Posted on 04/07/2005 2:59:57 AM PDT by schmelvin
OUTRAGEOUS!
Beth Gaddy should be SUED for failure to see that PROPER MEDICAL ATTENTION was given to her grand mother. And she should be charged with CRIMINAL INTENT.
SHE LIED ABOUT HAVING MEDICAL POWER OF ATTORNEY.
SHE TRIED TO HAVE HER GRAND MOTHER KILLED.
HOSPICE HOLDS RESPONSIBILITY IN THIS MATTER, and deserved to be investigated.
If you insist that this is hair splitting, then I am inclined to conclude my contribution to our dialoge.
"Whether dementia or some other cause, both indicated and appear to agree the condition is "permanent."
That's in the documents of both parties as you have seen. Nothing to split, it's right there, both parties.
What the legal interpretation of this may be another matter, but they agreed to the wording.
That's in the documents of both parties as you have seen. Nothing to split, it's right there, both parties.
The phrase you quote, "agree the condition is permanent" is not in either document. The quote above is YOUR interpretation, which you are entitled to.
What the legal interpretation of this may be another matter
It appears that my words are not making an accurate impression in your mind. Good day.
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.
I did not say that you had accused me. I simply clarified that there were those of us who participated in this effort that did so in a respectful, calm manner. Contrary to how we have been portrayed. .
And such blind "run with the first report" adherance to rush to judgment is intellectually offensive to me.
LOL, see that is what I mean. I don’t think I or the other freepers did “blindly” “rush” anywhere or into anything. You, on the other hand do. .
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?
Yes, I can say this. It is the conclusion I came to after reading your posting history on this subject. Not just to me and not just on this thread. I took that effort upon myself because of your insistence that all you have done is calmly cautioned and advised prudence and that your effort was resulting in your being misunderstood.
And this has nothing to do with a woman's life.
Again, it has everything to do with a woman’s life, the fact that you will not or cannot affirm that is a fundamental divergence in our understanding of this matter and the significance of the Freeper involvement.
It has everything to do with a little rational and intelligent behavior.
There. We or I , whichever you prefer, are not rational and are behaving in a less than intelligent manner. Are we not to respond to that as an insult?
There is nothing all of these threads accomplished other than to churn up a lot of animosity among Freepers.
Well, it seems that those who do not wish to be involved in these efforts have made a wise choice to boycott these threads. I have to wonder, once it was apparent that this was an action oriented thread why you persisted. That is well within your Jim Robinson given rights as a Freeper. However, you own a part of that animosity generating activity.
You don’t like dittoing. Well you certainly are not being dittoed on these threads.
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?
I would have said, it’s Wednesday, what the heck are they taking so long with?
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?
I would have said, that’s great that you got that in there, Ken, are they following it, is it more than jello and ice chips? (I know, we could probably scrap all day on this point about the jello and ice chips,(but we wont) that will never be nourishment to me for a lady in that situation.)
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.
And here is another quote from you on self-righteousness, “The self righteous cannot tolerate another view. They must resort to insults rather than face the possibility of having drawn erroneous conclusions.”( Illness splits woman's kin (this is about Mae Magouirk) Posted by MACVSOG68 to TigersEye On News/Activism 04/13/2005 11:29:42 AM EDT · 89 of 95)
This actually is a good stopping point. Did you for once consider that your position could be characterized as ‘self-righteous’?
While you're busy condemning me and others, think about that.
If you would like some sample posts, I would be happy to oblige.
LOL, see that is what I mean. I don’t think I or the other freepers did “blindly” “rush” anywhere or into anything. You, on the other hand do.
Again, would be pleased to provide sample posts.
And this has nothing to do with a woman's life.
Again, it has everything to do with a woman’s life, the fact that you will not or cannot affirm that is a fundamental divergence in our understanding of this matter and the significance of the Freeper involvement.
Had you used the entire quote, I think your response would have had to be quite different.
I have to wonder, once it was apparent that this was an action oriented thread why you persisted.
If you will look back, you will see that after your post to me telling me that I was irritating all you folks, I let it go and went on to other threads. You posted me and requested explanations of my POV. I did not post to you. So in response, I received a number of other posts, to which I responded. Is that unacceptable on your action threads?
I would have said, it’s Wednesday, what the heck are they taking so long with?
And would you then have gone to the judge requesting an emergency hearing, feeling that the doctors were not following the court order, or would you have done like Ken did, prepare a press release leaving out most relevant information, but leaving in just enough to get the activists all cranked up?
