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]
I note the line in the story that asserts the court is inclined to give guardianship to the granddaughter "permanently."
Umm.... so why haven't they?
Now, THAT is a sad commentary.
If the granddaughter had the appropriate POA, why would the hospice have reinserted the feeding tube at the nephew's request? Also, why would she have to go to court to get an emergency guardianship order if she had the medical POA?
May I suggest you mind your own business.
Oh No I was just agreeing.
Tomorrow is Friday ~
Yep.
I think that's just typical WND crappy reporting. I assume they meant Georgia, but if they can't get that simple fact right, which ones do we take as gospel?
What a crazy and insane person this granddaughter is. I hope the family has murder charges filed against her. It is not up to her to decide when her grandmother must die.
Tonights 10 minutes of hate.
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.
So why do we care what Florida law says about a woman in a hospice in Georgia?
Interestingly, neither diagnosis (PVS or terminal) is required in Florida either, to justify death by starvation.
http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/browning.txt <-- LinkSupreme Court of Florida.
In re GUARDIANSHIP OF Estelle M. BROWNING.
STATE of Florida, Petitioner,
v.
Doris F. HERBERT, etc., Respondent.
No. 74174.
Sept. 13, 1990.
BARKETT, Justice.
We have for review In re Guardianship of Browning, 543 So.2d 258 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989), in which the district court certified the following question as one of great public importance:
Whether the guardian of a patient who is incompetent but not in a permanent vegetative state and who suffers from an incurable, but not terminal condition, may exercise the patient's right of self-determination to forego sustenance provided artificially by a nasogastric tube?
Id. at 274. [FN1] We answer the question in the affirmative as qualified in this opinion.
Browning was 82 or so, stroke victim. She did have a written advance directive. The patient was not PVS and was not terminal. Florida court system holds that starving these patients to death is legal. Note the decision dates to 1990.
I was pinged this morning!
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1379016/posts
I suspect that for the sake of the people of the Nation this "teacher" needs to be prosecuted for all kinds of crimes.
Think a judge would see the sense of it?
What if we began asking the Lord of heaven to see that those who perpetrate this kind of crime receive, from on high, that same reward as they have given to others.
Based on the following:
Mat 5:7 "Blessed [are] the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy."
Gee, I wonder why older people do not want to go to the hospital?
So you are saying this is what Gaddy did?
follow the money on this one
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.