Posted on 04/14/2005 3:32:36 PM PDT by FR_addict
They must be related. Scary thought, if we are now hearing about 2 cases within a few weeks of each other, how many are really going on across the country?
Sorry, Ms. Gaddy. Apparently, Jesus wasn't ready for your grandma yet. All she needed was some medical care and oh yes, FOOD AMD WATER! The very first thing Mae needs to do is find a good attorney who will revoke Ms. Gaddy's guardianship and give it to someone who doesn't want to Mae into a hospice. The next thing is to investigate the judge who granted that emergency medical power of attorney in such suspicious circumstances. There are several people who ought to have to answer for their shameful actions in this case.
I suspect that at some hospices, all patients are "soon to die", regardless of their health when they enter.
And even if she had wanted such a think, her recent experience may change her mind.
I do hope her relatives can talk to her in front of a camcorder, though. Even if she weren't considered to be of sound mind, an oral recitation that she did not want to be starved or dehydrated under any circumstances, especially if she said further that she never wanted to be [the latter commnent would mean that even if she wasn't deemed fit to override the living will, the ambiguity in its language caused its marking to be other than intended].
ping
First, the normal, ordinary and common scenario has the lawyer for one of the parties draft the final order for the judge to sign. That's right. The judge doesn't even write the order, the winning party does.
In Mae's case, the first order came from the language in Gaddy's Petition for Emergency Guardianship. There was no adverse party in that proceeding, held on Friday, April 1st.
The second hearing was on Monday, April 4. This proceeding starred out as adversarial, and Mae's attorney filed an Objection to Gaddy's Motion for Guardianship. However, the case was not litigated. Mae's side made a tactical decision to shift the medical treatment decision out of the judge's hands and into the hands of a team of doctors. In hindsight, that was a good tactical move. So, also in that case, the final order was drawn up by attorneys on both sides.
Following that, quite a few people "went public," including Judge Boyd. Once he went public with more than the contents of the written orders, he lost the cloak that hides possible bias.
This judge did fine under the circumstances. The problem people are the doctors and hospice, first for the medical opinion that Mae was better off dead, then starting the death process without legal authority.
I wonder if Mae will be changing her will now.
I figure she'll be changing a number of things. In one way, the family is lucky. They will draw closer and have some quality time together. More intense love than most, and able to share it. Most of us are too busy with our own activities, and have short-lived epiphanies at and following funerals. Then it's back to the normal grind.
bookmark
I just don't understand why the law about next of kin wasn't followed. What's the point in spelling these relationships out if they can be so easily circumvented?
Mae's brother and sister were fully capable of acting as guardians.
Good question.
BTTT
Never sign a "Living" Will! It can be your death sentence. Instead, get a Will to Live from the National Right to Life committee website.
Great news. As I said before, Freepers were once again ahead of the game. Great work guys. Saving a life is more important than anything.
I'm so glad Grandma Mae is getting better. Someone posted on this thread that Mae's estate is worth a quarter of a million dollars. I wonder how much life insurance Beth took out on her granny?
More of a chance now than Terri had.
The court was blindsided on Friday the 1st. It only had Gaddy's side (with help from hospice-biased cousel) of the issue in front of it. The court assumes the guardian will act in the patient's best interests. "Patient's best interests" is a legal term of art that is construed to favor medical treatment, UNLESS the patient has made a clear and convincing statement to the contrary. That is, "best interests of the patient" is not "better off dead," as a matter of law.
The circumvention here has not been completed, and as far as I know, guardianship still lies with Gaddy. However, the guardian is bound to adhere to doctor's orders, where the doctors are biased toward treating Mae and giving her a physically comfortable life. I am pretty sure Gaddy will be out as guardian at some point in the future.
Have you guys seen this new one? Since you were some of the key freepers on the grandma story, I wanted to make sure you guys saw this one.
I'm going to go ahead and post it.
http://www.laraza.com/news.php?nid=21715
Terri Schiavo’s case in Chicago
In a house on Chicago’s southeast side, a Mexican family is going through a heartbreak like the tragedy that befell the American Terri Schiavo’s family and deeply affected both those who defend the right to life and partisans of euthanasia. But no voices had been raised so far in this case because very few knew about the situation concerning the 39-year-old Latin woman whose husband decided to disconnect the tube that had been feeding her during her three and a half years in a vegetative state.
Para la gente que puede leer esta frase, favor de cuidar a aquella mujer. Su vida vale la pena. Hay que mostrar a los estadounidenses que la vida !si! tiene valor.
For those who can read this sentence, please care for that woman. Her life is worth the trouble. You must show those in the US that yes, life has value.
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.