Gut Rumbles
 

April 08, 2005

horrible

I found this link on Instapundit, and I am very disturbed by it. The Terri Shavio case stirred up a lot of debate in blogdom and many people disagreed with what I had to say about it. I thought that Terri's death was a blessing and it should have happened years earlier.

But the case of Mae Margourik is totally different. This woman may be 85 years old, but she is NOT a vegetable and she DOES NOT want to die. To starve and dehydrate her is beyond criminal in my book. Who the hell is that goddam judge to make such a decision? Just look at this. That woman will be 94 years old next month and she's not worn out yet. Would the judge recommend that SHE be killed if she became ill tomorrow?

Well, screw him.

I'm not just spouting off emotionally here (at least I don't think so) because my mama died three weeks ago after a long battle with cancer. Nobody ever loved life more than my mama did, but everybody in the family agreed that WE WOULD NOT take extraordinary means to keep her alive. It was time for her to go, and we just wanted to make the end as easy as possible. I believe that we accomplish that mission.

Mama died in her sleep and, as heartless as it may sound, I was RELIEVED when the end finally came. That last week was rough. I left Hospice crying every time I went to visit. I never did it in front of mama, but damn if I didn't water the hell out of that parking lot before I was able to drive home.

Terri Shavio didn't know what planet she was on. Machines kept her alive, and the law was clear in her situation. Cancer had my mama, and no machine could stop that. But Mae Margourik is NOT terminally ill, nor is she comatose. Why starve her to death?

Ms. Gaddy is also the sole beneficiary of Mae's will.

Maybe I'm smelling a rat that isn't there, but this is a very slippery slope. This case should be getting the attention it deserves, which is A LOT.

Comments

Maybe I am misinformed, but I didn't think there were any machines keeping Terri alive. Only a feeding tube. Other than that she was in good "health", so to speak.

I'm very torn on the issue in Terri's case. Others? Not so much.

Posted by: Ronda on April 8, 2005 10:01 AM

I'd hold off a bit on this one. A couple of weblogs and World Net Daily doesn't inspire much confidence. I'm going to apply the 48-hour rule and wait for a few more facts. If this is true, following so quickly on the heels of the Schiavo case, there is no way it won't be a huge story.

Posted by: Kinda, sorta, maybe on April 8, 2005 10:35 AM

Rob, if you've been believing all along that Terri Schiavo was on life-support machines, you might want to reconsider your position because it appears you've been hoodwinked by sloppy reporting.

Posted by: McGehee on April 8, 2005 10:40 AM

Yes, if machines had been being used to keep Terry Schiavo alive, she wouldn't have lasted 13 days after they were turned off. Physically (not mentally) she was in about as good shape as any of us, possible better, since I doubt many of us would make it to 13 days with no food or water.

When I think of someone on "life support" I think of someone who will die within minutes, or at most hours, of removing said "life support", and I suspect that's what most Americans think.

You could look at the feeding tube as being similar to a coronary bypass, or a colostomy. The patient couldn't swallow well, so we put in an artificial/replacement esophagus for the food, no more artificial than we eat, to travel to her stomach, where she digests it.

Posted by: LibraryGryffon on April 8, 2005 11:13 AM

I smell a rat , 48 hour rule is in effect.

Posted by: James Old Guy on April 8, 2005 11:20 AM

Double what Mcgehee said. Terri Schiavo wasn't being kept alive by machines, and it was hotly disputed as to whether or not she was cognative. Some experts said yes, some said no. Point being, we should try to be consistent here, and err on the side of letting someone live, rather than starving them to death.

You are entirely correct in pointing out that letting judges decide whether or not someone should live or die is a slippery slope. I prefer to look at it another way. There is no such thing as a slippery slope, inasmuch as if you happen to be on one, you are treading where you shouldn't be in the first place, otherwise the "slope" wouldn't be "slippery", would it?

State sponsored murder is wrong. That is what happened with Terri Schiavo, and that is what is happening with Mae Margourik. Slippery slope my ass. We just jumped in the deep end with both feet.

Posted by: Anthony L. on April 8, 2005 11:24 AM

This pisses me off! A-man, what kinda fucked up state are you guys runnin up there? (Just kidding, mines just as fucked up) But still who elects a judge with no law degree....WTF??
Just one more point about Schiavo...Many people agreed that she retracted from pain. This is very important to note when referring to one in a vegetative state. She felt pain, to starve and especially dehydrate her was monsterous. She may not have known what planet she was on or who she was but niether does an infant. I saw an infant on a feeding tube the other day and couldn't help but wonder what the fuck the difference was...my two cents.

