Late this evening I spoke with Ken Mullinax regarding the Gibbs Lawfirm’s press release which we posted in full earlier in the day. We had contacted him after we, along with several readers, noted a few discrepancies in what had been released.
Mullinax verified that a "feeding tube" was never pulled from his Aunt Mae Magouirk. Rather, an IV line for hydration was removed shortly after being put in place.
Earlier in the day, Mullinax’s attorney, Jack Kirby, had secured permission for Mae’s brother and sister to visit her. Mullinax has also received visitation rights and had just returned from visiting his Aunt Mae Magouirk and his mother, Lonnie Ruth Mullinax prior to our conversation. Both are recovering and doing well.
Mae Magouirk is being fed, and has been since last Saturday, through a feeding tube inserted in her nose. Although speaking is difficult, she is forming complete sentences and communicating. Mae is no longer taking morphine and is suffering only from neck pain.
What Mullinax would like to see happen is joint guardianship between one of Mae’s grandchildren and her brother, A.B. McLeod. He and several other family members, including Mae’s grandson, Shane Magouirk, are meeting tomorrow to try to come to an agreement and resolve their dispute.
Troup County Probate Judge Donald Boyd, who has had charge of the case since April 1, voluntarily recused himself earlier today. If an agreement cannot be reached, the guardianship dispute will be heard by Georgia State Judge Jeannette Little.
Our thoughts and prayers are with Mae’s family as the try to end this dispute and act in her best interest.
The press statement released by the Gibbs Law Firm follows:
David Gibbs of Gibbs Law Firm in Seminole, Florida, lead counsel for Robert and Mary Schindler, parents of the late Terri Schiavo, today called on a Georgia Probate Court Judge to protect innocent life in the case of Mae Magouirk, an 81-year-old widow whosefeeding tube[IV] was removed with court permission. Mrs. Magouirk was placed in a hospice and denied substantial nourishment and fluids by her granddaughter, Beth Gaddy, even though Mrs. Magouirk was not terminal, comatose, or in a vegetative state, and even though the provisions of her Living Will request feeding and hydration. Mrs. Magouirk's brothers and sisters, who want to save her life, had Kenneth Mullinax, Magouirk's nephew and family spokesman, contact Mr. Gibbs regarding the legal issues in this life and death matter.David Gibbs, whose office spoke with Mullinax, stated:
"I am shocked and dismayed that within mere hours of Terri's death, another court in Georgia was subjecting an 81-year-old widow to the very same inhumane treatment as Terri Schiavo."Family spokesman Mullinax reported that Mrs. Magouirk was placed in a LaGrange, Georgia medical facility on March 13 with a dissected aorta, a congenital medical condition shared by other members of her family. Beth Gaddy, Mrs. Magouirk's granddaughter, subsequently determined that her grandmother should die rather than receive medical treatment and moved her to a hospice facility. After court proceedings, the intervention of a panel of 3 doctors, the support of the friends of Terri Schiavo, and the vocal outreach by her siblings in neighboring Alabama, Mrs. Magouirk was finally rescued from Hospice LaGrange on Saturday, April 9 and flown by lifesaver helicopter to the University of Alabama-Birmingham Medical Center, where she is now receiving nourishment, fluids and proper medical attention.Mr. Mullinax also reports that although a Troup County Probate Court compromise was reached on April 4 between all the parties, Beth Gaddy, Mae Magouirk's granddaughter, who was appointed as temporary guardian by Judge Donald W. Boyd, issued an order to the UAB Medical Center denying other family members full visitation rights and access to medical information. Mrs. Magouirk's brother filed a motion on Wednesday, April 13 before Judge Boyd asking for restoration of visitation rights and medical record access for the family members who want to keep Mrs. Magourik alive.
Gibbs said,
"Our office would strongly urge Judge Boyd to grant the request of Mrs. Magouirk's closest living next of kin. In fact, after reviewing the circumstances of this situation and remembering our personal experience with Terri's case, we would suggest the judge go one step farther and recognize Beth Gaddy's financial interest in this case. Not unlike Michael Schiavo's conflict of interest with his wife, Beth Gaddy and her brother and sister are the sole beneficiaries of Mrs. Magouirk's estate. As such, Ms. Gaddy should not be given court authority to make medical care decisions intended to result in Mrs. Magouirk's death in violation of her written living will."That additional component in Mrs. Magouirk's case is one the Schiavo case did not have. Gibbs continued:"It would seem obvious that Judge Boyd should honor Mrs. Magouirk's living will and award her guardianship to family members who would honor her wishes. This case again points up the need for our nation to seriously consider the need for federal legislation permitting federal habeas-type review for court decisions that are intended to result in the death of the elderly and disabled."
