make all medical decisions. When Mae Magouirk’s closest living next of kin lodged a complaint with Hospice LaGrange’s in-house attorney Carol Todd last Thursday, March 31, Ms. Todd checked Mae Magouirk’s case file and upon examination of both documents discovered that Beth Gaddy DID NOT have the durable medical power of attorney for Mae Magouirk and upon closer examination of Mae Magouirk’s Living Will ascertained that fluids and nourishment were ONLY TO BE WITHHELD if she was either comatose or vegetative. SHE IS IN NEITHER STATE!!!
Nor is Mae Magouirk terminally ill. Her local LaGrange, Ga. cardiologist, Dr. James Brennan and Dr. Raed Aqel, a highly acclaimed interventional cardiologist at the nationally renowned University of Alabama-Birmingham Medical Center have determined that Mae Magouirk’s aortic dissection is contained and not presently life threatening.
Two weeks ago, Mae Magouirk’s aorta had a dissection and she was hospitalized in the LaGrange Hospital in LaGrange, Ga. Her aortic problem was at first determined to be severe and she was admitted in the intensive care Unit. Her granddaughter, Beth Gaddy, a teacher at the Calloway Middle School in LaGrange, stated that she held Mae Magouirk’s medical power of attorney and thus invoked said powers against the wishes of Mae Magouirk’s closest living next of kin by having her moved to Hospice-LaGrange. While at Hospice-LaGrange, Beth Gaddy stated that her wishes were for no nourishment for Mae Magouirk via a feeding tube or fluids via an IV. Before hospitalization Mae was lucid and never had been diagnosed with dementia as was testified to in Probate Court on Monday, April 4, by a local MD.
Page Two Mae Magouirk is being starved to death!
Upon learning from Hospice-LaGrange that Mae Magouirk was being denied nourishment and fluids and upon being told by Carol Todd (Hospice LaGrange’s in-house legal consul) that Beth Gaddy DID NOT HAVE THE PROPER LEGAL AUTHORITY to deny said nourishment AND that the denial of nourishment went against Mae Magouirk’s Living Will, Mae’s family (Mullinax/McLeod) ordered the immediate beginning of such nourishment/fluids for Mae to Hospice via Carol Todd.
First Contact with Hospice on Thursday, March 31 Carol Todd told Mrs. Lonnie Ruth Mullinax (Mae Magouirk’s sister) and Kenneth Mullinax (Mae Magouirk’s nephew) via phone on Thursday, March 31 that Georgia Law stipulated that Mrs. Mullinax and her brother A. B. McLeod (Mae Magouirk’s brother) were entitled to make any and all decisions for Mae Magouirk. Mrs. Mullinax immediately told Carol Todd to insert fluids via an IV and insert a feeding tube, via her nose. Carol Todd had the IV fluids started that evening but told the family that they would have to come to Hospice LaGrange to sign papers to have the feeding tube inserted and because of such, she believed that Mae Magouirk would no longer be a candidate for Hospice LaGrange. She was then told that Mae Magouirk’s family concurred and the ONLY REASON Mae was at Hospice was because the LaGrange Hospital had failed to exercise due diligence in closely examining the power of attorney which Beth Gaddy said she had, as well as executing the provisions of Mae’s Living Will to her preordained stipulations. Gaddy only had a financial power of attorney and did not have a medical power of attorney and Mae Magouirk’s Living Will provided that a feeding tube and fluids SHOULD ONLY BE DISSCONTINUED IF Mae was comatose or in a vegetative state. She was and is in neither state.
Attempt to rescue Mae on Friday denied by Probate Judge Donald Boyd On Friday, April 1, when A. B. McLeod (brother) and Kenneth Mullinax (nephew) showed up to meet with Carol Todd and to arrange emergency air transport of Mae Magouirk to the University of Alabama-Birmingham Medical Center (One of the top cardiovascular centers in the USA) Hospice LaGrange stalled them while Beth Gaddy went before Troup County Georgia (LaGrange, Ga.) Probate Judge Donald W. Boyd (who DOES NOT hold a law degree) who granted Beth Gaddy emergency guardianship of Mae Magouirk, giving Beth Gaddy full and absolute authority. Thus, they COULD NOT MOVE HER FOR PROACTIVE MEDICAL CARE Friday because Beth Gaddy had Hospice stop them and then she had Mae’s IV fluid tube pulled out. Beth Gaddy has repeatedly told Mr. McLeod, Mrs. Mullinax and Kenneth Mullinax that she feels they all should let Mae not eat and thus cause her to die because, and we quote Beth Gaddy: “Grandmamma is old and I think it is time she went home to Jesus. She has glaucoma, and now this heart problem and who would want to live with disabilities like these?”
