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

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

(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.

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.

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***

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!

That living will needs to be looked at by a jury, I would think. Given that the wording on the second checkbox has been changed, I would think there should be basis for forcing the matter to a jury trial if interested. Given the formatting plus wording change, I don't think a jury would interpret the form as Gabby would want.

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

Thanks for pointing it out. I do hold though, that the document has a much deeper flaw. The phrasing of the model living will is very likely to result in critical confusion. It's easy to prove. Take the document to the mall and ask people to check the boxes, and ask them what they think it (their choice) means.

I do wording comprehension testing for a living. THere is no doubt in my mind that THIS language will FAIL that test.

That, plus the formatting, should be enough of a difference to at minimum throw out the presumption of validity, I would think. Would you agree?

Negative. Once signed, a document is upheld by the courts, unless it can be proven that the signer misunderstood it. Throwing Mae's will out would have the legal effect of throwing out ALL living wills based on that model. A court will not do that.

However, an objective test of the model language, where the results show a substantial liklihood of critical confusion, would be persuasive to legislators. I beleieve, however, that even a controlled proof of liklihood of confusion would not, on its own, result in any changes. Public/media pressure must alos (or even in the alternative) be brought to bear.

Legislators are as bad as judges when it comes to defending their work, not matter how crappy theor work is.

If the model wording is formatted correctly, including the indents as I have formatted it, its meaning is reasonably clear to anyone who reads carefully, though with some possibility for miscomprehension. Its clarity could be enhanced if the colon were replaced with an elipsis.

Mae's differs sufficiently from the model, however, as to cast considerable doubt upon its meaning and validity.

Given that Mae's will doesn't match the model, throwing it out would only have the effect of throwing out wills which differ from the model in the same way.

I noticed that alteration too. Someone either intended to mislead the meaning or just wasn't paying attention while retyping it to suit their individual intentions. A little obvious they didn't proofread it!

Thanks to all who helped clarify this question for me.

I know one thing for sure. I won't use Mae's format when I draft mine WILL TO LIVE.

I would suggest that perhaps a good tack would be to make certain aspects of required formatting explicit in the legislation. If formatted correctly, the model language is really not all that bad, though replacing a colon with an elipsis would improve it considerably.

In this way, the legislators would not have to admit that their earlier language was bad--merely recognize the possibility that some people might not recognize the importance of accurate formatting [or--though you don't have to say this--might recognize the opportunities awarded by inaccurate formatting].

That, plus the formatting, should be enough of a difference to at minimum throw out the presumption of validity, I would think. Would you agree?

You got me thinking though. Why would Mae's be different? You know what I think? I think some lawyer read the model, and decided "This can't be right. Who would do without water, but take food?" IOW, the lawyer read the include/exclude language "backwards." So, being a doer-of-good-deeds, a lawyer (who has just demonstrated critical confusion) changes the document so that a person who DID check the second box is saying, "give me food, but don't give me water." The lawyer figured the second box, revised, meant "give me water but not food."

That does evidence the liklihood of critical confusion. But it doesn't prove that Mae was critically confused. And even though the change "is material," it isn't material for Mae, because she didn't check that box.

I agree with you totally. I read it over and over again, there's no way in the world I would sign that piece of paper without consulting my lawyer first. It's deliberately confusing. The fact that it's mostly elderly people who would be using this form, makes me very very suspicious. The intent to confuse isn't the result of stupidity, it's deliberate!
Just sign here Granny, it's a LIVING WILL! And the poor old dear thinks she's doing something that will keep her ALIVE! She has no idea that she's going to be sedated and deprived of food and water, all she wants to say is, don't keep me on life support - and life support to most people still means an artificial respirator.
Pro-forma Living Wills are a death sentence. See a Lawyer!

If formatted correctly, the model language is really not all that bad ...

I disagree. I do langauge for warning labels where the stakes are much lower. The language of the Living Will could be MUCH better. The stakes are very high. Figure that the average person signing it has 8th grade education and 5th grade reading skills.

Pick one:
I direct that food and water be withheld until I die (probably of dehydration).
I direct that food be withheld until I die (maybe of starvation), but I want to have water.
I direct that water be withheld until I die (maybe of dehydration), but I want to have food.
Don't withhold food or water. I want to die of something other than dehydration or starvation.

