Posted on 04/07/2005 5:34:06 PM PDT by News Hunter
Edited on 04/07/2005 5:39:05 PM PDT by Sidebar Moderator. [history]
In a situation recalling the recent death of Terri Schindler-Schiavo in Florida, an 81-year-old widow, denied nourishment and fluids for nearly two weeks, is clinging to life in a hospice in LaGrange, Ga., while her immediate family fights desperately to save her life before she dies of starvation and dehydration.
Mae Magouirk was neither terminally ill, comatose nor in a "vegetative state," when Hospice-LaGrange accepted her as a patient about two weeks ago upon the request of her granddaughter, Beth Gaddy, 36, an elementary school teacher.Also upon Gaddy's request and without prior legal authority, since March 28 Hospice-LaGrange has denied Magouirk normal nourishment or fluids via a feeding tube through her nose or fluids via an IV. She has been kept sedated with morphine and ativan, a powerful tranquillizer.
Her nephew, Ken Mullinax, told WorldNetDaily that although Magouirk is given morphine and ativan, she has not received any medication to keep her eyes lubricated during her forced dehydration.
"They haven't given her anything like that for two weeks," said Mullinax. "She can't produce tears."
The dehydration is being done in defiance of Magouirk's specific wishes, which she set down in a "living will," and without agreement of her closest living next-of-kin, two siblings and a nephew: A. Byron McLeod, 64, of Anniston, Ga.; Ruth Mullinax, 74, of Birmingham, Ala.; and Ruth Mullinax's son, Ken Mullinax.
Magouirk's husband and only child, a son, are both deceased.
In her living will, Magouirk stated that fluids and nourishment were to be withheld only if she were either comatose or "vegetative," and she is neither. Nor is she terminally ill, which is generally a requirement for admission to a hospice.
Magouirk lives alone in LaGrange, though because of glaucoma she relied on her granddaughter, Beth Gaddy, to bring her food and do errands.
Two weeks ago, Magouirk's aorta had a dissection, and she was hospitalized in the local LaGrange Hospital. Her aortic problem was determined to be severe, and she was admitted to the intensive care unit. At the time of her admission she was lucid and had never been diagnosed with dementia.
Claiming that she held Magouirk's power of attorney, Gaddy had her transferred to Hospice-LaGrange, a 16-bed unit owned by the same family that owns the hospital. Once at the hospice, Gaddy stated that she did not want her grandmother fed or given water.
"Grandmama is old and I think it is time she went home to Jesus," Gaddy told Magouirk's brother and nephew, McLeod and Ken Mullinax. "She has glaucoma and now this heart problem, and who would want to live with disabilities like these?"
Gaddy's telephone is not in operation and she could not be reached for comment.
According to Mullinax, his aunt's local cardiologist in LaGrange, Dr. James Brennan, and Dr. Raed Agel, a highly acclaimed cardiologist at the nationally renowned University of Alabama-Birmingham Medical Center, determined that her aortic dissection is contained and not life-threatening at the moment.
Mullinax also states that Gaddy did not hold power of attorney, a fact he learned from the hospice's in-house legal counsel, Carol Todd.
On March 31, Todd told Ruth and Ken Mullinax during a phone conversation Georgia law stipulated that Ruth Mullinax and her brother, A.B. McLeod, were entitled to make any and all decisions for Magouirk. Ruth Mullinax immediately told Todd to begin administering food and fluids through an IV and a nasal feeding tube.
Todd had the IV fluids started that evening, but informed the family that they would have to come to the hospice to sign papers to have the feeding tube inserted. Once that was done, Magouirk would not be able to stay at the hospice.
Ken Mullinax recalled that Todd said the only reason Magouirk was in the hospice in the first place was that the LaGrange Hospital had failed to exercise due diligence in closely examining the power of attorney Beth Gaddy said she had, as well as exercising the provisions of Magouirk's living will.
Todd explained that Gaddy had only a financial power of attorney, not a medical power of attorney, and Magouirk's living will carefully provided that a feeding tube and fluids should only be discontinued if she was comatose or in a "vegetative state" – and she was neither.
