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.
You said that in the Schiavo murder. You were told (basically) that it wouldn't, couldn't happen, that this was a unique case, and we shouldn't read to much into it, because 'rule of law' will keep it from doing so. A 'living will' will solve all problems like this, 'they' said...
What will 'they' say now?
Nope, just being old, or "in the way," or handicapped, or...
My GOD! What have we become!
Not trying to cleverly twist anything, but the analogy holds. The fact that you feel the liberal attempts to bring in the federal government are for unconstitutional and subversive demands is probably no different than their reaction to those wanting the President to intervene in state and county probate matters.
As for constitutional guarantees protecting life, they are quite limited and only to ensure due process. Your concerns over due process nothwithstanding, when over 40 judges participated in the Schiavo affair, and when many of them were both religious and conservative, many of us would say that due process was served. The fact that we may not have liked the outcome is irrelevant and certainly does not beg for congressional and executive intervention, at least for those of us who believe in the Tenth Amendment.
As for the current issue in Georgia, many here do not want any further "due process", just federal intervention. I would prefer to see this go through the judicial process first and see if the story still remains as initially reported.
Grandma was inconvenient.
It will be the aging baby boomers turn next.
A convenience of the living murder.
"They" will say, it would sure be nice if one other news organization in the entire world also ran this story. As of right now, it's only WND and there are a few errors (such as the name of one of the doctors).
Having said that I'm really not sure what we can do to stop this besides writing our legislators.
It is a conflict of interest to allow someone who has practiced law to become a judge.
How can we ever get this country straightened out if Lieyers can become Judges?
My God! How dare the federal government permit a state to determine the qualifications of its judges! Quick, let's call Congress together for a special session to look into this....
I would suspect that the courts hear an awful lot of the realities of the elderly and maybe that is why they come up with some of these decisions.
But, we do not commit murder because there is no one to care for grandma, or because the money handler refuses to pay out of grandma's money. (Don't have any idea if this pertains to this case-but with all coming out nowadays, if one is willing to kill, one is willing to withhold funds, lie, bribe or whatever)
Either they'll impeach the source (it's only World Net Daily), or they'll stick their thumbs in their ears, sing "Mary Had a Little Lamb" at the top of their lungs and ignore the story altogether.
What they won't do is admit they were dead wrong. Ever.
From this point WND jumps to the discourse in the family. Wonder how long her brain was oxygen impaired? "At the time of her admission" seems to be a qualifier of a known decline in the woman's condition at some time after her admission. It is common for severe brain damage to occur as a result of severe aorta dissection. It would be helpful to hear the other side of the story.
I can guarantee that around here these days, asking that question will bring out all sorts of charges against you. But you pose an excellent point, and until we hear from doctors, the hospice, Gaddy and the judge, we can only say we have heard one side of it.
The problem is that we're not hearing from them. Someone's life is on the line, and we're being told to wait for the other side to post their case. How long do we wait-until the woman is dead?
What'd the nephew say? I had lawyers in here all morning (I know, like THAT never happens).
Very good question. I will await to hear the answer.
So there it is. These parties have reached an agreement on how to care for the woman. I don't hear the nephew saying that the granddaughter is going against the advice of the doctors. Seems the nephew is grasping at his 15 minutes after first agreeing to abide by the agreement between the parties.
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.