April 08, 2005
The Slippery Slope of Death
People who tried to keep Terri Schiavo alive argued at times about a possible “slippery slope” that we could end up following if we allowed her feeding tube to be pulled while there was a controversy over what she wanted to have happen in the situation. And, while I disagreed with their view and believed that legally the proper channels were taken, it appears that they may have been right in the case of Mae Magourik.
Now, I'm not one to want to talk about Terri any more, I think we've all said about what we can say on that topic. However, the current situation is much more obvious in my opinion. As the reported story goes, Magouirk did have a living will expressing specifically what she wanted to have happen. She stated that if she was not in a coma or PVS that she did NOT want to have her feeding tube removed. She went in for surgery and the doctors say she will be fine, however her tube has been removed anyways and she now lays dying.
How did this happen? Again, according to reports, her granddaughter, who had legal power of attorney for her, moved her from the hospital to a hospice and then had the tube removed stating:
"Grandmama is old and I think it is time she went home to Jesus," Gaddy told Magouirk's brother and nephew, McLeod and Ken Mullinax. "She has glaucoma and now this heart problem, and who would want to live with disabilities like these?"
The Hospice was unaware of the living will. Once the sister and nephew of the woman found out what was going on, the hospice agreed to have the tube re-insterted and asked them to come to the hospice to fill out the paperwork. Once there, they were denied entry because the grandaughter went to a judge and was given guardianship over the well-being of her grandmother, despite having a legal living will stating the opposite.
Today, she still lays in the hospice and is denied nurishment. It is believed that she may not last through the weekend.
If ever there is a case where SOMETHING should be done and a judge's decision should be reviewed quickly, this is it. But, unfortunately, because of the massive media circus that was the Terri Schiavo case, it is likely that she will be left to die.
The nephew asked "What country did I wake up in?"
I'm inclined to ask that same question.
Ron Panzer, president and founder of Hospice Patients Alliance, a patients' rights advocacy group based in Michigan, told WorldNetDaily that what is happening to Magouirk is not at all unusual.
"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."
Patients who are not terminally ill are not suppose to be admitted to hospices. But, as we have been discovering lately, this is hardly enforced at all.
What good is a legal living will?
Why are will allowing a woman who is not terminal, who is not in a vegitative state, who does not have brain damage and who is expected to make a full recovery, to be killed?
Why are we making value of life judgements against the obvious wishes of the woman in question?
What the heck is going on in this country?
Posted by Rhinehold at April 8, 2005 05:33 PMRhinestone,
Good article. I will give my opinion on it.
The legal living will should always over rule what someone has to say. If in my will, I want to be killed by a doctor in assisted suicide because I have a terminally cancer; I don’t give a damn what the politicians, judges, wife, kids, or anyone else has to say. This is my life and I am going to do what I want with it despite the potential ramifications.
In this country, we should not be dictated by one group of people. Sure, we should have loyalties to our party’s and politicians when they deserve it but we all have a path to take. If I have a terminal cancer and the technology seems abysmal, I want a doctor to perform the assisted suicide on me. It doesn’t matter what the Moral Majority or anyone else says. It is my choice, my path and my right.
Live and let live is the philosophy. We all have the right to make mistakes, live enjoyably, and we should have the right to die as we wish when given the control. The military is fighting for our freedom, as the rhetoric goes because somehow someone is saying that Sadaam Hussein took away my rights but when it comes down to who really is taking our freedom; I look right in the eyes of the politicians who take it away and I ask why?
Posted by: Donny Goodman at April 8, 2005 06:41 PMDonny:
I agree with you. I also think we should err on the side of life when the patient has not left clear instructions.
Craig
Posted by: Craig Holmes at April 8, 2005 06:45 PMThe sad part is that in THIS case there ARE clear instructions. But the judge is ignoring them and giving guardianship to the granddaughter.
Is there a way that Judges can be sued for malpractice?
