Posted on 04/07/2005 2:59:57 AM PDT by schmelvin
The whole purpose of these living wills is to have permission to kill people WITHOUT going into court!
I've put people in the position of reading an instruction, and following it. Everybody, 100%, wqants to "pass the test." Everybody, 100%, will act as though they "get it," even if they don't. It's human nature, plus we are conditioned to want to "pass the test."
If you really wonder if your proposed language is comprehended, put it to the test. Figure out a way to put it in front of people, and have them express the meaning of each phrase in their own words. Don't lead them to the answer YOU want.
I've done that with "documents" of under 25 words, and have been humiliated to find that words perfectly clear to me are perfectly confounding to the general public.
That is correct. And the language is designed so most signers will "agree" to be killed by withholding of food and water. It is a deliberate deception on the public.
AMEN!
supercat,
I could not cut and paste the efax of Mae's living will. I had to type it and I'm a terrible typist. Mae's living will DID have the (check the option desired) part before each section where you see items selected with an "X". I didn't type that in my post of the document. I missed it entirely, because I had to enlarge the fuzzy document a lot to be able to read it. I didn't see the (check option desired) parts until I went back to look at the living will in a smaller font, but it IS there.
All you lawyers: You have permission to slap me now.
[1967] The first living will is written by the Euthanasia Society of America, and attorney Luis Kutner (who later founded Amnesty International). The Euthanasia Education Council is created the same year.
Excerpted from LifeTree Euthanasia/Death Culture Timeline here:
http://home.earthlink.net/%7Ejoyinlife/
Cboldt, this is my fault not supercat's, see my post #2385.
I agree. Which is why I would argue that the material change of wording, even in an unchecked box, should destroy the presumption that the document is prima facie valid. While the presumption of validity may have an unfortunate effects in cases where the model is followed precisely, I would argue that in this particular case the fact that the model wasn't followed should void the presumption, rendering the broader problem irrelevant to this particular case.
Just a thought or two or three to expand. This task is hard. You can't be honest with the test subject. They'll keep asking "Did I get that right?" "How am I doing?". The challenge is to draw them out to find the impression the words really make in their mind. Any encouraging and coaxing has to be content neutral. You definitely can't have more than one test subject at the same time, they will interact and tend to develop a "team" answer. If there is a larger group, the dynamic of being a member of the "winning" (bigger) team kicks in.
Legislators and standards committes that compose statutory language for contracts and/or instruciotns and/or warnings don't do this ;-) The result is predictable. The text is something "the insiders" understand perfectly. They ought to, they've been immersed in it for some time. But "outsiders" seeing the writing for the first time are confused, but they (generally) won't admit it.
That's not the critical part, though. The critical part is choice #2. A reasonable person who saw "including hydration but nourishment" as one of three choices would figure that it meant "give me water but not food", hence reinforcing "including" as "give me".
It's a good argument. But it isn't a slam dunk, and the judge's decision won't necessarily turn on that argument. He has other tools to justify whatever outcome he wants.
Check out the Browning case ...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1380586/posts?page=217#217
The statute says that any document which follows this model (XXXX) must be considered prima facie valid. The document in this question does not follow the model. I would highly recommend that Ken talk to a lawyer about what needs to happen to ensure that Mae gets a jury trial if the issue of the living will comes up. A judge might not consider the deviations from statutory language to be valid, but a jury almost certainly would.
Point taken. "Hydration" could be replaced with fluids, and the results could be reworded slightly: "...result in death from starvation", "...result in death from dehydration (thirst)", "...result in death from asphyxiation (lack of oxygen)".
Even if people don't get "asphyxiation", or even "oxygen", I think they'd figure out "death".
An objective determination of the liklihood of critical confusion is very persuasive. I don't know what the result would be, one might be surprised and find that most readers "get it right," as the model; and don't "get it wrong" with phrase 2 reversed. But my spidey sense says that either version will have about the same rate of critical confusion.
Self-correction: A judge might not consider the deviations from statutory language to be valid significant, but a jury almost certainly would.
Yes. "Death" is a well understood word. Since we're talking about a living will, I think most people will quickly grasp that the subject is death. So, the document is really aimed at balancing comfort, longevity, manner and financial cost of death.
I'm against living wills. My recommendation is to have a trusted surrogate. People can fight the shifting sands of the death shysters better than pieces of paper.
I wasn't the one who announced that, but it is a fact. The G-daughter has permanent guardianship and has denied Mae's siblings any contact with her...guards and all. Sounds like a MS & GF trick!
