http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43688
A new Hospice Feeding Tube case. Apparently this 81 year old woman has a living will that was set aside.
[snip]
Mae Magouirk was neither terminally ill, comatose nor in a "vegetative state," when Hospice-LaGrange accepted her as a patient about two weeks ago upon the request of her granddaughter, Beth Gaddy, 36, an elementary school teacher.
[/snip]
[snip]
The dehydration is being done in defiance of Magouirk's specific wishes, which she set down in a "living will," and without agreement of her closest living next-of-kin, two siblings and a nephew: A. Byron McLeod, 64, of Anniston, Ga.; Ruth Mullinax, 74, of Birmingham, Ala.; and Ruth Mullinax's son, Ken Mullinax.
Magouirk's husband and only child, a son, are both deceased.
In her living will, Magouirk stated that fluids and nourishment were to be withheld only if she were either comatose or "vegetative," and she is neither. Nor is she terminally ill, which is generally a requirement for admission to a hospice.
Magouirk lives alone in LaGrange, though because of glaucoma she relied on her granddaughter, Beth Gaddy, to bring her food and do errands.
Two weeks ago, Magouirk's aorta had a dissection, and she was hospitalized in the local LaGrange Hospital. Her aortic problem was determined to be severe, and she was admitted to the intensive care unit. At the time of her admission she was lucid and had never been diagnosed with dementia.
Claiming that she held Magouirk's power of attorney, Gaddy had her transferred to Hospice-LaGrange, a 16-bed unit owned by the same family that owns the hospital. Once at the hospice, Gaddy stated that she did not want her grandmother fed or given water.
"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?"
[/snip]
From the above it's a planned murder case, pure and simple.
slightly derailing the thread here. but why in these cases do they starve and/or dehydrate the patient to death?
if you did that to an animal/pet to put it down instead of a lethal injection you'd be arrested up for cruelty >_>
They probably rationalize one as "killing" and the other as "nature taking its course". It's not just a game of morality but a game of law.
Yeah, law stuff. There was an earlier case of a doctor doing merciful killings and he got indicted for murder.
That's because it is murder. Murder = killing a person. That's the definition of the word (although I think there is an exception for state sactioned execution).
Unfortunately the law is playing games with itself here.
If I run you through with a knife, that's murder.
If I lock you up and intentionally withhold the necessities of life, that's murder.
If I unplug a machine that keeps you alive...?
What if I did that to a scuba diver?
I think part of the problem is that we think of others in terms of what we can get from them. Then people get old or hurt and can't give you anything.