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.
Well in this case there is no clear guardian, such as a husband, and a living will that clearly states the woman's wishes.
I'm just following the facts, the law and the constitution.
Let me ask you a question.
Where is the federal role in making family medical decisions found in the constitution?
Answer: It's in the same place where the founding father's grated a right to abortion.
Don't sell yourself short. You and sink go at least 15...
But I'll readily agree that I found the Terri threads extremely uncomfortable, because inaccuracies were repeated endlessly, and any hint of moderation, or heaven forbid, opposition was brutally attacked. Even a suggestion that the Schindler's attorneys were pursuing bad tactics was enough to get a person tagged as being in the pro-death camp.
My complaining about those threads was enough for you to label me as pro-death. Horsefeathers. I'm unwilling for you to falsely label me without challenging you for your proof of which you have none. The best you can come up with is some sort of guilt by association.
"...according to reports."
Could you please source these other reports, I'll look at them and apologise if I was wrong. I will admit about being wrong about the judge's Monday order but I was not wrong about lack of POA which made all of Gaddy's and the hospice's actions wrong. If I and others are wrong about the living will, then please source a report. If I am wrong that she could not be determined to be vegetative in such a short time, then please source a report. If there is any source to show that the grandmothers brother and sister, who are very elderly themselves, purposely ignored their sister out of lack of caring, show me a source. If there is any report to indicate a financial standing of the grandmother, show me the source.
You did not urge caution, you came to conclusions that ignore the initial actions of Gaddy and the hospice and their legal representation. There would have been no agreement if Gaddy and the hospice were on strong legal ground. They were not. And to imply that the grandmother's brother and sister did not care because they were not the primary caretakers is not fair unless you can source a report/legal documents to say as such.
And for now on, I'll will refrain from using cloaked swear words because it gives masters of logic like yourselves (source please) an opening to state how "extremist whacko" said poster must be. It is valid to show caution, it is valid to point out conflicting reports (sources please) but it is not valid to ignore reasonably questionable actions in the legal realm and/or to presume that all legal proceedings are immune to questioning or that there are possibilities as in this case where ulterior motives/conflicts-of-interest may have some play. there was I high burden of proof that needed to be met before Gaddy took her actions and she did not have or meet those burdens.
Again please source your reports and I will zip it.
I apologise. I never should have thrown you into the mix. It was irresponsible. I agree that during Terris case some rumors were made into facts but by the same token some that felt the legal system was aok purposely ignored the initial trial decisions by Greer that showed a propensity to accept Michael's belated hearsay admission shortly after the settlement that stated Terri had stated she wanted to die and ignored the hearsay testimony of Terri's best friend, in fact dispelling her testimony by coming to a conclusion that Terri's statement about the Quinlan case was inadmissable because thy were both seventeen at the time when they were both actually 19 at the time.
Mullinax's own statements confirms neurological problems. The extent of these problems warrant his mentioning in the same sentence with food and fluids.
"she is receiving food, fluids, cardiac care and neurological help."
I'll impose the same burden of proof on you that you demand of others. Put up or ...
I should have been clearer. I was getting at whether a determination of vegetative or not. As in the Schiavo case, it wasn't a question of whether she had brain damage or not but whether the extent of her brain damage precluded any awareness or not ie. non-vegetative. I have MS so I should have noticed the "neurological help" part. Thanks for pointing that out.
One of the frustrating things about Terri and Judge Greer is that I never found a link to the original trial testimony. There was plenty of commentary as to what had been said and the motivations of those who said it. Some or all of it might have been true. But there was no way for me (or anyone else that I know of) to go look at the testimony that Greer actually heard and judge its credibility.
There's not much doubt that his rulings almost universally favored Michael, and I have grave doubts whether the evidence heard regarding Terri's wishes met the "clear and convincing" standard required by Florida law. At best, I think it met an "unclear and conflicting" standard, which isn't good enough.
It's a terribly sad case for Terri and her family, but perhaps some good will come out of it. A lot of people are making their wishes known so that there can be no argument about it if it ever comes to that. Perhaps some laws will be changed. And perhaps the judiciary will feel the heat to stop running roughshod over the other branches of government.
http://www.11alive.com/rss/article.aspx?storyid=61478
A few exerpts:
Judge Boyd called Mullinax's charges completely false and said all relatives agreed to let three doctors decide what was next for Magouirk. He said that everyone was happy with the compromise.
“They were hugging necks, and, as far as I knew, the family was fine,” the judge said.
Bloggers from the Schiavo case heated up the Internet and swamped the judge's phones and computer with what he said are wildly false charges.
“I've even been accused several times of murder and I've had, I would say, close to a hundred e-mails,” Boyd said.
The CEO of the West Georgia Health System told 11Alive News, "No patient at our hospice is denied food or water."
Apologies are not necessary at all. I would never flame anyone who had not flamed me first. I prefer analytical debate over the DU fashion of one line insults. So, hopefully we can move on from that. In any case, the story here does simply point out that the situation was always under control, and that there may be more than one side to the story. As for Gaddy, she may well be a golddigger, but I would still like to know why the others have remained out of the picture for 10 years, no aspersions being cast.
You did not urge caution, you came to conclusions that ignore the initial actions of Gaddy and the hospice and their legal representation.
From the first moment I read the initial WND report, I urged caution and posed a number of questions. I made no value judgements concerning Gaddy, the judge or anyone else, rather I did make judgements about the rush to judgement before all the facts were on the table. I questioned both the motives of WND which is clearly agenda driven, and Glenn Beck who was not the slightest bit interested in anything other than sensationalism. The initial story seemed so one sided, that most reasonable people might pursue more of it.
