Posted on 10/20/2005 5:52:22 PM PDT by wagglebee
He says he wants to live. But his wife, caregivers and South Carolina state officials are so focused on carrying out a decade-old, out-of-state living will that 79-year-old Jimmy Chambers can't get a word in edgewise.
That's the account of 10 of Chambers's children and their spouses who signed sworn affidavits in an attempt to block their mother from removing his life-sustaining ventilator, which would cause his death.
It's a case that's reminiscent of the Terri Schiavo controversy which captured the attention of millions around the world, in which a fault line opened up in the middle of a formerly close-knit family, splitting it into pieces over whether to end a loved one's life or allow them to live.
"Our family has meant everything to all of us for all these years. We never thought we'd be in this place," Deanna Potter, one of the children seeking to preserve her father's life, told WND.
The ordeal began August 20 in Naples, Florida, when the "active" and "vibrant" Chambers hopped on a riding lawnmower to help out with his son's yard work. Chambers apparently took his eyes off the road briefly and by the time he fixed his gaze back forward, a hefty tree limb struck him and bent him backwards over the seat of the mower. He was found sometime later lying unconscious on the ground.
Chambers suffered a broken back, a spinal chord injury and a torn aorta. Doctors didn't think he would survive the emergency room. He surprised them.
"You just can't keep him down," Potter marveled. "My father had polio when he was younger and his legs were weakened by that, so he was getting to the point where he couldn't walk for any period of time. But he was always active and looking for things to do. He has a couple of those scooters and scooted all over where he lives."
Two days after the accident, doctors performed surgery and succeeded in repairing Chambers's back, but determined he had become paraplegic. Spinal shock left him dependent on a ventilator, and a gastric feeding tube was inserted into his abdomen.
The prognosis was grim. Doctors weren't sure whether the Yuma, Arizona, resident would ever be able to come off of the ventilator and feeding tube.
That's when the family unity cracked.
Divided over life, death
Chambers's wife of 58 years, Viola, and one daughter began advocating removal of the ventilator and ending his life, according to Potter. Mrs. Chambers presented a living will her husband signed in 1990 when the couple lived in Iowa. The document indicated that should he have an "incurable or irreversible condition that will result either in death within a relatively short period of time" it was his desire that his life not be prolonged by the administration of life-sustaining procedures.
Chambers did not designate a power of attorney or anyone to serve as medical decision maker in the event of his incapacitation. He has not been declared incapacitated, however, so the family decided to put the life-or-death question to him.
On September 8, after having been off morphine and other mind-altering drugs for 10 hours, the family assembled in Chambers's room at Naples Community Hospital. Present were Viola Chambers, 10 children and Chambers's treating physician, Dr. Kenneth Bookman.
"We all believed that daddy would elect to discontinue the ventilator," Potter told WND. "I went there with the determination that if that's what he chose, I would support him and stand there and love him and not leave that room until he left us."
Again, Chambers surprised them.
"He was asked specifically if he wanted to stay on the ventilator and his answer was 'yes,'" wrote Bookman in a notarized letter documenting the event, a copy of which was supplied to WND.
"He was asked if he understood that he would likely never go home again, and would likely live in a ventilator facility, on the ventilator, for the rest of his life and his answer was, 'yes,'" Bookman's letter continued. "He was asked if he wanted to be removed from the ventilator and his answer was 'no.' He was asked if he understood that he would die if he would be removed from the ventilator and his answer was, 'yes.'"
Bookman states he felt that Chambers was off of sedation and aware enough to comprehend and make decisions regarding life support.
What reportedly happened next shocked Potter: "When my father said that he wanted to live and he wanted to be treated, my mother said to him in very emphatic tones, 'Jim, do you really want to live in this body? Don't you want to go to heaven and be with Jerry?' He's my younger brother who died. And she said it twice. And the room absolutely went nuts. Everybody was outraged that she was trying to talk him into dying. ... He just stared at her as if she lost her mind. He didn't respond at all."
When contacted by WND, Viola Chambers declined to comment.
According to Iowa law, a living will "may be revoked in any manner by which the Declarant is able to communicate the Declarant's intent to evoke."
Bookman, Potter and her siblings considered the Iowa living will revoked and transferred Chambers two weeks later to Anne Maria Rehabilitation and Nursing Center, a facility that specializes in rehabilitating ventilator patients, in North Augusta, South Carolina.
'Revoked' living will lives on
According to documents filed with the court, Chambers's new treating physician, Dr. Nicholas Sanito, found Chambers "awake, alert and interactive" during an examination on September 26.
"He shakes my hands. He was trying to speak, but I couldn't read his lips all that well," Sanito wrote.
Another assessment completed of Chambers on Sept. 28 by Angie Beverly, the activities director at the facility, found Chambers could see, hear and comprehend and that he "tried to communicate."
