« Wizbang: Mae Magouirk Update - The Contrarian Edition (UPDATED 4/19 - 08:15 ET) | Main | AP Story: "Democrats Grill U.N. Nominee John Bolton," well, maybe! »
April 10, 2005
Mae Magouirk Update - The Contrarian Edition Version 2
Topics: Euthanasia advocacy- BlogsForTerri
As a recap of our most recent previous post,
per our telephone conversation with Judge Boyd this morning, Judge Boyd
agreed with our version of his order and with our comments regarding
the difference between nursing home care and hospice care. Judge Boyd
seems to believe that things fell apart between the families AFTER they
left his courtroom and that Beth may have acted upon information from
her grandmother's doctors - that the two doctors in LaGrange must have
told Beth that Mae should go into the hospice - else Beth could not
have put Mae in the hospice. Judge Boyd had been left originally with
the impression that Mae would be placed in a nursing home, hence the
lanquage in his formal letter attached to the order that mentioned
"nursing home." As to the issue of feeding and hydration, Judge Boyd
said that it was testified in his court that Mae "was" getting
nutrition and hydration. As to whether or not it was adequate, that may
be the issue(my comment not Judge Boyd's, but on this Judge Boyd did
agree).
Additionally, Judge Boyd has agreed to provide BlogsForTerri with his views and opinions in the matter(not legal opinions but his personal opinions) on Monday. We have promised to post them on BlogsForTerri, Hyscience, ProLifeBlogs, and at the discretion of all other bloggers of the BlogsForTerri team.
In a separate telephone conversation with Judge Boyd only minutes ago, BlogsForTerri has offered to post a letter from Beth Gaddy explaining her side of the story. This offer is being conveyed through Judge Boyd, who has agreed to advise Beth of the opportunity to let her side be known.
Also, as per our most recent previous post, it continues to appear that after the families left Judge Boyd's courtroom, Beth may have acted upon information from her grandmother's doctors - that the two doctors in LaGrange must have told Beth that Mae should go into the hospice - and that Beth, following the doctor's advice, placed Mae in the hospice. Further, convinced by the doctors that she was doing the right thing, she then made the statement, "Grandmama is old and I think it is time she went home to Jesus. She has glaucoma and now this heart problem, and who would want to live with disabilities like these?" The fact that Mae is not at the hospice now clearly indicates that all three doctors, two in LaGrange and one at UAB Medical Center, concurred that Mae should be further evaluated to see if a course of action could be followed to give her a chance at a quality of life - BEFORE and INSTEAD OF being in a hospice to die(since there is only one legal reason to be put in a hospice).
As yet a further attempt to sort through the maze of two sides of a families frustrations, we contacted Ken Mullinax to respond to a list of questions related to possible conflicts between his version of the problem and that of others in the family and Judge Boyd. Here is his response:
To: BlogsForTerri
From: Ken Mullinax
Thanks for providing me the opportunity to address the following:
1. The world class cardiologist is Dr. Raed Aqel, M.D. who is at UAB's Kirkland Clinic. Dr Aqel is now my Aunt's Attending Physician at UAB and is seeing my Mom at UAB hospital as her cardiologist.
2.Two weeks-nourishment: That date comes from the fact that Mae was put in the Hospital on around March 13 and was immediately in such pain that Morphine was administered and thus she could not feed her self and thus obtained no substantial nourishment. She was admitted to Hospice on March 22 and from that point on, she only took in ice chips and jello on a sporadic basis and limited water via a syringe when if they ascertained she was unable or unwilling to take ensure or fluids orally, they should have proactively, in my opinion and according to the provisions of her living will, be administered such via an IV and nasal feeding tube.
3. Regardless of Judge Boyd says, Mae was denied nourishment and water because she was not lucid from the drugs and her lack of lucidity which only occurred AFTER ADMISSION TO THE HOSPICE AND therefore could not request them OR IMBIBE THEM on her own volition.
4.The food, Boyd said she took at Hospice, is not what we call great
nourishment...small amounts of ice chips and a few spoonfuls of jello.
I would like to see anyone would feel on a daily diet of a half small
bowl of orange jello, one cup of ice chips and maybe 100cc's of water
administered via syringe, when someone got around to giving it to her.
