« Man Arrested At Best Buy For Paying With $2 Bills | Main | Time is not on my side... »

A Little More On Mae Magouirk

BlogsForTerri has the latest news on the case of Ora Mae Magouirk. Some of the mysteries of the situation are explained and the judge in the case (and possibly the granddaughter) are expected to comment Monday.

..Judge Boyd seems to believe that things fell apart between the families AFTER they left his courtroom and that Beth may have acted upon information from her grandmother's doctors - that the two doctors in LaGrange must have told Beth that Mae should go into the hospice - else Beth could not have put Mae in the hospice. Judge Boyd had been left originally with the impression that Mae would be placed in a nursing home, hence the language in his formal letter attached to the order that mentioned "nursing home." As to the issue of feeding and hydration, Judge Boyd said that it was testified in his court that Mae "was" getting nutrition and hydration.
The adequacy of that nutrition (occasional ice chips and jello) is what is at issue. Not being terminal, but being heavily medicated with Morphine, Mae could not request foods of fluids. The evidence (that which is available) seems to indicate that the doctors and/or the hospice weren't especially interested in keeping her hydrated or nourished. The letter from Ken Mullinax as well as the information from the hospice helps clear up yesterday's confusion about whether the hospice was denying food and water. Technically their statement about not denying her nutrition is true, but the evidence of her dehydration noted after her move to UAB Medical Center indicates that she was most likely slowly dying of starvation at the hospice. At UAB, Mae is now receiving the food and water she needs, and it was noted that she was seriously dehydrated. Her treatment will be implemented based on the previously negotiated agreement where 3 doctors will confer on her treatment plan.

It's a little to early to proclaim that this story has some larger meaning, but if I had to pick one cautionary lesson that should be evident from the case it's that the much vaunted "living will" you rushed out and drew up is only as effective as as the doctors and guardian who are entrusted implement it make it.


TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference A Little More On Mae Magouirk:

» Sierra Faith linked with The Power of Light

» bLogicus linked with Saving Mae Magouirk

» NIF linked with Bard of Baby Monkeys

» JackLewis.net linked with Mae Magouirk: updated timeline and commentary

» basil's blog linked with Lunch: 4/11/2005

Comments (40)

She didn't have a tube to p... (Below threshold)
julie:

She didn't have a tube to pull so they had to starve her some way. Joking aside, I'm not impressed with the Judge, the granddaughter, the docs, or the nurses. They are either negligent or stupid. And with all the media attention, they still couldn't get their act together and figure out what they were doing.

I suspect that they did not... (Below threshold)
Just Me:

I suspect that they did not place an NG tube (the kind that goes through your nose) and were relying on other means of nourishment, which were not adequate.

Did she have an IV? If she ... (Below threshold)
julie:

Did she have an IV? If she was taking insuff. fluids by mouth, she shd have had an IV. If not, or if it was set at a rate too low for fluid replacement, they were intentionally dehydrating her.

Regardless, she was old, she was kept dehydrated and medicated so she could not speak for herself. The ones who were to speak up for her, Beth, the judge, and the docs, did not and instead caused or exaberated this condition and she was conveniently marked for death. And if her nephew hadn't stepped in and made a media stink, she would have died. Not according to her wishes, not according to the routine standards of medical and nursing care but due to active neglect.

So, where are all the Oozers now? You know, the ones that have a bug so far up their asses about Wizbang, that they would rather see an old lady die? Sure, some of you went the "we need more information" route. But the result would have been the same if you had your way and everyone would have shut up about it. Oh yeah, this happens everyday, right? People get substandard care and die bc they are elderly so we shd just shut up about it. Or, how about you "it's a family matter" so shut up about it people? You were all doing a Paul pile on this weekend. What? No comment.

Julie I am wondering where ... (Below threshold)
Just Me:

Julie I am wondering where everyone went as well.

You know this story makes m... (Below threshold)
DaveD:

You know this story makes me wonder how specific one has to be in the living will. I wonder of one should take the time to specify "adequate" nutrition and hydration instead of just nutrition and hydration. I guess I'm being somewhat facetious but then again I feel I would never see a day when approving the death of an innocent for someone else's convenience would become a legally accepted part of our culture.

Julie declares: Regardl... (Below threshold)
Mona:

Julie declares: Regardless, she was old, she was kept dehydrated and medicated so she could not speak for herself. The ones who were to speak up for her, Beth, the judge, and the docs, did not and instead caused or exaberated this condition and she was conveniently marked for death. And if her nephew hadn't stepped in and made a media stink, she would have died. Not according to her wishes, not according to the routine standards of medical and nursing care but due to active neglect.

This is outrageous. You do not even have the grace to admit how much was sheerly wrong, that was generated by the initial Save Mae! online hysteria. Judge Boyd in fact acted properly per Georgia law in appointing Beth Gaddy as guardian of the person -- Mae's siblings were not before Beth in the hierarchy of Georgia law. Judge Boyd did not order Mae to starve and dehydrate. Judge Boyd, by all recent reports, had had no indication of any family disagreement, and properly performed his duties both by extent and in substance. The hospice apparently was giving Mae soft foods and ice chips, to the extent she would receive them. There is also some reporting (and these issues are still too murky for anyone to make definitive statements, including your sort) that it was Mae herself, while lucid, who insisted she wanted not to eat.