Posted by: DONGER on April 8, 2005 11:49 AM

I read recently, and have not verified it from other sources, that the condition triggering the initial heart attack was chronic bulemia. The just of the article in the Chicago Sun Times was to ask where was her family when she was going from 250 to 110 lbs.
I find it ironic that the cause of death was something she had been striving towards for years.

Posted by: bottlestop on April 8, 2005 12:45 PM

Who is the Chicago Sun Times to question where her family was during her bulemic sickness. Maybe they were there. You can't help someone who doesn't think they're sick. Kinda like an alcoholic or drug addict. But when a patient cannot verbally refuse or request treatment, the law has always conceded that consent is "implied." Starving her was wrong, because she likely suffered through it. Maybe the law needs to adjust its "definition" of vegetative state. If someone in a "vegetative state" FEELS PAIN, they are no different from an infant, and no one would dream of snuffing out a baby.....or would they??

Posted by: DONGER on April 8, 2005 01:38 PM

"Who the hell is that goddam judge to make such a decision?"

Who the hell is he? Why he's an all-powerful judge, that's who he is. And now that the Terri Schiavo case has been decided and the judge won out against all that the State of Florida, the Federal administration, and the public could throw at him, the damn judges will have their way no matter what you and I or anybody else thinks about it.

You can take it to the bank, Rob. If the well being of your 94yo grandmother should wind up before a judge, and he decides she should die - then she is going to die. And there's not a damn thing you can do about it. That's what the precedent set by the Terri Shiavo case has done for us. Nobody is safe any more.

Like a few of your other commenters re the Mae Magouirk case, I'm going to apply the 48-hour rule and wait for a few more facts. But I cannot believe you actually believe Terri Shiavo was being kept alive by machine. She wasn't. She was being fed through a feeding tube. That's all. You have been the victim of shitty reporting.

Which brings me to my last point. Reporters. God DAMN them all! My anger and resentment - no that's not right - make that "my sheer white-hot anger" towards reporters in general has climbed to new heights since the Shiavo case became the "big story". As a profession, journalism has sunk so far into the muck, I don't think there is any recovery. They are lazy and they are liers. They're a bunch of Woodward andf Bernstein wannabe's who will cheerfully bring anyone - or even this entire country down in order to chase their own little Pulitzer. A pox on the lot of them.

Roy - who next time, will stop dropping subtle hints and tell you exactly what he thinks.

Posted by: Roy on April 8, 2005 06:23 PM

So you finally woke up and smelled the fuckin coffee !! By the way, how is that sore gut of yours ?? You still eattin good ?? I've got a lot of info on Terri's case, if you want it.. Just let me know. It has to do with her guardian, his lawyer, the hospice, and the judges.. How long is it gonna be before these motherfuckers with a robe and gavel are gonna be comin after the rest of us ?? I guess I dont have enuff money for em yet.. Glad to see your mind is back in the right place again..

Posted by: Wild Bill on April 8, 2005 07:49 PM

What we would not do to a dog--starve it to death, was the "humane" solution to the "problem" of Terry Schiavo remaining alive.

Long and the short of it.

The only "machine" involved in her case, was the bullshit machine manipulated by so many who had so few of the facts. If assistance with nourishment becomes the de facto cause for starving another to death, then we have have lost all moorings.

Do a day-long Google on the whole Schiavo case, separate the wheat from the chaff as always in fact-checking, and the clear picture of what really happened will become clear. Put together a complete timeline . . . that should help in judging Mikey Boy's real level of compassion. I have done so, and I am repulsed at the level of ignorance most display about this whole sordid affair. With the net at hand, blaming the sick-dog press corps for ridiculous reporting does not excuse us from discovering the facts.

Rob--fast check Mikey Boy's ass, or those of George Felos and Judge Greer and all the players in this one. None of it has one whit to do with your stated desire to "let nature take its course" with you.

Bottom line?

Mikey Boy pulled off the perfect murder. And out of ignorance of the facts, you have defended him.

Bidda boom, bidda bang. Priceless!

Posted by: jb on April 8, 2005 07:58 PM

JB, I'm embarrased to agree with you. But I agree.

Posted by: DONGER on April 10, 2005 11:28 AM
Post a comment














*Note: If you are commenting on an older entry, your
comment will not appear until it has been approved.
Do not resubmit it.