Posted on 04/07/2005 5:34:06 PM PDT by News Hunter
Edited on 04/07/2005 5:39:05 PM PDT by Sidebar Moderator. [history]
In a situation recalling the recent death of Terri Schindler-Schiavo in Florida, an 81-year-old widow, denied nourishment and fluids for nearly two weeks, is clinging to life in a hospice in LaGrange, Ga., while her immediate family fights desperately to save her life before she dies of starvation and dehydration.
Mae Magouirk was neither terminally ill, comatose nor in a "vegetative state," when Hospice-LaGrange accepted her as a patient about two weeks ago upon the request of her granddaughter, Beth Gaddy, 36, an elementary school teacher.Also upon Gaddy's request and without prior legal authority, since March 28 Hospice-LaGrange has denied Magouirk normal nourishment or fluids via a feeding tube through her nose or fluids via an IV. She has been kept sedated with morphine and ativan, a powerful tranquillizer.
Her nephew, Ken Mullinax, told WorldNetDaily that although Magouirk is given morphine and ativan, she has not received any medication to keep her eyes lubricated during her forced dehydration.
"They haven't given her anything like that for two weeks," said Mullinax. "She can't produce tears."
The dehydration is being done in defiance of Magouirk's specific wishes, which she set down in a "living will," and without agreement of her closest living next-of-kin, two siblings and a nephew: A. Byron McLeod, 64, of Anniston, Ga.; Ruth Mullinax, 74, of Birmingham, Ala.; and Ruth Mullinax's son, Ken Mullinax.
Magouirk's husband and only child, a son, are both deceased.
In her living will, Magouirk stated that fluids and nourishment were to be withheld only if she were either comatose or "vegetative," and she is neither. Nor is she terminally ill, which is generally a requirement for admission to a hospice.
Magouirk lives alone in LaGrange, though because of glaucoma she relied on her granddaughter, Beth Gaddy, to bring her food and do errands.
Two weeks ago, Magouirk's aorta had a dissection, and she was hospitalized in the local LaGrange Hospital. Her aortic problem was determined to be severe, and she was admitted to the intensive care unit. At the time of her admission she was lucid and had never been diagnosed with dementia.
Claiming that she held Magouirk's power of attorney, Gaddy had her transferred to Hospice-LaGrange, a 16-bed unit owned by the same family that owns the hospital. Once at the hospice, Gaddy stated that she did not want her grandmother fed or given water.
"Grandmama is old and I think it is time she went home to Jesus," Gaddy told Magouirk's brother and nephew, McLeod and Ken Mullinax. "She has glaucoma and now this heart problem, and who would want to live with disabilities like these?"
Gaddy's telephone is not in operation and she could not be reached for comment.
According to Mullinax, his aunt's local cardiologist in LaGrange, Dr. James Brennan, and Dr. Raed Agel, a highly acclaimed cardiologist at the nationally renowned University of Alabama-Birmingham Medical Center, determined that her aortic dissection is contained and not life-threatening at the moment.
Mullinax also states that Gaddy did not hold power of attorney, a fact he learned from the hospice's in-house legal counsel, Carol Todd.
On March 31, Todd told Ruth and Ken Mullinax during a phone conversation Georgia law stipulated that Ruth Mullinax and her brother, A.B. McLeod, were entitled to make any and all decisions for Magouirk. Ruth Mullinax immediately told Todd to begin administering food and fluids through an IV and a nasal feeding tube.
Todd had the IV fluids started that evening, but informed the family that they would have to come to the hospice to sign papers to have the feeding tube inserted. Once that was done, Magouirk would not be able to stay at the hospice.
Ken Mullinax recalled that Todd said the only reason Magouirk was in the hospice in the first place was that the LaGrange Hospital had failed to exercise due diligence in closely examining the power of attorney Beth Gaddy said she had, as well as exercising the provisions of Magouirk's living will.
Todd explained that Gaddy had only a financial power of attorney, not a medical power of attorney, and Magouirk's living will carefully provided that a feeding tube and fluids should only be discontinued if she was comatose or in a "vegetative state" – and she was neither.
Gaddy, however, was not dissuaded. When Ken Mullinax and McLeod showed up at the hospice the following day, April 1, to meet with Todd and arrange emergency air transport for Magouirk's transfer to the University of Alabama-Birmingham Medical Center, Hospice-LaGrange stalled them while Gaddy went before Troup County, Ga., Probate Court Judge Donald W. Boyd and obtained an emergency guardianship over her grandmother.
