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.
Oh and also; what is a "semi-vegetative" state?
Oh and also (again): was she vegitative before her starvation process was in full swing or after?
"Maybe Kenny boy just wants..."
Boy you sound like my sister, a dem, who constantly used the term "Kenny Boy" to describe Ken Lay of Enron infamy when implying that all the misdeeds of Enron were somehow tied to W.
Why don't you just ask me the question you are really searching answers for? I doubt if it has anything to do with napkins.
All right. If a trial court judge makes a decision based upon a finding of fact that most people would consider to be clearly and obviously false, does the trial court judge at legally?
First off, I don't recall posting to you, so in the future if you ever post to me again, use common decency and respect, or don't post.
Yes wait to find out if everything you heard for the past 2 days was true. Well, guess what. Apparently it wasn't. Your WND and that idiot Glenn Beck seems to have missed some critical information such as the Monday hearing in which all parties were present, and all parties reached an agreement.
My God! If this isn't a case that deserves a temporary reprieve until all is investigated then I don't know what the F@$K is.
Apparently you don't know much of anything.
And if my instincts are right, and I looked through all your Schiavo postings, I'm sure I'd find you arguing all about a lack of a living will, Michael had guardianship/POA which the granddaughter in this case didn't have but the hospice accepted it anyway
Well, you look at my postings all you want. What you won't find are cheap insults, idiotic rants, baseless charges, and mindless bloviating, such as you have displayed. But then, I didn't know you were one of the board moderators. BTW, are they aware of your language problems?
Find your soul before it's too late. And that goes for sinkspur and dog gone too!
Since you didn't have the courtesy to ping someone you insult, I pinged them for you. As for my soul, please keep your fundamentalism to yourself, since considering your use of language above, it's your soul you may want to try and find.
You're a rude coward, since you didn't ping the dog or me when you mentioned us.
Act like a decent human being and talk to us like a decent human being, and you'll be treated like a decent human being.
So even though every level of courts at both the state and federal level find no 14th Amendment violation, the Congress on its own should simply take matters into its own hands? We obviously disagree.
Seems to me the states have had a week or so to fix the problem, and that's time enough.
Who makes the decision that Mae's 14th Amendment rights have been violated? The AG? And then what?
That is the entire purpose of the appeals courts. And in the case of Greer, the 2d CA was actively involved. Under no circumstances should a poll be taken to assist in the determination of the legality of a judicial decision. The fact that most people do not like a finding of fact is irrelevant, and rightly so. That would be called mob justice. There are two solutions if the judicial reviews do not seem to satisfy, impeachment or not reelecting the judge.
I asked the mummy to substantiate the charges, but I got no response.
I have to agree with the coward assertion, but I'll have to add the liar assertion, since the creature continues to attack without evidence.
Appeals courts don't look at evidence except to determine whether a decision would be reasonable if all of the evidence favoring it were viewed in the best possible light and all of the evidence opposing it were viewed in the worst possible light. In the scenario I posited, an appeals court could uphold the trial judge's decision on the basis that there was one expert who thought the will was authentic, and the trial court judge might have had some reason to believe that witness over all the others. Further, the trial court judge might have had some reason to believe that the supposed samples of the decedent's writing supplied by the other heirs were fake even if they were on seemingly-valid notarized documents.
I would further posit that, in many cases, the idea of having ordinary people look at evidence and decide what they think of it is not usually called "mob justice", but rather a "jury trial". There are, to be sure, some cases where ordinary people lack the knowledge and judgement necessary to make intelligent decisions (e.g. in a medical malpractice trial, if the plaintiff claims the defendant should have done some procedure which is commonplace, while the defendant claims the procedure has been considered obsolete since 1938, there's no way a jury not familiar with medical practice would know who to believe--especially since both sides might be telling the truth). Nonetheless, a group of 12 jurors is less likely to consist entirely of people who can't smell a rat than a 'group' of one judge.
"Yes wait to find out if everything you heard for the past 2 days was true. Well, guess what. Apparently it wasn't. Your WND and that idiot Glenn Beck seems to have missed some critical information such as the Monday hearing in which all parties were present, and all parties reached an agreement."
All parties did not reach an agreement - the judge made a ruling that was most favorable to the granddaughter that doesn't have a legal POA as opposed to the brother and sister that do.
"Apparently you don't know much of anything."