*If* that is true, if Mae had evinced such wishes while lucid, that has nothing to do with her living will. She has every right to make such a refusal, and force-feeding her would constitute assault.

The decision to transport her to the university hospital was apparently in abeyance until a team of 3 doctors, as was apparently understood by both Ken and Beth, made a decision. Beth Gaddy was not standing in the way of such protocols, as far as is known.

But you, and those like you online, nevertheless foment irresponsible and unfounded claims of judicial, familial and medical conspiracies to "mark" Mae for death. You assert "negligence" based on...what? WorldNet Daily and blog comments at a Save Terri! site, the possibly self-serving comments of nephew Ken, and your own ignorant conjecture.

Has it occurred to you that Ken is a practiced Democratic political operative, who knows how to put himself in the spotlight? That may not be his motive here, but it is at least as plausible, in my view more so, than the local conspiracy you imply. Beth Gaddy, by contrast, appears to be a private person; how many of us would be pleased to suddenly be thrust in a controversy in which we are being accused of trying to kill our grandmother? How many regular people, who are struggling with the decline of a beloved relative we have cared for for ten years, would have the savvy and stamina to take on a hostile crowd such as has been building here and elsewhere?

How long did it take after Terri Schiavo's passing, for another "victim" to be found and a blogswarm to commence indictment of a judge, a guardian and a medical team? Not long at all. And there will be others. People with nothing to do but hang out online will now acquire the great importance of "saving!" all kinds of folks, hanging on each tidbit and rumor that is released from Word Net and its ilk. (And I cannot spend the inordinate amount of time that I did this weekend to attempting to reason with y'all. So, when the next time comes -- and it will -- I won't interfere with your fun.)

Why, the opportunities to accuse judges, doctors, and private people struggling with elderly and ill relatives are infinite. The "victims" for the blogswarm to "save!" will be endless. and they will build up the frenzy based on outright error, ignorance, and ungrounded speculation, just as has happened here.

It makes me ill. But I know it will happen, again and again. You have found your new raison d'etre.

I just knew that last post ... (Below threshold)
Just Me:

I just knew that last post was from Mona before I even got to the bottom.

"Judge Boyd, by all recent reports, had had no indication of any family disagreement, and properly performed his duties both by extent and in substance."

IT was Boyd's job to find out these things, and he didn't. Also, the fact that there were two groups of people seeking differnent types of care should have been an obvious red flag that there was disagreement. He should have ascertained those facts.

It does sound like his order however was at least in some parts disregarded by the grandaughter and the doctors involved.

And Mona this makes me ill as well, because we now seem to have a culture that presumes death, rather than life, when it comes to the elderly and disabled. Not to mention those who would make the decision solely on the bottom line.

Yeah, it make me ill alright.

IT was Boyd's job to fin... (Below threshold)
Mona:

IT was Boyd's job to find out these things, and he didn't. Also, the fact that there were two groups of people seeking differnent types of care should have been an obvious red flag that there was disagreement. He should have ascertained those facts.

Are you numb to all reason? There is no evidence at all that the family brought any conflict to Judge Boyd's attention; it is not his job to ferret out post-hearing disagreements that the interested persons did not raise in court.

Nephew Ken could have filed a subsequent motion to get back before Boyd, alleging Beth Gaddy was violating the Court's orders, if she indeed was doing that. But I've not read anywhere that Ken did this; instead, he contacted the lead players in the Save Terri! campaign, thus putting himself in the spotlight. There is nothing, absolutely nothing in the reports I have read to indicate Boyd did anything improper or failed to discharge his duties.

See, here you are, alleging negligence on the part of a Georgia judge, based on complete ignorance.

Amazing. And disgusting.

It makes me ill. But I k... (Below threshold)
Beth:

It makes me ill. But I know it will happen, again and again. You have found your new raison d'etre
It makes me ill too, that there are people exist who think killing off the sick and disabled is somehow easy to ignore, as you obviously do.

A NEW raison d'etre? Hardly. Besides, even if it were, so what? There ARE people who were blissfully unaware (as you are, Mona) of the slipping standards of who has the right to live (in other words, the culture of death) until the Schiavo case smacked them right between the eyes. How does that make any of them (us) ignorant? Your blase attitude about it all smacks of ignorance and a complete lack of intellectual sophistication (which is ironically, apparently what that blase attitude is meant to portray).
Please DO step back from "our fun" from now on, because your arguments are simply contrarian and (ignorantly) arrogant. (So what if Mullinax is a Democrat? He may not be the brightest bulb in the box with the way he's handled this situation, but does that de-legitimize his wish to keep his aunt alive and healthy?)

"There is no evidence at al... (Below threshold)
Just Me:

"There is no evidence at all that the family brought any conflict to Judge Boyd's attention; it is not his job to ferret out post-hearing disagreements that the interested persons did not raise in court. "

Mona why do you think they were there?