Anyone's electrolyte level, lucidity and cognitive abilities be
effected at this point?
5. The fact that Mae is not at Hospice now shows that all three
doctors, two in LaGrange and one at UAB, concurred that Mae should be
further evaluated to see if a course of action could be followed to
give her a chance at a quality of life. Judge Boyd will substantiate
the fact that an independent neurologist did in fact examine Mae on
either Thursday or Friday of this week and determined that her vitals
showed that her brain was still functioning, that her neurological
activity, swallowing functions, eyes and other vitals were still
functioning. Dr. Aqel suggested this to DR.'s Gore and Brennan and
they concurred and thus, a neurologist evaluated Mae. There report was
subsequently submitted to Judge Boyd. Dr. Aqel said that the
neurological exam greatly aided all three doctors in determining that
Mae was a viable candidate for further proactive medical treatment
and/or evaluation.
6. Dr. Aqel, who is my Mom's cardiologist for the last few years, and also my Uncle Buddy McLeod's cardiologist (all three siblings, Mae, Lonnie Ruth, Buddy - ALL suffer from aortic dissections and problems) and now my Aunt Mae's attending Physician at UAB (Dr. Aqel) told me and my brother Jon yesterday that Mae is SO DEHYDRATED after her stay at Hospice LaGrange, that it will take at least two days of intense hydration therapy to get her back to a level that is acceptable to him.
7. Carol Todd (Hospice in house lawyer) called my Mom on March 31 and told her and I (on the phone) what was going on. A Hospice nurse was also on the phone when Carol Todd called and tried to dissuade my Mom from requesting either an IV for fluids and/or a feeding tube for substantial nourishment. After Mom listened to them, as the closet living next of kin (after it was discovered that Hospice had wrongly assumed that Beth Gaddy's power of attorney was a medical-durable P.O.A. when in fact from Mae's hospitalization date until March 31, Beth did not have such power and only held a financial P.O.A./and the fact that they also did not closely examine my Aunt's Living Will, specifically the covenants which state "nourishment/fluids shall BE DENIED ONLY IF I am comatose or vegetative"), my Mom ordered Hospice, via Carol Todd to begin hydration via an IV post haste and requested a feeding tube. Ms. Todd said they could do an IV that evening, once they passed Mom's request on to a Doctor who would order such "and one did and an IV was inserted that evening" but Todd told us we would have to show up at Hospice and sign papers to get a feeding tube inserted in her nose and if we did so, Hospice would no longer consider her as a viable candidate for Hospice.
We told Todd great, because we never considered Mae as someone who
should be in Hospice since she was never said to be terminal. Well,
someone notified Beth Gaddy Thursday that we were coming over the next
day, Friday, April 1, to sign Mae's papers for a feeding tube and to
move her to UAB- because when we showed up Friday at Hospice, they
stalled us from moving her "a Hospice head nurse did) and when we were
fed up with her trying to persuade us of all the reasons we should let
go of Mae and allow her to die at Hospice and told her and even had Dr.
Aqel call her so as to begin the process of emergency air transport to
UAB medical center, then and only then did Carol
Todd, Hospice's lawyer, arrive and served us with the court papers Beth
Gaddy obtained via Judge Boyd which superseded by Mom and Uncle Buddy,
who are Mae's closest living next of kin-and thus had herself appointed
as the temporary Guardian who therefore could and did make the medical
decision to both keep Mae in Hospice and pull out her IV tube for
fluids and reversed our decision to insert a nasal feeding tube....the
horror thus began for us.
8. Our attorney Jack Kirby proposed a compromise settlement (and he
was smart doing so because it now has Mae out of Hospice and in a real
world class medical facility) on our behalf Monday, April 4, when we
realized, via his negative actions toward our agruments before him in
open court on April 2, 2005, that Judge Boyd was going to rule for Beth
and against our petition for guardianship...(one such instance was Boyd
denying our attorney, Jack Kirby from cross examining Dr. Stout-Mae's
attending physician -from answering his question of whether Stout would
agree that there are different
courses of treatment for a dissected aorta other than surgery..."this
argument was used by Beth and Stout..
