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.
By whom was he known for his conservatism?
It should be noted that the news media like to attach the "conservative" label to bad people who are anything but, such as "conservative Rep. Gary Condit".
'tis the nature of the forum, and is a human weakness to be imprecise in expression, to jump to conclusions, and sometime, to be snippy about it.
I think you'll agree that our exchanges have been civil, and that the thrust of them has been to illuminate the questions and issues, the gaps in the reports, if you will.
And I've been forthright in letting readers know my bias (as if it isn't clear!), while speculating that even if the first story is true, and even if Mae is starved/dehydrated to death, the law will find no inexcusable wrong.
LOL. Yes, I was referring to the subjective nature of the second.
http://www.sptimes.com/2005/03/06/Tampabay/Quiet_judge_persists_.shtml
"And Greer, vilified by many religious protesters, is a church regular. He also is a conservative Republican in a state whose conservative Republican governor tried to overturn one of Greer's orders.
"George is the religious right," said lawyer David Kurland, a longtime friend."
Absolutely. And I would say that even if no laws were broken, that there remains both here and in the Schiavo case, ethical issues that states must address.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1379016/posts <-- Posts 1436+
Evidence? None that would please you.
There was a massive amount of evidence in the Terri Schiavo case. Doctor after doctor. Report after report. Evaluation after evaluation. Ruling after ruling.
Not good enough for you. You insisted on one more test. One MRI. One PET. One more doctor. One more evaluation. One more (de novo) trial.
There is no such thing as evidence that will satisfy you. I won't waste my time.
If the lady is not comatose or in a vegative state why doesn't she just tell them what she wants ?
My living will doesn't have any specific instructions like they say hers has.
Well I have nothing positive to say about any of those judges that carried out this killing - Dems and Rebs alike they are all scum to me.
It doesn't seem to matter. The people who are vigilant are just ignored and the ones who want to kill so&so get their way.
Well the nephew *is* a spokesman for a Democrat congressman...or at least there is a guy in the same town (birmingham AL) with the same name who is... but regardless, perhaps the guy has seen the light of what is going on.
That would make sense.... in a sick twisted sort of way.
"George is the religious right," said lawyer David Kurland, a longtime friend."
Is the Saint Petersburg Times a conservative publication? Or should I regard their use of the 'conservative' label to be comparable to that of the newsmedia's appellation of 'conservative Rep. Gary Condit'?
So rather than show some evidence and then impugn my character for questioning it, you think it better to impugn my character as justification for not having to show anything?
FYI, although one definition for "plausible" is "likely", in common usage the term's meaning falls somewhere between "conceivable" and "likely". More notably, although a hypothesis could not be considered "likely" without supporting evidence, all that is necessary for a hypothesis may be considered "plausible" is that it be consistent with known evidence; specific evidence in support is not necessary.
Returning to the original issue, though, is there any evidence whatsoever that this woman is PVS? Even if you think the standards of evidence I would have employed in the Terri case were unreasonable, I hope you don't think it unreasonable to require at least something.
I guess you can take it anyway you want. The quote, however, was attributed to a long time friend of Greer's. In another article earlier, I did read that Greer considers himself a conservative Christian. Again, I doubt if you could attribute a pro-death descriptor to all of the 40 plus judges in this case. If Greer complied with Florida law as he claims, then he is by definition a constructionist or conservative judge. If he felt the laws were bad, and so ruled, wouldn't he then be classified as activist?
I've known of a number of people who call themselves "conservatives", and whose allies call them "conservative", who are barely--if at all--to the right of Charles Schumer. If someone calls themself my friend, does that make them so?
In another article earlier, I did read that Greer considers himself a conservative Christian.
I'm sure Castro, Mugabe, or Hussein would probably describe themselves in glowing terms also.
Again, I doubt if you could attribute a pro-death descriptor to all of the 40 plus judges in this case. If Greer complied with Florida law as he claims, then he is by definition a constructionist or conservative judge. If he felt the laws were bad, and so ruled, wouldn't he then be classified as activist?
Greer acted in many cases with what could, at best, be described as wanton disregard for whether his 'findings of fact' corresponded with reality. As such, I find it difficult to say he 'followed the law'.
As a hypothetical, suppose that someone appeared before Judge Greer with a 'will' written on a cocktail napkin, supposedly by a recently-deceased relative, which gave all the person's assets to the person presenting it. Numerous handwriting experts found that the writing on the 'will' looked nothing like the relative's writing but a lot like that of the named 'heir'. One handwriting 'expert' said that the 'will' was written with the same color blue ink as the decedent sometimes used.
Under such circumstances, would it be legal for Judge Greer to award the decedent's entire estate to the 'heir' named on the cocktail-napkin 'will'?
Frankly, I don't care. If he says he is conservative, I accept that. If it makes folks here at FR feel better to deny Greer that, then fine. Conservative, after all, seems to be a rather subjective term. I think I am conservative, but I am nothing like the nutcases that have come out of the woodwork here these past few weeks, and I'm sure they would all consider themselves conservative.
Under such circumstances, would it be legal for Judge Greer to award the decedent's entire estate to the 'heir' named on the cocktail-napkin 'will'?
I wouldn't think so, but then I don't know if your hypothetical is really hypothetical, if that is the entire sum of the information available, and what the pertinent laws of the State of Florida are concerning such areas.
Apparently the judge has ordered that three doctors examine her. She could be in a coma. She could be in a PVS. She has a feeding tube. She's not conscious.
If Florida laws are typical, they would basically be that if the cocktail-napkin "will" was indeed written by the decedent, the property division stated thereon is legal. If the cocktail-napkin "will" was written by someone else, it isn't.
So returning to the hypothetical scenario, if the "will" were one that most people would regard as an obvious fake, but Greer accepts the word of one 'expert' who proclaims it genuine, would it be legal for Greer to award the decedent's property on that basis?
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.