Asymmetrical Information

There's something fishy about the linked post. First he has the name spelled wrong compared with the rest of the sites that come up when doing an internet search of her name. Also the only first hand reproting is World Net Daily and this site. No other local paper in middle or west Georgia or Metro Atlanta seems to have it.

But I agree, if the facts as presented are tru, than Lionel Hutz shpuld be able to win this case to restore normal medical care to Ms. Magouirk. And Mr Delay has finally found his out of control judiciary.

Much more here:

http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43688

In brief: Elderly Mae Magouirk is admitted to hospital for a dissection in her aorta. She's lucid and not senile. Her granddaughter, who is not her closest relative (that distinction falls to her sister and brother), told the hospital that she held Mae's medical power of attorney (not true; she held her financial POA), and had her transferred to a hospice, though Mae was not terminal. (To review, in order to get into a hospice you're generally supposed to be terminal and to forego all non-palliative treatments.) Mae has a living will requiring that she NOT be denied nourishment unless she's either comatose or vegetative, which she's not.

However, her granddaughter had her nasal feeding tube removed. Mae's sister and brother protested the transfer and the removal of the feeding tube, contacted the hospice's in-house counsel, and were able to have the feeding tube reinserted, but the counsel informed them that they'd have to come sign papers to take responsibility for her and remove her from the hospice. The following day they came to the hospice for this purpose. But the hospice, according to the article, "stalled" them while the gradda=ughter was in an emergency hearing before a probate judge asking to be named guardian. The granddaughter was successful, and she immediately had the feeding tube removed again.

Mae has been without sustenance for seven days now, apparently, cannot produce tears, and is sedated. This in spite of HER OWN WRITTEN WISHES to the contrary and HER CLOSEST LEGAL RELATIVES' WISHES to the contrary. (Yeah, I am yelling... I'll stop now.) Her granddauther is quoted in the article as saying, "She has glaucoma and now this heart problem, and who would want to live with disabilities like these?"

Correct or not, the Jane's headline is a winner.

Beat me to it, Kenny.

Yes, if true it ought to be a no-brainer. But elsewhere in the WND article a hospice-patient advocate named Ron Panzer says,

"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."

In other words, the hospice business, which arose, I'm convinced, for the most humane of reasons - to give dying people a place to live until they die with more medical attention than they'd receive at home but with less intervention than they'd be subject to in hospital - may in the wrong hands turn into a ghoulish racket. If this is the case, if Mr. Panzer is correct in his assessment that "thousands" of cases like this exist, it's certainly possible that neither the hospices, nor the hospitals with whom they're affiliated, not the insurance companies that save money when patients refuse treatment, nor the relatives who may be conflicted about their decision, nor pretty much anyone else involved would want to shine a light on it. Such that it would take a case like this, following on the heels of Terri and John Paul, to flick the switch.

from http://www.hospicepatients.org/terri-schiavo-10-12-02-press-rel.html:

The United States Office of Inspector General has issued its warning to the public about questionable hospice agency practices and stated that some hospices have been found to engage in, "practices which ... have inappropriately maximized their Medicare reimbursements at beneficiary expense. These practices include: Making incorrect determinations of a person’s life expectancy for purposes of meeting hospice eligibility criteria."3 A hospice that bills Medicare, Medicaid or a private insurer for a non-terminal patient is violating the contracts which allow hospices to provide services for the terminally ill.

Hospices are not licensed to care for the chronically ill. In order for a patient to be admitted to hospice, the physician must "certify" that the patient is likely to die within six months due to a terminal illness.

And there you have it. I say again that I think hospices can be wonderful things - staffed by strong and compassionate people who are able to do the things that family members sometimes can't, and committed to providing a home-like environment for the dying when home is not a reasonable option. I hope that when my time comes, and if my condition is such that I can't die at home, I have enough notice that I'll be able to take advantage of the hospice mission.

But if they're going to turn into death houses for the inconvenient, if they're going to seek to maximize their profits at the expense of their mission, then I'll die on the street before I let someone declare me terminal and starve (sorry, Dr. Cranford, "dehydrate") me to death when I'm not.

Of course, it won't be up to me, apparently.

I did find another blogger who has spoken with the nephew who seems to be acting as the family's spokesman - the comment from 8:20PM last night on the comments thread is from the blogger herself, because she was having trouble posting to her own blog: http://straightupwsherri.blogspot.com/2005/04/this-just-in-from-dee-nice-work-dee-my.html

Hi there!

This is just a comment to a previous note you made a few years back (2002). You wondered where you'd pick up the phrase "Holding one thumbs". I just wanted to say that it probably comes from Sweden. We say "Please hold your thumbs for me" whenever we want somebody to keep their fingers crossed.

Is this kind of story a new phenomena or is all of this attention what is new?

The nephew was just interviewed on Glenn Beck. There might be more information on that website now.

Grant:

According to the hospice-patient advocate R. Panzer I mentioned a couple of comments up, it sounds as if it's more common than I'd like to think... The difference may be the warring family factions. And, of course, the media spotlight on both Terri Schindler Schiavo and John Paul II.

If for instance in this case, the woman's sister and brother were either unable to speak for her or unaware that this was going on (say, they lived in another state and the granddaughter chose not to let them know what was going on), the granddaughter's actions would never have been called into question.

I've deliberately left out my posts until now that the link Jane posted mentions that the granddaughter is Mrs. Magouirk's sole heir. Take it for what it's worth.

No-brainer, if the facts are right. But I have a hard time believing this one. It's just too pat, the letter from the nephew is too laden with pro-life buzzwords, and the few websites telling the story (this one excepted) all trigger my "nutjob" alerts -- they are surrounding the Magouirk story with self-congratulatory conspiracy-nut boilerplate about how the Culture Of Death Wanted Terri Dead and We Are The Only Ones Who See The Truth. So . . . no, I'm not getting sucked into this, it reads "internet hoax" to me. There may very well be a Mae Magouirk, there may even be a real nephew & a real court battle over hospice care, but I'm not gonna call the local AG and complain based on one party's unsupported & unsworn word. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong.

I hope all the Schiavo publicity didn't burn people out of being able to raise an outcry over this one, where the party trying to remove the tube is clearly in the wrong (always assuming the facts have been presented correctly, of course).

How does a PROBATE judge get the power of life and death, or more precisely, the power to grant another the power of life and death? If I'm not mistaken, probate concerns the dispensation of an estate AFTER death... Greer was a circuit judge, and had legal authority to name a guardian. I don't see how Boyd has that rank.

I really dislike what Trilobite had to say above. Hardening your heart to an old woman's murder simply because the side opposing the action also opposed Terri Schiavo's feeding tube removal... the main point in that case was the apparent conflict of interest in Michael Schiavo's guardianship, as he had abandoned the marriage years before. This case has parallels, except that Magouirk's heart condition is admittedly a lethal one. She's being denied medical treatment and there's no reason to starve her.

May we all be "nutjobs" if that means giving life a chance.

That's what's been so disturbing to me about the Schiavo debate. It seems a lot of people would rather let an innocent woman (or two) die than side with the "pro-life" crowd.

Schaivo was brain-dead (she had a flat eeg). This woman is not. I have written to the state attourney general in protest for Mae, whose desires are obviously being contravened.

I used to practice law in Georgia. What is now called the Probate Judge used to be called the Ordinary - it was a court with broad powers in a lot of areas including the probate of wills and the appointment of guardians. In the 1970s there was a big, emotional outcry about some famous, disputed will that was probated by, gasp, a judicial officer called an Ordinary. So, the legislature changed the name to Probate Court, even though it made no changes in the powers of the office. That's how a Probate Judge appoints guardians.

The nephew was also interviewed last night on The David Allen show in Jacksonville - he's posted the audio of the interview.
http://www.thedavidallenshow.com/guests/mullinax.ken.20050407

Johansen's NRO article pulled information straight from pulledoutofmyass.com, so a few facts are not only recommended, but required, before taking his word for anything beyond the sun's rising.

Of COURSE there are people who would rather an innocent woman die than side with the pro-life crowd. Does anyone believe that, having danced with death before, we won't find it more attractive this time around? Of course we will. Society will increasingly sacrifice its less desireable members on the altar of vigor, youth, and sexuality. Our devotion to those ideals demands it.

To make an omlet, you have to break a few eggs.

This case may or may not be reported accurately. But even if it is not, we can expect cases such as this in the near future. The leading edge of the "Baby Boom" is now 57 - 58 years old; pushing 60, with parents in their 80's or even 90's. No longer cuddly , no longer wanted by the grandkids, still alive and sitting in a house worth a lot of money...

Steve Sailers points out why the Schindlers lost their case, and their daughter: they were out-lawyered by George Felos, whom Mike Schiavo was able to afford to hire because he was awarded $300,000 from the malpractice suit.

Nobody talks about inheritance, trust, estate, etc. nowadays, but it is on a lot of people's minds I daresay. What if Granny winds up spending a few years being sick, and runs through her savings, her CD's, her Treasuries and then the 3-bedroom 2-bath with lovely view she lived in for 40-odd years in Portland, Oregon? Why, her loving children and grandchilden will inherit nothing. BUT! If Granny exercises her 'right to die" early enough, then the estate will be of a goodly size...

I don't know the facts of this case. I would very much like to know more. It's saddening, but not surprising, to read that some people refuse to believe it is even possible, because it's too "right to lifish".

Boomers who think it's just great that old people exercise a "Duty to die"..er.."Right to die" might want to consider just what the odds will be 20 to 25 years from now, when THEY are "Granny"...

But, of course, that would require thinking logically, looking ahead more than the next pleasurable experience, and frankly that's never been the Boomer's strongest suit...

I agree that 'this sort of thing is desperately wrong'. Jane, as you said, let's get the facts right and make sure it's actually happening before reacting. Btw, your proposal for a group hug is looking a bit shaky.

Are there really 'thousands of cases like this' per Jamie (what's the evidence?) or is this a pretext to get the Feds involved? If they get involved, they'll legislate and regulate so as to be seen doing something...whether there is a legitimate issue or not. Imho this kind of thing should be left to the states unless there is firm evidence for a widespread problem at the national level.

I think the Schiavo case was decided correctly from a legal point of view.

If the facts are as being reported, then this case is nothing remotely like it (except for those who can't give up a hobby horse). Again, if the facts are as reported by wnd.com (a very large if), then the granddaughter (adn hospice and judge) are clearly wrong ethically, legally and morally. And if her grandmother dies because of this, she should do time in prison.

Jamie here, noting that the "thousands" comes from Ron Panzer of advocacy group Hospice Patients Alliance (http://www.hospicepatients.org/), motto: "Preserving the Original Mission of Hospice!", a 501(c)(3). Their website is pretty ardent - some exclamation points where I would've stuck with periods - but nothing about it seems fishy to me.

My take on the "thousands" is this: to get into a hospice, you have to be expected to die within six months (on a dr.'s say-so) and you have to forego all treatment except pain relief for the condition that rendered you terminally ill. http://www.hospicepatients.org/terri-schiavo-10-12-02-press-rel.html (duplicate link to one I posted above) says that the US Office of the Inspector General has already issued a warning that some hospice operators are abusing their licenses - i.e., finding dr.'s who will sign off on "terminal" diagnoses so as to allow admission of patients who may not be terminal, so as to keep their licenses while getting paid more. Once a person is in a hospice, the decision to withdraw life support or, apparently, nourishment may be much easier to justify than if the person were not already in an end-of-life facility. And if the family's in agreement and the patient has no living will, as is probably still the majority case, or has one but can't produce it for some reason(uncommunicative, forgot where it is, etc.), who's to stand in the way?

Another force that we can expect to start encouraging "Granny" to exercise her "Right to die" in the years to come is insurance providers. Whether for-profit or run by government, insurance providers are going to be up against fiscal concerns as more boomers become sicker with chronic problems such as diabetes, emphysema, congestive heart failure and of course varying forms of dementia.