I would have said, that’s great that you got that in there, Ken, are they following it, is it more than jello and ice chips? (I know, we could probably scrap all day on this point about the jello and ice chips,(but we wont) that will never be nourishment to me for a lady in that situation.)
So if you were that concerned about Mae's lack of nourishment and you were Ken, would you not then have requested an emergency hearing to file a contempt motion rather than spend your time writing press releases and going on a whirlwind talk show circuit? Seems strange that Ken's concerns over all of these things have failed to lead him to the one and only province that could have brought resolution to his concerns, Judge Boyd's courtroom!
And while you ignored most of my post 2259 to you including my apologies to anyone whom I have offended and proffering my appreciation to the many who are actively working for reforms, I understand. I suppose it's best to paint the other side as completely evil, not just partially so.
This actually is a good stopping point. Did you for once consider that your position could be characterized as ‘self-righteous’?
I agree, it is a good stopping point, and I hope you remember that quote on the self righteous. Because it is those who recoil at the reasonable questions of others because they know they are on a holy crusade who are the true self righteous.
AmericanThinker.com has a new article today titled
THE PRO-DEATH MOVEMENT
[SNIP] The acceptance by society of the killing of unborn babies has had a tremendous impact on the deterioration of our view of the sanctity of life, and this lack of respect for life has not been limited to the unborn. In 1982, a baby known only as "Baby Doe" was born with Down Syndrome in Bloomington, Indiana. In addition to Down Syndrome, Baby Doe was born with a connection between the esophagus and windpipe, which prevented food from reaching the stomach.
A routine operation could have corrected the problem involving the esophagus, but because the baby had Down Syndrome, the parents refused to allow the operation, choosing instead to starve the baby to death, which the Supreme Court of Indiana ruled they had a right to do. Many families offered to adopt the baby; however, the parents refused, and the child died seven days after birth. [END SNIP]
Article here:http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=4410
BREAKING DEVELOPMENT
Tomorrow morning, Attorney Jack Kirby of LaGrange, Ga., will file a motion 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.
Does that mean that this morning some decision should've been reached? I haven't seen any updates regarding this motion Mae's brother filed, maybe it's been settled, maybe it's still ongoing. Does anyone know the staus of this?
It dawned on me today that we may not get any updates for awhile... or maybe ever, due to Beth Gaddy's demands and "terms" under which she will condescend to allow Mae's family to visit.
*Gag* me.
I read on blogsforterri, that Ken and the family refuse to agree to the gag order that Gaddy has proposed.
Ken said, "Although I originally desired to get some input and suggestions on whether or not to accept Beth's offer, I have since decided late tonight that to accept Beth's offer would hinder my ability to be an advocate for Mae's life, and so must reject any such restrictions or conditions."
You can read Ken's entire email here:
http://www.blogsforterri.com/
Under the heading: Email Message From Ken Mullinax on current situation Late Night Update
Another thing I'm wondering...
Is The Alabama Advocacy Center at the University of Alabama Law School still investigating Mae's case for elder abuse? Have they found anything yet?
CHECK THE DATES! The judge awareded Gaddy temporary emergency guardianship on FRIDAY-- UNTIL the hearing on Minday-- THIS IS WHAT I WAS TALKING ABOUT! THe things you reference were introduced on Monday... then the family came to an agreement before the judge ruled- so Gaddy stayed on..
Sorry for the confusion--I did not explain that I was refering to FRIDAY.
It's looking like you have very good reason to worry, as sad as that is.
"Petition for guardianship by Gaddy, fax page number 13
"..Duration of incapacity: Permanent.
"Petition for guardianship by Ken folks, fax page 27
"..Duration of incapacity: Permanent.
That's what I see. What do you see?
Don't know anything yet. Maybe kenneth will update later tonight?
If she is permanently disabled in some way....so what? Apparently she can still verbalize the words "I'm hungry!"
Go to this website for the latest information on Mae's condition, note she was in no way comatose or in a persistand vegetative state, and also note that the Hospice attorney said that IF a feeding tube is put into her nose, she will not be able to STAY at the hospice...hmmmm.....wonder why? Terri had a feeding tube...for almost FIVE LONG YEARS inat the WOODSIDE Hospital euthanasia hellhouse.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43763
Research done on Mae and her la grange hospice uncovers a relationship with the Suncoast Hospice of Woodside...OH PUKE....this is all just sick.
You have mail
Hey Fred! What''s going on?
Hi judgemc! I don't know anything more about Miss Mae other than what we can all read on this thread and from the various links provided to worldnetdaily and straightupwsherri, have you the links saved or do you want me to post them for you?
*bump* Ken coming up on Hannity & Colmes. I think after the 9:20 commercial break.
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.