As stipulated under Georgia Law, a hearing for an Emergency Guardianship, must be held within 3 days of its request and Mae Magouirk’s hearing was held on this past Monday, April 4, before Troup County Georgia Probate Judge Donald Boyd who favors granting Beth Gaddy permanent guardianship and thus will seal Mae Magouirk’s fate of allowing Beth Gaddy to starve her to death against the wishes of her Living Will and in full knowledge that Mae Magouirk is not terminal, not in a coma and is not in a vegetative state and that medical care at UAB Medical Center is awaiting her. Shiavo revisited!
Mae’s present state and vital signs Mae’s blood pressure is good, averaging 140/82 with a pulse rate of 88. However, since admission to Hospice she has not been lucid but who would be since nourishment and fluids have been denied since March 28, 2005. Also adding to her confusion is that she is off her regular medicines and is on a dose of Adavan and Morphine. Without food or water her electrolytes and body chemistry is not within its proper parameters. If her condition is not given major public attention soon, she will die, not by divine cause but by the omission of assistance by man. WE MUST GET Mae moved to UAB Medical ASAP
Resources: Probate Judge Donald Boyd…Court CASE NUMBER: Estate 138-05 Attorney for saving Mae’s life: Jack Kirby, Kirby & Roberts***
A 'Living Will' that's phrased as one's own death warrant!
Well, actually, and now that I read the entire form (the last phrase is the kicker), the checkbox that was marked results in the following statement:
I direct that the application of life-sustaining procedures to my body, including nourishment and hydration, be withheld or withdrawn and that I be permitted to die.
If a person wants to be fed and watered, the "excluding noirishment and hydration" box is to be checked, which results in the following, somewhat awkward statement:
I direct that the application of life-sustaining procedures to my body, excluding nourishment and hydration, be withheld or withdrawn and that I be permitted to die.
Mae is going to need to revoke this Living Will ASAP, unless she wants to be starved to death.
The example shown does not appear to be the same wording on Mae's Living Will. I can't see where it says, "be withheld or withdrawn and that I be permitted to die". There is nothing after the 5th item except a final statement, "I want this living will to be carried out". It appears to be a poorly worded document and quite confusing as to the intent, either way.
eeevil.....just checking to see how grandmae mae is doing; is Kenneth still not allowed to see her? Is she still in the hospital in Alabama? Is she doing okay? thanks.
Thank you, but I have in fact gotten a tad ugly at times when responding to what I perceived as a personal attack.
I took great care in selecting the title of this thread. I did not want to misrepresent the situation, but I also needed to get the right people to take notice
Well you did get them going. But the title, while certain to get the right folks mobilized will also serve to bring out those who are immediately leery of emotionally charged headlines. There were no less than twelve Magouirk threads here, but only a few had what I felt was motivated by something other than a desire to inform, such as "Granddaughter yanks grandma's feeding tube". Contrast that with "Woman 81, at center of feeding tube feud". The first is designed to create an opinion, the second is designed to provide information.
I also was careful to comment that I did not know if this was true or a hoax and then began investigating the allegations as soon as I could. Other FReepers joined in and immediately began investigating the matter as well.
And that's as it should be. That is the Freeper way. After all we all still remember CBS memogate, and the assistance provided by Freepers to the Swift Boat Vets and their wonderful work. What got some of us cranked here were the almost immediate judgments rendered, and the acrimonious and hateful comments aimed at those who questioned the quick judgments. Comments like "You are a Godless devil", You are just a DU troll", "You are without a soul", "You are part of the pro-death crowd", "Your mother is a______" (removed by the mods), and quite a few more. That is what people who question anything on either this or the Schiavo threads routinely put up with. As I said before, nothing since I joined FR has remotely approached this level of animosity with fellow Freepers.
It was not easy getting information regarding this case, especially in the beginning. We did what we could, with the information we had, the best way we knew how, and with the very best of intentions
I for one, never questioned yours or the other hard working freepers good intentions, and have said so. But I caution moving too fast on something where the information is still sparse. It's possible you will be helping the situation, but just as possible to be counterproductive. As you say, there was so much unknown at the time. But what was known was that Mae was being represented by a relative who at least knew the ropes and had attorneys. And we knew that a probate judge was involved, but not to the extent of the involvement.