We'll be hearing the question "Who would want to live like that" a lot more. I'm guessing the next target of the "Right to die" movement will be dementia patients; the expert witness in the Schiavo case is on record asserting that Alzheimer's patients should be starved to death, although it isn't clear to me at what stage he wants that option exercised. Probably not stage one or stage two, possibly in stage 6 or 7.

Let's face it, it's cheaper to give someone who can't coherently object to being killed a big dose of sedatives and an overdose of morphine than to take care of them for 3 to 5 more years. When financial concerns of insurance in general & care for the old in particular finally fully mesh with the "duty to society", watch out!

Maybe everyone should agree, but not everyone does. On March 31, I heard a local leftwing talk show host, Alan Prell, ask this in reply to a woman caller who took care of severely disabled children in her home: "What is being achieved by keeping those children alive?" It was absolutely clear that he wanted those children dead.

I wouldn't be surprised if Prell supported the grandaughter in this case, too. And, although you can never tell if the calls accepted at a show are typical, few of his callers seemed disturbed by his position.

(Prell is on KIRO 710 in the Seattle area. Before this job, he was a talk show host in Baltimore.)

Ah, the irrepressible Cal Lanier of FFT, king of trolls.

Cal would prefer that you go to one web site and read a GAL report, then you will sufficient informed of The Facts, just as he is.

Once armed with said Facts you can write an FAQ For The Uninitiated, and troll all day long, screaming at anyone who dares get their Facts from any other source.

Will you be satisfied when a woman is starved to death (oops, I mean "dehydrated", much more pleasant)? NO. You'll keep trolling and screaming at people who are armed with Facts other than those you choose to look at.

LOOK AT THE GAL REPORT! LOOK AT THE GAL REPORT!

Can't even give it a rest when there's a possibility that someone else may be dying. You need help sir. Or a life.

I can't break through their service problems and post this at my own blog, but...

Folks who wonder if this is a hox will find this very interesting: the nephew is Ken Mullinax, which is not a particularly common name.

However, there is a Ken Mullinax in Alabama who was a spokesperson for a Dem Congressman (Hilliard), and then was press spokesperson for Dem challenger Bill Fuller in the 2004 Congressional race.

I can't find a follow-up, but Fuller's house was

SO, get out your tin-foil caps, and try this - Mullinax thinks that some wacko righties tried to burn his candidate, and is not above a bit of payback.

FWIW, the house fire was in Lafayette, Mullinax's mom is in a facility at Birmingham, and his aunt is just over the state line in LaGrange.

Now, the idea that this is a payback hoax seems unbelievable - one might think that, as a press spokesperson, this guy will never eat lunch in this town again!

OTOH, I listened to the Dave Allen interview, and if there was any mention of Ken's background, I missed it.

Have a great weekend.

Michael Farris writes:
"If the facts are as being reported, then this case is nothing remotely like it (except for those who can't give up a hobby horse)."

If the facts are correct (and they may not be), then from a sufficiently abstract perspective the case is exactly like the Schiavo one:
'This person is an obstruction to something I want, may I please kill her, your Honor?'
The deepest issue in both cases is that someone who is helpless is "in the way", and if they were dead someone else would be able to "get on with their life".

Follow the money...
If the facts are correct in this case (and they may not be), the granddaughter will benefit financially from her grandmother's death.

"Again, if the facts are as reported by wnd.com (a very large if), then the granddaughter (and hospice and judge) are clearly wrong ethically, legally and morally. And if her grandmother dies because of this, she should do time in prison."

I agree that WND is not always a reliable source of information. I'm glad to see someone who's willing to agree that IF the information is correct, wrong is being done by individuals and that those who did wrong should be punished by the law.

Although I confess I don't quite get the point of putting the grandmother in prison...

From a sufficiently abstract perspective a pear is exactly like a piranha.

Let me rephrase one sentence:

"and if her grandmother dies because of this, the granddaughter should do time in prison."

Let's cut the namby-pamby crap. File legislation that does not permit the removal of feeding tubes, but instead requires that patients be administered a lethal morphine dose.

If ending someone's life is the right thing to do, we should have the decency to do it quickly.

This is a disgustingly thorny issue that is only going to get worse. I'm not a hard-core pro-lifer and I think some euthanasia makes sense, but I fear deeply the institutionalization of it. Most of all, I fear where this goes once health insurance providers begin seeing the monetary value in it. Let alone Medicare, which is effectively becoming a single-payer system for people over 65.

Hey, if society accepts a practice, who are we to stop businessmen from seeing in it an opportunity to improve margins?

I guess what I find strangest in this is that the Christers who believe death is merely birth into life eternal, are the ones fighting to preserve earthly life against militant secularists who think Heaven is a load of baloney. The metaphysics of that are seriously f-ed-up, yo.

-El Snob

"I guess what I find strangest in this is that the Christers who believe death is merely birth into life eternal, are the ones fighting to preserve earthly life against militant secularists who think Heaven is a load of baloney."

First - I don't know what the heck a Christer is. I do know what a Christian is. Use appropriate language if you expect to be treated with respect.

Second - Even Jesus wept for Lazarus before he raised him from the dead. He wept, knowing that he could and would raise him from the dead. The short of it is this: death is a bad thing, for numerous reasons that a rational mind without a pimpernel of faith can perceive. And those with faith understand those reasons just as much as anyone else. The faith means that he may be with God in heaven, hopefully, but that death is still sad.

Why do you think people cried over the death of the Pope?

Michael Farris wrote:
"From a sufficiently abstract perspective a pear is exactly like a piranha."

Maybe so, maybe not, but one need not move one's perspective out to the asteroid belt in order to see a parallel between the two cases. I can understand that if one has a lot of emotional investment in Terri Schiavo's "right to die", it might be vexing to contemplate said parallel, because it implies the Manichean notion of heroic secular defenders of death with dignity vs. Bible-totin' rednecks hotly intent on imposing a theocracy by 5:00 next Friday could be just a little bit simplistic. And heck, if that's simplistic then maybe a few of those Bible-totin' theocrat wannabes (like, say, atheist, leftist, civil-libertarian Nat Hentoff...) weren't necessarily acting from motivations of utterly pure evil after all, and could even have a fact or two on their side?

No, no, no! This won't do! Once we humans invest our emotions in a cause, be it Commies Run The State Department (And Put Flouride In The Water!), or something else, the last thing we want to do is re-examine our premises. There's probably some evolutionary reason for stubbornness, but I'm too lazy to research it...

The sad fact is, we are going to see more helpless people, who are keeping someone else from "getting on with their life", coming up before a judge for some form of execution in the years to come. How we deal with this issue not only will reflect upon our culture, it will in the end determine at least in part how each and every one of us lives, and dies, as old people. So there's something quite personal to contemplate in these cases, for the thoughtful.

Mike Farris writes:
"Let me rephrase one sentence:

"and if her grandmother dies because of this, the granddaughter should do time in prison.""

Humor can be difficult even in face to face conversation. In the cold medium of ASCII text, sometimes it's probably not possible...

The question in the Schiavo case was "who decides for the patient when their will is unknowable". The law in Florida says it's the spouse and the parents were unable to convince the judge that they should have more standing. This does not necessarily condone the decision Mr. Schiavo made, just that it was his to make and not her parents (as the law now stands).

The question here seems to be "what good is a living will if those responsible will not respect it?" the answer seems to be "not much".

The Snob wrote:
"Let's cut the namby-pamby crap. File legislation that does not permit the removal of feeding tubes, but instead requires that patients be administered a lethal morphine dose.

If ending someone's life is the right thing to do, we should have the decency to do it quickly."

In other words, that slippery slope looks pretty fun, let's jump on it and see where it goes...

"This is a disgustingly thorny issue that is only going to get worse. I'm not a hard-core pro-lifer and I think some euthanasia makes sense, but I fear deeply the institutionalization of it. Most of all, I fear where this goes once health insurance providers begin seeing the monetary value in it. Let alone Medicare, which is effectively becoming a single-payer system for people over 65."

Congratulations for seeing the obvious regarding fiscal soundness vs. the infirm...

"Hey, if society accepts a practice, who are we to stop businessmen from seeing in it an opportunity to improve margins?

I guess what I find strangest in this is that the Christers who believe death is merely birth into life eternal, are the ones fighting to preserve earthly life against militant secularists who think Heaven is a load of baloney. The metaphysics of that are seriously f-ed-up, yo."

Yo? Oh, my, that's not a word, that's just a grunt. Grunting is not communication, it is likely just a reflexive sound...

So it appears Mr. Snob can no longer communicate with the rest of us, as all he can do is make incoherent sounds like "yo". Clearly Mr. Snob's quality of life is poor and there's no prognosis it will improve. I certainly wouldn't want to live like that, and I'm sure no judge would want to, either...

Please relax, Mr. Snob, this needle will only hurt for a second or two, then all that pain will go away...

Folks who wonder if this is a hox will find this very interesting: the nephew is Ken Mullinax, which is not a particularly common name.

However, there is a Ken Mullinax in Alabama who was a spokesperson for a Dem Congressman (Hilliard), and then was press spokesperson for Dem challenger Bill Fuller in the 2004 Congressional race.

I can't find a follow-up, but Fuller's house was burned a week before the elction under circumstances that under the time were considered by local Dems to be possibly "a hate crime".

SO, get out your tin-foil caps, and try this - Mullinax thinks that some wacko righties tried to burn his candidate, and is not above a bit of payback.

FWIW, the house fire was in Lafayette, Mullinax's mom is in a facility at Birmingham, and his aunt is just over the state line in LaGrange.

Now, the idea that this is a payback hoax seems unbelievable - one might think that, as a press spokesperson, this guy will never eat lunch in this town again! Then again, maybe neither Dems nor the mainstream press will be upset if Mullinax makes fools of some right-wing bloggers and radio hosts. Either way, the notion that he is a legitmately concerned nephew is a lot more plausible.

Trust, but verify.

This a a retry of an earlier post - here is a link to the "hate crime" quote.

Michael Farris wrote:
?The question in the Schiavo case was "who decides for the patient when their will is unknowable". The law in Florida says it's the spouse and the parents were unable to convince the judge that they should have more standing. This does not necessarily condone the decision Mr. Schiavo made, just that it was his to make and not her parents (as the law now stands)."

I'm aware of what the legal issues in the Schiavo case were, although the Main $tream Media did a very bad job of presenting them. As I pointed out earlier, Steve Sailers explains some of this, the URL is:

http://isteve.blogspot.com/2005/03/inside-story-on-schiavo-case.html

"The question here seems to be "what good is a living will if those responsible will not respect it?" the answer seems to be "not much"."

That appears to be at least one of the legal issues here.

But I didn't say anything about the _legal_ issues, did I? I was pointing to something else, to the _ethical_ issue: "This person is between me and something I want, and if this person was dead I'd have what I want." See the difference?

Not on this specific case but on the subject of euthanasia and the withdrawal of feeding over here in Europe.
1) Senile dmentia is now considered a sufficient reason for the withdrawal of food and water:
http://timworstall.typepad.com/timworstall/2005/01/euthanasia_in_t.html

"The patients, all men aged between 67 and 93, died after having their food and drink needlessly withdrawn, according to relatives.
The men were all terminally-ill patients suffering from dementia on the Rowsley ward at the Kingsway hospital in Derby. The 250-bed hospital was part of the South Derbyshire Mental Health Trust, providing long term psychiatric care for mainly geriatric patients."
2) Euthanasia accounts for some 3.5 % of Dutch deaths.
http://timworstall.typepad.com/timworstall/2004/12/dont_have_your_.html
3) Baroness Warnock was the head of a Commission that drew up the rules on things like cell research, test tube babies and the rest. Commenting on the new Mental Incapacity Bill:
http://stumblingandmumbling.typepad.com/stumbling_and_mumbling/2004/12/a_duty_to_die.html
The old and frail have a duty to die so that they don’t spend the inheritance:
"She goes even further, suggesting the frail as well as the terminally ill should shuffle off early: “If I went into a nursing home it would be a terrible waste of money that my family could use far better, or even that society could use better with inheritance tax.”"

Who says there’s no such thing as a slippery slope?

Snob, let me try and explain.