Background:
Magouirk's Granddaughter, Elizabeth "Beth" Gaddy had her placed in Hospice LaGrange, Ga. on March 22 despite the objections of Magouirk's sister and brother, who are her closest living next of kin. Magouirk's siblings discovered that she was being denied life-sustaining nourishment and fluids on March 31 and have brought this matter before the courts and media in an attempt to save her life.
Source: Gibb's Lawfirm Press Release
Update: The original press release states that Mae's "feeding tube" was removed. It is my understanding, based upon Ken Mullinax's prior statements, that it was her "IV" that had been inserted and then pulled after Beth Gaddy was granted emergency guardianship. Consequently, I've amended the press release accordingly.
Analysis: Right to life appeal
Geoff Adams-Spink
BBC News Online disability affairs correspondent
Leslie Burke wants the right to decide about being fed
The Court of Appeal is hearing a case brought by the General Medical Council (GMC), following an earlier High Court ruling in favour of a patient who wanted to ensure that doctors do not withdraw food and water once he is unable to communicate
Leslie Burke had asked the court to rule that he, not a doctor, is best placed to decide whether his life should be prolonged by medical intervention.
He is now in his forties and has known since he was a teenager that he has a progressive condition which is very likely to mean that he will need artificial feeding and hydration - known as ANH.
What worried Mr Burke was the possibility that doctors could make a decision to withdraw ANH on the assumption that his quality of life as a disabled person was too low to merit prolonging it.
Mr Burke had argued that the existing guidance provided to doctors by the General Medical Council contravenes the Human Rights Act.
Following the High Court ruling, the GMC said its guidance needed further legal clarification - hence the appeal.
The Disability Rights Commission believes that the original decision last July tipped the balance in favour of the rights of patients rather than giving the final say to medical staff.
The DRC now thinks that doctors should follow three steps in order to decide whether a patient should receive life-saving treatment, including food and water.
They should first ask whether providing life saving treatment would be of any benefit to the patient. If not, it should not be given.
If the treatment would give some benefit, "competent" patients - those able to speak for themselves - should have the final say. If a patient is unable to make a decision, treatment should be provided unless their life would be "intolerable" from their point of view, not the doctor's. Any disagreement between medical staff and relatives should be referred to a court.
There should be no question of the availability of resources determining whether or not treatment is given.
For its part, the General Medical Council takes issue with the idea of a patient being able to require treatment.
It says that doctors have "a duty of care to offer treatments which a responsible body of medical opinion would consider appropriate in meeting the clinical and non-clinical needs of the patient".
The concern is that doctors and health service managers could be legally bound to give treatment which might not be in a patient's best interest.
The GMC is also concerned that "advance directives" - so-called living wills - may not take account of a person's condition when it has changed or deteriorated.
Finally, the GMC believes that the judge's conclusions about withdrawing food and water were not supported by expert evidence - so his decision was, effectively, wrong.
The "intolerability test" - as suggested by the Disability Rights Commission - is too narrow and subjective, according to the GMC.
It says doctors should try to reach a consensus about the best course of action with the patient's relatives.
If a dispute arises, the matter should be referred to the courts.
And it says that it explicitly instructs doctors not to be prejudiced in their decisions by a person's age or disability.
"The power of our guidance is that we're able to take away a doctor's right to practice if they don't follow it," said GMC policy adviser, Sharon Burton.
The right to choose
Such reassurance does not convince Dr Jane Campbell - a Disability Rights Commissioner who takes a close interest in 'right to life' issues.
Jane Campbell - passionate about life
When she was in hospital last year doctors twice said that they assumed that she would not want to be resuscitated should the need arise.
Literally afraid for her life, she kept herself awake for 48 hours.
"Giving a doctor the power of life or death over me is terrifying," she told BBC News Online.
"Society is so negative about disability that it encourages the view that being disabled is a good enough reason to end someone's life".
Dr Campbell also strongly opposes the view that disabled people should be assisted to commit suicide if they are unable to do this for themselves.
"We can only start to have that discussion once we live in a society where disabled people have equal value," she said.
"Until then the choice is heavily weighted towards death - it's just too easy to kill people off."
Verdict
The Appeal Court judges will hear submissions from a number of other interested parties including the Official Solicitor, the Health Secretary, the Catholic Bishops Conference for England and Wales, Patient Concern and the World Federation of Doctors who Respect Human Life.
Their decision will probably not be known for some time.