April 14, 2005

Mae Magouirk Eating, Drinking

The embattled Mae Magouirk is receiving sufficient food and water again. She was never comatose, never vegetative and never terminal. She was able to swallow jello and water, but the drugs made her weak and contributed to her inability to eat regularly. Without a feeding tube and with the drugs, she had to subsist on irregular small meals of jello and ice chips, and sometimes injections of water. She was lucid when she entered the hospice, but became less so after hunger advanced.

She has been removed from the hospice and taken to a hospital, where she had a feeding tube reinserted. This is what My Vast Right Wing Conspiracy said, inter alia:

    There are some skeptics about the whole story, but for the life of me I don't get why some are so anxious to debunk it. Maybe because the idea of this granddaughter wanting to kill off Granny because she's old and sick is so outrageous? Too difficult to fathom? Whatever it is, I'm watching to see what becomes of it all.
I agree, there are people trying to dispute that this is happening. Notice that they, at least covering the ones I've seen, don't dispute the moral question of whether such a situationw ould be bad, but dispute that it's happening. With the Schiavo crisis, they could simply fudge the facts, accept premature or overzealous diagnoses from lawyers and allow it to happen. With the Mae Magouirk case, they have to deny that it's happening. They're not saying that it ought to be allowed, only that it's not happening at all. The reason is very simple.

If they agree that Mae Magouirk was about to be starved and dehydrated to death, against her wishes, against her living will, and while not comatose, not terminal and not vegetative, then they would have to admit there might be a problem in the area of disabled rights and how the medical profession deals with the elderly and handicapped.

If it were shown that the story is true, which it hopefully will be shortly, then they might have to jump to some other stalling tactic. But if the individual deniers ever had to confront this fact, then it would the Terri Schiavo protestors were right about the general trend.

Rather than acknowledging there might be even the slightest problem, they prefer to jump to premature denials, because it protects their view of the world. Simply put, they don't want to hear anything that makes the pro-life movement sound right. They are anything but alone in this act, and certainly not all the people who backed Michael Schiavo are denying the Mae Magouirk scenario prima facie. But many people are, because it would appear to cede some ground on the issue. That's just my take on the situation; I could be wrong.


Post a Comment

<< Home