The militant secularists don't hold that human life has any intrinsic value. Christians (and Jews) consider each human life a creation of God, who values each one, so we should too.

So it is natural that the secularists would favor getting rid of people who have become inconvient, while the religious will defend life by default.

Close, Michael, but not quite. Actually, the law in Florida allows a court to determine (by clear and convincing evidence) what the patient would do. Status as spouse gave Mr. Schiavo authority to make some medical decisions, but it was the court, not Mr. Schiavo, that determined that Mrs. Schiavo would have wanted the tube(s) removed. In this case, you have a patient with a living will that says she would want the tube to remain in. That makes this case different. I thought the Schiavo case was decided correctly under Florida law, and if the facts here are as reported, this case is just wrong.

Its interesting that for Schiavo - everyone demonised right-to-lifers for getting involved with a case which had been in court multiple in times. Now when they bring up a case in court, they get demonised again.

Without commenting on the merits of this case, its sad how many people automatically take the other side of an argument just because Christians are being perceived on the other side.

El Snob, as to why Christians are concerned on life issues. Yes, we believe in heaven but also believe life should end in accordance with God's plan. Belief in heaven includes submission to God's will - who is assumed (based on biblical references) to have a plan for what remains of your mortal life.

This is a sad comment but mainstream media is not going to take sides on this until:

1. A gay man is euthanased against the will of his non-legal partner

2. A black man or woman is euthanased in a Schiavo like situation.

Here we go, sliding down the Slippery Schiavo Slope!

Wheeeeeeeeeee! Death to all disabled! Who wants to live as a bald man? Pull that feeding tube! Wheeeeeeeeee! What a fun ride!

"The question in the Schiavo case was "who decides for the patient when their will is unknowable". The law in Florida says it's the spouse and the parents were unable to convince the judge that they should have more standing. This does not necessarily condone the decision Mr. Schiavo made, just that it was his to make and not her parents (as the law now stands)."

No, that's not a correct reading of the Florida law or the precise issue in the case. Under Florida law, if a person has no living will, then hearsay testimony can be admitted, and the judge must decide what the patient's wishes would be. Michael, as guardian, only had the standing to bring the action to court, not the authority to make the live-or-death decision. As the person petitioning for the removal of the tube, Michael also had the burden of proving by "clear and convincing evidence" that Terri would have wanted the tube removed. Judge Greer found Michael's testimony, and that of his family members, to be credible, clear and convincing and he rejected the testimony of Terri's parents and the other witnesses to the contrary.

It was NOT Michael's decision as her husband or guardian to make; it was Judge Greer's duty to decide what Terri would want. Once Michael brought the action (which I grant is significant), then he and the Schindlers were just witnesses, just like the cousins and .

There is widespread misunderstanding about this. And it makes a huge difference. Why? Because this case could easily have been assigned to a different judge, who would have weighed the credibility of the witnesses differently, and Terri would be alive today. (Or alternatively, the husband could have been the one to want to keep her alive, and the judge could still order the removal of the tube based on other testimony.)

The people who think "the spouse gets to decide" should not take any more comfort in the Florida law than those of us who think that in the absence of a written directive, the law should dictate against removal of food and hydration.

Where's the evangelical circus? Why aren't parked on the front lawn?

"Hospices are not licensed to care for the chronically ill. In order for a patient to be admitted to hospice, the physician must "certify" that the patient is likely to die within six months due to a terminal illness."

Therefore Terri Schiavo had no business being transferred to a hospice from the facility she was orignially placed after her accident. She was not terminally ill and lived for years until she was killed by a court order (accurate description, since she was healthy except for her disability). Her husband had her placed in the hospice. (And not immediately relevant, but his lawyer and Judge Greer were at various times both on the board of said hospice.)

So there's one serious irregularity right there.

I am a dead man walking.

When I have nothing left to give I want it quick and quiet. But that is just me.

Should my children at some point desire my death more than my life who am I to complain? I'm like my dad in many ways. We kept him alive for several years despite his wishes. Hope and attachment. He suffered the whole time. He often asked "why can't I die?". The answer of course is because we wouldn't let him.

Right or wrong?

OTOH the practice has a long and unseemly history - "pillow parties" where some one is given the duty of smothering the soon to be deceased.

Easy answers?

I wish.

Some people are skeptical because no mainstream media is covering this? Don't make me laugh. The MSM has been covering up our dirty little secret for literally decades.

Here's funny little joke: What has the USA got on the Netherlands re: discarding useless people against their will (or living wills)?

Answer: about 20 years, hahaha

Glenn Beck did an outstanding 15 min. interview with Ken Mullinax this morning. He has posted it free of charge on his website. Please go listen. Mullinax is extremely articulate and clear. You'll really really like the guy and you WILL NOT BELIEVE what is going on. It's the Twilight Zone.

Just go to GlennBeck.com and The Case of Mae Magouirk will be the first thing that pops up.

Ahhh, the "Sandman" solution to Social Security.

"Congratulations on reaching the retirement age!" *bang*

Earl wrote:
"Where's the evangelical circus? Why aren't parked on the front lawn?"

The evangelical circuis is, as we sit, forming up. I suspect some are burned out after the Schiavo execution, but they'll be along in a while, unless the old woman who is allegedly being unlawfully killed dies first.

Either way, "Earl" will be able to sneer and feel superior...

Some people are skeptical because no mainstream media is covering this?

Fine, but I would at least think Fox News would cover it. A search on Yahoo and G News shows the only source for this is still the WND story.

And come on, the media loves a nice juicy story more than any political bias they might have. This one is pure gold. As I see it, there's two possible reasons it hasn't been picked up: 1) They don't have evrification yet, or 2) it's not true.

PS (filter wouldn't let me say G--gle. huh?)

I too remain suspect of this story. The only references I can find too it is World Net & a host of pro-lifer bloggers. I'd like to see more about the actual facts of the case, including links to any actual court decisions if they are available.

We are getting scolded here for supporting the system in the Terri case before a single person has stepped up and said they agree with this case...if it is true. If this story is true as it was reported then I think everyone here agrees the tubes should not be pulled.

But let's be frank, many pro-lifers outright lied & passed misinformation about the Terri case. People are entitled to be skeptical of them again.

Do let's be frank, Boonton.

Glenn Beck interviewed the nephew today; I haven't had time to listen to the interview (note to radio personalities: transcripts are more efficient for your listeners, though more work for your staff) and Hannity says his TV staff isw verifying before he talks about it. The LaGrange paper ran a story on it today; the news editor emailed it to me and I'm waiting to hear back from him about whether I can reproduce it here.

It occurs to me that it's to our credit that it strikes many of us as unbelievable: that means the rot isn't too deep yet. I stand firm at the libing will...

Hi, I'm a card carrying member o the Culture of Death--so named because I felt that the awful decision made by Michael Schiavo was what he felt he had to do for his diasabled wife.

That having been said, I'd like to say that this case, if all facts are correct, is entirely different, depite claims to the contrary because of two MAJOR points.

1)The woman in question is lucid.
2)The woman has a written living will.

These two points made this wholly different from the Schiavo case. Had Terri Schiavo written down her wishes in a living will prior to the incident none of us would know her name. The entire thing would have been handled quietly and calmly like thousands of others are every day.

This case reeks of hoax. The judge would have to be psychotic to override the wishes of a coherent, conscious woman and those expressed in her living will in favor of a party who stands to benefit from her death. The story sounds too pat. You've got your conflict-of-interest, ala Schiavo, your removal of feeding tube, your radically ruling judge---and a patient who has, and most likely IS, expressing her desire to live.

I seriously doubt that ANYONE will side with the judge and the granddaughter. I think you'd find Michael Schiavo out there on the pickets praying along with Randall Terry himself if this travesty is real.

What I suspect jack is that maybe the guts of the story are true but not the important details. Maybe this woman isn't as lucid and coherent as people claim (why not have her call a radio show or TV station if she is?). Perhaps the 'closer relatives' are distorting the facts. Where is the living will this woman wrote? Where is the actual decision from the judge posted?

When the Terri case was hot reading the actual court decisions was very educational. They provided not only insight into the judges rationale but they provided useful summaries of the evidence presented at trial.

I won't say its a hoax because it needs to be investigated more but it is too early to start bashing the 'culture of death' people just yet.

Jack wrote:
"Hi, I'm a card carrying member o the Culture of Death--so named because I felt that the awful decision made by Michael Schiavo was what he felt he had to do for his diasabled wife."

Well, accept my sympathy for being labeled that.

"That having been said, I'd like to say that this case, if all facts are correct, is entirely different, depite claims to the contrary because of two MAJOR points.
1)The woman in question is lucid.
2)The woman has a written living will."

Where in any of the scanty information that we have is it mentioned that this woman is lucid? Having spent a little bit of time with a relative in Intensive Care after surgery, I believe I can say with some authority that people in their 80's who have just had major surgery are not lucid. What has been claimed, so far as I can tell, is that the woman in question is not suffering from dementia. But she could well have been moved from the hospital to the hospice while she was still groggy from various drugs, and then deprived of all medical aid. If an IV was truly taken out of her at the hospic, that implies a whole lot of things.

"These two points made this wholly different from the Schiavo case."

Legally speaking, this is accurate. Ethically speaking, I disagree.

"Had Terri Schiavo written down her wishes in a living will prior to the incident none of us would know her name. The entire thing would have been handled quietly and calmly like thousands of others are every day."

Possibly so, or possibly not. I'm aware of cases in which living wills with DNR"s on them were ignored, for example, because the family urged doctors in very strong terms to recusitate.

"This case reeks of hoax. The judge would have to be psychotic to override the wishes of a coherent, conscious woman and those expressed in her living will in favor of a party who stands to benefit from her death."

This sentence does not match the alleged facts as I have read them. As I understand it, a woman who had heart surgery for a serious problem was in the ICU when her granddaughter waved a financial power of attorney around and falsely claimed she also had full power of attorney. Using this claim she got her grandmother moved to a hospice, and got a jduge to agree to execute the grandmother. As pointed out above, the elderly woman in question may not have even been conscious for part of the proceeding, and may be unable to speak by now.

See the difference? Assuming the facts reported are true (and we still don't know that) it is not as simple as claimed. Just as the Schiavo case was not as simple as the Main $tream Media made it out to be...

"The story sounds too pat. You've got your conflict-of-interest, ala Schiavo, your removal of feeding tube, your radically ruling judge---and a patient who has, and most likely IS, expressing her desire to live."

Some of that, yes, but not all of it.

"I seriously doubt that ANYONE will side with the judge and the granddaughter. I think you'd find Michael Schiavo out there on the pickets praying along with Randall Terry himself if this travesty is real."

Maybe, maybe not. If all the facts are as claimed, but the granddaughter hires her local equivalent of George Felos, gets all the heavy hitting professional expert witnesses on her side, and the Main $tream Media ignores the case as long as it can ("Hey, we already did one of these, another is bad for ratings!") then trots out something as one-sided as they did for the Schiavo case...I'm not so sure.

And frankly, I suspect Mike Schiavo isn't going to want to even see a TV camera for a long time, maybe for the rest of his life.

Posted by: jack on April 8, 2005 04:58 PM

Please, there were plenty in the media who were willing to give Terri's parents a pass on a lot of lies, distortions and outright misinformation they were peddeling. If you don't believe me, check out the DailyHowler and some of the idiocy Scarborough was allowed to sprew out on MSNBC (yes the 'liberal' station). Much of this was due to the media simply not doing their homework (how many times, for example, did the MSM mention that the fight between Michael & Terri's parents happened when he refused to split the settlement with them? How many times was it mentioned that Michael quite his job and studied nursing so he could care for his wife? How many times was it mentioned the few experts on the parents sides turned out to be charletans (such as the 'nobel nominated' Hammersfel))

Anyway, I agree there's a lot of facts we don't know about this case. It either is going to get picked up by the major outlets & then we'll be able to explore it in more detail or it will wither away forgotten. I can see either possibility here. Maybe the family is trying to launch a PR blitz against the granddaughter. Maybe the granddaughter is trying to do an end run around her family and off her grandmother. Sadly family disputes tend to bring out the worst in people.