Gaddy, however, was not dissuaded. When Ken Mullinax and McLeod showed up at the hospice the following day, April 1, to meet with Todd and arrange emergency air transport for Magouirk's transfer to the University of Alabama-Birmingham Medical Center, Hospice-LaGrange stalled them while Gaddy went before Troup County, Ga., Probate Court Judge Donald W. Boyd and obtained an emergency guardianship over her grandmother.
Under the terms of his ruling, Gaddy was granted full and absolute authority over Magouirk, at least for the weekend. She took advantage of her judge-granted power by ordering her grandmother's feeding tube pulled out, just hours after it had been inserted.
Florida law requires that a hearing for an emergency guardianship must be held within three days of its request, and Magouirk's hearing was held April 4 before Judge Boyd. Apparently, he has not made a final ruling, but favors giving permanent guardianship power to Gaddy, who is anxious to end her grandmother's life.
Ron Panzer, president and founder of Hospice Patients Alliance, a patients' rights advocacy group based in Michigan, told WND that what is happening to Magouirk is not at all unusual.
"This is happening in hospices all over the country," he said. "Patients who are not dying – are not terminal – are admitted [to hospice] and the hospice will say they are terminally ill even if they're not. There are thousands of cases like this. Patients are given morphine and ativan to sedate them. If feeding is withheld, they die within 10 days to two weeks. It's really just a form of euthanasia."
Ken Mullinax does not want that to happen to his aunt. He pointed out that one of the ironies in this tragedy is that the now-helpless woman worked for years as a secretary for a prominent local cancer doctor.
"She devoted her whole life to helping those who heal others, and now she's being denied sustenance for life," he said.
Mullinax said he has begged Gaddy to let him take on full responsibility for his aunt's care.
"If she would just give us a chance to keep Aunt Mae alive, that's all we ask," he said. "They [Beth and her husband, Dennis Gaddy] have a family and Beth is a teacher, and it was just getting to be a lot of trouble. But I'm the caregiver for my mom, and Aunt Mae could move in with us. We'll buy another house with a bedroom and we'll take care of her. She can move in with us once she can leave the hospital."
But her health becomes more precarious by the hour. Her vital signs are still good, but since admission to hospice she has not been lucid – "but who would be since nourishment and fluids have been denied since March 28," Mullinax remarked.
Attorney Carol Todd could not be reached for comment; a message on her voicemail said she would not be gone the entire week of April 4. Hospice-LaGrange did not return phone calls.
I don't plan to get into a structured exposition here, but do have a few thoughts that I'll pop out.
First, it's my opinion that the root problem is a lapse in holding life as a sacred gift. Any solution that has "man play God" is going to have flaws that offend my belief that life is sacred.
But, if we assume for the sake of argument that the law will sanction (approve) what amounts to a patient's suicide wish, particularly wehre the patient is incapacitated (unable to contemporaneously express wishes), then I would not make it a criminal matter. I also wouldn't leave the matter in the civil court systems, because we can see that the "err on the side of life" principle is being mocked.
I'm also not in favor of an executive department having the power to approve or deny patient's wishes. See, e.g., TSA or any other bureacracy.
I don't have a solution, and I've been criticised on that that ground. I think it is asking to much of any legal system to reverse a process of moral decay in society. Laws alone are not enough. It's easy to prove that too. Ask yourself, and others, given a choice between obeying a law (and in the process violating a deeply held moral belief), and holding to a deeply held moral belief (but breaking a law), most people stick to their moral ground, and will take their legal lumps. Law is not all powerful, even though it wants to be.
How much money is the granddaughter going to get when Grandma is gone? How much is the hospice going to get? How much is the judge going to get? Follow the money!
Just contacted the Georgia attorney general and the abuse divison of Dept of human resources. They're still answering the phones but not for much longer probably since they're getting flooded with calls. Also called the State Bar to complain about Mr. Boyd.
Here's the deal. Whether it's legal or not, it's going on. No joke. We know this. Pretty much everywhere.
