It's Happening Again (We've Got Another Schiavo, Starving In GA, No Brain-Damage)

Media Release | 4-6-05 | The Family of Mae Magouirk

[supercat]

[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.]

That is a horrible document. If I recall, the one she signed is formatted as you've indicated, but imagine if there were a list-end tag in front of the words "be withheld". How is anyone supposed to know which checkbox means what?

Note that if it's taken as though there were a list-end before "be withheld", that would mean that the middle box would say that people wanted to receive food but didn't want to receive water. Bizarre.

[Believer In Truth]

ok, I see what you're referring to. I'm seeing that it only applies to that particuliar section, which she did not enter a check mark in and is not a final statement in relationship to her intent....only in relationship to that one item.

The way it is worded confused me and I don't have any (known) mental disability. It's a horrible document and seems to be designed to totally confuse anyone! I'm thinking it was prepared in haste and equally requested to be signed at the same speed. Little time to truly understand what it is actually permitting.

[djreece]

Good news. Thank you!

[Cboldt]

I'm thinking a 3rd grader could have drawn it [Georgia Living Will] up better. Wonder if Beth put it together.

It's a model form. The exact same language is found at:

http://www.ilrg.com/forms/states/ga-livingwill.html <--
Georgia Model Langauge : Chapter 31-32, Section 3 <-- In GEORGIA LAW!

http://www.legis.state.ga.us/cgi-bin/gl_codes_detail.pl?code=31-32-3 <-- Repeat

[Cboldt]

It's a horrible document and seems to be designed to totally confuse anyone! I'm thinking it was prepared in haste and equally requested to be signed at the same speed.

The language was prepared by the Georgia legislature. They took their time with it. It is intentionally deceptive. Georgia dn Florida legilators are trying to confuse their constituents into giving up life sustaining basic care.

My guess is that if a Georgia resident were to rasie a ruckus with their state rep, the ruckus would result in NO change to the model language. The media won't make an issue of it.

Caveat emptor. Our leaders are out to get us in every way imaginable.

[supercat]

I disagree. Take all of the extra language out, and here is what Mae signed on to:

The formatting doesn't make sense for that interpretation. I would be very curious to know whether Gaddy had anything to do with the document being printed out and formatted as it was.

NOTE ALSO THE WORDING CHANGE IN AN UNCHECKED SECTION!

[Fred Nerks]

So, a relative can conspire with a euthenasia activist medical practitioner, have you committed to a hospice where, if you are not 'PVS' when you are admitted, you certainly will be by the time they have dosed you with enough sedation and morphine to 'prove' the diagnosis was 'correct' ?
Assisted by the fact that in a hospice, no treatment facilities exist to care for any underlying conditions, such as heart disease. Neat.

[supercat]

It's a model form. The exact same language is found at:

It's not the exact same language. Look closely.

Here's Mae's:

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;

Here's the law:

...I direct that the application of life-sustaining procedures to my body (check the option desired):

( ) including nourishment and hydration,

( ) including nourishment but not hydration, or

( ) excluding nourishment and hydration,

be withheld or withdrawn and that I be permitted to die;

Notice the difference?

[Cboldt]

The formatting doesn't make sense for that interpretation. I would be very curious to know whether Gaddy had anything to do with the document being printed out and formatted as it was.

The formatting increases the liklihood of critical confusion. The punctuation is unambiguous, but the choice of wording and the layout are designed to cause critical confusion (the person chooses a box that results in the OPPOSITE of their wishes).

I bet Gaddy had nothing to do with the formatting. If anything, Gaddy may have encouraged Mae to sign a living will, but the stock/model forms at 100% of the Georgia family law offices is EXACTLY like the one that Mae signed.

[supercat]

If anything, Gaddy may have encouraged Mae to sign a living will, but the stock/model forms at 100% of the Georgia family law offices is EXACTLY like the one that Mae signed.

See 2348, above. In addition to the formatting change, there's also a wording change. See it?

[Cboldt]

The difference is only the placement of the "be withheld or withdrawn and that I be permitted to die" phrase. Mae's version does have the "(check the option desired)" phrase, and omits the "or" following the first option ("including nourishment and hydration").

The language is identical in both the GA model and Mae's. Including the punctuation.

I agree that placing the "be withheld or withdrawn and that I be permitted to die" phrase in such a way that it appears associated with the third set of parenthses is misleading. But I am certain, positive, that my interpretation is the correct one.

Read this --> http://aging.dhr.georgia.gov/DHR-DAS/DHR-DAS_Publications/LivingWill.pdf <-- Do it now.

See page 11 of that "Understanding the Georgia Living Will" and you will agree with me. The booklet uses slightly different language, but has the same general structure. Page 11 has some helpful explanatory material that is deliberately ABSET from the document put before the pututive victims.

[Believer In Truth]

thank you for the site with the accurate format. However, it seems that the form Mae used was retyped from the printed form and apparently the person typing it errored in the placement of that phrase "to be withheld or withdrawn and that I be permitted to die". It shouldn't have remained attached to the last choice. It should have been separate following the choices.

I can only imagine how confused Mae might have been. If it were a test to evaluate one's mental capability, I would have failed.

(Hello, Dr.Feel Good. Can you reserve me a room at Loving Arms Hospice? I seem to have a mental disability. Oh, I don't? Only deminished capacity and that's terminal? Just put the X where? Oh, I see. I think I do anyway.)

[Cboldt]

So, a relative can conspire with a euthenasia activist medical practitioner ...

Or hospice can manipulate otherwise well intentioned, but morally weak family.

The law damn well won't help, that is abundantly clear.

[supercat]

The language is identical in both the GA model and Mae's. Including the punctuation.

No it isn't. Look again. Bear in mind that the language of unchecked portions can affect people's interpretation of checked ones.

[supercat]

However, it seems that the form Mae used was retyped from the printed form and apparently the person typing it errored in the placement of that phrase "to be withheld or withdrawn and that I be permitted to die".

The person also changed the wording on choice #2. Unless a person reading the form believed that people would rather be fed while they're dehydrated, rather than being hydrated while they're starved, I would expect such a person would perceive that "including" referred to services that should be provided, rather than services to be withheld.

[Cboldt]

See 2348, above. In addition to the formatting change, there's also a wording change. See it?

The recitation of Mae's document in 2348 is incorrect. It is not the same wording as appears on Mae's document. I have the PDF of Mae's living will open, and as far as I can tell, it is EXACTLY the same as the wording in the GA model form.

Point me to precisely the phrase that you see as different.

[Fred Nerks]

Poor Miss Mae. She must have believed that what she was signing meant that she was not to be denied nourishment and hydration. She ticked the box that says: 'Including nourishment and hydration'. She read the last box that says 'exluding nourishment and hydration, be withheld or withdrawn and that I be permitted to die' thinking it meant what it said: EXCLUDING!

Sadly funny how on the one hand the granddaughter maintains Miss Mae is suffering from from dementia, yet how on the other hand, she allowed her to literally sign her life away.

[pickyourpoison]

Anyone know when Mae signed the living will?

[supercat]

Point me to precisely the phrase that you see as different.

The second checkbox language, which could very easily affect the interpretation of someone reading the first checkbox.

[Cboldt]

I see one change, in the second option, and it is a MATERIAL difference ...

including nourishment but not hydration (model)
vs.
including hydration but not nourishment (Mae's)