Mae Magouirk was admitted for treatment for aortic dissection. It is highly likely that non-surgical treatment for that condition (and I'm speaking as a lay person with some scientific and medical knowledge) would render a person not readily able to converse (e.g., sedated or tranquilized).

Nick

Looks like the LaGrange News bought the hoax:

http://lagrangenews.com/new.php?StoryType=full

Marvelous quote from the probate judge describing Mae's family, but not mentioning that only the Euth-i-nator faction was represented, while the hospice kept the Let-Mae-Live faction distracted:

“They were all hugging necks when they left court,” said Probate Judge Donald Boyd. “I don’t know what happened.”

I give the paper credit for writing the story, despite an obvious bias and lack of curiosity on important details. One example, the story quotes the granddaughter's atty saying: "They’re following the doctors’ recommendations and they want to do what’s in the best interests of their grandmother...”

Someone needs to show us signed doctor's order labeling Mae Magouirk "terminal." Otherwise the hospice is violating federal regulations.

NickM wrote:
"Mae Magouirk was admitted for treatment for aortic dissection. It is highly likely that non-surgical treatment for that condition (and I'm speaking as a lay person with some scientific and medical knowledge) would render a person not readily able to converse (e.g., sedated or tranquilized)."

That is very interesting. What sort of treatment would be standard for this condition, please?

The story helps a bit although it was a bit hard to follow (who is Gaddy?). It says, interestingly, that the grandaughter:

Boyd said Gaddy testified at the hearing that she feeds her grandmother Jello, chips of ice and “anything else she’d be willing to eat.”

Perhaps this is a disagreement over whether she really needs a feeding tube? It would seem like there's a lot to this story & perhaps one side of the family wants to jump the gun by distorting it to the media?

Boonton writes:
"The story helps a bit although it was a bit hard to follow (who is Gaddy?)."

Gaddy is the grand-daughter of Mae. She is the person who allegedly has a financial power of attorney, in order to take care of her grandmother's financial affairs. She allegedly does NOT have a power of attorney that would give her the authority to put Mae in a hospice.

" It says, interestingly, that the grandaughter:

Boyd said Gaddy testified at the hearing that she feeds her grandmother Jello, chips of ice and “anything else she’d be willing to eat.” "

She allegedly believes, according to this article, that it is time for her grandmother to "go to Jesus".

"Perhaps this is a disagreement over whether she really needs a feeding tube?"

It appears to be a disagreement between a nephew of Mae, and the brother and sister of Mae, over whether she would want to die if she isn't terminal. Since her living will allegedly is clear on this, one wonders what's going on.

" It would seem like there's a lot to this story & perhaps one side of the family wants to jump the gun by distorting it to the media?"

If one reads the entire article, there are some clues to the answer to this question. Here is a quote from Mae's nephew:

"“The doctors can make her very comfortable again and give her a normal life,” Mullinax said. “That’s all we want for Aunt Mae ... My aunt can’t live much longer without substantial fluids or nourishment.
“I want the world to know that at Hospice LaGrange you have people who are not terminal being denied nourishment as a matter of course. This national debate has reared its head in Troup County, Georgia. It’s the damndest thing I’ve ever seen.”
He said he will “pursue every available avenue” to get treatment for his aunt. "

If it is true that granddaughter Gabby is the sole benificiary of grandmother Mae's estate, then some serious questions need to be asked right now.

Sydney & Ellipsis:

In the blog comments section, no one can hear you be sarcastic...

1. A "Christer" is a Christian pitchman whose interest in religion stems from the foothold it gives him to achieve worldly power. It is altogether possible to be a Christian man of great influence (as Dr. King was, a dimension which the MSM and academy are all too happy to see slip down the memory hole) and not be a "Christer." Pat Robertson is an exemplar of the type, as perhaps will be Tom "legal but not ethical" DeLay.

2. I thought my use of the term "militant secularists" would make it clear that I am no fan of the kill-Terri crowd either. I do not know of a good pejorative phrase to describe them. Let me just say in this case I have a lingering distrust of all forms of authority on all sides of this issue.

3. My point about mandating "hard" euthanasia (lethal dose) while banning "soft" euthanasia (pulling the tube)is as a thought exercise to focus one's moral attention. Euphemisms are not just words, but acts. People do things that are ethically wrong but justify themselves by saying "but it's not illegal."

Either it is moral to terminate a life under a given set of circumstances, or it is not. If you want to argue no, not now, not ever, well all right then. But if you believe it is ever permissible, then compassion calls us to deliver the blow smartly. We would think it cruel to kill an old dog by starving it. I suspect if we mandated euthanasia be carried out by handgun, people might think a little differently of it.

Errr except if she is being fed jello, ice chips and 'anything else that she will eat' it seems like she isn't being starved. And it also means she must be at least somewhat conscious.

Yea one side claimed the granddaughter said something like 'maybe Jesus has decided to take her'...people naturally think that sort of thing in situations like this. It doesn't mean in itself that anyone is trying to kill her. also it mentioned that gaddy has been taking care of the woman for ten years which also throws some cold water on the depiction of a 'distant relative' who comes out of the woodwork just in time to off the rich grandmother.

Perhaps one side of the family simply feels that more aggressive intervention is needed but this really isn't a case of food & water being denied. For example, the hospice says:

Fulks said he could not comment on an individual patient, but the health system’s policy calls for nourishment and hydration for hospice patients, sometimes through a feeding tube because of throat cancer or some other condition that prevents the patient from swallowing. He said there is a “reverence for life that our staff and our physicians and our volunteers all adhere to in doing the jobs they do.”

BTW, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aortic_dissection has information on her problem. Left untreated aortic dissection results in a death rate of 90% by the end of the first year, 75% in just the first month. While she may not have a terminal disease as such, she might be close enough to a natural death to justify a hospice.

McAristotle: I know well the "every sperm is sacred" line of reasoning, and it is entirely rational within its own context of faith.

The problem here is posed by someone who believes that we are simply meat and chemistry, and that when we die the only place we go is into the soil. If so, then it is up to us to decide that suffering does not serve us a useful purpose anymore, and time to go.

Well, one can retort that such suffering serves a *social* purpose in that it teaches ones' loved ones the truth of life, that death and sickness can humble even the rich and powerful, and that we are in the end all mortal. Very well, but if a man's life is his own property, then who are we to demand his life to educate us?

Boonton wrote:
"Errr except if she is being fed jello, ice chips and 'anything else that she will eat' it seems like she isn't being starved. And it also means she must be at least somewhat conscious."

Yes, it imples that. It also isn't clear; was feeding by the granddaughter past tense, or present tense, for example?

"Yea one side claimed the granddaughter said something like 'maybe Jesus has decided to take her'...people naturally think that sort of thing in situations like this. It doesn't mean in itself that anyone is trying to kill her."

Please go look up the exact quote, then get back to us.

" also it mentioned that gaddy has been taking care of the woman for ten years which also throws some cold water on the depiction of a 'distant relative' who comes out of the woodwork just in time to off the rich grandmother."

This seems to be a strawman argument. The granddaughter has a financial power of attorney, and has been handling her grandmother's fiscal affairs, according to what I have read. It is claimed, but not proven, that the granddaughter is the sole benificiary of the grandmother's will.

"Perhaps one side of the family simply feels that more aggressive intervention is needed but this really isn't a case of food & water being denied. For example, the hospice says:

Fulks said he could not comment on an individual patient, but the health system’s policy calls for nourishment and hydration for hospice patients, sometimes through a feeding tube because of throat cancer or some other condition that prevents the patient from swallowing."

That is a meaningless bureaucratic statement. What the general policy is, and what is being done or not being done to Mae, could be two vastly different things.

" He said there is a “reverence for life that our staff and our physicians and our volunteers all adhere to in doing the jobs they do.” "

Nice boilerplate, and it might even be true, but not relevent to the issues at hand. Try reading more carefully and using logic.

"BTW, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aortic_dissection has information on her problem. Left untreated aortic dissection results in a death rate of 90% by the end of the first year, 75% in just the first month. "

So why isn't she getting treatment? Isn't denying treatment for the condition simply a means to kill her?

"While she may not have a terminal disease as such, she might be close enough to a natural death to justify a hospice."

One more time: if the granddaughter is the sole benificiary of the grandmother's estate, there is a pecuniary interest that must be considered. Or to put it another way, if Gabby stands to make money off of her grandmother's death, we need to see if Mae is getting all the medical care she needs.

Is this difficult to understand? Have I been reading too many old "Perry Mason" novels?

Posted by: Boonton on April 8, 2005 06:36 PM

ellipsis - I took the following information from
http://www.emedicine.com/EMERG/topic28.htm

The discussion is much longer than I'm copying here, and contains quite a bit of technical drug details, but when the third paragraph calls for a morphine drip, I would not expect the patient to participate in decisionmaking.

"Initial therapeutic goals include elimination of pain and reduction of systolic blood pressure to 100-120 mm Hg, or to the lowest level commensurate with adequate vital organ (cardiac, cerebral, renal) perfusion.

Whether systolic hypertension or pain is present, beta-blockers are used to reduce arterial dP/dt.

To prevent exacerbations of tachycardia and hypertension, treat patient with IV morphine sulfate. This reduces the force of cardiac contraction and the rate of rise of the aortic pressure (dP/dT). It then retards the propagation of the dissection and delays rupture."

Nick

The best way to prevent these sorts of things is to never have children. Or die pennyless.

Nick wrote:
ellipsis - I took the following information from
http://www.emedicine.com/EMERG/topic28.htm

"The discussion is much longer than I'm copying here, and contains quite a bit of technical drug details, but when the third paragraph calls for a morphine drip, I would not expect the patient to participate in decisionmaking."

I hope this isn't implying that anyone on a morphine drip is terminally ill...

Nick:
"Initial therapeutic goals include elimination of pain and reduction of systolic blood pressure to 100-120 mm Hg, or to the lowest level commensurate with adequate vital organ (cardiac, cerebral, renal) perfusion.

Whether systolic hypertension or pain is present, beta-blockers are used to reduce arterial dP/dt.

To prevent exacerbations of tachycardia and hypertension, treat patient with IV morphine sulfate. This reduces the force of cardiac contraction and the rate of rise of the aortic pressure (dP/dT). It then retards the propagation of the dissection and delays rupture.""

Is this for a Type A or a Type B dissection? Is there any difference in the suggested treatment of Type A vs. Type B? Is surgery every indicated?

I am not at all convinced that a woman in her 80's who suffered an aortic dissection would be lucid enough to contest her granddaughter...

I guess what I find strangest in this is that the Christers who believe death is merely birth into life eternal, are the ones fighting to preserve earthly life against militant secularists who think Heaven is a load of baloney. The metaphysics of that are seriously f-ed-up, yo.

Well, no. The militant atheists are fighting hard to have other people killed. I don't see any of them actively campaigning for their own deaths.

[ellipsis's comments in italics]

Nick wrote:
ellipsis - I took the following information from
http://www.emedicine.com/EMERG/topic28.htm

"The discussion is much longer than I'm copying here, and contains quite a bit of technical drug details, but when the third paragraph calls for a morphine drip, I would not expect the patient to participate in decisionmaking."

I hope this isn't implying that anyone on a morphine drip is terminally ill...

I am not implying that, and if it came across that way, I apologize for the inclarity. My point is that few patients on a morphine drip remain lucid and/or coherent, regardless of the underlying condition they presented with.

Nick:
"Initial therapeutic goals include elimination of pain and reduction of systolic blood pressure to 100-120 mm Hg, or to the lowest level commensurate with adequate vital organ (cardiac, cerebral, renal) perfusion.

Whether systolic hypertension or pain is present, beta-blockers are used to reduce arterial dP/dt.

To prevent exacerbations of tachycardia and hypertension, treat patient with IV morphine sulfate. This reduces the force of cardiac contraction and the rate of rise of the aortic pressure (dP/dT). It then retards the propagation of the dissection and delays rupture.""

Is this for a Type A or a Type B dissection? Is there any difference in the suggested treatment of Type A vs. Type B? Is surgery every indicated?