Under the terms of his ruling, Gaddy was granted full and absolute authority over Magouirk, at least for the weekend. She took advantage of her judge-granted power by ordering her grandmother's feeding tube pulled out, just hours after it had been inserted.
Florida law requires that a hearing for an emergency guardianship must be held within three days of its request, and Magouirk's hearing was held April 4 before Judge Boyd. Apparently, he has not made a final ruling, but favors giving permanent guardianship power to Gaddy, who is anxious to end her grandmother's life.
Ron Panzer, president and founder of Hospice Patients Alliance, a patients' rights advocacy group based in Michigan, told WND that what is happening to Magouirk is not at all unusual.
"This is happening in hospices all over the country," he said. "Patients who are not dying – are not terminal – are admitted [to hospice] and the hospice will say they are terminally ill even if they're not. There are thousands of cases like this. Patients are given morphine and ativan to sedate them. If feeding is withheld, they die within 10 days to two weeks. It's really just a form of euthanasia."
Ken Mullinax does not want that to happen to his aunt. He pointed out that one of the ironies in this tragedy is that the now-helpless woman worked for years as a secretary for a prominent local cancer doctor.
"She devoted her whole life to helping those who heal others, and now she's being denied sustenance for life," he said.
Mullinax said he has begged Gaddy to let him take on full responsibility for his aunt's care.
"If she would just give us a chance to keep Aunt Mae alive, that's all we ask," he said. "They [Beth and her husband, Dennis Gaddy] have a family and Beth is a teacher, and it was just getting to be a lot of trouble. But I'm the caregiver for my mom, and Aunt Mae could move in with us. We'll buy another house with a bedroom and we'll take care of her. She can move in with us once she can leave the hospital."
But her health becomes more precarious by the hour. Her vital signs are still good, but since admission to hospice she has not been lucid – "but who would be since nourishment and fluids have been denied since March 28," Mullinax remarked.
Attorney Carol Todd could not be reached for comment; a message on her voicemail said she would not be gone the entire week of April 4. Hospice-LaGrange did not return phone calls.
There's a whole lotta tube yankin' goin' on out there!
Be Ever Vigilant!
True, we don't know, but likewise we don't know if Mullinax was telling the truth either. As for the living will, I have not seen any wording on it, nor am I really sure it exists.
After all the implication is that a living will has no impact on the privilege of the guardian to create legal conditions that can result in your death.
And it is a significant implication. It is definitely one that states will and should wrestle with in reviewing their respective laws on such matters.
We really have to do something about these legal shenanigans that can trick us into being killed.
They raise many questions for states to resolve. Should a living will that requires all possible life saving efforts trump any guardianship authority, for example?
"In his (April 4th order), Probate Judge Douglas Boyd permitted Gaddy to continue as Magouirk's temporary guardian, but in a formal letter attached to the order stated that her powers were limited. One of the conditions of her guardianship is "To see that the ward [Magouirk] is adequately fed, clothed, sheltered and cared for, and receives all necessary medical attention, including placement in a nursing home, if appropriate."
"Under the terms of an April 4 court order, La Grange cardiologists James Brennan and Thomas Gore, and Dr. Raed Aquel, of UAB Medical Center, Birmingham, are to evaluate Magouirk and decide what treatment would be best and where it should take place."
This is a situation where one family member (granddaughter Beth Gaddy) claimed to have medical power of attorney over Mae Magouirk (turns out she only had financial power of attorney -- did she lie or was she mistaken?) and admitted her to a hospice (on March 28th) and ordered that she be denied nourishment.
When the rest of the family heard about this, they contested it. A hearing was held April 4th, at which time the above orders were issued.
Now, the way I read it, Mae Magouirk has been receiving nourishment since April 4th. If not, someone is in violation of a direct court order to the contrary. Why was this fact ommitted from Glenn Beck's April 8th interview with the cousin?
Where's the story? If we're going to be pointing fingers, let's aim at the granddaughter, not the courts -- Judge Boyd saved this woman.
Gaddy, however, was not dissuaded. When Ken Mullinax and McLeod showed up at the hospice the following day, April 1, to meet with Todd and arrange emergency air transport for Magouirk's transfer to the University of Alabama-Birmingham Medical Center, Hospice-LaGrange stalled them while Gaddy went before Troup County, Ga., Probate Court Judge Donald W. Boyd and obtained an emergency guardianship over her grandmother.
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.
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.
"The immediate family can simply ask for her discharge from the facility and get it. So we're not getting all the facts here, just a bunch of hysteria."