"He could sometimes make himself understood and ... tried to use tools, such as a white board and marker and a magnetic letter board to communicate. He wrote a letter on the white board, although it took tremendous effort. He has a strong desire to communicate," Beverly concluded, according to a synopsis of the assessment provided to WND.
Viola Chambers, however, informed Sanito and the nursing staff about the Iowa living will and a Do- Not-Resuscitate order and acted to enforce both. Potter asserts her mother requests morphine and another drug be dispensed to her father in such a way that he is infrequently sober enough to communicate and ordered the removal of all communication devices from his room, including his nurse call button.
Mrs. Chambers also denied her husband medical treatment for pneumonia and ordered he only be given "comfort care," according to Potter.
The nursing home administrator, Marcy Drewry, was unavailable for comment.
While their father's lungs slowly filled with fluid and his extremities began to swell, Potter and her siblings mobilized to save his life, which meant knocking heads with their own mother.
"I can only say that she is not well," Potter said, adding that she believes her mother suffers from the adult version of the mental health disorder, Munchausen by Proxy. "She's on a mission now. I don't think there will be any reasoning with her in this process. The power is simply going to have to be taken from her hands."
Following South Carolina law, the nursing home staff considers Viola Chambers to be the person with the authority over the patient and the person they need to answer to. The Adult Health Care Consent Act gives the spouse the highest priority to make medical decisions in the absence of a health care power of attorney.
After Potter and her siblings filed a police report accusing their mother of "elder abuse," the state agency designated by the Department of Social Services to investigate such complaints looked into the matter. Susan Garen, the regional Long Term Care Ombudsman, confirmed Viola Chambers had the authority to direct her husband's care. After consulting with the State Long Term Care Ombudsman, Jon Cook, Garen concluded no investigation would be done.
"Mr. Cook determined that it is not within the scope of the long term care ombudsman to determine if the decisions made by the medical decision maker were in the best interest of the resident or not," Garen wrote in an October 6 report.
"No agency gets involved in family disputes. If there is a family dispute then we ask that they settle that in court to determine guardianship," Cook told WND. "On cases where there's a legal representative, we really have to do what they say. Especially when there's a living will that hasn't been revoked."
When WND informed Cook that family members assert the living will was revoked, he replied: "That's up in the air. I haven't seen anything that says it's revoked. Nobody can prove it is. That's why I wanted the probate court to handle that. We just can't get involved."
The hands-off approach to the case by state agencies charged with the responsibility of advocating on behalf of the vulnerable was similarly experienced by those seeking to preserve Terri Schiavo's life.
Dispute lands in court
On October 6, Randall Chambers filed an emergency petition seeking appointment as temporary guardian of his father. Six days later, according to court documents, Viola Chambers countered with her own petition.
"As his wife of 58 years, I am far more intimately aware of my husband's wishes and desires as it pertains to his health care treatment than any of my children," stated Viola Chambers in the petition. "I therefore object to the appointment of my son, Randall Chambers, as temporary Guardian for my husband as his appointment will undermine and deprive my husband of the healthcare he wishes and desires and which he has expressed to me on many occasions and also in writing."
The court appointed an independent guardian ad litem, Paige Weeks Johnson, to investigate the case and make a recommendation to the court on behalf of Chambers. In her preliminary report, Johnson recommended the court order the ventilator and feeding tube not be removed until further order of the court, and until she has the opportunity to speak with the treating physician. Still, the authority to make other treatment decisions rests with Viola Chambers.
As their father crept closer to death in the absence of antibiotics, according to Potter, the siblings trained their sights on the treating physician at the nursing home. They faxed him a letter asserting their mother had breached her fiduciary responsibility to their father. They attached Bookman's letter along with the 10 affidavits from family members all swearing Chambers had revoked the living will and wanted to live.
"We told the doctor, 'We will sue you if anything happens to our father.' We believe that has gotten him to be a little more involved," said Potter.
Chambers was subsequently transported to the hospital where he is now receiving treatment for the pneumonia. Meanwhile, the guardianship battle continues.
"I can't believe what you have to come up with in order to preserve this life – this vibrant, strong man who wants to live," said Potter. "It's incredible."
Amen
This will be my last reply to you because I just can't waste my time and efforts on the way you like to nit pick the issue. The quote from the Declaration shows the intent, as do the Federalist papers. The intent is that government should not destroy and the govt of SC has been extremely destructive. It is your duty to fight such things no matter where you live.
Also, I reiterate that your need to adhere strictly to your interpretation of the law with no respect for justice is simply misguided and I cannot spend my time arguing in circles. My purpose in coming in here is to give answers to those that are genuinely interested in my Dad's story and in our quest for justice for him. You obviously have no interest in my family or my Dad, so I respectfully say goodbye to you. God speed.
Amen. God bless you Pegita. Thank you.