Based on the discussion of Type A vs. Type B, it would appear that this would be for a Type B dissection primarily, as treatment for Type A could be described as "open heart surgery STAT" (which would necessitate general anesthesia). Surgery is indicated for some, but not all Type B dissections.

I am not at all convinced that a woman in her 80's who suffered an aortic dissection would be lucid enough to contest her granddaughter...

According to what has been said by other persons, she was lucid when admitted to the hospital. Once treatment has started, I would not expect her to remain lucid while on a morphine drip (and certainly not if undergoing surgery). This is why people have living wills, and it certainly appears that hers has been treated as irrelevant by the hospital, hospice, and "judge" [I put his title in quotes, because I disapprove of the practice, still existing in some states, of permitting persons without formal legal training to become judges or justices of certain courts.]

Nick

Beyond the surface fact that they both deal with the removal of artificial nutrition there are no similarities between this case and the Schiavo matter

1 - Mrs. Schiavo (please unless you were a personal friend using her first name is not appropriate) was already brain-dead. Her cerebral cortex had turned to fluid. This was confirmed by numerous CAT scans. True there were tests that could have been done to measure brain activity which were not but given the general assumption that someone lacking a brain cannot have brain activity they were unnecessary

2 - Mrs. Schiavo had not left a living will. Assuming the facts are correct, which is still up in the air until a legitimate journalist takes a look at this, Ms. Magouirk made her wishes in this situation well known and they are being ignored.

As a "militant atheist" I resent the implication that I cannot have any moral compass and am therefore a proponent of death. I have yet to hear anyone besides one particular (possibly misinformed) probate judge support the death of this woman. I do however believe that a person should have control over his or her own destiny. In the case of Mrs. Schiavo that control led to her death because the judge determined to the best of his ability that this was WHAT SHE WOULD HAVE WANTED. In the case of Ms. Magouirk it seems as though this is being thwarted by a misguided excessively religious granddaughter.

This story seems off. I don't understand how she was moved to a hospice without her MD's orders. This case is very different from Schiavo in that there is only one relative to speak for Mrs Macgourick, theres no living will, but there is a financial power of attorney that could create a conflict of interest. If the story is accurate, there needs be an injunction to restore feeding and hydration while the courts look at this case.

Im not a "militant athiest". Im pretty much agnostic, I think there might be a God, but I also think all religions are cultural fairy tales. My comments in the gay marriage thread weren't meant to demonstrate contempt for Christianity. But when the right attempts to ammend the Constitution on the grounds of preserving biblical marriage, its important that people understand exactly how biblical marriage already differs from marriage today.

The facts in Macgouriks case are sketchy at best. Imo these sort of cases have to be handled on a case by case basis.

"As a "militant atheist" I resent the implication that I cannot have any moral compass and am therefore a proponent of death."

What ethical foundation do you have?

So Fabulous wrote:
This story seems off. I don't understand how she was moved to a hospice without her MD's orders.

The granddaughter, Gabby, allegedly produced a financial power of attorney and claimed she had full power of attorney. Then she made decisions in her grandmother's name.

This case is very different from Schiavo in that there is only one relative to speak for Mrs Macgourick, theres no living will, but there is a financial power of attorney that could create a conflict of interest.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. There are three other relatives to speak for the grandmother, there explicitly is a living will in which she explicitly stated she was not to be deprived of food and water except under conditions that do not hold, and in addition to the financial power of attorney it is alleged that granddaughter Gabby is also the sole benificiary of her grandmother's will.

Try getting all the facts first, then posting...

Well I've always thought "An' it harm none, do what you will" was a reasonable place to start. Satisfy your own feelings and desires up to the point at which you infringe on somebody else. When dealing with matters of public policy (as well as political economy but different rant) I'm a huge fan of J.S. Mill and his version of utilitarianism (although I feel Singer takes it much too far, treating the philosophy as an intellectual exercise rather then a moral guide) I can believe in all of these as logical beliefs upon which I have decided without the need for faith in a higher being. I have no disrespect for those who do have such a faith, but when they attempt to use it to run my life I will fight for my liberty with everything in me.

Jefferson had it right when he said that "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants" We are gearing up for a culture war in this country but please know this. It is not the atheists and the secularists who are starting this war. We did not, nor do we want, to interfere in your religious expression. The Jerry Falwells, the Tom DeLays, the Randall Terrys, and the Pat Robertsons started this culture war, to make sure that we are not able to simply live in peace. And it won't be over until we re-assert a new vision of tolerance in America or until they win and turn this country into an Iranian style Theocracy.

Finally please remember that the separation of church and state exists just as much to protect the church as it does to protect the state. Compare the bile spit out by these “religious” leaders to the legitimately kind and tolerant message in the bible and ask yourself, who would Jesus burn.

I see that someone else posted the La Grange News story, so I won't duplicate. The news editor for the paper, when I asked whether I could post it, emailed: "I don't know how much effect it will have, but feel free to pass it on. Dan Baker".

Other information I've read, allegedly based on conversations with the nephew, includes that his mother (Mrs. Magouirk's sister) also had a dissected aorta for which she was ("successfully" is implied, since she's alive and able to speak for her sister, but not stated) treated prior to Mrs. Magouirk's hospital admission, that Mrs. Magouirk lived alone prior to hospitalization with her granddaughter helping her with those things her glaucoma wouldn't allow her to do, and that a doctor has said that her dissection is stable at present.

Her nephew reportedly says that while she was lucid going into the hospital, after more than a week without food or water, she isn't now. Obviously his statement is in contrast to the granddaughter's that she's been giving her grandmother Jell-o, ice chips, and anything else her grandmother will eat, which goes along with another version of the story in which Mrs. Magouirk has "turned her face to the wall" and is refusing to eat. Ken Mullinax has also said she can't survive much longer without substantial nourishment, which may mean that she's able to eat/drink a little but not enough to sustain her. These somewhat conflicting statements complicate this particular story only a little, it seems to me; if, as is so far undisputed, Ms. Gaddy had Mrs. Magouirk's feeding tube removed on her own (that is, without Mrs. Magouirk herself having requested it), Mrs. Magouirk can't be said to have made any decision to "turn her face to the wall" while compos mentis, so her living will still should hold, it seems to me.

Mullinax is getting quite a lot of attention for his aunt at present. I hope that means all the facts will out. So far I've seen nothing disputing that Mrs. Magouirk does have a living will which precludes her being denied nourishment in her current condition; that Ms. Gaddy did initially overstate her power to speak for her grandmother (and then "correct" her error later by being declared guardian); or that Mrs. Magouirk did have a nasal feeding tube and IV which were pulled at Ms. Gaddy's request. If these statements continue to stand undisputed, this case really is as dangerous as it sounded from the start, no matter how good Ms. Gaddy's intentions are, because it strikes to the heart of both privacy and the value of human life.

Thank you Jamie for pulling together those thoughts, all of with which I agree.

I would add: so far I have seen nothing that addresses how Ms. Magouirk was admitted to hospice without a doctor's order delcaring her terminally ill. Somewhere I read that the hospice was acting "in good faith," which I take to mean the hospice relied on the granddaughter's word. But that seems absurd, given the fact that federal regulations prohibit Mae's admission unless she is terminal. Doesn't the hospice have procedures & paperwork for admission, if only to cover its butt legally? Doesn't the hospice care who will pay the bill?

Other random questions:

Why, AFTER Mae's admission to hospice, are 3 docs being asked to give an opinion about her condition? Shouldn't that have been on record before her admission, and in fact the basis for her admission to hospice?

Throughout the Terri Schindler-Schiavo events, I kept wondering where does "official" hospice stand? In this case, with all the questions/suspicions swirling, you'd think the LaGrange Hospice would be concerned enough about its reputation to clear the air.

The silence of hospice and hospice workers has been deafening. It leads me to grim conclusions. The more I read, the more I am convinced the hospice industry has been hijacked and is in league with the Euth-i-nators. Of course there must be some exceptions... right?

I've just listened to the Mullinax interview on Glenn Beck. It's a highly instructive 16 minutes. A highly instructive 16 minutes.

In brief, according to Mullinax: the granddaughter hospitalized Mrs. Magouirk for her dissected aorta; she was not a candidate for surgery. (Her younger sister, Mullinax's mother, had had the same condition three years prior, was treated with drugs, and has been living normally since then - until now, when she's in ICU because her blood pressure's gone up so much over this matter that her dissection has advanced.) While Mrs. Magouirk was under a morphine drip, her granddaughter met with Mullinax and told him, in tears, that she'd prayed over her grandmother and Jesus said it was time for her to come home.

Pause for full disclosure: I'm a praying type myself. But I figure if Jesus wants someone to come home, He can darn well handle the details Himself.

So Ms. Gaddy had her aunt transferred to a hospice. A few days later, Mullinax's mother and uncle, Mrs. Magouirk's brother, independently decided that durable medical power of att'y or not (which Gaddy had claimed even to them that she had), they were not happy with the lack of information they were getting. They asked Ken to call the hospice. He did, confirming that his aunt's B.P. was not bad; "She's going to make it, isn't she?" he asked the nurse; the nurse said, "No, she's not going to make it; she hasn't had any substantial nourishment since she came here, on Ms. Gaddy's orders." The nurse advised that they talk to the hospice's attorney.

Mullinax did. The att'y looked into the circumstances of Mrs. Magouirk's admission and acknowledged that the hospice had made a mistake; Gaddy's POA was NOT durable-medical but financial only, and Mrs. Magouirk's living will expressly stated the conditions for withholding nourishment and they were not the conditions in which she was. Mullinax's mother, as next-of-kin, told the att'y to get an IV going immediately; the att'y said they could do that. Mullinax's mother then said to start an emergency nasal feeding tube; the att'y said they COULDN'T do that without the next-of-kin's coming to the hospice and signing paperwork.

So the following day the family went to the hospice to meet with the att'y and sign the necessary paperwork. The att'y was not in but would be soon, they were told, and after some time, during which the head nurse spent some time telling them it was time to let Mrs. Magouirk go, her life wasn't worth living, etc., the att'y did show up with a piece of paperwork - Gaddy's emergency guardianship, which had just been granted. The hospice had informed Gaddy of the family's intention to start nourishment for Mrs. Magouirk and she'd undertaken an emergency hearing to take charge of her grandmother officially.

The hospice then pulled the IV, right in front of the family.

There's more - the hospice's refusal to allow Mrs. Magouirk's eyedrops for glaucoma to be administered ever since her admission, such that (since she can't produce tears) opening and closing her eyes is excruciating, and a supposed compromise that was supposed to have been worked out in a 24-hour period from last Sunday to Monday (or Monday to Tuesday - my memory fails and I don't have time to re-listen right now) that never materialized. Thursday, Mullinax grew sufficiently anxious about the wait that he contacted the Schindler-Schiavo "organization," which finally prompted some action - none of which has gotten anything substantive done yet, but at least the case is now public. He said at the end of the interview that he has now become a "life advocate" or something like that, which he was not before, because he and his family, listening to the Schindler-Schiavo story unfold, thought it could never happen to them - and then, a week later, it did.

He also said that everyone in LaGrange works for either the hospital or the hospice, both of which are owned by an old textiles family; it's a very "clannish" town, he said, and he knew the judge would continue to rule against them because of the town's nature (he, his mother, and his uncle being "outsiders").

That's from the horse's mouth. No fact-checking. Gut-checking (my own) indicates great sincerity on his part, and a story that hangs together internally and includes many presumably verifiable details. The Schindlers' head counsel is taking on the case; with luck he's got good, FAST investigators, and has learned a lot from his most recent skirmishes with the almighty Law.

