A fair question, even if is appears that my answer may already have been prejudged.
If you look back at the very earliest posts on the Mae Magouirk case on the 3 or 4 early threads, you will find me simply questioning the sole source of information being Ken and the sole report being WND. Now I don't know Ken personally as one poster here does, but the questions I posed then did not denigrate Ken nor acquit Gaddy. I wanted to know the substance of any court order, and some corroboration of statements purportedly made by Gaddy.
I took exception to the very titles on the threads which clearly seemed to make this case another Schiavo affair, which of course it wasn't. I simply urged caution in blindly accepting what was being said by only one side as gospel.
I was completely unaware of the substance of the court order which seems to have addressed almost every concern here, except the guardianship issue. I was not aware of the ordered doctor reviews, the order for nutrition, the fact that the order itself was actually written by Mullinax' attorney, the fact that Mae was receiving some food and water (ice), and the fact that all parties hugged at the end of the signing of the agreement.
I felt from the beginning that some information appeared to be missing, and a search for the whole story was not out of line. It is certainly no secret that Mullinax conducted a lot of interviews, and in so doing failed to mention these obviously important facts.
I am not smarter than Mullinax and likely most Freepers. Raw emotions, IMO, ruled from the beginning, emotions still high after the death of Terri. If you go back and read some of the very early posts on the various threads you will see that judgments were quickly made concerning Gaddy, the judge and the hospice. Everything Ken said was gospel, and everything else was irrelevant. My first reaction was similar to most. But I know WND, and I know its agenda, and begin to ask questions to see if my first reaction was valid. It was not. I feared some of the same extreme reaction that I saw in the Schiavo case resurfacing once again. I rejected defacing of American flags, desecration of crucifixes, death threats, unconstitutional federal intervention, Nazi death camp pictures with the usual Hitler comparisons.
So, I guess my answer is that I would have done pretty much what I did do, but perhaps less visibly. There is little doubt that as some have opined, Free Republic has changed. The Schiavo and Magouirk cases have sharply divided Freepers, far more than the usual combative issues like Libertarianism, creationism, drugs and taxes. And since we here at FR are a microcosm of the rest of the conservative county, I hope it does not portend a long lasting rift that will have negative electoral impacts. The left will certainly try and drive a wedge.
My apologies to anyone offended by my remarks or questions. I have nothing but the greatest respect for those who will spend their resources saving lives. But at the same time you must recognize those who might disagree with some methods. We are not Godless Satans who have lost our souls forever as we have been characterized.
And for those who work for better hospice care, Bravo. For those who would work to see state laws changed to better reflect hospice conditions, living wills, guardianship rules, advances in technology, distinguishing between life support and feeding mechanisms, etc., I applaud you, as these are the things that will bring real reform to an obviously abused system of elder care.
I appreciate your taking my request seriously and taking the time to compose it.
I'm sorry if you took my quote that you posted at the top to mean your answer would be prejudged. The quote You copied, I am pretty sure, is how many have felt. It was only fair to stop the back and forth and say, "Look, this is the way you are coming off, is that what you meant, because if it was, there is no where that we can BOTH go with this."
I have some responses to your post, but first(now that there is a lull, I can go back and read the threads) I am taking your suggestion and reading back over your comments and the various threads.
Once again, I do appreciate your response. I am sure I am not the only one.
I think you have at least tried to be fair, level-headed, and honest on this thread. You've asked some reasonable questions and have refrained from getting ugly when you disagree with others.
Re: Your comment about this thread's title:
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. I needed to get this thread posted in the "Latest News on Terri Schiavo" section to keep it from being overlooked and getting buried. 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.
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. Much more information has been coming out in the aftermath; information that we could've only known back then if we'd all had crystal balls that enabled us to see the future. Some people are now attempting to criticize us based on their interpretation of court documents that none of us had access to until recently.
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. 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.
Here are some facts:
* Beth Gaddy knew that Mae's condition could be treated successfully at UAB, but fought tooth and nail to keep Mae in that hopice.
* Mae arrived at UAB severly dehydrated and malnourished.
* Beth Gaddy will not allow any family members to visit Mae at UAB.
* Beth Gaddy cannot be reached for comment.
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?
I read those court documents. This is not just a case of Ken's word against Beth's . Buddy and Lonnie's sworn statements back up everything that Ken is saying. It was Buddy and Lonnie who asked Ken to become involved after they became concerned that the doctors were dragging their feet while Mae was being denied proper medical care, adequate nutrition, and adequate hydration. How does this make Ken the bad guy?
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? 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?
That may offend you intellectually. That's okay. Such blind adherence and belief in 'process will win the day' is intellectually offensive to me. People, with all of their agendas, motivations, and machinations, run that process. That means Ken, Beth, the Judge, You and 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. 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. I perfectly understand Kenneth’s panic that the docs were taking too long. 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. I’m glad I took the time to read your posts. It was worth it to get the clarity on your position.