Posted by: Rhinehold at April 8, 2005 06:47 PMOne would have to do a lot of research into this case to know if what the judge decided makes sense. However, if not—then I imagine someone will be appealing the case right? If the judge did something obviously negligent, beyond his power, or outside of the law then the appeal will quickly reverse the decision. That is what appeals are for, after all…this judge apparently was elected (not appointed) with no legal background of any kind so he may very well have done the wrong thing.
I don’t see a slippery slope here though, just because this case involves a feeding tube. Other than that, there is absolutely no similarity between this case and what happened with Terri Shiavo. Many, many, judges looked at the Shiavo case and decided the same thing—that judge Greer’s decision was appropriate. If the underlying law is the reason Mae is being left to die against her wishes (perhaps power of attorney supercedes a living will in her state?) then the law is what needs to be changed, not the judges—like that Texas law that Bush signed which allows a hospital to remove life support against the family’s wishes.
Posted by: Charles Wager at April 8, 2005 09:12 PMI agree that the error should favor life, death being a tad bit final on most issues of health care, but I also agree that the law should be rewritten by the legislature if its at fault, not by judges going activist in an opposite political direction.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 8, 2005 09:43 PMI was one of those who argued that a terrible precedence was being set in the Shiavo case. I still have a hard time believing a judge ordered the removal of a feeding tube and Terri was allowed to starve to death, in a country where a person would be arrested for starving their dog. The precedence was set and now we have another judge ruling against a living will and in favor of a granddaughter who stands gain the inheritance. I heard this today on the radio and it made me ill. I fear this is only the beginning.
Stephen: I see you are in favor of the legislature getting involved and I believe judges have been going activist for several years.
It is a shame because this woman will die and the media won’t touch this one.
Posted by: Blaine at April 8, 2005 10:18 PMBlaine:
“The precedence was set and now we have another judge ruling against a living will and in favor of a granddaughter who stands gain the inheritance […] I fear this is only the beginning.”
Excuse me? What living will did the Florida judges rule against? As I recall, it was the LACK of a living will that made the Terri Schiavo incident so controversial. This is a whole new slope, and one we don’t need to go down. I have no idea why the judge would rule against the living will in favor of the granddaughter but I doubt it’s because of any “precedent.”
I expect the Republicans are going to have a field-day with this (if it gets any media attention).
Posted by: Zeek at April 9, 2005 12:49 AMI agree!!! Why do we need Judges anyway? We should abolish it and just let Congress take over. I am sure there are enough Lobbyists and Evangelicals around willing to make sure your Cases are Tried in the most biased way possible. With the new Laws Congress passed, the Top 10% are even more favored now than ever!!! Remember People: THERE IS ONLY ONE GOD AND GEORGE BUSH IS HIS PROPHET!!!
Posted by: Aldous at April 9, 2005 12:53 AMIt appears the judge in the case is elected and has no law degree. Not sure how he got elected in the first place.
Why on earth should this not get ‘media’ attention though? I would think that this deserves much more attention than Schiavo did because of the overwhelming agreement by most who I’ve talked to that if this is true it is completely over the line and she should be placed back on a feeding tube.
Posted by: Rhinehold at April 9, 2005 12:54 AMAldous, it’s not about that… This judge is clearly not using any known law in America to make his decision and should be overruled by a higher court. No one’s suggesting we get rid of judges, just this particular fool.
Posted by: Zeek at April 9, 2005 01:02 AMZeek:
I did not intend for it to sound like Schiavo had a living will. I know she didn’t. The Schaivo case was different, but I think it should have been looked at afresh by the courts. They made decisions on previous court rulings. There were too many unanswered questions.
The reason there will be no media coverage is simply because of what Zeek and Aldous hinted to. It will give credence to the conservatives. The media is biased against conservatives. Mark my word, this will not be covered by the big three or major newspapers.
Putting politics aside, does anyone have a problem with what is happening in this case and how can it be fixed.