10. They stated rightly that Mae was not a candidate for surgery, that is true, however neither was my Mom, Mae's sister who has a similar aortic condition - the whole reason we have Dr. Aqel involved is that he treated Mae's sister, my mom, Lonnie Ruth......WITHOUT surgery for a dissected aorta, successfully, with treatment and drugs when Mom's aorta dissected on October 12, 2002 and when the same problem occurred on October 12, 2003 and UAB's doctors are AGAIN treating my Mom for another dissection which occurred this past Thursday evening on April 7, 2005...matter of fact, Mom is doing so well (the dissection now has occurred in her Iliac artery(It's the artery which shoots off the aorta from the groin to either leg), that she has now been moved from CICU "Cardiac Intensive Care Unit" at UAB to a private room. Dr. Aqel is also acting, as always, as my Mom's cardiologist and as Mae's attending. Mae is now just one floor above my Mom's hospital room.
Note: Dr. Stout, Mae's attending Dr. in LaGrange, said in so many words that he would ignore Mae's Living Will since he felt her quality of life and outlook for recovery was grim at best. However, it seems that the panel of three doctors thought there must be a chance because they reported back to Judge Boyd, according to the settlement our lawyer, Jack Kirby crafted and wrote for the court, and Mae is now in UAB Medical Center.
10. In Judge Boyd's court decree order(Civil Action, Estate 138-05, dated April, 2005) it states:
"The guardian shall see that Dr. Brennan, Dr. Gore, Dr. Aqel evaluate/and or examine the ward (Mae Magouirk) for the purpose of determining whether any medical treatment should be pursued for her aortic aneurism. If at least two of the three doctors agree that there is a viable course of treatment for the aortic aneurism, then, in that event, the petitioner(Beth Gaddy) shall follow the recommendation of the doctors who agree to such a course of treatment, including the location and manner of treatment to be provided."
11. So by Mae being at UAB Medical Center that fact alone supports our contention that Mae DID NOT BELONG IN HOSPICE....was not terminal or comatose or vegetative and the three doctors agree that a course of treatment SHOULD BE PURSUED.
In closing, that is all Mae's Alabama family seeks...if the Doctors treat her and her lucidity is not reinstated, then we would be fine with her being in a nursing home...or she is welcome in either our home or Uncle Buddy McLeod's home...matter of fact, why not sitters in her home?
WE are comfortable with Mae being ANYWHERE BUT HOSPICE as long as she is not terminal and as long as she proactively receive the proper nutrition she must have, either orally or via a tube and/or IV.
Note, we Mullinax's are not adverse to Hospice when it is used
properly for the purpose in which it was created. I left my career in
Washington, DC to come back home to Alabama and help my dad
Ken, Sr. die at home with Hospice from 200 until July 10, 2002. In
1990, we obtained Hospice to help my grandmother, Mae's mom, Ora Ethel
McLeod, die at home with Hospice. Additionally in 1994, my dad's
brother Lynn Mullinax, left his home in NYC and moved in with my Mom
and Dad so he wouldn't die alone and we used Hospice at our home for
uncle Lynn....however, the major difference between my Aunt Mae
Magouirk and the three cases of Hospice with my Grandmother,Dad and
Uncle Lynn is that ALL THREE OF THEM WERE TERMINAL!
And even though they were terminal and some were very infirm, we ALWAYS SAW THEY HAD A GOOD INTAKE OF SUBSTANTIAL NOURISHMENT AND FLUIDS.
Aunt Mae is not terminal as evidenced by the panel of 3 doctors who have moved her to UAB medical center. She was never comatose or vegetative and her Living Will has never fully been honored.
ALL WE ASK IS THAT SHE RECEIVES THE BEST MEDICAL TREATMENT AVAILABLE...AND THAT IF SHE IS NOT ABLE TO DO SO HERSELF WITHOUT DIFFICULTY, THAT THE MEDICAL PERSONAL PROACTIVELY INSURE SHE IMBIBES the proper amount of daily minerals, vitamins and NOURISHMENT / FLUID - substantial meaning either adequately balanced meals or enough ensure, fluids or if she is unable or unwilling to take orally, IV fluids and a nasal feeding tube to make sure she has the proper nutrients, vitamins and minerals to allow her to remain alive.