I agree with you totally. I read it over and over again, there's no way in the world I would sign that piece of paper without consulting my lawyer first.

Dollars to donuts, a substantial number of people sign it without the benefit of competnet cousel, if any. The form is available for free on the internet.

Pro-forma Living Wills are a death sentence.

Promulgated by state legislatures.

When faced with a multiple-choice selection, the wording of selections not chosen will often influence people's interpretation of the question asked. If the form had the correct wording for choice #2, the selection posed thereby would seem odd to a careful reader. Such a person would then try to figure out how the form could be interpreted so that selection #2 made sense, and would then realize that the form as formatted is horribly ambiguous.

The parenthetical (check the option desired) is not part of the meaning of the main text; if the person filling out the form checks an option, it is clear that they understood the intended meaning even in the absense of such language. But the other change in language is on a material part of the form, and as such changes its meaning.

As a couple of examples where unchecked box labels can change the meaning of checked boxes, consider the following:

Marital status: ( ) Single ( ) Married

versus

Marital status: ( ) Single ( ) Married ( ) Widowed ( ) Divorced ( ) Separated

Would you like to purchase a CDW? (If you don't you could be liable for thousands of dollars in case of an accident. Are you sure you want to take that risk?)

Yes
No, I won't want the risk--I'll take the CDW

versus

Would you like to purchase a CDW? (If you don't you could be liable for thousands of dollars in case of an accident. Are you sure you want to take that risk?)

Yes
No, I won't want the CDW--I'll take the risk.

Note that in the latter case, the meaning of the "yes" option is completely changed by the wording of the "no" option.

The language of the Living Will could be MUCH better.

I agree that it certainly could be improved. But if the continuation of the sentence, starting with a lowercase letter, is outdented versus the list items, I think the meaning would be pretty clear to anyone who read closely (it would be possible that someone might check "including food and water" before reading the rest, but they'd be likely to realize their mistake). I don't think it necessary to invalidate living wills which are already signed if they are formatted clearly and correctly, though I would rather see something even clearer:

FEEDING TUBE:: ( ) Use if oral feeding is possible difficult; ( ) Use only if oral feeding is impossible; ( ) Do not use under any circumstances, even if non-use would result in starvation or dehydration
INTRAVENOUS HYDRATION:: ( ) Use when necessary to ensure adequate hydration; ( ) Do not use under any circumstances, even if non-use would result in dehydration
OXYGEN (non-pressurized): ( ) Use when necessary to ensure adequate respiration; ( ) Do not use, even if non-use would result in gradual or sudden asphyxiation
FORCED VENTILATION (mechanical breathing): ( ) Use when necessary to ensure adequate respiration and prevent asphyxiation; ( ) Use if necessary to supplement partial breathing capability, but do not use if there is no ability to breathe otherwise, recognizing that non-use in such circumstance would result in likely sudden asphyxiation; ( ) Do not use under any circumstances, even if such non-use would result in gradual or sudden asphyxiation.

All that seem pretty clear to you?

I see your point, but your last example is a crappy "question" because in each case, the selection has two qestions, and a person doesn't know for sure which question is being answered!

Would you like to purchase a CDW? (If you don't you could be liable for thousands of dollars in case of an accident. Are you sure you want to take that risk?)

So, which question am I answering? Would you like to purchase a CDW?, or Are you sure you want to take that risk?.

In contract, an important element to a finding of "contract" is a meeting of the minds. The words on paper usually hold, and their direct meaning is what is found. All that "plain English" requirement for property contracts? Driven because people were confused. Were the old contracts tossed out? Nope. You sign it, you live with it.

We agree completely that the language of the Living Will is confusing (at best). And I agree that the wording of unchecked boxes, heck ALL of the wording on a page, even parenthetical distractions, can mislead a reader. I know from experience that short, self-contained, unambiguous and unequivocal statements are the most "effective" form of communication. THey are the most likely to result in accurate communication of an idea or instruction. THis model Living Will was obviously written by a lawyer.

I'm a cynic. I don't expect changes for the better. Not coming from legislatures, not coming from courts. The people have to wise themselves up. They need to get educated, self-reliant, and moral. Change for the better comes from the bottom, up. A society that is run from the top down will last about as long as a company that is run that way.

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.