Where were these critics during our early information gathering stage? If they knew so many concrete facts, why didn't they tell us? It's because they didn't know, and they didn't care enough to find out
I don't know who knew concrete facts other than those who were active on the save Mae side. They certainly chose sides quickly and again without the knowledge. They knew exactly who the good guys and bad guys were. The problem was that no one knew. The first clue should be a divided family. I've rarely heard of one that was clean anywhere.
Some voiced their early obections based on nothing but their own preconceived notions and willful ignorance, allowed others to do all the work and information gathering for them, and then came back later to play 20/20 hindsight gods of omniscience based on their biased interpretation of the facts we are all now privy to.
Well, I can't speak for anyone other than myself. I made no judgments on anyone from day one. I asked questions from those who already had cemented their opinions of the case. So, yes 20/20 hindsight is great, but its not always right to move too quickly, but if so, not necessary to reach a set of conclusions which can be challenged and later proved inaccurate. I'm reminded of the many threads on Bill Clinton in 98 and 99. One in particular comes to mind about Drudge's red siren on Clinton's love child. Most of us here ran with it like the winning football catch, but in the end the DNA did not substantiate it.
Beth Gaddy knew that Mae's condition could be treated successfully at UAB, but fought tooth and nail to keep Mae in that hopice.
You may be right on that. I am not aware that she knew that but relied on her doctor's recommendation.
Mae arrived at UAB severly dehydrated and malnourished.
Has that been confirmed by someone other than Ken? If so, then Ken should file a contempt motion with the judge against Gaddy.
Beth Gaddy will not allow any family members to visit Mae at UAB.
Do we know the circumstances yet? I've heard it but the judge has expressed doubts about those reports.
Beth Gaddy cannot be reached for comment.
I would like to hear what she has to say. I would have a host of questions for her, but I have heard she along with the judge has received numerous threats. Maybe she will permit her attorney to give a press conference. She needs to do this.
Please, explain to me how any reasonable person can be expected to believe that Ken is the bad guy in this situation and Gaddy is the loving devoted granddaughter?
Fair question and I believe the crux of this whole issue. First with respect to Gaddy, in all of the threads I saw, I believe I remember one poster actually say that he/she thought that Gaddy was a good guardian and was simply being crucified. Everyone else was either neutral since we didn't know the facts, or actually ready to crucify Gaddy. I still don't know, but there is much to indicate she has not acted in Mae's best interest. On the other hand, the one mitigating factor would be that Mullinax and family all agreed to name Gaddy as temporary guardian, and the agreement was apparently written by Mullinax' attorney. I'm confident that if Mae becomes lucid and can speak, she may be able to do much to clarify all of this.
As for Mullinax, again, I saw few posters who condemned him, but many including myself who questioned his motives. When Ken began this campaign, the terms of the agreement were in effect and apparently working. If not he should have immediately petitioned for an emergency hearing. Instead, on Wednesday, he authors a press release entitled "New Starving Case In Georgia", and uses his contact list he has by virtue of his political position and sends this to as many outlets as possible. This on its face raises a lot of questions, and apparently set off the judge who believed at that time that all of the family members were in accord.
Since that time, Mullinax has saturated the talk show circuit but apparently has yet to file any motion with the judge. It is not evil to ask why?
If Ken had been a Republican instead of a Democrat, would he then be considered a good guy? Do petty politics now matter more to us than the principles we hold most dear?
I hope not. And for those who began questioning Mullinax' motives, most of us were unaware of his political life until the last couple of days. Perhaps its his political experience that led to what appears to be poor judgment, in that a politician (Republican or Democrat) cares about visibility first and foremost.
Should we ignore a desperate plea to save the life of an innocent woman, because that plea came from the mouth of an icky, icky Democrat? Is that what we've come to?
I don't think so and I certainly hope not. But as I have stated earlier, if Mullinax had been straightforward from the beginning and we all knew the terms of the court order as it was agreed to by everyone, and knew that three doctors were examining her...none of this would have ensued. Hope that better explains us ankle biters!
No kidding. Legislators get all out of shape on property contracts that don't read in plain english, but the same dirty SOB's legislate model language that is confusing. I think the Florida model living will in unconsionable, due to use of misleading terms of art. The Georgia model Living Will sucks too, IMO.
Legislatures need to be pressured to change the model language. There should be media attention to make the public aware of the misleading language in these as well, using the actual model language. I can easily see most people being fooled by the language in these.
This coordinated attempt to dupe people out of their lives is beyond maddening.
Here it is:
1.) If at any time I should:
( ) have a terminal condition.