If this is truly taking place across the country, then there should be an investigation. The old saying, “follow the money”, applies in this case. Who in the hospice centers stands to gain?
Blaine-
Are all the facts on the table? If Mullinax’s story is true, by all means, go in and save the woman. The case may be more complicated than that.
Is Mullinax telling the truth? Do we have more than his word that these are the things happening, or do we have an man here who is trying to manipulate folks into forcing an outcome against the wishes of the other relatives. Is the feeding tube even pulled?
I think the Right has set a dangerous precedent of its own: rushing into private family deliberations and judging cases in the court of public opinion where the law, evidence, and sworn testimony are not brought into the decision.
Could this guy just be using the right-wing media to bypass a legitimate family decision? Do we have anything else but his word that what he says is going on is actually the case? We have no way of telling.
The real question here is whether pro-life folks are willing to submit themselves to the same law as everybody else. It does us no good to go on all these moral crusades for life and this and that, if they leave an unstable legal basis for deciding these cases in their wake.
Take for example that legislative intervention. Now that it’s done, the Pro-Lifers here will want it everytime, and will pillory those who deny it to them. It was stupid for those branches of government to intervene as such, because it builds the expectation that those in power in the legislature and the executive will interven on their behalf whenever they don’t like a court decision. God help us if they actually succeed in making that a matter of course. Politics should be a distant consideration in these cases. The law and the the facts should be the first concern.
You talk about the media being biased against you. If they were really biased, you know what they would do? Not report your side of the story. Did they do that? No they didn’t fail to get your side of the story out. How many times did they broadcast the appeals of the Schiavos? How many times did that priest get his say? How many times did Randall Terry show up? Were the Republicans denied their opportunity to express their beliefs, Bush his opportunity to say that we should err on the side of life?
Is your problem, Blaine, that your side wasn’t allowed to dominate the debate, wasn’t allowed to win it pre-emptorally? This is a free country, with a free media that has obligations to tell people all sides of a story, and to let Americans decide for themselves what to believe.
But we need to know what the facts, the law, and whatever other relevant viewpoints are involved here. Is this a real “right to live” case. Is the pursuit of this publicity a cynical act? Only a clear presentation of the facts can clarify whether the above are true, or whether there’s another unknown story there beneath the surface of all this speculation.
The question is, will we get that with your folks muddying the waters? Or will we be told the story convenient to a political cause’s fortunes?
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 9, 2005 09:52 AMStephen:
I agree; the facts of the case need to be investigated.
I don’t know that it was the pro-life people that pushed for legislation in the Schiavo case. I thought the push for legislation came more from the Congress and the President. In any case, wasn’t it a one-time move to deal with only the Schiavo case? I understood the legislation passed and signed to merely ask federal judges to take another, fresh look at the case. I agree the law and facts should be our first concern, but isn’t it the legislator and executive who determine, write, and sign bills into law? Who determines what laws should be written? If there is an outcry from the public to deal with a situation, shouldn’t it be dealt with?
I have no problem with the coverage of the Schiavo case. It was such a hot button issue, every media dealt with it. I don’t think either side had a monopoly on the coverage and I don’t think one side tried to dominate any more than the other. Due to the recent loses in elections, over the past several years by the left, there is no doubt the Schaivo case was more about politics than rule of law. The left saw an opportunity to deal a blow to conservatives and that’s a shame. Considering the votes, on the Schiavo case, in the House and Senate were very bipartisan. It is similar to the vote to go to war. Everyone wanted to be recorded as pro-American and anti terrorist, but afterwards the left started slamming the Republicans as warmongers. But you couldn’t come to that conclusion from the votes. On the other hand, this case is low key and I believe by the time it is well known it will be too late. Several radio talk shows and perhaps a few news shoes have talked about this case, but I still do not believe the major news medias will say anything.
Blaine:
Nice of you to blame the Left when its your people writing Memos on how to exploit the dying woman. Hell, Tom Delay is using the case to save his corrupt ass.