The grandaughter already had her placed at the hospice when the hearing was held.

The judge says he was under the impression that she was in or heading to a nursing home.

Well the man certainly should have clarified that question on the day he ordered the doctors to evaluate her.

Now it is possible that the grandaughter lied through her teeth, but then does that mean the judge didn't take any testimony from the other family members? Did he take testimony from anyone arguing against her placement in the hospice? IF not, why not?

Your desire to defend what is happening is beyond belief, at this point I would hope that the reasonable people in favor of pulling Terri Schiavo's plug would at least be ready to admit mistakes were absolutely made in this case.

The judge's own words say he didn't know she was in a hospice, which indicates he didn't do too much fact finding.

Beth speculates: Beside... (Below threshold)
Mona:

Beth speculates: Besides, even if it were, so what? There ARE people who were blissfully unaware (as you are, Mona) of the slipping standards of who has the right to live (in other words, the culture of death) until the Schiavo case smacked them right between the eyes.

You could not be more mistaken regarding my supposedly blissful ignorance of "the culture of death." In point of fact, after my first year of law school I spent the summer of '92 interning for a pro-life branch of the Legal Services Corporation, then based in Indianapolis (Reagan had forced the left-wing Legal Services to include such a pro-life sub-entity). I was one of six interns, and at the time, I believed abortion should be illegal, and that is why I sought that internship.

There were six of us interning, Republicans all. Of that six, two of us began to become uncomfortable with some of the non-abortion positions we were supposed to be helping litigate, and editing articles for the pro-life journal the entity published. The Cruzan decision was recent, and two of us were very uncomfortable being assigned to research how to interfere with parents like those of Nancy Cruzan, who wished to remove artificial feeding from a PVS child. The pro-life legal entity for whom I was working opposed living wills, and I did and do not. There were cases of parents of newborns that lacked a cerebral cortex, and the parents wished to decline life-saving surgeries for the child, and let him/her die, as s/he inevitably would anyway in a matter of months or a few years. Two of us did not feel it was right to interfere in such decisions. Our opposition to abortion did not lead us to take such intrusive positions on a matter not related to abortion.

(I did, and do however, oppose those few instances of parents of babies with Down's Syndrome who wished to refuse necessary heart surgery. A baby with Down's Syndrome is truly "disabled," and refusing life-saving measures because a person is mentally retarded is, indeed, immoral and wrong.)

I understood the issues in Cruzan, and so the Schiavo case was hardly anything new to me. I would not wish to have an artificial feeding tube if I were PVS, and neither would many, including Mae Magourik if reports of her advance directives are accurate. According to you, she and I are part of the "culture of death."

Truly, it is you Beth, and many like you at this blog and elsewhere, who were unaware of the law and precedent in Schiavo. You all leap to many, many unfounded accusations of guardians, judges and medical personnel and facilities, based on little more than the ether of internet rumor and innuendo, and do not face it when the facts of the law and the situation are established. No, you move on to amend your indictment with new conjectures and accusations, gliding easily over how wrong you were at the outset.

Judge George Greer is living under death threats and armed guards. It could have happened to Judge Boyd. Beth Gaddy has retreated into silence, and who can blame her? The irrational and dangerous zeal that was unleashed on her must be terrifying.

And you all appear to have no shame at all about that.


Funny how the people who go... (Below threshold)

Funny how the people who got their way WRT Terri Schiavo are angrier than those of us who didn't.

Just Me: Your outrageous sp... (Below threshold)
Mona:

Just Me: Your outrageous speculation about what did or did not go on at the hearing is beyond the pale. You rely on some media reports of what the Judge supposedly said, and speculate that he did not take testimony from those he should have, but neither you nor I have read any transcripts of the hearing testimony, and none of us know what issues were raised by Ken Mullinax -- or not raised. I have seen no reports that Ken feels he was not permitted to speak at the hearing.

And again, Ken could have filed a post-hearing motion alleging that Beth was violating the Court's order or requesting additional rulings in light of changed circumstances. He did not do so. What he did do was contact people who could generate a media circus. And many of you fell for it.

Maybe this is a naive quest... (Below threshold)
DaveD:

Maybe this is a naive question but cases such as this with relatively little judicial precedent end up going before judges that see a wide range of cases. These judges at the lower levels are not "specialists" in the broadest sense. So, how much do the courts have to sort of feel their way through "new" problems such as this until enough cases have been seen that judicial rulings mature to becoming relatively uniform based on a significant repository of precedent? By he same token, in confronting these "new" issues, how many judges know what the right questions are to ask again until a certain number of cases have been tried that the judiciary undertands the nuances and pitfalls inherent in theses cases? I am not sure if my questions are clear or relevant, but any comment is welcome.

Okay Mona, all either of us... (Below threshold)
Just Me:

Okay Mona, all either of us has to go on is the articles that are available.

Many of the comments are from the judge himself (the one where he says he though she was in a nursing home or heading to one is telling).