(X) become in a coma with no reasonable expectation of regaining consciousness, or
(X)become in a persistent vegetative state with no reasonable expectation of regaining significant congnitive function as defined in... Code of Georgia.
Annoted, I direct the application of life-sustaining procedures to my body:
(X) including nourishment and hydration, or
( ) including hydration but not nourishment, or
( ) excluding nourishment and hydration, be withheld or withdrawn and that I be permitted to die;
2. In the absence of my ability to give directions regarding the use of such life sustaining procdures, it is my intention that this living will shall be honored by my family and physician(s) as the final expression of my legal right to refuse medical or surgical treatment and accept the consequences from such refusal;
[So, I was wrong when I worried that Mae could be denied nourishment and hydration if she slips into a coma. She has set up her living will to protect her from being starved and dehydrated if she is PVS or in a coma. Although, it is not clear to me if this means that she CAN be denied nourishment and hydration if she is declared terminally ill.]
The only place I see the phrase " that I be permitted to die" is in the section she didn't check. Too confusing to this lay mind. No wonder people should have a lawyer they "trust completely" help them with the directives.
I agree, a new document, properly prepared, would be best for Mae.
It's just above the "2." on page one of the Living will. That phrase appears (also misleading due to its placement ONLY here, and not also as part of each of the other options, BTW) as part of the phrase following the third pair of parenthesis.
freepmail to you
You are right, she should be OK. I went back and took a look at Mae's living will (and posted a portion of the document in my post #2,327).
I'm not a lawyer, but I got the impression that Mae can't be starved and dehydrated if she is PVS or in a coma, but that she could be if she was declared terminally ill. (Which might explain why Gaddy fought so hard to keep Mae in the hospice.)
I disagree. Take all of the extra language out, and here is what Mae signed on to:
If at any time I should become in a coma with no reasonable expectation of regaining consciousness, or become in a persistent vegetative state with no reasonable expectation of regaining significant cognitive function, I direct that the application of life-sustaining procedures to my body, including nourishment and hydration, be withheld or withdrawn and that I be permitted to die.
I once picked up a stray dog in the street. I couldn't keep it because I already had several pets. I took the animal, a healthy young dachshund to the local RSPCA (Royal Society for the Protection of Animals) and they gave me a form to fill in. As the finder, I had to give more detailed information than on that "Living Will' document, I was placed in the position of being required to make a statuary declaration as to how and where I found the animal, sign over any rights to the animal and declare that I agreed not to seek recompense....blah blah blah...it went on for several pages!
Forgive me if I am now of the opinion that animals have more 'human rights' than the elderly in the USA do.
The standard form of that 'Living Will' document is a travesty, it would not pass muster at the RSPCA!
Heheheh. Florida's is even worse, believe it or not.
It is a deliberate deception, wrought by state legislators. Also, Medicade (Medicare? one of the two) federal regulations encourage hospice abuse. Yet another example of "Hi. I'm from the government, and I'm here to help you."
What is missing on that clause that Mae signed onto is WHO is it that makes that finding?
Is it to be at the behest of a relative? Her physician? One or more medical professionals?
Who makes the diagnosis? The wording of that clause is what leaves the door wide open. TO OPINION!
BREAKING DEVELOPMENT
Tomorrow morning, Attorney Jack Kirby of LaGrange, Ga., will file a monition before Judge Boyd, on behalf of A. B. McLeod, which will ask the Judge to order Beth Gaddy to allow her Grandmother's brother and sister (A. B. McLeod, Lonnie Ruth Mullinax) visitation rights at UAB Hospital. Stay tuned.
BREAKING DEVELOPMENT
Tomorrow morning, Attorney Jack Kirby of LaGrange, Ga., will file a monition before Judge Boyd, on behalf of A. B. McLeod, which will ask the Judge to order Beth Gaddy to allow her Grandmother's brother and sister (A. B. McLeod, Lonnie Ruth Mullinax) visitation rights at UAB Hospital. Stay tuned.
clears up that thought...thank you. I'm thinking a 3rd grader could have drawn it up better. Wonder if Beth put it together. Between her handwriting and apparent lack of integrity that she has displayed, I'd worry if I had any children in her class.
A different thought: Do you feel that Beth intentionally meant to understate Mae's financial worth when she listed the assets on the court documents? She is short on the total by $100,000. I'm wondering why it wasn't corrected if reviewed by the judge....ummm.
Absent clarification, the opinion of one qualified (licensed) medical doctor is enough to trigger the operation of the Living Will.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.