Posted on 02/26/2007 10:38:33 AM PST by SmithL
WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. (Court TV) - Madeline Neumann wanted to die peacefully.
In 1992, when she turned 89, the grandmother, who suffered from Alzheimer's and a seizure disorder, created a living will before she moved into the Joseph L. Morse Geriatric Center.
The will included directives to prevent doctors from using life-prolonging treatments if she were dying.
It specifically said not to resuscitate her, feed her via tubes, perform surgery or aid her breathing with a ventilator.
But when aides at the nursing home found the then-92-year-old Neumann unresponsive after suffering from a seizure on Oct. 16, 1995, her wishes weren't followed, according to a lawsuit filed by her granddaughter, Linda Scheible.
Instead, nurses called a doctor, who instructed them to contact emergency medics, who quickly arrived and rushed Neumann to the hospital. En route, paramedics restrained Neumann and inserted a breathing tube.
The paramedics didn't know of Neumann's wishes because there was no do-not-resuscitate order or any mention of her living will directive in her medical file, according to the suit.
Although doctors removed the breathing tube a day and a half later at the hospital, Neumann was kept on a life-support machine. The machines were disconnected six days later and Neumann was allowed to die, but only after her three granddaughters pleaded with doctors to honor her directive, according to the suit.
The complaint, filed in 1997 against Dr. Jaimy Bensimon and the Joseph L. Morse Geriatric Center, also claims that restraining Neumann's hands and inserting the breathing tube amounted to battery.
Scheible's attorneys are also alleging breach of contract and negligence.
The suit is believed to be the first time in a Florida court that a jury has been entrusted to decide whether a doctor can be held liable for providing treatment that goes against a medical directive.
Although neither the attorneys for Scheible nor those representing Bensimon and the center would comment on the case before trial, both parties said the opening statements they delivered during the first trial in November 2006 hold true today.
That trial ended in a mistrial when Bensimon's mother died and the doctor had to travel to Israel for her burial. Opening statements in the retrial are expected to begin Monday.
Scheible's attorney, Marnie Poncy, told the first jury that Neumann wanted "a legacy of a peaceful death."
"Instead of the legacy she would have left, Madeline was forced against her will, against her directions and against medical common sense, to leave a legacy of terror and fear," Poncy said.
"She was slowly failing," Poncy said. "She was experiencing the death she wanted. There was to be no awfulness about her leaving. Sadness, yes. Awfulness, no."
Attorneys for Bensimon and the center have argued the doctor and center staff acted lawfully when he discovered Neumann had no pulse.
They said Bensimon, who was on call and a 40-minute drive from the nursing home, correctly told the nurses to call 911 because Neumann had a history of seizures. Not knowing what was wrong, he wanted to evaluate her.
"Only God can determine the circumstances of someone's death," Bensimon's attorney, James Nosich, told the jury. "She died peacefully and without pain when doctors determined her life could not continue any longer."
The trial will be streamed live on Court TV Extra.
How can an 89 year old woman with Altzheimer's write a valid will?
Good point. But a DNR order is pretty common and could have been written prior to the onset of the disease or in the early stages, when patients are still able to make some decisions.
I am pro-life, and support DNR measures.
Presumably she was in the very early stages (just as Ronald Reagan apparently was towards the end of his Presidency). If someone has been diagnosed with a mental disorder, but has not been found to be mentally incompetent for legal purposes, they should be able to write an enforceable will, just the same as they're allowed to buy or sell a house, get married, or any number of other things that free citizens may do.
Or the hospital bureaucrats screwed up. I wouldn't rush to judgment just yet.
The ordinary heart monitor is non-invasive; intubation,catheters, IV's, central lines or feeding tubes would be considered invasive. Oxygen delivered by cannula or mask, again non-invasive. The article was poorly written--very unclear on certain points.
Maybe. We'll see.
But I still wonder why it took them six days to follow the family's wishes. Did they deny that there was a DNR order?
The article doesn't give us enough details. I'm keeping an open mind until I read more.
The paramedics did what they were supposed to do.
I don't think that the paramedics have any responsibility here. The question is why the doctor had the nurses call the paramedics in the first place.
I think the family might have a case for breach of contract. But I still want to know why the DNR was not followed - ignorance of it on the doctor's part or deliberate choice to skirt it?
My condolences on your loss.
I can see a legitimate attempt to escape from bills for treatment that "shouldn't" have happened. Otherwise, this seems a pretty weak case.
Never stand between heirs and their money. The granddaughters probably didn't get all they felt they deserved.
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.