Your opinion that the judge has done nothing wrong, the grandaughter has done nothing wrong, and that the nephew is somehow the bad guy in all this is based on what information? Yep, that's right, nothing, other than your own desire to defend the death train.

Thank you very much, but I would prefer that our courts make a presumption towards life in thise situations, not death until things are figured out.

In this case, the woman was being denied adequate nutrition, while the judge and doctors got their acts together, and that should never happen.


An NG tube doesn't take much effort to insert, and is easily removed.

Your opinion that the j... (Below threshold)
Mona:

Your opinion that the judge has done nothing wrong, the grandaughter has done nothing wrong, and that the nephew is somehow the bad guy in all this is based on what information? Yep, that's right, nothing, other than your own desire to defend the death train.

Oh come now. I do know there is no report that Ken Mullinax filed any post-hearing motions; he has not said he did, and neither has the judge or anyone else. I also do know that instead of the simple expedient of filing that motion, he instead contacted the Save Terri! major players. If Ken felt Beth was violating a court Order, and his being as politically sophisticated and resourceful as he appears to be, why did he not simply march right back into court?

You've placed the judge, medical personnel, and Beth Gaddy on a "death train" based on ignorance of Georgia law in general, and in the absence of any publicly available transcripts of the proceedings of this case in particular. You have little idea who testified in those hearings, and how they testified. But you feel it proper to speculate that Beth Gaddy may have "lied through her teeth." Well, if so, and if that became apparent, where was Ken's motion to take them all back before Judge Boyd?

And you have me on board a "death train" for being appalled at this frenzy Ken instigated, rather than returning to court.Do you truly not see how harmful it is to individual people, families, and to the rule of law, to start blgoswarms charging "death train!" based on nothing but rumor and complete ignorance of both Georgia law and the official record in this case?

Rhetoric like that is undermining of our judicial system and the rule of law that makes America what it is!

Um Mona the woman wasn't be... (Below threshold)
Just Me:

Um Mona the woman wasn't being adequately nourished or hydrated while the judge and the doctors sat on their butts.

The woman is now at UAB, so at least two of those three doctors thought she didn't belong in a hospice, and had a condition that they could treat.

So would you please actually defend for me why this woman shouldn't have been given food and hydration while they made the decision? What exactly in this scenerio is defensible?

The judge himself has admitted he didn't know she was in a hospice-that is a fact he should have gotten for himself, and the woman was in the hospice the day of that hearing. Sorry, but that is just plain stupidity on the judges part, if he was "assuming" she was in a nursing home.

This is outrageous. You ... (Below threshold)
julie:

This is outrageous. You do not even have the grace to admit how much was sheerly wrong, that was generated by the initial Save Mae!

Wrong? That her living will was not being enforced and she was not being hydrated and nourished? No, they got it right. And once again the only hysteria is your own.

Nephew Ken could have filed a subsequent motion to get back before Boyd,

All that takes time. And in the meanwhile, an old lady is being denied food and water.

See, here you are, alleging negligence on the part of a Georgia judge, based on complete ignorance.

Yes. But not based on complete ignorance.

Amazing. And disgusting.

No, what's disgusting is that you pretend that an 81 year old lady going without food and water is nothing. In fact, that's real disgusting of you.

Come on Mona, put your big mouth where you big mouth is: YOU go with out food and water for a few days, let alone, what? 10? 12? Oh sure, Mae got a bit of jello and some ice chips. You can have some, too. Just not more than Mae, which means you will certainly be put into advanced dehydration and in need of hospitalization.

The hospice apparently was giving Mae soft foods and ice chips, to the extent she would receive them. There is also some reporting (and these issues are still too murky for anyone to make definitive statements, including your sort) that it was Mae herself, while lucid, who insisted she wanted not to eat.

Offering her food and ice chips is a useless gesture and substandard nursing care when she is so dehydrated and doped up. By then she can't eat. She won't have an appetite. She feels like total crap. You think when someone is dehydrated all they need is a few icechips to become hydrated again? These are the types of disingenuous and sick sick sick arguments YOUR sort make, Mona.

It was the judges duty to make sure his orders were enforced. It was Beth's duty to not only not stand in the way, but to make sure there was no delay in those docs examining Mae, apparently something she didn't do.

Has it occurred to you that Ken is a practiced Democratic political operative,

Has it occurred to you that I don't give a shit about Ken? My concern is with Mrs. Magouirk.

How many regular people, who are struggling with the decline of a beloved relative we have cared for for ten years, would have the savvy and stamina to take on a hostile crowd such as has been building here and elsewhere?

How many regular people who don't want some one they love being denied basic human care have the savvy and stamina to take on a hostile relative, a hostile judicial system, and hostile prodeath people like you?

How long did it take after Terri Schiavo's passing, for another "victim" to be found

According to people like you it “happens all the time , so is no big deal.”

People with nothing to do but hang out online

You mean people like you?

will now acquire the great importance of "saving!" all kinds of folks,

I rather try to advocate to protect their rights than advocate to bump them off like you.