Be it at home, in a hospital or a nursing home or in one of our homes...she needs help and thank the good Lord she is finally receiving it via Doctor Aqel at UAB.
Kenneth Mullinax
Posted by Hyscience at April 10, 2005 2:26 PM
Articles Related to Euthanasia advocacy:
- How Not To Say Goodbye To A Loved One - Mar 27, 2008
- Mom Pleads For Son's Life And Asks For Help - Mar 18, 2007
- On Judicial Homicide And Legalized Spousal Execution - Mar 08, 2007
- Woman Awakes From 'Vegetative State' After 6 Years (Updated) - Mar 07, 2007
- Justifying Murder - Dec 01, 2006
- Shouldn't We Just Throw Them Off the Dover Cliffs? - Nov 09, 2006
- Scientific Experimentation without Limits - Oct 06, 2006
- Experimenting on the Worthless - Oct 04, 2006
- Doctor, nurses arrested in extreme coercive euthanasia case - Jul 18, 2006
- PVS is reversible and often misdiagnosed - May 24, 2006
Comments
What I have read here is very encouraging. It is very good news that Judge Boyd has acted with proper discretion and has ensured that the ward in this case was not going to be treated in such a shoddy fashion.
I do believe that kudos should go to Carol Todd who has acted beyond reproach in her handling of the situation. The mere fact that she corrected the error that occurred speaks volumes about her mission to uphold the original intention of hospice.
We shall just have to wait and see what Beth Gaddy has to say about the matter.
Posted by: Maggie4life at April 10, 2005 2:54 PM
I wonder if the family will now look into the personal and financial aspects of Mae's desires. Afterall, perhaps Gaddy is embezzaling too.
Posted by: kmg at April 10, 2005 5:23 PM
Thank you Hyscience for keeping us up to date. as of this moment the news looks good. We will see what happens tomorrow. Regardless, this case just further initiates a need_NO_ a Requirement_that Hospices of America be investigated thoroughly. It is too often that people who are not terminal are being placed in these facilities and euthanized. We all warned about this in the Schiavo case, now we are seeing a culture of death being promoted and propagated by Hospices. When will they learn that it God and God alone who has the authority to be the arbiter of life. I also hear allot about how Judge Boyd is going to watch and see whether or not she can regain a certain quality of life before he decides to starve her or not. He is not God, he has no business making that determination. If she takes a turn for the worst, she should be given loving care and nourishment until such time God deems fit to take her home.
Shout-out- to Maggie, Great comment!
Posted by: Ken at April 10, 2005 10:48 PM
At this point I believe that it is necessary to keep judge Boyd on side.
He was very careful in that he made sure that there was a document stating that Mae was to receive the proper care due to her and that Beth Gaddy was to ensure that she got this care. That document undermined Gaddy's intentions.
The judge also gave instructions that neither family was to influence the doctors who were to examine Mae. Of course we know now that they agreed to a neurologist examining Mae to determine the best outcome. The mere fact that she was moved to Alabama is proof that a doctor advised Gaddy that her granny would not have a quality of life.
There is one other conflict here. Even though Carol Todd did the right thing and showed a true commitment to the original intention of hospice, that hospice has other staff who work with the notion that the elderly must die. I have read through the letter written by Ken Mullinax, and he said that as Carol made her phone call, there had been another caller, a nurse, who was requesting that Mae be allowed to die. Somebody (probably the head nurse) tipped off Beth Gaddy that the family who had the medical power of attorney intended to move Mae to Alabama. That same person probably screwed around and caused sufficient delays so that Beth Gaddy could get her temporary injunction.
In all fairness to Judge Boyd, when Gaddy made the first application he was not given all of the correct facts about the case. According to one source Gaddy had made the application for guardianship by claiming that Mae had dementia. She clearly does not have dementia.
Her latest action, that of ordering the hospital staff not to allow other family members to come and visit Mae is a very low act and is reminiscent of the behaviour of Michael Schiavo.
Obviously the case has to go back to the probate court. For this reason, we need to keep judge Boyd on the side of ensuring that justice is done and that an elderly woman is not allowed to starve to death. His written order I think met that criteria in the first instance.
Posted by: Maggie4life at April 11, 2005 8:44 PM
;

