This is the link that was posted earlier:
http://straightupwsherri.blogspot.com/
I do think that the statute needs to at minimum be revised to improve punctuation and mandate formatting. I don't know why the web site shows everything centered--that's positively goofy. But in this particular case, the sentence as marked reads:
I direct that the application of life-sustaining procedures to my body (check the option desired): (X) including nourishment and hydration.There is nothing in the document itself that would indicate that one should consider the second half of the third box (which isn't checked) to be part of Ms. Mae's selection. To be sure, such a reading isn't entirely grammatical, but even the model language in its normal interpretation would be rendered ungrammatical by the stupid colon before the list.
[ Thanks to the combined efforts of Ron Panzer Pres/Founder Hospice Patients Alliance, Sally Vee, and Sarah D., here is a link to the court order. ] { Link did not copy-followed link in above post by FReeper eeevil conservative, found this COURT RULING INFORMATION BREATHTAKINGLY VILE! }
Page 20-23 of the court document:
2.) Ora Mae Magouirk has requested that her brother, A. B. McLeod, her sister, Lonnie Ruth McLeod Mullinax and her nephew Kenneth Gordon Mullinax Jr. assist her in obtaining treatment for her medical condition at UAB Hospital in Birmingham, AL. Ms. Mullinax has been successfully treated for the same condition at UAB.
3.) The petitioner, Elizabeth A. Gaddy, has refused to allow Ms. Magouirk to be treated for her condition in Birmingham, and has made the following statements which are contrary to the alleged incapacitated adult's interests:
(a.) "Uncle Buddy, before you and Kenny try to get Grandmamma to UAB to get well, I want you to know that I am in charge now, it's totally up to me because I hold the medical POA and Grandmamma (Mrs. Magouirk) has suffered too much and I want her to stay here in LaGrange."
(b.) "I don't care if they are the best doctors in the whole world. I have prayed about this and God has told me that Grandmamma is ready to go home with Jesus and Granddaddy. Since I hold the medical power to do this, it is my decision and I want her to go to hospice. Her heart is now bad and she has glaucoma and blood clots. Grandmamma told me she wants to go home and I feel that means that she wants to die so I want her to go to Hospice. I promise y'all I won't withhold anything Grandmamma needs."
(c.) "Grandmamma is ready to go to heaven and Jesus has told her this so Grandmamma will stay here at the Hospice and I will make sure she gets good heart medicine and care here and that she is given food and water."
4.) Ms. Magouirk has a living will that provides that she is not to be denied nourishment unless she is comatose or PVS. The petitioner does not have Ms. Magouirk's medical POA, nonwithstanding, she has claimed to have the legal authority to direct Ms. Magouirk's medical treatment, and has instructed the W. GA Hospice caregivers to withhold nourishment, contrary to the explicit terms of Ms. Magouirk's living will.
5.) In addition, Ms. Magouirk has made the following statements which indicate that the petitioner is not acting in her (Ms. Magouirk's) best interests:
(a.) "Buddy, I have discovered that Beth (Elizabeth A. Gaddy) is writing unnauthorized checks on my account. I just can't trust her anymore at all. Would you please get with me and tell me what I need to do to have her removed from doing this. Also, I want to replace Beth and appoint you (Buddy) to have my POA and to act on my behalf if I get sick."
(b.) "Lonnie, I am scared Beth is stealing money from my checking account. I have told Buddy already and ask him to please help me remove her from being able to do it. If you feel it's OK, I want to appoint Buddy as my guardian."
(c.) "Kenny, Beth is trying to make me give my car to Pat (Elizabeth A. Gaddy's mother) and I don't want to do this because I need it so my woman (her daily housekeeper) can take me to the beauty shop and my appointments. I told her no but she keeps bothering me about it and she's now treating me real mean. Charlie (Mae Magouirk's deceased husband) and I bought Pat the house she lives in and even pay the property taxes on it. I would think that is enough, but now this. What should I do?"
6.)The objectors arranged to have Ms. Magouirk transferred to UAB Hospital via life flight to be treated by a cardiologist who has successfully treated malady from which Ms. Magouirk suffers. the petitioner discovered the objectors' plans to have Ms. Magouirk transferred to Birmingham for medical treatment, and applied for the within emergency guardianship in an attempt to gain the authority to prevent objectors from abtaining medical treatment for Ms. Magouirk.
7.)The objectors agree that Ms. Magouirk is in need of an emergency guardian so that she can obtain the needed medical care, but show that the petitioner would deny Ms. Magouirk the medical attention she needs, and is therefore not a fit and proper person to serve as guardian.
BE SURE TO READ IT ALL! NOTE: Above info comes from aight up with Sherri
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.