Replies

Was it [Gaddy's petition for guardianship] ex-parte? It appears to have been so, as the only potential opposing parties were unaware of the proceeding, being at the hospice and not called to the court.

"Potential" opposing parties may not be sufficient in some jurisdictions, and thus the Friday hearing may not have been ex-parte. But in any case, the Monday hearing should have cured that.

"Agreement" is a broad term. Agreement about what?

Well, as I understand it, that Gaddy would be the guardian, and that 3 doctors would be assigned to review the case. Other parts of the agreement are as of now not public.

See above. "On the same side" is also indefinite. You and I are "on the same side," even though we may have vigorous disagreements.

It was reported that he also stated that all parties to the conflict had only the best interests of Mae in mind.

A fair question. Maybe they didn't know. But, I wonder what "hand feeding" consists of, and whether it is adequate to nourish Mae's body. That issue isn't settled with the observation that Gaddy is hand feeding Mae

No it isn't, but it is relevant information and was overlooked by WND. Also, if you can believe WND and Mullinax, this would be the 12th day Mae is without nurishment. If so, she may be close to the record.

Just picking out one point, the meaning of "best interests" is also subjective:

It was reported that he also stated that all parties to the conflict had only the best interests of Mae in mind.

Gaddy said that the best interests of grandma, what with glaucoma and now this heart problem, is to be with Jesus.

Mae's sister and nephew said that the best interests were to seek treatment for the dissection.

Just so we're clear. I suspect that everything that has transpired in this case is, or will be found to be, legal. Straight-faced arguments can be made for every point.

Gaddy could have misunderstood her written POA, making the representation to the hospital and hospice incorrect in fact, but not rising to a level of culpability.

The hospital and hospice have reasonably relied on Gaddy's representation, and are therefore not culpable.

Even if Mae's advance directive specified nourishment (unless she was PVS or comatose and had no chance of recovery), a doctor in the hospital certified her as terminal, i.e., no chance of recovery, so withholding of nourishment is legal.

Cboldt: Was it [Gaddy's petition for guardianship] ex-parte? It appears to have been so, as the only potential opposing parties were unaware of the proceeding, being at the hospice and not called to the court.

MACVSOG68: "Potential" opposing parties may not be sufficient in some jurisdictions, and thus the Friday hearing may not have been ex-parte. But in any case, the Monday hearing should have cured that.

The hearing was either given with notice to all interested parties, or it was ex-parte. If all other interested parties were excluded from the hearing, the hearing was ex-parte. My comment about "potential opposing parties" was intended to illustrate that those with interests may or may not be adversarial. I.e., the rest of the family may have agreed with Gaddy, that Mae's condition satisfied the language in the advance directive, or for whatever reason felt that death by natural dehydration was proper.

I believe the facts indicate the hearing was held on an emergency basis, and was an ex-parte hearing, without notice being given to Mae's siblings.