Main > Everything Else
Someone explain how this comes CLOSE to being right
DrewKaree:
--- Quote from: BrokenBones1 on April 10, 2005, 05:09:18 am ---
To find a positive in this this horrible example, perhaps this story will act as a catalyst to have the current system debated and hopefully improved.
--- End quote ---
I'll choose to hope and believe in the "perhaps" you bring up. Well spoken words.
saint:
There's many things about this story that bother me. I don't however see it as being affected by the Terri case at all. There are some similarities, but some important differences as well. Either way, however, I haven't seen anything where a judge or doctor has used precedence from the Terri case. Quite the opposite, the judge ordered that the woman be fed until the situation was sorted out.
In his order, Probate Judge Douglas Boyd permitted Gaddy to continue as Magouirk's temporary guardian, but in a formal letter attached to the order stated that her powers were limited. One of the conditions of her guardianship is "To see that the ward [Magouirk] is adequately fed, clothed, sheltered and cared for, and receives all necessary medical attention, including placement in a nursing home, if appropriate." (URL)
At present, the woman has been air-lifted to a hospital and is being given life-sustaining treatment.
Here are the things that bother me:
1. If the woman was lusid and coherent, why would the power of attorney ever be looked at? It's possible she was not lusid and coherent due to the medical emergency. However, at least at one point the nephew states that the woman looked at him and asked to be taken home. There is a person clearly expressing their wishes. Story over, anything contrary to that is grounds for civil and criminal charges I believe. And yes, that is different than Terri pronouncing two syllables that her family interpreted to mean she wanted to live. Unless the nephew is lying, the woman expressed in a clear sentence her wishes at some point at the hospital/hospice.
saint:
Oh, and for what it's worth:
Based on what I know so far, from the few articles I've read, I do not think what's happening to this woman is right.
mr.Curmudgeon:
<i>For all who saw no problems with the Shindler case, this is EXACTLY what people who were opposed to it could see coming. Explain how THIS one is right</i>
For all who actually *saw* problems with the Shindler case being public, this is EXACTLY what people who were opposed to it could see coming.
Why are we even being asked to serve up our opinions? When did the court of public opinion become more important than the actual courts? Why are these sorts of things being make into public spectacles?
Just as with the Schiavo case, this is NONE OF OUR BUSINESS. Not Drew's, not mine. How can we know what is right here? What people's motives are?
Drew, what exactly are you asking people to do? Pop a cap in the Granddaughter's head? Kidnap the Grandmother?
You already seem to think you're better than the numerous judges that heard the Schiavo case, so why don't you tell us what we're supposed to do here.
mrC
RayB:
81's old enough. It's time for carousel!