It is one thing for you to have argued for the termination of Terri because there was no living will and the court sided with Michael Schiavo, ignoring the multitudes ofconflicting interests, lowest denominators in favor of death, etc. It's another thing where there was a living will, very specific, and the hospice that has the information to deny starvation conveniently ignores such. Then a JUDGE jumps in by ruling against the living will after the feeding tube was reinserted and yanks it again before a final ruling.
Death is Thy Name and shows the complete hypocrite that you are.
"I am sceptical of WND myself, but have to wonder, what fact would change the general tenor of this story? That teh written directive (feed me) was a forgery? That everybody in the blood family says "starve her?" That the doctors are hedging, and the lady is really terminal?"
Great point.
I didn't argue for the termination of Terri Schiavo and you can't find a single post where I did. Direct your hatred and false accusations elsewhere.
Do we know this for sure, and in what context was it allegedly said, and was it stated as in any way linked to actions to bring an end to granny's life? A number of unanswered questions still remain.
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.
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.
Florida statutes include a requirement that actions taken be in the incapacitated patient's best interests too; and that permits natural death by dehydration.
765.401 (3) Before exercising the incapacitated patient's rights to select or decline health care, the proxy must comply with the provisions of ss. 765.205 and 765.305, except that a proxy's decision to withhold or withdraw life-prolonging procedures must be supported by clear and convincing evidence that the decision would have been the one the patient would have chosen had the patient been competent or, if there is no indication of what the patient would have chosen, that the decision is in the patient's best interest.
Chapter 765, Florida Statutes 2004 <-- Link
From below, Ken Mullinax may be making a fool of Glen Beck and many more. She may very well have her feeding tube intact.
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43721
But while the doctors ponder her condition, it is not certain if Magouirk has had a nasal feeding tube inserted for nourishment or an IV for hydration. According to Magouirk’s nephew, Ken Mullinax, 45, his aunt has been without substantial food or hydration for 10 days.
My uninformed belief is thatthe 3 doctor panel is not charged with making a conclusion of "terminal." I think they are charged with choosing a course of treatment.
The determination of terminal has already been certified, by another doctor. Otherwise the patient would not be in hospice. And the attorney for hospice is reported to have said that if Mae is intubated, she must be removed from hospice. I.e., if she is fed, she is not certifiable as certainly dead withing 6 months.
If and when the guardian and hospital/doctor decide to schedule natural death by dehydration, the patient is legally terminal.
Not trying to be argumentative, as I'm sure you are well versed in the law, but in probate matters are all relatives of any type always considered interested parties? Gaddy clearly would be as she was a direct descendent, but not sure of the others, especially if Gaddy certified she had been the sole caretaker for 10 years.
sad
But you were taking her "statement" as true, while questioning anything that might mitigate the WND story.
Yes, best interests is a subjective term, but virtually anything in medicine is somewhat subjective. The fact that doctors in the Schiavo case disagreed on the extent of her PVS diagnosis proves that.
Heheh. I'm not that well versed. Have to look this stuff up. Probate is state law, as I'm sure you knew or strongly suspected. Grandkids are pretty low on the totem pole, which makes general sense if you consider your own family experiences.
31-9-1.http://georgiamalpractice.com/codes/code-informedconsentlaw.htm <-- Link
This chapter shall be known and may be cited as the 'Georgia Medical Consent Law.'31-9-2.
(a) In addition to such other persons as may be authorized and empowered, any one of the following persons is authorized and empowered to consent, either orally or otherwise, to any surgical or medical treatment or procedures not prohibited by law which may be suggested, recommended, prescribed, or directed by a duly licensed physician:(1) Any adult, for himself, whether by living will or otherwise;
(1.1) Any person authorized to give such consent for the adult under a health care agency complying with Chapter 36 of Title 31, the 'Durable Power of Attorney for Health Care Act';
(2) In the absence or unavailability of a living spouse, any parent, whether an adult or a minor, for his minor child;
(3) Any married person, whether an adult or a minor, for himself and for his spouse;
(4) Any person temporarily standing in loco parentis, whether formally serving or not, for the minor under his care; and any guardian, for his ward;
(5) Any female, regardless of age or marital status, for herself when given in connection with pregnancy, or the prevention thereof, or childbirth;
(6) Upon the inability of any adult to consent for himself and in the absence of any person to consent under paragraphs (2) through (5) of this subsection, the following persons in the following order of priority:
(A) Any adult child for his parents;
(B) Any parent for his adult child;
(C) Any adult for his brother or sister; or
(D) Any grandparent for his grandchild.
Thanks for the link. What do you know. The true story is emerging and is quite different. Even WND has backtracked considerably. I wonder if the lynch mob here on FR will do the same?
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.