So, when the next time comes -- and it will -- I won't interfere with your fun.

I doubt it. For some reason it's very important to you to try to convince people that only you know what's best. Fortunately, most people are not so naive as to believe it.

It makes me ill.

What doesn't make you ill? You are either ill, angered, disgusted, begging, or feeling helplessness or despair, etc In your mind, it's always about you and your feelings. What a shock!

Thank God other people have jumped in here. [Thanks guys!] It's not humanly possible for one person to refute all your b.s. .

I also do know that ins... (Below threshold)
julie:

I also do know that instead of the simple expedient of filing that motion, he instead contacted the Save Terri! major players.

And, thank God he did! If he had wasted time going back into court and with the possibility that the judge wouldn't be any more competent, Mae Magouirk might be dead by now. Unless, of course you really want her dead. Or, maybe you just want her to suffer being dehydrated and starved a bit longer? Because that is what was happening to her.

Rhetoric like that is undermining of our judicial system and the rule of law that makes America what it is!

No, it's people like you undermining the judicial system and the rule of law that makes America what it is.

DaveD wrote;You kn... (Below threshold)
JEW:

DaveD wrote;

You know this story makes me wonder how specific one has to be in the living will.

DaveD I agree! The Terri Shivo case made me start thinking about this. My wife and I were talking about Terri and we both said we wouldn't want to live the way she was. Then I realize what I had said, something that simple could be used to off ME! Many do not see the broad implications of that statement.

I would defiantly want therapy attempts, I would want more than one doctors opinion, I would want serious attempts to restore my life. And I would want the existence that Terri had over starving to death, unless it caused undue hardship on my family.

Ah, but that opens another door! Who determines hardship? Lets face it, no one can predict all the possible outcomes of ones life and situations, and no one can truly know another persons mind.

All this said, I come down favoring life and remove "my conditions" of quality.

The woman is now at UAB,... (Below threshold)
Mona:

The woman is now at UAB, so at least two of those three doctors thought she didn't belong in a hospice, and had a condition that they could treat.
So would you please actually defend for me why this woman shouldn't have been given food and hydration while they made the decision? What exactly in this scenerio is defensible?

All we know, based on unconfirmed but apparently not contradicted reports, is that she was being given soft food and ice chips, as she would accept them. There has been commentary that Mae, while lucid, refused to eat. Elderly people who are very ill will do that, it is not uncommon. If those were the wishes she expressed while lucid, her guardian acts properly by continuing to enforce those wishes after she loses lucidity. And no judge is going to order the force-feeding of a competent adult who has refused to eat.

And again, for all those of you who do not get it yet: enforcing such wishes are outside of and independent of the living will. Mae did not lose her right to refuse food by executing a living will that addressed a few specific situations. She continues to have the right to refuse to eat in any other situation she chooses. Again: none of this has anything to do with her living will; we all have a common law right not to be force-fed, and anyone violating that right has committed an assault.

The judge himself has admitted he didn't know she was in a hospice-that is a fact he should have gotten for himself, and the woman was in the hospice the day of that hearing. Sorry, but that is just plain stupidity on the judges part, if he was "assuming" she was in a nursing home..

I do not know, and neither do you, what was said at the hearing about where Mae was residing. If Beth Gaddy said one thing, and it was not so, then Ken Mullinax could have contradicted her. But this is all sheer speculation, because not one of us has had access to the transcripts of that hearing, and pontificating about it is therefore complete irresponsible. Charging that Judge Boyd is on a "death train" is beyond irresponsible.

And yet again I ask: if Beth Gaddy was lying, trying to kill Mae by withholding nourishment against her wishes, or doing another improper thing that was outside of Judge Boyd's Order, why did not Ken Mullinax rush right back into court? Why, instead, hold Beth Gaddy and Judge Boyd up to vile accusations of lawlessness, death cultism, and all sorts of public opprobrium from strangers who know nothing about Georgia law, or the actual testimony in the proceedings?

If I were Beth Gaddy, I would cut Ken Mullinax off from contact with Mae, and thereby do my best to end this nonsense. If she is doing anything wrong, let Ken go back to the court of competent jurisdiction. But indictment by media and blogswarm is absolutely foul.

DaveD.:Naive? No, ... (Below threshold)
julie:

DaveD.:

Naive? No, those are great questions. I don't have the definitive answer for you. Because of the seriousness of the issue, the questions you raise, makes me even more uncomfortable about how this whole subject is being dealt with.

I listened to an atty interviewed locally who specializes in living wills. She didn't like the Schiavo decisions, either. She advised that there is more to drafting a living will than people are aware of. At the time of hearing this I was skeptical. Now, I know she was right.

Matt has made some good comments on the controlling Georgia law:

"In other words, in my understanding a living will in Georgia does not, as a legal matter, say, "withhold the following treaments only if I am in a coma or PVS, or have a terminal condition." Rather, it says, "if I am in a coma or PVS, or have a terminal condition, withhold the following treatment(s)." It says nothing about what to do if the declarant is not suffering from any of those conditions." Link

No, that's all that you kno... (Below threshold)
julie:

No, that's all that you know, Mona. Because of inadequate care, she became dehydrated. It caused her to refuse to eat and drink. This happens all the time to the elderly. Instead of doing anything about it, they just allowed her to become even more dehydrated. And jello and ice chips is not going to do anything to reverse her dehydration.