And for now on, I'll will refrain from using cloaked swear words because it gives masters of logic like yourselves (source please) an opening to state how "extremist whacko" said poster must be.
How about just an agreement not to be the first to hurl insults? As for the source that I am a master of logic, would the whole truth of the Mae Magouirk story suffice?
but it is not valid to ignore reasonably questionable actions in the legal realm and/or to presume that all legal proceedings are immune to questioning or that there are possibilities as in this case where ulterior motives/conflicts-of-interest may have some play
Not completely sure I follow that, but there is absolutely nothing wrong with questioning anything such as the Mae Magouirk case, but it is the premature conclusions resulting in threats and charges of murderer, etc cast about like so much pollen in the Spring air that's the problem. And worse, are the folks who insult, flame, and otherwise castigate folks who are not ready to join the lynch mob. In the end, had it turned out to be what folks had concluded on Thursday, you would have had another Freeper in me joining in. But in any case, I am happy that the "system" was able to work out this issue to everyone's satisfaction here.
Did the appeals court hear evidence, or did it simply direct Greer to do so?
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?
In part because a jury consists of twelve people, and if even one of them smells a rat that person may convince the other eleven.
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.
If one juror can convince the rest that there is a reasonable doubt as to the accused's guilt, the jury is supposed to acquit even if all the jurors are 90% certain the accused committed the crime. Whether or not you think that should be the case, that is clearly the design intention of the jury system and I see no reason to believe it did not work as intended in the cited cases.
I think one of the big issues here is that many of us perceived Michael's behavior as being far more consistent with a man who is hiding something than with a loving husband. If, in fact, Terri would have been unable to swallow, Michael could likely have gotten rid of her in October 2003 by simply allowing the parents to try to give her food and water by mouth. Terri would probably have gotten nowhere near the support she got if people perceived that Michael was acting in good faith; without that support, the legislature would have never signed the 2003 Terri's Law, and Terri would have died about 18 months ago.
Why, then, has Michael so consistently refused to act in a manner that would defuse public criticism? The only answers I can figure that make any sense are:
Those seem to me to be the two most obvious motivations. If feeding her by mouth would choke her, well, he was trying to kill her anyway.
Precisely. I hope you don't mind, though, if I repeat my question: can you offer any legitimate motive that would make any sense whatsoever? If not, then I would think it clear that Michael et al. were determined to kill Terri with, at best, craven disregard for whether the facts of the case justified such action.
To my mind, and perhaps some legal experts can chime in on this (IANAL--IDEOPOTV), if someone acts to kill someone with wanton disregard for whether such an act is legally justifiable, such an act should be construed as murder even if there would have been some possibility that the act might not have been. If the killer deliberately destroys any evidence that might mitigate his guilt, such evidence should not be presumed to have been favorable to him.
Do you disagree with my logic?
How's that?
Good try, but not too convincing I'm afraid. The same logic would justify leaving someone in a burning car on the basis that moving them might cause injury. The fact that the probability of survival if someone is not allowed any water is ZERO would imply that just about anything else would be better. As for being "peaceful", that is a lie. If someone's kidneys have failed, then denying them water might give them a "peaceful" death as their blood becomes so pulluted with waste products that they can no longer function (giving water in that case might dillute the waste products, but would also cause uncomfortable problems of its own). In someone whose kidneys are functioning, however, the kidneys will extract so much water from the blood that the person's skin, mucous membranes, etc. all dry up. Such a death is anything but peaceful. Although morphine might make it painless, the same could just as well be said for burning at the stake. And at least that doesn't put the victim through days of agony.
I think due to her lack of care and therapy that it's unlikely she improved on her own, but that's something we'll never know, and we could have.
Had Michael been convinced of his position, he surely wouldn't have minded silencing his critics by having her fail all the tests and then proceeding to remove the tube.
Exactly. I hope you, therefore, can understand why many of us have been so anti-Michael. His actions were entirely consistent with his knowing Terri's condition to be much better than he claimed it to be, and made little or no sense otherwise. The reason many of use didn't need to see test results that showed Terri wasn't PVS before saying that she wasn't is that Michael's behavior told us all we needed to know.
His behavior goes more to his credibility on her wishes, not her condition.
In mid 2001, the CA heard "new" evidence of fraud, after it had sided with Greer. It then stopped the removal of the tubes telling the parents to show why Terri should be kept alive, again new evidence. Later in the year it directed Greer to hold another hearing to consider new technologies, again based on new evidence. Finally, it ordered the 5 doctor review which of course presented new evidence. So I would say they were quite active.
If one juror can convince the rest that there is a reasonable doubt as to the accused's guilt, the jury is supposed to acquit even if all the jurors are 90% certain the accused committed the crime. Whether or not you think that should be the case, that is clearly the design intention of the jury system and I see no reason to believe it did not work as intended in the cited cases.
When a jury can take about 1 hour to review a year's worth of evidence to find not guilty, justice has not been served. Jury nullification is an all to common practice. Why is that so sacrosanct? Frequently juries are in awe of celebrities such as Robert Blake and OJ, as well as their attorneys. At least with judges, celebrity attorneys don't trump lower paid prosecutors as they all too often do with juries. I have to accept it, but both cases show the weaknesses of juries.
But, in any case, if folks are upset with Greer, as I said before, impeach him or turn him out at election time.
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.