Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: MACVSOG68
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.

506 posted on 04/09/2005 7:36:18 AM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 500 | View Replies ]


To: Cboldt
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.

But did a doctor so certify? The judge ordered a 3 doctor review, and I don't know where that stands. Also, if all nourishment had been cut off on the 28th, granny is in her 12th day. I'm just not sure yet that that is the case.

512 posted on 04/09/2005 7:58:07 AM PDT by MACVSOG68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 506 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson