The judge in the case of Mae Magouirk has been in the hot seat for a few days now. I think he has handled himself admirably. I do have some issues with a decision or two he has made in the process, such as why no one was punished for violating his orders to see that the patient receive nourishment after her feeding tube was removed. On the whole, though. He's outperforming one Judge Greer by more than just a little.

Some excellent discussions have taken place over at BlogsForTerri.com, and the judge has actually participated in the discussion by allowng a letter be published there for all to see. I have been very critical of Judge Boyd in my comments over there, but do believe he has acted within his authority to do what is right to the best of his ability.

At the same time, I feel that he may have misjudged a few things. His judgment of Beth Gaddy's competence to act as guardian, for example. His words with regard to Ken Mullinax seem prejudiced towards the negative. Why was Beth allowed to keep guardianship after violating his orders? Why is she being allowed to block other family members from visiting?

Once again, Judge Boyd, despite these misjudgments, had the wisdom to do the right thing. In fact, this is much closer to what Judge Greer should have done. Keep the patient alive while you have her evaluated by neutral parties, then make whatever decision you must. Since no doctor has deemed this patient "terminal", I doubt there will be much problem justifying keeping her alive. Since she has a living will spelling out how this sort of situation should be handled, his job is all the more simple. If Terri Schiavo had spelled everything out in a living will, Judge Greer may have come to a different conclusion. Still, living will law is far too flexible, as this case is showing us now.

I'm still wondering what Ms. Gaddy's position is on these matters. As far as I can tell, there has been no information coming from her at all, even in a simple email or blog comment. Not even a hearsay statement from a friend or lawyer. As I posted in a comment over at BlogsForTerri, now that Mr. Mullinax and Judge Boyd have given statements, so should she. We need the answers to several questions, the most important of which are:

1. How did you come to decide that your grandmother should die?

2. Were you aware of your grandmother's living will situation?

3. Why did you deny your family access to your grandmother in the hospital?

These questions are much less confrontational than the ones Judge Boyd has answered, and having answers to them would go a long way in helping everyone piece together what really happened here. Whether she does or not, it sure looks a lot like Ms. Gaddy has something to hide here.

Americans have the right to question judges about their decisions. Participants in the cases should also speak out where possible so that the information is complete. Mr. Mullinax has spoken, and so has the judge. How about it Ms. Gaddy?


RWR

Update: Mullinax family to appeal for visitation. Also a pretty thorough analysis by Angela in the comments.

Update 4/13:WorldNetDaily's very complete coverage of the case.