On the other hand, this is WorldNetDaily.
What are you getting at with a comment like, "this is WorldNetDaily"? Do you find them to be unreliable?
Remember, I'm the one in favor of respecting wishes...whatever they may be, death or life. :-)
Spoken like a true Constitution-loving conservative, but I note that there are many who hate the idea of states' rights, judicial restraint, etc., and would love to turn this continent into a centralized theocracy...and unfortunately, many of them post here!
I was merely pinging you back to a thread where you had queried whether or not this was something real, because you had only heard about it through WND. I wanted you to know that it was verified, but that actual online accounts of it weren't readily found to confirm its authenticity. I didn't mean to imply that you wouldn't be a gentleman. :-)
They have earned the nickname "WorldNutDaily," as they are very unreliable. Some of what they report is true; some is not. They can alert you to things, if you're willing to do the research and find out what's real and what's not. I think they just post their e-mail, urban legends and all.
Thank you. That's what I figured; thus, the smileys. :-)
I realize that many read more into my straight-spoken words than what I actually write, but I figure that's their problem. I believe in respect for all, not "life at all costs" and not looking at individuals as merely pawns in a pro-life game.
I feel for the ladies who have posted here sharing their loss of a loved one, and I feel for this man whose wishes were disrespected. Regardless of how things ended for him, his family had to endure the suffering of his struggle for his rights.
Frankly, I believe that it's all part of the continued slide away from respecting peoples' rights and wishes--the *REAL* slippery slope. Note that people are *kept alive* against their wishes, as well as *killed* against their wishes. So it's not the "Culture of Death"...but a "Culture of Disrespect" and stomping of rights.
WorldNetDaily may at times "stretch the truth" on things and try to call it news, but this is usually on matters related to terrorism. If you do a search on "Jimmy Chambers" (the man in question) you will see that this story is valid. And for all of the flak that WND gets, they had a lot to do with keeping the Terri Schiavo story going when the liberal media wanted the story to disappear.
Reference the post about medical costs eating up any savings the couple had:
The wife was left with all that the husband had previous to his accident. Her children were prepared to make sure she wanted for nothing. She would have been in cigarettes and bingo chips til death.
There are a few things that were not divulged prior to now. For instance, the family had a meeting less than a week after Jimmy Chambers was hurt and it was agreed by everyone involved, including the 'grieving widow' that he should be able to make his own calls. As long as he was alert and coherent the decisions would be his to make. The very next day the 'greiving widow' was overheard telling a distant relative that "the kids do not want to let him go and I will have to decide when to pull the plug".
At one point while Mr. Chambers was laying on his bed his son was feeding him ice cubes, one at a time, to slake his thirst. The 'grieving widow' grabbed the container of ice cubes and threw them into the sink in order to stop the hydration. Another time she stuck her finger in her husband's ear to disallow her son from whispering that he loved him.
I don't think this sounds like a woman that is willing to play the game straight and let the man have his wishes respected. This woman also let Mr. Chambers lay on his bed suffering from pneumonia and congestive heart failure, two diseases that are not fatal if treated, for an extended time without treatment.
Her motives are clear to anyone that knows her. She did not want to be saddled with a husband that needed care. She had bingo to play and cigarettes to smoke. A woman has to have her priorities and she had hers. Now she is free to pursue them without anyone nagging her about smoking in the house and going to bingo when they couldn't afford it. She will not be tied down to a useless husband that would have required care on a daily basis.
In regards to the gentleman arguing whether this falls under states rights or federal begs the point. If he is so tied up in that knot that he cannot see that to kill a man for the convenience of another is just wrong, I pity him. He has become so engrossed in minutia that he cannot appreciate the bigger picture. If it can happen to Mr. Chambers it can also happen to him and he will be the one justifying himself into a grave.
Maybe they should quit feeding their mother.
Hi. I am the second son of Jimmy Chambers - the one who lives in Evans, GA. My sister is Dad’sGirl, my wife is in-law and my daughter is kalintabby. For those that are skeptical about if we really are who we say we are, I can only tell you that you that you’ll have to take our word for it. I don’t know what you would want us to do to prove it.
I have read all of the posts and I felt that it was time that I add my two cents worth. First, I would like to thank most everyone for their support and prayers. It helps us cope with the loss that we are experiencing right now.
Secondly, we have researched the laws of SC and we have discovered that in order to revoke a Living Will, the patient would have to communicate the revocation in front of his/her presiding physician and in front of witnesses. Our lawyer submitted the doctor’s and 10 family member’s statements to the Probate Judge. The Probate Judge then determined that these statements should be notarized. The process to terminate Dad’s life support by his wife had already begun, so we were in the 11th hour. We scrambled to get them notarized and recorded in the Aiken Co. Clerk of Court’s Office. The Judge evidently wasn’t concerned about the need to expedite this process.