As for Republicans being warmongers, they are not. Warmongers at least have the decency to actually go to war themselves. Judging from Recruiting shortfalls, the Republicans seem to take after Bush and Cheney.
Posted by: Aldous at April 9, 2005 01:49 PMAldous:
Why do you insist on talking about things that are not part of the conversation? I never mentioned Tom Delay or recruiting. Are you just trying to stir things up or are you just plain stupid?
Let me add a nugget of knowledge to your warped mind, most servicemen are Republicans.
Posted by: Blaine at April 9, 2005 02:19 PMBlaine-
Congress didn’t ask the courts to kick it up to the federal level. It told them to do it. And while there was bipartisan support for the measure in the legislature, there was bipartisan opposition for it from the public.
The intent of the law was obvious: to force the desired outcome, to take what was a state matter under the constitution, and change the jurisdiction (which was decided previous to the case) retroactively for one specific case, with the intent of taking control of the outcome.
This was made political the moment a governor decided to overrule the state courts. This became a legitimate matter of political controversy. But because of the way it was done, most of the focus on this case will come down on how far the Republican party stretched or even broke the constitutional law in order to interfere. That contempt for the law, that contempt for the constitution they swore to defend and uphold is a legitimate issue for them to have to answer for before the voting public. It is not immoral for us to object to tyrranical actions, however well-intentioned. That is our right in this country.
The Republican party is fallible, and its denial of its mistakes and malfeasances is only making it seem more hypocritical. If the Republicans in Washington are so committed to the war on terrorism, the war against al-Qaeda, why did they invadee a nation where their presence was uncertain instead of taking care of them where we knew they were? The average Republican on the street wants what the average Democrat wants: Osama Bin Laden and his kind defeated. But we look at the way Bush has lead this war, and this particular campaign, and we find his conduct wanting. This about the quality of the war he’s waging, not the fact he’s waging a war on terror. You guys have become trapped in your own rhetoric and bought your own propaganda about Democrat interests.
It is immensely frustrating that your side chooses to see this solely in terms of your president or your party being victimized. What we are objecting to are the very real consequences of policies your leaders did not think through very well. What we are objecting to is a president and a party that casts blame for its failures everywhere but where it counts.
When they decide to rejoin the reality-based community, and deal with their problems in a mature manner, then we’ll talk. This is the wrong time in our history to be putting the party’s welfare ahead of our own.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 9, 2005 02:28 PMStephen:
When they decide to rejoin the reality-based community, and deal with their problems in a mature manner, then we’ll talk. This is the wrong time in our history to be putting the party’s welfare ahead of our own.
I think I understand where you are coming from, but as this recent poll by Pew research shows Democrats are going down in polls proportionately to Republicans.
http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=239
I think we have a a pretty serious problem in Washington. This data reminds me of the general election, when world events were against Bush but Kerry could not gain on him.
Craig
Posted by: Craig Holmes at April 9, 2005 11:06 PMDon’t you think that if the Judges had seen anything wrong with the Shiavo case, they would have intervened?
This case went on for years. I find it very hard to belive that, after so many years and so many reviews of the case that anything new would have been found to change the outcome.
The only sad part of this farce, was that Terri was allowed to linger for so long, and that her husband, who had been found without guilt by the courts, was so demonized by his opposition.
Her family, who for all intents and purposes, were portrayed as lilly white, and champions of her cause, and were allowed to create a media circus, that in reality, did nothing to further the cause of the disabled.
Err on the side of life? What life?
I think it’s interesting that these right-wing, conservative Christians are finally showing their true colors. It sure as heck ain’t no liberal saying the old lady needs to “be with Jesus”. But after all, Heaven’s a far, far better place than this sordid ball of sin, right?
Anyhow, it’ll be interesting to see how it turns out. Is anyone appealing the judges ruling? The link Stephen provided is interesting. There’s definitely more going on there than has been reported so far. Keep us informed, Rhinehold.