Gabriel - although it's OT for this thread, I will take issue with your most recent post, specifically the portion beginning as follows:
We are gearing up for a culture war in this country but please know this. It is not the atheists and the secularists who are starting this war. We did not, nor do we want, to interfere in your religious expression.
You personally may not wish to interfere in anyone else's religious expression, but there are plenty of others who do. Lawsuits such as that to remove the depictions of crosses from one panel of the Los Angeles County seal (where they were alongside a Roman goddess, livestock, oil wells, and other non-religious symbols), to prevent the standard wording of the Pledge of Allegiance from being said as a classroom exercise for students, or to block the President from taking the oath of office using a Bible are most certainly an attempt to block religion from the public square. When fronts in this war occur over things such as the California Governor's reference to the state "Holiday Tree" (a name created under his predecessor's administration) as a "Christmas Tree", this is a war being led by secularists.
On issues such as same-sex marriage, it's predominantly secularists who are asserting that millennia of historical tradition (backed by moral teachings from many religions) are illegitimate sources of law. The marriage question goes far beyond such things as sodomy laws, by granting to certain couples legally enforceable nondiscrimination rights against persons (employers, landlords, etc.)whose normal religious expression would lead to their choice to discriminate. Religious groups surely did not start this battle.
I'm agnostic and paleolibertarian (in the Jeffersonian or Millian sense, not the bastardized sense that is used on Lew Rockwell.com to justify apologists for slavery ), and certainly don't join with those pushing for teaching creationism, teacher-led school prayer, or the like, but that's not where the war is being fought.

Nick

Praise the Lord and pass the fluids!

Mae has been safely airlifted and placed under expert care at UAB in Birmingham AL.

Now we need to find out all the details of exactly how this deal went down.

See update here:
http://straightupwsherri.blogspot.com/

Nick wrote:
ellipsis - I took the following information from
http://www.emedicine.com/EMERG/topic28.htm

"The discussion is much longer than I'm copying here, and contains quite a bit of technical drug details, but when the third paragraph calls for a morphine drip, I would not expect the patient to participate in decisionmaking."

I wrote:
"I hope this isn't implying that anyone on a morphine drip is terminally ill..."

Nick replied:
I am not implying that, and if it came across that way, I apologize for the inclarity. My point is that few patients on a morphine drip remain lucid and/or coherent, regardless of the underlying condition they presented with.

I absolutely agree with this point, and apologize if my question seemed harsh. Probably I am somewhat overly sensitive on this issue due to some debate in other fora on what constitutes "consent", who is able to give consent, and so forth.

Nick:
[Specifics of treatment deleted]

I asked:
Is this for a Type A or a Type B dissection? Is there any difference in the suggested treatment of Type A vs. Type B? Is surgery every indicated?

Rick wrote:
Based on the discussion of Type A vs. Type B, it would appear that this would be for a Type B dissection primarily, as treatment for Type A could be described as "open heart surgery STAT" (which would necessitate general anesthesia). Surgery is indicated for some, but not all Type B dissections.

Right, and we have no way of knowing what treatment for the condition was received. Therefore we cannot accurately determine whether she was really able to consent or decline to the hospice transfer or not. Under this situation, I think it prudent to assume worst case: she was under the influence of prescribed medication at the time of her transfer.

I wrote:
I am not at all convinced that a woman in her 80's who suffered an aortic dissection would be lucid enough to contest her granddaughter...

Rick replied:
According to what has been said by other persons, she was lucid when admitted to the hospital.

I did not see that in the scanty materials I've been able to find, is there a pointer to a source?

Once treatment has started, I would not expect her to remain lucid while on a morphine drip (and certainly not if undergoing surgery).

Exactly so!

This is why people have living wills, and it certainly appears that hers has been treated as irrelevant by the hospital, hospice, and "judge" [I put his title in quotes, because I disapprove of the practice, still existing in some states, of permitting persons without formal legal training to become judges or justices of certain courts.]

It indeed appears that the living will has been ignored, unhappily this is not as uncommon as one would expect. I still want to know if claims that the granddaughter is the sole benificiary of the grandmother's estate are true or not, that has tremendous bearing on the overall case.

Unfortunately, it is quite possible this woman did everything "right" as we define it, but others chose to ignore the law.

Gabe wrote:
We are gearing up for a culture war in this country but please know this. It is not the atheists and the secularists who are starting this war. We did not, nor do we want, to interfere in your religious expression.

I'm sure it appears that way to an atheist, but the facts do not support the assertion. The ACLU has actively been seeking to drive any public expression of the Christian relgion out of the public square. Examples abound, one of the most obvious being the NYC public schools, where for the last two Decembers Jewish children were allowed to display religious symbols on school property as were Moslem children, but ANY Christian display was prohibited. The NY CLU had not problem with this blatant discrimination to the best of my knowledge.

I would consider that a preferential, selective ban on religious expression...and apparently it's completely legal, too...

The Jerry Falwells, the Tom DeLays, the Randall Terrys, and the Pat Robertsons started this culture war, to make sure that we are not able to simply live in peace.

I was unaware that Madelyn Murray O'Hair was part of the Religious Right...yet I'm pretty sure she helped to start the cultural conflict quite a few years ago...

And it won't be over until we re-assert a new vision of tolerance in America or until they win and turn this country into an Iranian style Theocracy.

I'm sure it looks that way from the atheist perspective.

Interestingly, just the other day a Christian I know was asserting that the culture war wouldn't be over until either the militant atheists burned down the churches, with as many Christians inside as they could round up, or Christians finally started standing up to their ongoing, unrelenting assault against the Christian religion.

Different people seem to have different perspectives...

There are two key points that remain unexplained-

1) How does the granddaughter determine the initial course of treatment for the conscience, lucid Mrs Macgourik? POA means nothing while the patient is lucid, so even if the granddaughter lied about the POA it doesn't matter.

2) How was Mrs Macgourik moved to a hospice without her MDs orders?

A few words on a morphine drip. Everyone responds to opiates differently. Many remain lucid even under the influence of Diludid or Methadone, both being stronger then morphine. A morphine drip actually suggests that Mrs Macgourik was lucid as it is dispensed on a limited basis by a combination of intervals in time and the patient pressing a button.

Ellipsis your comments on militant athiests rounding up and burning Christians in their churches gets you the Goehring award for the most hateful bs/propaganda in this thread.

From the LaGrange, GA Daily News on Friday. Tells a Quite different story from the WND:

LaGrange has its own feeding tube controversy, with family members at odds over medical care for an 81-year-old woman at Hospice LaGrange.

Ora Mae Magouirk has been in hospice since March 22, suffering from what granddaughter Beth Gaddy described in court papers as dementia, an aortic aneurysm and a blood clot.

Kenneth Mullinax, the patient’s nephew in Birmingham, Ala., said a hospice nurse told him that Magouirk had not received substantial
nourishment since March 28. He wants a temporary feeding tube inserted until she can be evaluated for treatment at the University of Alabama
Medical Center. A living will states that nourishment should be withheld only if she were in a coma or vegetative state with no hope
of recovery.

Mullinax and the patient’s brother and sister – Lonnie Ruth Mullinax of Birmingham and A.B. McLeod of Anniston, Ala. – came here last
Friday to arrange for a feeding tube and take her to the Birmingham hospital. That same day Gaddy received emergency guardianship in Troup
County Probate Court.

At a follow-up hearing Monday, the parties reached a settlement that awarded guardianship to Gaddy provided three cardiologists – James
Brennan and Thomas Gore, both of LaGrange, and Raed Aquel of Birmingham – evaluate the patient, who would receive whatever treatment two of the three recommended. A final decision had not yet
been reached.

“They were all hugging necks when they left court,” said Probate Judge Donald Boyd. “I don’t know what happened.”

Boyd said Gaddy testified at the hearing that she feeds her grandmother Jello, chips of ice and “anything else she’d be willing to eat.”

“I think all of Mrs. Magouirk’s family has her genuine best interests at heart, but fortunately they disagree on what they believe would be best for her,” said Jack Kirby of LaGrange, attorney for the patient’s brother and sister.

“She (Gaddy) said, ‘I think it’s time she (her grandmother) goes home to Jesus, that’s she’s too sick and would not have a good quality of
life,” Kenneth Mullinax said.

His complaints have been posted on Internet Web logs that have been in overdrive since the Terri Schiavo case.

“All of the Terri Schiavo people have come to our rescue,” Mullinax said. “This thing’s going national.”

On Thursday, the Probate Office, West Georgia Health System and attorneys in the case were inundated with phone calls and e-mails. “We need people surrounding that place (hospice), we need some activity,” one caller from Oregon told the Daily News, adding that she had called the governor’s office and attorneys in the case.
The probate office got an estimated 50 calls from people saying things like, “I understand y’all are murdering people in Troup County” and
“You’re euthanizing people.”

“We’re taking the posture of refusing to deal with those people because they’re not representing the responsible parties,” said West
Georgia Health System President Jerry Fulks. “We’re focusing on taking care of the patient and her family.”

Fulks said he could not comment on an individual patient, but the health system’s policy calls for nourishment and hydration for hospice
patients, sometimes through a feeding tube because of throat cancer or some other condition that prevents the patient from swallowing.
He said there is a “reverence for life that our staff and our physicians and our volunteers all adhere to in doing the jobs they do.”

Mullinax said his aunt does not have a terminal condition, which is a requirement for admission to hospice.

Danny Daniel of LaGrange, the attorney for Gaddy and another grandchild, said doctors made the decision to admit Magourik into hospice.

Gaddy has been taking care of her grandmother for 10 years, he said. “They’re following the doctors’ recommendations and they want to do
what’s in the best interests of their grandmother,” Daniel said, adding that hospice is providing “excellent care” for Magourik, a
widow with no children.

Gaddy could not be reached for comment.

“The doctors can make her very comfortable again and give her a normal life,” Mullinax said. “That’s all we want for Aunt Mae ... My aunt can’t live much longer without substantial fluids or nourishment. “I want the world to know that at Hospice LaGrange you have people who
are not terminal being denied nourishment as a matter of course. This national debate has reared its head in Troup County, Georgia. It’s the damndest thing I’ve ever seen.”

He said he will “pursue every available avenue” to get treatment for his aunt.

Joel Martin can be reached at jmartin@lagrangenews.
com or (706) 884-7311 ext. 235.

Ellipsis, prior to Murray v. Curlett I, an atheist Jew, would have been required as a condition of attending public schools to recite a Christian prayer every morning. This in a school that was supported by the taxes paid by my parents, as well as those of a significant number of other non-Christians.

This is now seriously off topic so feel free to ignore if you choose but if you could explain to me precisely how forcing people to pray against their personal conscience is in keeping with any passages of the bible (old OR new testaments) I would greatly appreciate it.

The vital difference in these cases is that of the private and public sectors. The ways in which Christians are prevented from exercising their religion have to do with the public sector, activities paid for by the government of the United States and therefore backed by the coercive power of that government. The cases in which I feel as though the culture war is intruding into the rights of secular and non-Christian peoples have to do with the private sector. What we choose to do in our own homes.

Mrs. Schavio is just such a case. When the decision was reached by the reasonable guardian that she would not have wanted to continue on with a life that no longer had any meaning the culture warriors chose to intrude and tell him (they could not tell her as she no longer had a brain) that their idea of right and wrong, not his, was the controlling one. It was after all Mrs. Schavio's parents, not her husband who first took the matter to a judge.

Gabriel Nichols wrote:
Ellipsis, prior to Murray v. Curlett I, an atheist Jew, would have been required as a condition of attending public schools to recite a Christian prayer every morning. This in a school that was supported by the taxes paid by my parents, as well as those of a significant number of other non-Christians.

This is now seriously off topic so feel free to ignore if you choose but if you could explain to me precisely how forcing people to pray against their personal conscience is in keeping with any passages of the bible (old OR new testaments) I would greatly appreciate it.

I do not recall at any time advocating forced prayer in schools; if this is a result of pointing out that Madelyn Murray O'Hair did her part to ignite the cultural wars, I can understand the confusion. However, she was known for more than just that one lawsuit, wasn't she? Maybe she faded out of the national scene, but certainly she was a force in Texas for some time.

But I do not see any response to the fact that Jewish and Moslem children may display religious symbols in the NYC public schools in December, yet Christian children are forbidden. It seems to me that public support for two religions and public suppresson of another is a clear violation of the 1st Amendment, even as it is now understood, but obviously the NYCLU and others disagree...I'd like an explanation of how this works, though, and how it is justified.

