"...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.
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.