I wrote: "My God! If this isn't a case that deserves a temporary reprieve until all is investigated then I don't know what the F@$K is." Your reply isn't a factual refutation but a simple, sweeping conclusion.
"Well, you look at my postings all you want. What you won't find are cheap insults, idiotic rants, baseless charges, and mindless bloviating, such as you have displayed."
I'd say a statement like "Apparently you don't know much of anything" would qualify as a cheap insult, a baseless charge and a one-sentence mindless bloviation
"But then, I didn't know you were one of the board moderators. BTW, are they aware of your language problems?"
So are you saying the board moderators are engaged in "...cheap insults, idiotic rants, baseless charges, and mindless bloviating"?
"As for my soul, please keep your fundamentalism to yourself, since considering your use of language above, it's your soul you may want to try and find."
There is nothing fundamentalist about supporting life even if only half of the posted story were true facts. If you don't believe in God, fine, that is ultimately your choice. As to my language, using symbols to substitute letters is perfectly legal on this board that I know of; I've seen swear words wearing no clothes get through but I don't do that. Using symbols is the equivalent of saying "fiddlesticks" or "fudge" for the "F word". And let say very emphatically that God understands passion especially when it comes to the willing termination of an innocent person. Your casual disregard for an understanding of how precarious one's life is when a judge in civil court, with civil standards of proof is able to make life and death decisions is not a position one should tread lightly. Taking it out of the Godly realm, the question is, "Where is your heart?"
I believe the granddaughter. I think Grandma suffered irreversable brain damage as a result of the severe aorta dissection. Let me know when wakes up and thanks Mullinix. Otherwise she will curse him in silence as she suffers through a fate she considers worse than death.
"I never noticed this poster before this morning when suddenly I was read the riot act and condemned to hell for something I never did."
I'm sorry I didn't ping you. I've read plenty of your posts recently, saw who you posted to in agreement ie. you support their position, in this thread, so I know where you stand on the issue. I did not condemn you to hell but implied your soul is troubled if it is somehow outrageous to passionately err on the side of life whether it be at the beginning or the end of the journey.
"I asked the mummy to substantiate the charges, but I got no response."
You posted three hours after my post. I moved on to other threads.
"I have to agree with the coward assertion, but I'll have to add the liar assertion, since the creature continues to attack without evidence."
How could "this creature" lie if I "attack(s) without evidence"? I could be wrong; I could have incorrect facts; I could have missed some facts. But I didn't lie. To me, in regards to the "end of life" issue, it is a lie to say that everything is hunk-dory when a granddaughter without a medical POA places a non-vegetative, non-terminal heart patient with a living will with clear stipulations to continue life absent comatose, vegetative circumstances, into a hospice, has a granddaughter, without legal authority, demand and get immediate denial of water/nutrition while the hospice's legal department states, later, that they had erred, then the hospice official states for the media that the client was receiving "excellent care", the legal POA by the brother/sister is recognized, nutrition restored, judge declares granddaughter temporary guardianship, granddaughter attempts to remove nutrition again but is denied and then have the likes of you say I have no evidence to support my view?
You can disagree with me, say I'm a coward all you want but as far as I am concerned, it is a lie to say that under such circumstances this woman wanted/should be starved to death.
Glen Beck got duped and so did you. She was receiving nourishment all week.
It is a fact that Grandma suffered from the aorta dissection. Brain damage is a well known byproduct of aorta dissection. My common sense says that is likely what happened and Gaddy was following Grandma's wishes.
There is nothing to suggest that Gaddy had ulterior motives. Your leaps to conclusions are baseless.
"Glen Beck got duped and so did you. She was receiving nourishment all week."
I didn't listen to Glen Beck so I can't support/refute what he did or didn't say. I'll take your word for it. The tube was removed from March 31 to April 1. Only when the brother, sister, with the legal POA, exercise their legal rights did the feeding tube get restored.
"It is a fact that Grandma suffered from the aorta dissection. Brain damage is a well known byproduct of aorta dissection. My common sense says that is likely what happened and Gaddy was following Grandma's wishes."
I do not doubt the possibility of brain damage but I have not seen one statement from a medical professional to testify to such. Commonsense to me would say that absent such determination that such brain damage could be determined as vegetative in a matter of 24hrs and have legal standing based on an instant review would not be possible.
"There is nothing to suggest that Gaddy had ulterior motives. Your leaps to conclusions are baseless."
To reiterate: presuming a medical determination that requires a standard gestation period of observation/tests that would allow a conclusion that this woman is in a vegetative state (and therefore could be legally starved to death) is baseless on it's face.