Thirdly, SC law also defines “Elder Abuse” as the physical/mental abuse by means of assault, neglect, deprivation of sustenance (food/water), chemical restraints, etc. A police report was made to reflect this by me against his wife. The police informed me that this matter had to be investigated by DSS (Dept. of Social Services). DSS informed us that this was investigated by the state’s Ombudsman. The state Ombudsman informed us that they don’t investigate criminal matters. Thus, we were chasing our proverbial tails.
The “Save My Dad” campaign was conducted in my home and by this time, we were beyond the 11th hour and minutes were valuable. Police, DSS, Ombudsman’s Office, lawyers, City Mayor, State Attorney General’s Office, State Senators, Lt. Governor and Governor were sought for help and advice. No one could help!!!
billbears wrote -
I can pray about the situation (which I try to do in all issues) but this issue under our Constitution is strictly the business of the citizens of the state of South Carolina. It is not the business of the national government, the business of the citizens from other states, and laying pressure on elected officials for whom I did not cast a vote is disingenous to the citizens within the state that did vote.
Should a group of citizens from Oregon be able to influence the decisions of a city council, sheriff's office, etc. in South Carolina? Even if the Oregonians holds a different value system than South Carolinians? Because that is what you're asking. To destroy federalism in all aspects to get what you desire. Perhaps in this issue, the intent is good. What about the next issue? Can you guarantee the intent will always be good? If you allow it once, the precedent is set. A very bad one.
Let me ask you billbears, if you were trying to save your loved one (wife, mother, father, son or daughter) and you tried these agencies and representatives with no response or help, what would you do?? It’s down to minutes before something or someone has to intervene, would you really give a @#*%$ about violating the sanctity of separation between Federal and State?
Would you suggest that I walk into my father’s room and tell him that his wife has her hand on the plug and we tried everything to get the state’s attention to no avail, but we don’t want to offend the Constitution of the United States? Could you explain that to your loved one????
Please give me wisdom from your superior intellect.
I am sure that you all are wondering about the circumstances surrounding my Dad's death. I would like the answer to that also. The death certificate lists that he died of natural causes. The number one cause was chronic respiratory failure. The nursing home has an alarm on the respirator, one behind the nurses station and two nurses stationed at a table in the hallway bewteen the respiratory rooms. And his death was contributed to chronic respiratory failure. Hmmmm.
My father was stayed his execution at the last minute by the Probate Court, who assigned him a Guardian Ad Litem. He was treated aggressively for his CHF and pnuemonia.
I visited my father everyday that I could. I saw him 3 days after coming back from the hospital and I must say that he was the most conscious and alert that I had seen him in nearly a month. I could not tell that man that his wife was trying to pull the plug but I did let him know that his wife was angry with me because I wanted him to have the therapy and she didn't. He had only one week of therapy since he arrived and the rest of the time he spent sedated. He demanded to speak with her but it was too late, as I was shuttled out the door because it was past visiting hours.
He died that night.
In a word? Yes. Beyond a shadow of a doubt. I would not contribute to further violation the separation of powers between the states and the national government for anyone, even my family. And before you doubt, I have discussed end of life issues with my family and will be instituting a very specific living will.
I have suggested a redress within the legislatures of the separate and sovereign states. A redress that alleviates further concerns on the issue and would stay within Constitutional bounds. However, instead of forwarding your concern in this format, I am attacked with emotional arguments. I have offered condolences for your loss, however I can not and will not advocate action(s) that continually strip the ideal of federalism from our nation of states
We staged a protest at a Governor's bike rally in Aiken to get his attention. We got his attention and lip service about how he was going to look into it.
I noticed that you pick and choose which parts you like to respond to but you didn't respond to what you would do that we hadn't done already. How would you get the states attention in time to prevent the death of a loved one?
And, if you can't look at your loved ones with emotion, you have got a serious problem that no one can help you with.
I just can't fathom a person telling a loved one that he cannot violate the sanctity of the state, so you'll have to die. I guess it sucks that you have to die. That has to be one cold-hearted creature.
Second, I've been a Freeper since 1998 and I can tell you there are always a few that don't know when to bow out of a debate gracefully... They kick and scream to the end. I believe your family's story should be a concern of everyone. None of us should turn our back when an injustice is done.
I had a living will drawn up many years ago before I was married. It was also before Terry Schindler, Nancy Cruzan (sp?), etc. Since then I have torn it in two, written REVOKED all over it and told my husband I should never have been so stupid to believe this issue could be so cut and dry. Truth is, the only reason I aggreed to it is because it is just standard practice for that portion to be included in wills, and at the time it seemed reasonable.
Older and wiser now, my husband and I are in the process of drawing up new wills, and it will be a MUCH different one.
God bless you and your family. And welcome!
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.