And again, you don't get it: You don't put the woman in a condition that will cause her to refuse food and drink, not treat it, and then try to use it as proof that she is refusing food and water. Can you be anymore disingenious?

And Mullinax did not “ rush right back into court” because it didn't do any good the first time, it would have caused unnecessary delay and he wanted to save his aunt's life. And guess what? It worked.

If I were Beth Gaddy, I would cut Ken Mullinax off from contact with Mae,

Of course, you would. That's the kind of person you are. More interested in yourself than what's good for Mrs. Magouirk.

julie spews: Because of... (Below threshold)
Mona:

julie spews: Because of inadequate care, she became dehydrated. It caused her to refuse to eat and drink.

Madame, your propensity for vehement pronouncements, in the absence of any personal knowledge, or familiarity with the relevant legal or medical records, is simply breathtaking.

In fact, neither you nor I know when or why Mae decided to decline most food or water. There is no basis at all to state her lack of interest in eating and drinking was caused by *anyone.* You see, we were not there. I'm not Mae's guardian, her nurse or her doctor.

You are clearly determined that someone, whether it is Judge Boyd, Beth Gaddy, or the hospice (and one strongly sense you'd like it to be all, given your wild accusations about all of these having "marked Mae for death") has harmed Mae in contravention of Mae's own wishes. When one villain doesn't pan out because the emerging facts do not ultimately support his/her villainy, you move to another, and huff and puff self-righteously about people and events to which you are a complete stranger.

And that, julie, is the kind of person you are.

Madame, your propensity ... (Below threshold)
julie:

Madame, your propensity for vehement pronouncements, in the absence of any personal knowledge, or familiarity with the relevant legal or medical records, is simply breathtaking.

Madame, your propensity for not knowing what you are talking about doesn't transfer to others. [You really have to work harder on controlling your habit of projecting, Mona.]

In fact, neither you nor I know when or why Mae decided to decline most food or water. There is no basis at all to state her lack of interest in eating and drinking was caused by *anyone.* You see, we were not there. I'm not Mae's guardian, her nurse or her doctor.

Well, gee, Mona, since you admit to not knowing anything, maybe you shd stop arguing that she refused to eat and drink on her own or that she was meaningfully offered food and drink?

You are clearly determined that someone, whether it is Judge Boyd, Beth Gaddy, or the hospice (and one strongly sense you'd like it to be all, given your wild accusations about all of these having "marked Mae for death") has harmed Mae in contravention of Mae's own wishes.

I don't know what else to call not performing one's legal duties of making sure this woman was adequately cared for.

When one villain doesn't pan out because the emerging facts do not ultimately support his/her villainy, you move to another, and huff and puff self-righteously about people and events to which you are a complete stranger.

What facts? According to you there are no facts. Are you arguing out of both sides of your mouth again?

And, the only emerging facts support that people were not doing their job and this woman was being mistreated. You are the one who moves on. I just follow to refute your bullshit. Think of it as a public service I am performing. I will hand this to you, you seem to have no shortage of bullshit arguments. And all the hugging and puffing and hyperbole is yours. But, I note you are slipping because you neglected to throw in your trademark Outrage/Outraged/Outrageous in this comment. Perhaps, you are slipping?

And that, julie, is the kind of person you are.

One who thinks the legal and health care systems should help, not hurt, little old ladies? I'm guilty!!!!

julie writes: Well, gee,... (Below threshold)
Mona:

julie writes: Well, gee, Mona, since you admit to not knowing anything, maybe you shd stop arguing that she refused to eat and drink on her own or that she was meaningfully offered food and drink?

Perhaps you did not note all of my qualifiers. The "apparentlies," the "if it is trues," and all of my other careful adjectives. My use of the word "if" is frequent, here. I do not know whether she was refusing food and drink on her own initiative. Neither do you. But I am unwilling to believe she was treated against her own wishes, or negligently, based on wild and unsupported speculation against a whole slew of judicial and medical personnel, and a private individual like Beth Gaddy.

I think people -- especially private people -- are entitled not to be presumed as evil or incompetent, and trashed all over blogs, without a very firm basis in fact. Hence, my commentary here. I hope the next such opportunity - and there will be one -- will show more restraint., before more private citizens, doctros and judges find themselves accused of heinous actions all over the 'net.

You may find me ignorant and arguing bullshit, as you say. But as between your wild arguments that some conspiracy existed to "mark Mae for death," and my own qualified statements, I am comfortable with my comments thus far.

And finally, yes I have been somewhat promiscuous with the word "outrage." I am outraged. Beth Gaddy and Mae Magourik have been thrust into a public maelstrom, involuntarily, and with a bunch of zealots already mobilized to pile on. It is true, I feel some profound sympathy for Beth Gaddy. What has happened to her I would not wish on my worst enemy, not in the context of a deeply painful, private context such as she finds herself vis-a-vis her elderly and ill grandmother.