I do too, though it's just a guess.
Poetic justice would be ole Kenny-boy having to change her bedpans for the next 20 years. But he's had his 15 minutes, so I think we've seen the last of him -- what a lying scumbag.
The 2d CA , as I mentioned previously was very involved, and after its first decision upholding Greer in 2001, it subsequently sent the case back to Greer after a subsequent appeal, and again heard "new evidence" from the Schindlers in October 2001 whereupon it directed a 5 doctor review. After that, in 2003 the chief justice of the 2d CA ordered the guardian ad litem to prepare a report, which as we all know was favorable to both Greer and Michael Schiavo. So in this case at least, the appeals court was quite active.
I would further posit that, in many cases, the idea of having ordinary people look at evidence and decide what they think of it is not usually called "mob justice", but rather a "jury trial"
The question was posed as "what do you do with a judge when most people disagree", which would be polls or mob rule. In any case, the guardian ad litem certainly would fall into your category of ordinary and independent people. So why should a jury find any differently?
Nonetheless, a group of 12 jurors is less likely to consist entirely of people who can't smell a rat than a 'group' of one judge.
You mean like the O.J. or Robert Blake juries? But in any case, if states so believe, then state laws should be changed to reflect a need for jury trials when dealing with evil judges. But in no case should the federal government be involved.
When the extremist lynch mob on this board got started on Thursday based on a WND report that failed to note the Monday hearing results, some of us here urged caution, but no, Gaddy and the judge were declared Godless murderers and every sort of absurdity was charged. Of course as it turns out there was an agreement to have a 3 doctor panel review granny's case and make a recommendation as to her condition and prognosis, whereupon, as I understand it, the recommendation resulted in her being moved from the hospice to a hospital, presumably for a surgical procedure.
Further, according to reports, Gaddy and the other family members hugged (that being on Monday), after the signed agreement from all parties. Nor did WND report that in fact Gaddy had been hand feeding granny all this time. Nor were you interested in where these so called loving family members were for the ten years that Gaddy had been caring for granny.
So while all of this was going on as it should have been, the nutcases were out of the woodwork screaming for justice, and condemning those of us here who simply asked if WND had reported everything correctly.
I wrote: "My God! If this isn't a case that deserves a temporary reprieve until all is investigated then I don't know what the F@$K is." Your reply isn't a factual refutation but a simple, sweeping conclusion.
So apparently your legal conclusions about the need for a temporary reprieve were baseless as the judge was in fact doing his job, isn't that correct? And all of this without the need for all of the extremist rants.
I'd say a statement like "Apparently you don't know much of anything" would qualify as a cheap insult, a baseless charge and a one-sentence mindless bloviation
Given the whole story, it would appear that you knew little to nothing about what was going on here and simply ran off half cocked like so many of your bretheren, while lambasting and disparaging those of us who urged caution. I would say that one sentence mindless bloviation fits you perfectly in this case.
So are you saying the board moderators are engaged in "...cheap insults, idiotic rants, baseless charges, and mindless bloviating"?
Only if you're a board moderator, in which case then, yes. But the mods I have seen doing their jobs appear to be doing them quite well, so you may not be sufficiently qualified.
There is nothing fundamentalist about supporting life even if only half of the posted story were true facts. If you don't believe in God, fine, that is ultimately your choice.
That's what I love about the extremist whackos, if you ask questions first, you obviously don't support life or believe in God. In other words, to people like you, either you believe in life, or you believe in finding out the truth first. Apparently you can't be both. I don't wave my faith in other people's faces like some like some here enjoy doing.
As to my language, using symbols to substitute letters is perfectly legal on this board that I know of; I've seen swear words wearing no clothes get through but I don't do that.
If you can't get through a logical debate without the use of swear words, then I will try and overlook such shortcomings.
Using symbols is the equivalent of saying "fiddlesticks" or "fudge" for the "F word".
No, its simply a way of saying the "F" word and getting by the standards of the board. Let's not compound your mistakes with hypocrisy too.
Taking it out of the Godly realm, the question is, "Where is your heart?"
As this case proves, a good heart needs to be commingled with a good dose of common sense.
The bottom line here is that nothing that WND or Glenn Beck, or the lynch mob here did had the slightest impact on the resolution of the Mae Magouirk case. You simply gave a good laugh to the leftist boards, and made complete fools of yourselves.
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.