The vital difference in these cases is that of the private and public sectors. The ways in which Christians are prevented from exercising their religion have to do with the public sector, activities paid for by the government of the United States and therefore backed by the coercive power of that government.

I see, so it is good for the government to ban Christian symbols while promoting Judaism and Islam in public, taxpayer funded, schools? There are other cases out there, such as the California school where a banner was put up reading "Allahu Akbar", an Islamic religious exhortation, when students were studying Islam by, among other things, memorization of Koran verses...yet to the SoCal ACLU, this apparently did not constitute "establishment of religion", the way a creche would at Christmas, even one jammed in between a menorah and Santa Claus. I find it odd that so many atheists seem to recoil in horor from any public display of Christianity, yet see nothing wrong with the teaching of Islam by public schools. Perhaps this can be explained also?

The cases in which I feel as though the culture war is intruding into the rights of secular and non-Christian peoples have to do with the private sector. What we choose to do in our own homes.

Well, if "privacy of our own homes" refers to sexual issues, is there really any serious threat that Jerry Falwell is going to overturn _Lawrence_ somehow? I don't see that happening; is the objection to what they _say_, and that they should not be allowed to _say_ it? Or is this referring to something else?

Interestingly, some Christians I know feel a similar way. Having their religion denegrated in public by government officials, they retire to the privacy of their home only to find that a sweeping range of popular culture is literally filth. What they choose to do in their own homes is regularly held up as laughable, stupid and even somehow connected to evil, by the "infotainment" industry. As a result, they feel under siege...

Mrs. Schavio is just such a case.

I'm very sorry, but I flatly refuse to debate that case in this forum at this time, for several reasons.

But when the right attempts to ammend the Constitution on the grounds of preserving biblical marriage, its important that people understand exactly how biblical marriage already differs from marriage today.

Then we can safely assume that their attempts to ammend said constitution will invariably fall flat; or if they actually succeed through the normal means of producing such ammendment, then we can assume that it is your own view on "marriage today" that is distorted. What is so hard to understand about this? What, in fact, is the relevance? That's why we have means for changing the constitution, and carefully placed hurdles in executing those means.

Ellipsis your comments on militant athiests rounding up and burning Christians in their churches gets you the Goehring award for the most hateful bs/propaganda in this thread.

SoFab, he was quoting another party, and it was clearly and obviously a use of hyperbole to refute an earlier, opposite comment of similar construction. Do follow the thread in its entirety before going on the offensive...

Here is something considerably more on topic for this thread, from Britland.

Coroner seeks inquiry into ‘mass euthanasia’ at hospital

by Lois Rogers, Medical Editor
A CORONER is demanding a public inquiry into claims that 11 hospital patients were deliberately starved to death. He believes that it could be Britain’s first case of forced “mass euthanasia”.
Peter Ashworth, the coroner for Derby, will open an inquest later this year into the suspicious deaths at the city’s Kingsway hospital.
He considers the matter so serious that he has written to the Department of Health asking for the inquest to be superseded by a judicial inquiry with powers to investigate practices at the hospital.
There is now increasing concern across Britain about the way hospitals appear to be hastening the deaths of elderly patients. Police in Leeds and Hampshire are also looking into similar cases.

It appears that some number of elderly people in a British health care institution, who were alert enough to ask for food at least with gestures, were deliberately starved to death...

Boonton wrote:

Sadly family disputes tend to bring out the worst in people.

This is a hard truth, but one that bears repeating. Not only must older people ensure they have a living will and appropriate power(s) of attorney, they must also not be afraid to change the living will, and revoke power(s) of attorney if the situation changes (a relative moves away) or people change...

I'm sure the latter case is the hardest to deal with.

So Fabulous wrote:

There are two key points that remain unexplained-
1) How does the granddaughter determine the initial course of treatment for the conscience, lucid Mrs Macgourik? POA means nothing while the patient is lucid, so even if the granddaughter lied about the POA it doesn't matter.

This has already been explained not only in this thread, but in materials pointed to by URL's in this thread.

2) How was Mrs Macgourik moved to a hospice without her MDs orders?

This also has been addressed. For the second time, try reading first, and posting second.

A few words on a morphine drip. Everyone responds to opiates differently. Many remain lucid even under the influence of Diludid or Methadone, both being stronger then morphine. A morphine drip actually suggests that Mrs Macgourik was lucid as it is dispensed on a limited basis by a combination of intervals in time and the patient pressing a button.

Morphine can also be dispensed in an IV, to persons who are not conscious; I know this from personal experience.

Ellipsis your comments on militant athiests rounding up and burning Christians in their churches gets you the Goehring award for the most hateful bs/propaganda in this thread.

Sigh. I posted what some Christians have said to me, in response to a statement by Gabriel. Gabriel's "theocracy" assertion is also one that I have heard before from atheists that I know personally. I consider both statements to be hyperbole with little substance in fact, but provided an alternative to Gabriel's observation to illuminate the fact that different people see different things, given their different perspectives.

I would very much appreciate it if So Fabulous would read my postings much more carefully before replying in the future.

"Gaddy has been taking care of her grandmother for 10 years, he said. “They’re following the doctors’ recommendations and they want to do what’s in the best interests of their grandmother,” Daniel said, adding that hospice is providing “excellent care” for Magourik, a widow with no children."

How can a widow with no children have two grandchildren? This seems to call the reliability of the article into question.

Ann -- I had the same thought for a second, but I assume it means she has no living children.

Nice boilerplate, and it might even be true, but not relevent to the issues at hand. Try reading more carefully and using logic.

It may be boilerplate but it would seem like he is saying his hospice doesn't withdraw feeding tubes. Understandably he cannot comment on this patient because to do so would be illegal. Interested bloggers do not trump medical privacy laws.

So why isn't she getting treatment? Isn't denying treatment for the condition simply a means to kill her?

I never said she wasn't getting treatment. I was pointing out that her ailment is very serious & given her age it might be quite reasonable for her to be in a hospice even if she doesn't have a terminal disease.

One more time: if the granddaughter is the sole benificiary of the grandmother's estate, there is a pecuniary interest that must be considered. Or to put it another way, if Gabby stands to make money off of her grandmother's death, we need to see if Mae is getting all the medical care she needs.

She is? Can you post a copy of the will or are you assuming you know this family & their financial arrangements based on a handful of pro-life sites looking for an issue to replace Terri?

As a "militant atheist" I resent the implication that I cannot have any moral compass and am therefore a proponent of death. I have yet to hear anyone besides one particular (possibly misinformed) probate judge support the death of this woman. I do however believe that a person should have control over his or her own destiny. In the case of Mrs. Schiavo that control led to her death because the judge determined to the best of his ability that this was WHAT SHE WOULD HAVE WANTED. In the case of Ms. Magouirk it seems as though this is being thwarted by a misguided excessively religious granddaughter.

I agree with Gabriel Nichols's statement above. Assuming this woman is being denied food & water and assuming she left sentiments stating that she is not to be denied nourishment I would say those should trump anyone else's wishes. However, I disagree with attacking the probate judge without any firm basis in fact.

We have none here. The one actual article I found stated that the woman was being feed jello & other things by the granddaughter supposedly trying to kill her. No one has posted any links to the judge's decision (which provides insights into the actual evidence presented under oath, not on random blogs & talk radio). Nothing justifies the hysterical accusations of murder or "this is what the people who supported Terri's husband have brought us!".

He said at the end of the interview that he has now become a "life advocate" or something like that, which he was not before, because he and his family, listening to the Schindler-Schiavo story unfold, thought it could never happen to them - and then, a week later, it did.

He also said that everyone in LaGrange works for either the hospital or the hospice, both of which are owned by an old textiles family; it's a very "clannish" town, he said, and he knew the judge would continue to rule against them because of the town's nature (he, his mother, and his uncle being "outsiders").

Sounds rather suspecious to me. Why not appeal above the judge's head? It would sound like, unlike the Terri case, they would have a powerful case on the law itself (the application of her living will) whereas Terri's case involved tryig to challenge the findings of fact. Yet instead of the most logical thing he is becoming a 'life advocate' (whatever that is).

That's from the horse's mouth. No fact-checking. Gut-checking (my own) indicates great sincerity on his part, and a story that hangs together internally and includes many presumably verifiable details. The Schindlers' head counsel is taking on the case; with luck he's got good, FAST investigators, and has learned a lot from his most recent skirmishes with the almighty Law.

I don't doubt you for a second but unfortunately one of the nasty things about family disputes is that both sides can be perfectly sincere & honestly believe everything they are saying. Let's remember the granddaughter was taking care of this woman herself for years. She may indeed have 'had enough' and has now convinced herself that Jesus wants her to 'come home'. On the other hand, she may resent these relatives coming in at the last moment to question her care and her motives. [BTW, motives always run in two directions in family. How can we be sure that the grandmother didn't write these relatives out of her will? Perhaps they want to take a shot at getting back in by reviving her and convincing her that her granddaughter tried to kill her...or at least set up a case to contest her will] What we don't know is the actual truth.

We do not have:

1. Medical testimony/records documenting what the woman's condition is.

2. The text of her living will. (Or her current will for that matter)

3. Any factual statement regarding what care she is actually being given now by the hospice.

We had all of this with the Terri case. We could look thru the trial transcripts regarding her supposed statements on what she would have wnated. We could look at the medical testimony, even inspect copies of her CAT scans. We knew what the hospice was doing in regards to the feeding tube.

Now we have none of this & you're very foolish if you're just going to buy the picture one side chooses to paint for you.

I read over the article on the woman being moved to a regular hospital. Assuming it is accurate, it happened by order of the probate judge (the one who supposedly would rule against the 'outsiders' in this unusually 'clannish' town) after having three doctors examine the woman and give their opinion that she can be treated & is not terminal.

I agree that this is how things should generally be handled. The Hospice & doctors are supposed to provide a line of defense. The judicial system, not political one or 'blogsphere' is the proper place to resolve disputes. The judge was able to hear the facts I alluded to and make his decision.

Is it possible he made the wrong one? Yes it is. Maybe, he and the doctors were afraid of a Terri-like media circus in their town & gave the 'pro-lifers' too much deference. But without evidence that is so the judicial system deserves the benefit of the doubt.

Boonton grabbed a handful of postings by various people and replied:
I wrote:
Nice boilerplate, and it might even be true, but not relevent to the issues at hand. Try reading more carefully and using logic.

It may be boilerplate but it would seem like he is saying his hospice doesn't withdraw feeding tubes.

It looked and looks to me like generic boilerplate that says nothing about the case at hand.

Understandably he cannot comment on this patient because to do so would be illegal. Interested bloggers do not trump medical privacy laws.

How does that make the statement any less boilerplate, or relevent to the case at hand?

I asked:
So why isn't she getting treatment? Isn't denying treatment for the condition simply a means to kill her?

I never said she wasn't getting treatment. I was pointing out that her ailment is very serious & given her age it might be quite reasonable for her to be in a hospice even if she doesn't have a terminal disease.

If she's not going to die in 6 months or less she has no business in hospice. Treatment in hospice is generally limited to palliative (pain control) care, it isn't for people expected to live. See the difference between "hospice" and "hospital"?

I wrote:
One more time: if the granddaughter is the sole benificiary of the grandmother's estate, there is a pecuniary interest that must be considered. Or to put it another way, if Gabby stands to make money off of her grandmother's death, we need to see if Mae is getting all the medical care she needs.

She is? Can you post a copy of the will or are you assuming you know this family & their financial arrangements based on a handful of pro-life sites looking for an issue to replace Terri?

Please go look up the meaning of the word "IF", then carefully re-read what I wrote. IF there are any questions after that, get back to me.

ellipsis, I think we probably agree with each other more than not. I think we both agree there are major facts missing from this story & we may never be entitled to see them (sometimes such matters are considered private & court records are not available to interest parties so we just have to rely on what one particular side wishes to tell us about a case).

I feel better that she was sent to a hospital but I also acknowledge that I (like most others on this list) do not really know the case enough to be justified in making a call on it one way or the other.