Honestly, I don't care much... (Below threshold)
Just Me:

Honestly, I don't care much about the ifs, while the case was pending in court, this woman should have been fed and hydrated adequately until all issues were worked out.

An NG tube (through the nose, and does not require surgery) is not difficult to put in, nor is it difficult to remove. This woman also should not have been in a hospice, even the judge seems to think she didn't belong there, since he thought she was in a nursing home (which is troubling to me, because he didn't seem to ascertain where she was at-and a hospice is not a nursing home).

Honestly, I don't care m... (Below threshold)
Mona:

Honestly, I don't care much about the ifs, while the case was pending in court, this woman should have been fed and hydrated adequately until all issues were worked out.

Even if she had said "no"? You would assault her and force it on her after she had said no? (And I do not know whether she did, but neither do you.)

Naughty, Mona, you're proje... (Below threshold)
julie:

Naughty, Mona, you're projecting again! I do know how people behave when they are dehydrated. I do know they refuse food and water. It is not by their own volition but because they are impaired due to receiving improper care. The fact that her nephew went to such lengths to get her into a hospital and she is now being treated for dehydration is not wild and unsupported speculation and only supports his contention that she was not receiving proper care.

I think people -- especially private people -- are entitled not to be presumed as evil or incompetent, and trashed all over blogs,

Like you are doing to the nephew?

You may find me ignorant and arguing bullshit, as you say. But as between your wild arguments that some conspiracy existed to "mark Mae for death,"

Well, yeah I do find you ignorant and full of it and yourself, but now you are putting words into my mouth. I never said it was a conspiracy. I said they did not do what they were suppose to do. If only one had done their job properly, she would not be in as state of dehydration

And finally, yes I have been somewhat promiscuous with the word "outrage." I am outraged.

Yeah, a day without mona being “Outraged!” is a day without sunshine.

julie writes: I do know ... (Below threshold)
Mona:

julie writes: I do know how people behave when they are dehydrated. I do know they refuse food and water. It is not by their own volition but because they are impaired due to receiving improper care.

And you know her refusal (if there was one) was induced by improper care exactly how again?

As to her nephew: (1) He is not a private person, as he is a political animal and he sought out publicity, and (2) I have been careful to say his motives may be pure, but why his actions are suspicious given his failure to file a very, very simple motion in court, which is not speculative since he certainly would have said something about it if he had done so.

Oh, I forgot, you have decided this Court is part of a conspiracy that "marked" Mae for death and that any motion there could only work to her "detriment." All of which is, again, based on nothing.

And you know her refusal... (Below threshold)
julie:

And you know her refusal (if there was one) was induced by improper care exactly how again?

Why would you assume it wasn't?

As to her nephew: . . . he sought out publicity,

Yes, good for him!

I have been careful to say his motives may be pure, but why his actions are suspicious given his failure to file a very, very simple motion in court, which is not speculative since he certainly would have said something about it if he had done so.

No you haven't. You allude to him having base motives. You call him a “political operative” and accuse him of only doing it for political “aspirations.” You accuse of being underhanded in contacting a political “apparatus.” You are as transparent as they come! It's only you who can't see through you!

Oh, I forgot, you have decided this Court is part of a conspiracy that "marked" Mae for death

The third time was the charm, Mona.

I asked: And you know he... (Below threshold)
Mona:

I asked: And you know her refusal (if there was one) was induced by improper care exactly how again?

You answered: Why would you assume it wasn't?

Because I do not run around accusing judges, doctors and private citizens of trying to kill people without a basis in fact. But you do, and that is why you willing to leap to the assumption -- with no citation to medical records or court documents -- that Mae's caregivers had dehydrated her and induced her unwillingness to eat and drink. You are just making up whatever Oprah-show speculation makes your life more interesting, and are willing to impugn Beth Gaddy, or the staff of LaGrange Hospice, with nary a second thought to how reckless that is.

And you run around the inte... (Below threshold)
julie:

And you run around the internet screaming, "Rule of law! Rule of law! You gotta let her starve!" in between "I'm angered!" "I'm outraged!" "I'm hopeless!" [Yes, yes you are, Mona] That's so creepy.

And, the only reckless one here is you. If you had your way, Mae Magouirk would most likely be dead by now. You are more concerned about this judge than the welfare of Mrs. Magouirk. You'll put procedures before human beings. Better to deprive the old lady a few more days, than possiblely insult a probate judge! Mona has her priorities straight -- sure for an angel of death! Mona, you're a real freak. Get a heart, already!

julie accuses me: And y... (Below threshold)
Mona:

julie accuses me: And you run around the internet screaming, "Rule of law! Rule of law! You gotta let her starve!" in between "I'm angered!" "I'm outraged!" "I'm hopeless!" [Yes, yes you are, Mona] That's so creepy.

