Someone explain how this comes CLOSE to being right

[DrewKaree]

In a situation recalling the recent death of Terri Schiavo in Florida, an 81-year-old widow, denied nourishment and fluids for nearly two weeks, is clinging to life in a hospice in LaGrange, Ga., while her immediate family fights desperately to save her life before she dies of starvation and dehydration.

So evidently a living will isn't enough - pinheads have to do some actual WORK instead of taking someone's word for it, and a judge sees fit to grant guardianship, allowing yet another person to die.

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

[tommy]

Its not right they mixed up the power of attorneys and thought Gaddy had the right to let her die but she dosent ,hopefully they will make it right..... hopefully.

[DrewKaree]

It's not that they mixed up the differences, it's that they didn't do the work to determine if someone has the right to kill another human being.

She was denied food and water for almost 2 weeks.  Chances are good she already died over the weekend (and nobody cared to report on it, since they already "did that story") or will die around the beginning of next week.

[tommy]

I agree they didnt look, but she must have produced the POA and they took that as that.

People make mistakes they dont know procedures or dont care, the poor lady cant say spit and part of her own family says let her die... its sad.

[Bones]

I value life but I am not against euthanasia or the ability of somebody I have chosen to make this decision if I am unable to. (Each with it's own special set of circumstances.)

I think the real issue here is the individual that this power is given to. The grandaughter has clearly made the decision in an incredibly short amount of time and the grandmothers wishes have been misrepresented intentionally.

The question I get after reading this is;
What is the screening process that a person must undergo to be awarded the right to make such a decision? Is the granddaughter with 6 different fathers to each of her childred, no job and a $1000 per week smack habit a good choice?? I am sure that it is this particular example it is not the case, but could it be?? Could granny have trusted this decision in such a person simply because there was nobody else?

Old people can be easily influenced and the potential for lowlifes to benefit from deceptive action is therefore increased.

I don't know what the solution to this problem is but with the age of the population increasing and the ability of science to keep people alive beyond their normal date of expiration, you can bet this situation will repeat with alarming frequency.

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.




Edit: Spelling....

[DrewKaree]

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.

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!

[Dartful Dodger]

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.

You are doing what you are supposed to do.

Nothing.

We will do the rest.

If you're bored, you can complain to each other on the internet.

[Crazy Cooter]

For all who saw no problems with the Shindler case, this is EXACTLY what people who were opposed to it could see coming.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

We will do the rest.

I take that is the royal "We", and if so, what pray-tell are *you* gunna' do?
Join Delay's Fatwa against "activist judges?"


You always seem to enjoy scoffing at any of the progressive actions I've been a part of outside this forum, I'd looooooove to hear what you plan to do about this, if it truly bothers you.

Or are you going to do about the same amount of "nothing" that you'd accuse me of doing? Say it isn't so, 'cuz then...that makes you an hypocritical, flaming gasbag!


mrC

[Dartful Dodger]

I'd looooooove to hear what you plan to do about this, if it truly bothers you.

There are several steps to this plan.
The first step is to keep Bush in office.

BUSH WON!!!

Hey what do ya know the plan is working.

[DarkKobold]

This is just the new plan for social security being laid out slowly, so everyone can adjust to the new "retirement plan."

We have to think about the future, folks.