I speak from experience. I had no say in the matter, but it happened, and all I could do personally was watch. I was horrified. There was even the presence of a living will.
The problem is that if this is what the situation is like now, what will it be in 40 years? 30? 20? The issue isn't that Terri was a rarity. It's that she no longer is, and we do not only need, but must dig in while we can. That is to say, before we're handed shovels to dig our own graves.
And apparently for some of you, all the news!
Why don't you just come out and say what you really mean and think? Quit beating around the bush and just admit that you have no problem with what is going on. I mean, WorldNetDaily is reporting it, it must be a lie.
Why don't just go back and read all my posts and maybe you might just learn something. You sound just like the clowns over at DU, only on the other side. Try giving both sides a chance for once before you lock and load. A few of us here want the entire story, not just one side. BTW, it has nothing at all to do with "what is going on", whatever that means.
As for WND reporting lies, those were your words not mine. Get a grip.
Not too different from the liberal desire that the federal government can solve everything. Try working on the state level for a change, which used to be the conservative approach to a republican form of government.
So who are you waiting on to give you the other side?
But then it is much easier to flame away or attach labels than it is to engage in an intellectual discussion. Very similar to DU.
Apparently not you.
So, why isn't the state AG down there getting her feeding tube reinserted? Hello? Anybody awake in the Executive branch?
Will they even care since the judge isn't actually a lawyer? Apparently GA probate judges aren't required to hold law degrees, and this guy doesn't.
Makes you wonder what he did before this, and then what, did he wake up one day and say, I think I'll run for probate judge?
1st it was Terri
Now it's someones grandmother
Free Republic Opinion Poll:
Was it wrong to kill Terri Schiavo?
Composite Opinion
Yes 84.4% 4,298
No 10.2% 519
Pass 3.3% 166
Undecided 2.2% 110
100.1% 5,093
http://www.freerepublic.com/perl/poll?poll=91
I know it Tonk!! Makes my blood boil.
Most probate court judges are elected to four-year terms in countywide, partisan elections. A candidate for judge of the probate court must be at least 25 years of age, a high school graduate, a U.S. citizen and a county resident for at least two years preceding the election. In counties with population over 96,000, a candidate for probate judge must have practiced law for seven years and be at least 30 years of age.
So one can become a probate judge in small town GA (<96k population) with a high school diploma and a 2-year county residency.
Another link with more detailed information on requirements - http://www.houstoncountyga.com/Probate/Georgia_Probate_Courts.htm
Actually, I'm implying that the state executive be the one to first have the opportunity to intervene; and, please do not twist the argument around by cleverly comparing it to liberal efforts to invoke the fed. govt. to enforce their often unconstitutional and subversive demands. Protecting life is guaranteed in the constitution, and it is the executive's job to enforce that when everyone else forgets.
Unbelieveable!
Sure is. Makes me wonder how loose the requirements are in other states. I'm in OH too, maybe I'll check to see if I can run for probate judge. Sheesh.
BTT!!!!!!
It isn't a requirement in Florida either, according to the Florida Supreme Court.
http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/browning.txt <-- LinkSupreme Court of Florida.
In re GUARDIANSHIP OF Estelle M. BROWNING.
STATE of Florida, Petitioner,
v.
Doris F. HERBERT, etc., Respondent.
No. 74174.
Sept. 13, 1990.
BARKETT, Justice.
We have for review In re Guardianship of Browning, 543 So.2d 258 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989), in which the district court certified the following question as one of great public importance:
Whether the guardian of a patient who is incompetent but not in a permanent vegetative state and who suffers from an incurable, but not terminal condition, may exercise the patient's right of self-determination to forego sustenance provided artificially by a nasogastric tube?
Id. at 274. [FN1] We answer the question in the affirmative as qualified in this opinion.
Browning was 82 or so, stroke victim. She did have a written advance directive. The patient was not PVS and was not terminal. Florida court system holds that starving these patients to death is legal. Note the decision dates to 1990.
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.