That is all reasonably accurate. I have, indeed, raised the rule of law, and expressed alarm that people are undermining it with baseless speculation that judges are killing people and/or are grossly incompetent. If I have come across as creepy, well, then I failed in presenting my concerns as I should have.

The rule of law is, of course, important. It separates us from Communists, Nazis, Islamic theocrats and many other totalitarian ideologies. If my devotion to it nevertheless upsets you, then we likely cannot have a meeting of minds.

According to you, no one be... (Below threshold)
julie:

According to you, no one better challenge any judicial decision or law because that is going against the rule of law. Which is ridiculous and arrogant.

And, you come across as creepy because people who are more concerned about procedures instead of doing what's truly in the best interest of Mrs. Magouirk are creepy. So, no you succeeded in demonstrating what you are all about.

And talk about you being creepy! The T4 program was also “Rule of Law.” Yep, you would have made one hell of a nazi.

"Even if she had said "no"?... (Below threshold)
Just Me:

"Even if she had said "no"? You would assault her and force it on her after she had said no? (And I do not know whether she did, but neither do you.)"

Well since there is dispute over this (nothing in anything from either the judge, who has discussed his decision with multiple bloggers, or the nephew indicates she said no).

Not to mention that we shouldn't be in the business of presuming death. Our courts should presume life, until they learn otherwise.

There is nothing ethical, humane, or just in starving/dehydrating somebody until the courts and doctors figure out what should be done.

At the very least our courts should be presuming life, and protecting that (since life is actually one of those known rights guaranteed by the constitution), until it is clear that the wishes are otherwise.

julie states: Yep, you w... (Below threshold)
Mona:

julie states: Yep, you would have made one hell of a nazi.

With that, I will not respond to you further. You lack decency.

I may remain involved in some threads here, but no one should take my ignoring you as acquiescence in whatever venom you spew. (I am partly Jewish.)

With that, I will not re... (Below threshold)
julie:

With that, I will not respond to you further.

Oh, thank goodness!

You lack decency.

Nah, the person who runs around yelling Rule of Law! – the same excuse the nazis used to get rid of the disabled and anyone else they considered less than desirable, is the person who lacks decency. In the end, they also starved their victims to death.

I may remain involved in some threads here, but no one should take my ignoring you as acquiescence in whatever venom you spew. (I am partly Jewish.)

You do not have the self control to ignore me. And if you're Jewish, you shd be ashamed of yourself. And if you are lying and you are not Jewish you still shd still be ashamed of yourself.

Mona: You need to go back a... (Below threshold)
Cousin Dave:

Mona: You need to go back and review what has happened on this case, and re-assess your position. I will admit that Mullinax' credibility in general remains in question, although I will dispute the likeliness that he is involved in this for political gain for the simple reason that he really isn't a mover/shaker in Alabama politics anymore. There was a time when he was, but that was a long time and a governor named Wallace ago.

The word "hospice", by definition, means a place where people go to die. If you go into a hospice, it is assumed that you will be leaving in a pine box, and fairly soon at that. A hospice is not a nursing home. The sole purpose of a hospice is to keep near-death patients comfortable while nature does its dastardly deed.

Now, as for Gaddy, we clearly know one thing: she violated Judge Boyd's order by putting Mae in a hospice, regardless of what happened after. And no, this was not an innocent mistake. (See definition of "hospice" above.) And we know these things:

1. Mae's condition, while serious, is treatable.

2. The hospice did not offer treatment.

3. Mae has a living will that specifically directs that she continue to receive treatment under all reasonable circumstances.

4. The hospice violated the terms of that living will. (Unless you are calling UAB's doctors liars.)

5. Gaddy has been quoted by several sources as making statements on the order of "It's time for Mae to go home to God." Presuming that God does not reside at Mae's house, then Gaddy's intent regarding Mae's treatment is clear.

Hard to believe that #3 and #4 are only coincidental with #5, especially if the reports that Gaddy is the sole beneficiary of Mae's will are true. (I've seen that reported, but I've not seen enough sources on it yet that I consider it a fact.) So although Gaddy may not be guilty of everything that she is accused of, she is certainly not the innocent victim that some people want to portray her as being.

Now: two things: First of all, UAB has a damn fine medical facility. If it is at all possible for Mae to recover, they willl see to it. Second, the usual practice for hospital visits in Alabama is that, with the exception of pediatrics, there is no "approved list" of people who may or may not visit a given patient. The hospital may limit the total number of visitors at any given time, but they aren't in the business of confirming the IDs of specific visitors. If you know what room a person is in, you can just go to that room and walk in. Unless Gaddy has a restraining order against him, or unless he's had some past problem with the UAB hospital staff, no one is going to stop Mullinax from doing just that.


Cousin Dave:Re: vi... (Below threshold)
julie:

Cousin Dave:

Re: visiting policy. If you are a patient, someone can not come to your room and visit you without your permission. If they refuse to leave, hospital security will eject them. Since, Gaddy has legal guardianship over Mrs. Magourik, she speaks for her grandmother. Therefore, she can have people ejected without the need of a restraining order.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy