Posted on 04/07/2005 2:59:57 AM PDT by schmelvin
In medical and legal circles, a "terminal illness" or condition is one which is determined by your physician will cause death in 6 months regardless of the treatment rendered.
They just put it up a little early--
I didn't copy it down- I was so tired- I figured I would jst get a bit later-
It will be back up-- it just got put up too soon because it was sent to richard to ask him to review it- not post it yet- so anyway- it will be up soon I am sure.
Some would say that natural death by dehydration fits that definition.
The narrow point of discussion was whether or not Mae Mcgouirk "is terminal." RGSpinach says she is. RGSpinach asserted at 2494 that Mae is presently in a terminal condition due to her dissection. RGSpinach also notes, pehaps in jest, that "terminal" is not a medical term.
At the time of Mae's admission to hospice, Dr. Stout presumably held the medical opinion that Mae was terminal. We don't know if Dr. Stout holds the same opinion today.
At this point, the discussion between RGSpinach and me is reduced to semantics, so I decided to make light of it then cease.
He indicated that days ago, in an e-mail or other frank expression. All that is happening now is the formailzation or implementation of his decision.
If he is now recusing, it means the Court is now facing a motion. That is, the controversy is now at the bench.
Yes- exactly
Lonnie Ruth and A. B. (Alonzo), Mae's brother and sister filed yesterday am for visitation.
Now he can "officially" request to be recused.
Be careful what you wish for. Boyd is a good and decent judge from what I've seen. The fact that he is not lawyer should be a plus in the circles here.
I understand what you are saying- but I gotta tell you-- considering all I know- Boyd did the right thing. I don't mean to sound secreative- but I just can't tell everything I know. It has been burning my conscience- and I don't like that....
I want what is best for Mae- I hope this turns out to be a good decision for Mae's sake.
I know, Fred.
Will he act on this before recusing himself, if he does recuse himself?
Or is this just more delay for the people in Mae's family who actually LOVE HER and want to hold her and comfort her and let her know that beth, who would have cast her into death, is NOT going to be her only visitor?
Such delays in ruling are NOT the STUFF of JUSTICE in my mind. Mae may VERY well feel like a victem as she lays in that hospital room with no one to visit but her would be executioner.
NO, it is not a delay tactic.
I hate to say "trust me" when I realize that I am just a name on a screen, but I just can't reveal everything.
Even if I did- I am just a name on a screen still.
Judge Boyd has been VERY honest about this.
He doesn't understand why Gaddy is acting like this.
He can't see what GOOD reason she would have.
Realizing that he feels this way about Beth Gaddy, and then what he feels about Kenneth, he is being wise here. He doens't want to bring BIAS into his decisions.
I admire that...
GEORGIA UNIFORM RULES FOR THE PROBATE COURT
Rule 19. Recusal.
19.1. Motions
All motions to recuse or disqualify a judge presiding in a particular case or proceeding shall be in writing, accompanied by an affidavit asserting the facts upon which the motion is founded, and timely filed. Filing and presentation to the judge shall be not later than 5 days after the affiant first learned of the alleged grounds for disqualification, and not later than 10 days prior to the hearing or trial which is the subject of recusal or disqualification, unless good cause be shown for failure to meet such time requirements. In no event shall the motion be allowed to delay the trial or proceeding.
As far as I know, no judge's decision to be recused is reversible. That he, he needn't request it. He needs no permission. All he needs is a reason.
From your comments, his reason is either that he no longer feels he can render an unbiased decision, or that his public expressions ("anger" with Ken) render his impartiality suspect. I am certain that judges face conduct that they "don't understand" every day, e.g., why the party would act a certain way. That doesn't prevent making a reasoned decision.
It was unprofessional of Boyd to make any public comment regarding the case, other than what is expressed in open court and in written decisions. Even though ALL judges are biased, the professional charade that they are not is supposed to be maintained.
I believe he is recusing on his own. I do not believe there is any motion for recusal.
That sounds right to me-- just telling you what I know..
I certainly appreciate the effort you are making to keep us informed.
My (sometimes) nitpicky nature is (hopefully) useful to flesh out the unfolding details of both fact and law. The vast majority of corrections I make are meant to illuminate, not to argue.
After reading Post 2531 again, I understand.
Thanks
Your reasoning on these things is very helpful..
I have to say- sitting here and "knowing" certain things is harder than I thought it would be.
I really have to be careful and make decisions that are hard.
I have to continuously challenge myself to be sure to keep priorities straight. Breaking news is nice and fun- but not at the expense of hurting people...
Especially people like Mae....
Thanks!!!
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.