If she's not going to die in 6 months or less she has no business in hospice. Treatment in hospice is generally limited to palliative (pain control) care, it isn't for people expected to live. See the difference between "hospice" and "hospital"?

My point was that she very well may be on track to die in 6 months or less. From what little I've read about her illness, it seems like it is very serious. If she is too old for surgery then she very well might be 'terminal' even if she doesn't have a terminal disease. We cannot decide that it was improper for the hospice to accept her from what little we know of her record.

Ellipsis, it's very poor judgement to quote an unknown source for something as ridiculous as rounding up Christians, taking them to church, then burning it. Anonymouse, the fact that it might be hyperboly doesnt make it any less offensive. Maybe I should start telling feeding tube jokes, then we'll see who's nickers get in a bunch.

If the explanation to why Mcgourik's grandaughter spoke on her behalf without med POA is that the hospital made a mistake then the feeding tube should be put back in and the hospital held liable for damages related to this error. If the hospital moved Mcgourik to the hospice without checking the granddaughters POA, then Mcgourik should be returned to the hospital, and the hospital should be held liable. If Mcgouriks wishes toward heroic or life sustaining measures are unknown then the decision should be made by the relatives other then the granddaughter because of her POA.

Ellipsis, my opinion of marriage today has nothing to do with my argument. My argument is if the ammendment is meant to protect biblical marriage, it would be protecting incest, polygamy, stoning for adultry, spousal abuse, an end to equal protection under the law, etc.

So Fabulous wrote:

Ellipsis, it's very poor judgement to quote an unknown source for something as ridiculous as rounding up Christians, taking them to church, then burning it.

I'll take that under advisement.

Anonymouse, the fact that it might be hyperboly doesnt make it any less offensive.

Here's an idle question: is it offensive in any way to compare American Christians to the Taliban, or to the mullahs in Tehran?

Just curious...

Maybe I should start telling feeding tube jokes, then we'll see who's nickers get in a bunch.

The word is "knickers". Please make a note of it...

If the explanation to why Mcgourik's grandaughter spoke on her behalf without med POA is that the hospital made a mistake then the feeding tube should be put back in and the hospital held liable for damages related to this error. If the hospital moved Mcgourik to the hospice without checking the granddaughters POA, then Mcgourik should be returned to the hospital, and the hospital should be held liable. If Mcgouriks wishes toward heroic or life sustaining measures are unknown then the decision should be made by the relatives other then the granddaughter because of her POA.

All of this is moot, for the moment at least, for reasons that are obvious to anyone paying attention to the facts of the case as currently known...

Ellipsis, my opinion of marriage today has nothing to do with my argument. My argument is if the ammendment is meant to protect biblical marriage, it would be protecting incest, polygamy, stoning for adultry, spousal abuse, an end to equal protection under the law, etc.

What does that have to do with this thread?

Boonton wrote:

ellipsis, I think we probably agree with each other more than not. I think we both agree there are major facts missing from this story & we may never be entitled to see them (sometimes such matters are considered private & court records are not available to interest parties so we just have to rely on what one particular side wishes to tell us about a case).

We might agree, or not. I admit I can be difficult to agree with sometimes...

I feel better that she was sent to a hospital but I also acknowledge that I (like most others on this list) do not really know the case enough to be justified in making a call on it one way or the other.

Well, that's interesting.

I wrote:
If she's not going to die in 6 months or less she has no business in hospice. Treatment in hospice is generally limited to palliative (pain control) care, it isn't for people expected to live. See the difference between "hospice" and "hospital"?

Boonton replied:
My point was that she very well may be on track to die in 6 months or less. From what little I've read about her illness, it seems like it is very serious.

Certainly if it isn't treated she'll almost surely die in a few months, if not sooner. But so what? A diabetic who is deprived of insulin may well die in less than 6 months, but with proper medical care can live for years. And that's my point; if there's reason to believe that this woman was deprived of medical care that would prolong her life, and she wanted that care, there's a crime being committed...

If she is too old for surgery then she very well might be 'terminal' even if she doesn't have a terminal disease.

Yeah, that's kind of the point. However, it is known her sister suffers from the same malady and has lived on medications for some number of years, only recently winding up in ICU due to the aortic fissure. So if Mae has a chance to live on medications, and she's put into hospice by her granddaughter on the basis of a financial only POI and deprived of anything but pain meds, what's going on? Who's deciding that whom should die, and for what?

We cannot decide that it was improper for the hospice to accept her from what little we know of her record.

Er, the fact that she was airlifed to the UAB medical center after a protest by other relatives offers us a clue, doesn't it?

A clue but little else, it is perfectly legal to die in a hospital as it is a hospice. The granddaughter might be in line for an even bigger inheritance than she would have received originally. If the doctors and hospice really did tell her her grandmothers case was hopeless & she should prepare for death then she has a nice lawsuit to add to her estate.

My point about her potentially being terminal was that she might be in such poor condition that surgery is too risky to try. Not that surgery was being denied in order to manufacture a terminal case (the way diabetes becomes terminal if you deny insulin).

IMHO, as one of several here and elsewhere who was starting to sound rather exercised on this subject (I kept seeing myself as a parrot of some kind: "Braaak! Sanctity of life! Braaak!" - which is absolutely NOT how I want to present my strongly held views), I hope like heck we don't have any more cases like this for a while. By "like this" I mean "matters of life and death in which family members vehemently disagree and courts appear to be siding with the death-with-dignity side." We, my fellow-travelers and I, need to get ahead of this issue, not keep reacting to circumstances, or be branded reactionaries (with some justification, but not sufficient to say the Schindlers' supporters were just milling around looking for another "victim of the courts" to defend - can't find that comment now, if it was indeed on this thread). Let there be some breathing space now...

Because I'm seeing more and more clearly that as my parents' relatively wealthy and powerful generation approaches its end, matters can take a couple of dangerous turns. First, they themselves may start to gauge their "quality of life" against a standard that a lot of the world can't meet on a good day, and require voluntary euthanasia on a significant scale because they've been so fortunate and well cared for relative to any prior generation that normal old age seems intolerable. Second, their children may eye those paid-off houses and mutual funds with an increasingly proprietary eye. The first is up to the Boomers, of course, but I fear - I greatly fear the consequences such a change of vantage could have on our already not-too-healthy view of death. I'd like a chance to influence how that particular generation thinks of aging and dying - not to force them to adopt my point of view, but to engage in debate without the deathwatch beetle ticking away in the woodwork as it has been for the past few weeks. The second implies criminal acts today, but already some critics are replacing the phrase "right to die" with "duty to die" to emphasize the change in vantage of the next generation down from the actual die-ers.

Ellipsis, it's very poor judgement to quote an unknown source for something as ridiculous as rounding up Christians, taking them to church, then burning it. Anonymouse, the fact that it might be hyperboly doesnt make it any less offensive. Maybe I should start telling feeding tube jokes, then we'll see who's nickers get in a bunch.

And yet it wasn't offensive when "Gabriel Nichols" -- no more a credible source than you, myself, or ellipses' third-hand quotation -- made essentially an opposite argument of comparable structure? I note you didn't try to nanny him, though. Is that selective bias at work, or did you not read through the thread before feeling free to call its participants into account (as it would increasingly appear)?

I realize Mr. Nichols didn't suggest Christians were out to burn congregations of atheists, but for all the real-world relevance it has in the context of this argument, his assertions were the same basic thing: Pick a group with a distinct and different viewpoint, claim that all you hold dear is at the mercy of these extremists, then absolve your side of all, save of course for those lily-white motives by which it operates. Group hug for your side! Two-minute hate for the other side! It's a dumb arguing tactic bandied mainly by the ignorant, and ellipses called him on it by picking a self-evidently absurd counterexample from someone who was equally ignorant.

Oh, and that's "hyperbole," and I believe ellipses already flagged you for "knickers." I know the forum doesn't have a spellchecker, and I make typographical errors myself (you can probably locate a couple just in this post). But changing or omitting unusual leading or trailing characters from multiple words usually gives evidence that basic literary skills are wanting, which is not a good platform from whence to issue judgemental critiques that require advanced literary analysis.

The facts are still anything but clear here, in any case my point was this whole mess occurred because the hospital failed twice. First, when they didn't verify the granddaughters POA, second when they moved her to the hospice.

Knickers was spelled nickers in S Earle's liner notes. I assumed it was the merican version of knickers. But since your so interested in correcting my admittedly horrible spelling, I rephrase to "who's panties get in a bunch." Im just so intellectually lacking I suppose I should just change my screen name and play it for laughs. Hmmmm which do you like better, Dopesick Teletubbie or Friendly Neighborhood Sex Offender?

Btw, how can it be hyperoble when it's attributed as a quote? Are you saying he really made it up himself? Why the need to obfuscate by attributing it to a third party?

Here are the court documents in Mae Magouirk's case . . . don't miss pages 20-23: http://www.blogsforterri.com/docs/MagouirkOrderApril1%5B1%5D.pdf

Here's my summary of some of the questions and issues that are bothering me about this case: http://www.xanga.com/item.aspx?user=purple_kangaroo_Angela&tab=weblogs&uid=241270994

As for the Terri Schiavo case, statements about a "flat EEG" and her brain being gone or turned to liquid are extremely uninformed. Dr. Cranford has been misleading to say the least in interviews given about Terri Schiavo, especially considering that neither he nor any other doctor considers her brain-dead or that her brain is missing or completely turned to liquid, according to court testimony.

I won't take the space to explain here, since this is a thread about Mae Magouirk, but if you're interested in more information (including comparison pics of CT scans of Terri's brain next to the brains of brain-damaged but highly-functioning people and case studies of people with very little to no cerebral cortex), please check out this post and the earlier ones on my blog: http://www.xanga.com/item.aspx?user=purple_kangaroo_Angela&tab=weblogs&uid=237598982

But since your so interested in correcting my admittedly horrible spelling, I rephrase to "who's panties get in a bunch."

It's a start, provided the grammarians fail to discover its presence.

Btw, how can it be hyperoble when it's attributed as a quote?

It goes back to that "advanced literary analysis" thing. Stay with me here, for a Moment of Nuance:

Are you saying he really made it up himself? Why the need to obfuscate by attributing it to a third party?

None of the above. I'm not aware of any hard law (perhaps the MLA has one tucked away somewhere, and I'm about to trigger the black helicopters) whereby hyperbole explicitly requires an original quotation, deliberately exagerated, on the part of the person employing hyperbole. The word itself has a compound root meaning "to throw beyond" or "to exceed." If something a third party said is sufficiently absurd and ridiculous that the second party doesn't even need to make something up, and the second party makes it clear by context that the third party's words are nothing but exagerated tripe, it doesn't matter whether the third party was somber or sanguine. The second party is being hyperbolic.

That is, unless the country's atheists ARE about to burn down Christians in their churches, in which case apparently neither you nor I received the memo (or else, you did, and...and you're one of them, participating in the coverup until the appointed hour arrives! Aaah!). But the plausibility of that seems pretty far beyond the pale at the moment, so I fail to see much that is actually offensive in using such a claim as an example of the ridiculous -- that is, unless you're also the type to take offense at a typical classic Looney Tunes episode, in which case I'm going to cease further debate and drop an anvil on you.

Purple kangaroo wrote:

Here are the court documents in Mae Magouirk's case . . . don't miss pages 20-23:

http://www.blogsforterri.com/docs/MagouirkOrderApril1%5B1%5D.pdf

Thanks very much for providing the link and a safe location for the pdf image of the documents in question. There is some extremely important testimony on those pages. mentioned above. Everyone should look at them before making further comments, frankly.

Here's my summary of some of the questions and issues that are bothering me about this case:

http://www.xanga.com/item.aspx?user=purple_kangaroo_Angela&tab=weblogs&uid=241270994

I find these questions to be quite reasonable. Posslby there is a family feud that has gone into the legal system, possibly not. Even if it is such a feud, it is still extremely troubling (but not a surprise to me) that a Living Will can be ignored so easily and that medical care withheld so casually.

Comments are Closed.