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***
The background of the financial POA has not been discussed.
The notary's commission expired on 2/11/05. The POA is dated 8 April 2004.
"Mae granted her POA on 2/11/05. Is there a reason given for this or anyone know why?
The notary's commission expired on 2/11/05. The POA is dated 8 April 2004."
My fax paus. :-)
Negative. You are misconstruing the documents.
I sense that Boyd felt there was an urgency to her medical eval. and that the other issues could be decided (45 days out) pending the outcome of Mae's treatment.
45 days is a boilerplate duration. The only issues before the court were course of treatment (to be, and was decided by a panel of doctors); and who was to be temporary/emergency guardian. I read that "Mae's side" is going to petition the court to order Gaddy the guardian to permit them to visit Mae. It has been reported that Gaddy the guardian has ordered that "Mae's side" be denied visitation, nad have no access to doctor's observations or opinions.
I did not accuse you of calling anyone a murderer and told you that I respect folks who work for a cause. Nor did I accuse you of being part of a circus. But those things happened nontheless. Please see my other response earlier to see a few of the examples.
That may offend you intellectually. That's okay. Such blind adherence and belief in 'process will win the day' is intellectually offensive to me.
And such blind "run with the first report" adherance to rush to judgment is intellectually offensive to me.
If you feel that a woman's life is not worth the effort, and that effort only involving emails and phone calls, then there are fundamental differences in our priorities that frankly preclude me from spending anymore time with you on this issue.
First, you asked me, I didn't ask you. I respected an earlier post from you telling me that I irritated you, but I refrained from responding. I left it at that. You asked me later to give a complete explanation and now you can say this?
And this has nothing to do with a woman's life. It has everything to do with a little rational and intelligent behavior. There is nothing all of these threads accomplished other than to churn up a lot of animosity among Freepers. As I have asked before, What would you have done if Ken had told you the truth about the Monday hearing and the fact that several doctors were then examining her, and that her disposition would be determined by them? What would you have done if you knew that the agreement was quite detailed with respect to the nourishment requirements for Mae and that the agreement was written by Ken's attorney?
You make the assumption like so many here that if we question something, we are pro-death, or don't care about life. Self righteousness does not always lead to good decision making.
Time was of the essence, period. That was evidenced by the extensive re hydration therapy Mae needed and the fact that the Doctor’s did not move in a timely manner
If either of those was the case, then Ken should have filed for an emergency hearing with the judge and entered a motion for contempt by the guardian. Instead he writes up a completely misleading press release on Wednesday and goes public by conducting a series of talk shows, I guess feeling that this was superior to going back into court, which any thoughful intelligent person would have done. Why did Ken feel that Glenn Beck had more legal authority than the judge?
And before the ASAP issue rears it’s head, it would be the reasonable expectation that considering what was hanging in the balance the doctors would get a move on.
One last time...if the ASAP was not appropriate, why did Ken put it into the agreement? If Mae was not receiving hydration, why did Ken not alert the judge? If the doctors were moving too slowly Why did Ken even fail to mention the doctors, and again take legal action?
While you're busy condemning me, think about those things.
The medical terms "aneurism" and "dissection" are being uttered by people that are not trained in medicine. At this point, my belief is that Mae has a dissection, and some people use the term aneurism as a synonym. We don't have any direct medical testimony, so my contention is speculation. But I think Mae has just one serious heart/circulatory condition. I have no idea what the correct medical terminology for that condition is.
"Whether dementia or some other cause, both indicated and appear to agree the condition is "permanent."
"Negative. You are misconstruing the documents."
Petition for guardianship by Gaddy, fax page number 13
Petition for guardianship by Ken folks, fax page 27
Both documents...Duration of incapacity: Permanent.
That's whats stated in the documents. What does this mean?
The date Mae signed the POA was April 8, 2004. The date you referenced was the date that the notary's commjission expires. And as to what's been submitted thus far, no reason has been given as to why she gave GD the POA.
I see it. I think it's legal effect is an assertion by both parties than Mae will have a guardian until she petitions a court and shows that she does not need a guardian.
I take it you hold that the words "The duration of the incapacity will be permanent," appearing on page 3 of the respective Petitions for the Appointment of an Emergency Guardian for an Alleged Gravely Incapacitated Adult, are a medical prognosis.
Gaddy's actions and orders after the first 48 hours were not aimed at treating the medical condition. Gaddy, hospice and Dr. Stout all assert that Mae belongs in hospice, and that medical treatment of the dissected aorta is not in Mae's best interests.
They litigated vigoursly for that outcome. They do not act as though they are happy that Mae is being treated. Denial of family access is vindictive. I expect they will fight and litigate with the objective of getting Mae back to hospice.
Given the bad PR so many doctors receive it would be nice to think her doctors aren't "playing or thinking they're God" or just seeking to make a buck and a name for themselves.
We earn our reputations and PR by our words and actions. Obviously, the doctors and lawyers in this case are on diametrially opposite sides. One side wants to deny Mae medical treatment, and they are justifying their position. The other side wants Mae's medical condition to be treated, and they too are justifying their position.
"I see it. I think it's legal effect is an assertion by both parties than Mae will have a guardian until she petitions a court and shows that she does not need a guardian."
That's how I would "construe" it. ;-)
From the below forms and instructions, I conclude that the term "permanent" in the Petition for the Appointment of an Emergency Guardian is a concession that the duration of guardianship will be greater than 45 days. I.e., that the maximum (45 day) duration of emergency/temporary guardianship is shorter than the expected duration of incapacity.
That isn't much of a concession on Mae's part. Her sister was held in a hospital for more than 45 days when she had her dissected aorta.
http://forms.lp.findlaw.com/form/courtforms/state/ga/ga000046.pdf <--
"Denial of family access is vindictive."
It's likely both sides feel the other is doing or has done something underhanded. It's turning into a tug-o-war with poor granny stuck in the middle.
Seems like Ken ticked off the judge a bit too by circumventing the court and going to the public?
Smartaleck: That's how I would "construe" it.
That's a change from your previous assertion.
"Whether dementia or some other cause, both indicated and appear to agree the condition is "permanent."
I'm sure the judge was angry. He said as much, that Ken was misrepresnting himself, etc.
But it is not the judge that ordered no visitation.
It's likely both sides feel the other is doing or has done something underhanded.
My money is on Gaddy feeling guilty, angry, and frightened she will be found out. Of course, Gaddy feels justified in denying visitation, and Gaddy appears to prefer Mae in hospice over Mae receiving medical treatment for her dissection. Gaddy is erring on the side of death. That posture seems to be in Gaddy's best interests.
I'm starting to wonder if my living will is going to protect me against the state and greedy relatives.
Not splitting hairs at all. The term "permanent" in the form in question either has a legal meaning, deliniating a line of expected 45 days of incapacity (that is how I construe it, and supported my construction with citations); or has a meaning that reflects a medical diagnosis and prognosis.
If you insist that this is hair splitting, then I am inclined to conclude my contribution to our dialoge.
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.