I particularly liked the unique, eye-opening view on how the alternative media’s exposure of evil is used to deceive us — reinforces that we need to be careful about what we see and what we hear. Thank you! 🙏 💜
Hi. I have some suggestions and I hope this is seen by Grace's father. From what I have read in news reports, I am thinking it is possible that the rights of a disabled person may have been violated since Dad and sister were power of attorney and were required to leave, that right there is a concern. Fact that there was no authorization for a "Do Not Resuscitate" order is concerning - declining the ventilator does not automatically mean you are declining resuscitation. Fact that she was given multiple doses of sedating meds including morphine and lorazepam is also a concern- medication interaction checkers caution about these meds being used together, and "multiple doses" is a concern. I don't know if the family has considered, but it could be considered to make a complaint to Medicare. I believe that if there was concern about possible involuntary euthanasia or a Medicare patient having rights violated, that Medicare would investigate, and in that case, depending on results of investigation, doctor and or hospital could be kicked out of Medicare / Medicaid program - my understanding is that Grace had Downs Syndrome, and thus was probably on Medicare and or Medicaid and if she was on one or the other both, CMS within HHS (CMS = Center for Medicare Services, which probably includes Medicaid which is state and federal) would investigate. If there were any federal crime involved, this would be referred to DOJ for prosecution. Depending on what may be found this may also provide additional grounds for a civil suit or perhaps whistleblower compensation, not sure. BUT - besides Medicare, you could ask your Congressional rep to find out for you if they will - I think there is a separate division of HHS that has asked to be informed about any violation of rights of disabled persons. I belong to a medical organization that invited HHS to provide a speaker during Trump's first admin, and speaker was addressing concern over disabled newborns being left to die and not cared for - an HHS rep whose name I have forgotten said that the admin. would investigate these things and there was no tolerance for any violation of rights of disabled persons. He was particularly focused on infants, but I think he was expressing concern for all disabled individuals - but I don't know if who in HHS should be contacted for sure other than Medicare/Medicaid - but I think there is another division that would also have interest. In addition, the Joint Commission is who accredits hospitals, and healthcare facilities. If a hospital loses accreditation, they cannot function. They would have to shut down, because Medicare / Medicaid will not pay for services at a hospital that has no accreditation. But I think private insurers would also "deplatform" a hospital with no accreditation, so the hospital could stay in business if private individuals wanted to pay, but who can afford that? So for that reason, everyone fears an audit or investigation by the Joint Commission - but they would investigate, and again, if the hospital had failed in some way in regard to Grace, then the Joint Commission could put the hospital on probation or even terminate their accreditation - but if they had on record specific failures that might lead to criminal charges and or also different civil claims. For example, if you had original sued for wrongful death, but it turns out that there is a separate cause for action related to violation of rights or something like that, then maybe you would have a separate cause for action with that. Anyway, complaints can be made to state Medical Board, Medicare, HHS (if one finds out who / which division would specifically be monitoring disability issues), and the Joint Commission. I think this is a common, frequent problem that IF one declines one treatment, they assume this means that you are DNR and that ALL treatment is delined. I had a family member who had a feeding tube surgically placed, for the purpose of feeding her. The staff responsible for feeding her fed her too fast resulting in vomiting, thus my family member was left for two days where she was given no food and no water, and she was very ill and died within a week even after food and water were resumed. Somehow there was this mindset that if we had refused one particular treatment, which was refused, then why would anyone care if she was eating and drinking or not. Well, we did care, which was why the patient and the power of attorney agreed to the surgical procedure for the feeding tube. Our family member was malnourished and in her case, we wondered to what degree she would improve if properly nourished, then we could decide about whether or not we agreed to additional treatment. But in everyone's mind, if you refuse one treatment, that means "Do not resuscitate" but I am not so sure it means the same thing legally and it might be good to establish that in federal court. I am very interested in preserving the rights of disabled people so even though Grace is now in God's care, there may still be possibilities for assuring that other disabled people do not have their rights trampled on. It seems to me that she should have had the right to have her POA and family members present due to her limitations that required an advocate to be with her in which case of course she would not have died, and her providers would have better understood the wishes of Grace and her legal representatives. Her rights and the rights of other similarly disabled individuals might be better protected if this were clarified by these investigations and by any resulting litigation. I do not know whether you have a right to appeal the decision of the jury from your original case, but if you do, I don't know what the time limits would be. It may be that the original attorney would need to be the one to handle any appeal, but for example, if new possibilities for litigation arose or might be considered as a result of additional investigations, two non-profit firms that might help with any additional litigation would be the Thomas More Society or Alliance Defending Freedom - either of these might be interested in a case involving the rights of disabled persons to having access to their POA at all times, or perhaps an issue of involuntary euthanasia.
One thing I did not understand was that someone giving testimony on the side of the hospital reportedly said - well, if you refuse a ventilator, then that means you are a do not resuscitate, because if you have someone who is not breathing and you can't vent them, then - we can't resuscitate. Now, the reason this doesn't make sense to me is that news reports say, yes, you said you did not want a ventilator and yet, reports say she was indeed put on a ventilator and then they gave her many doses of meds to control her agitation. So since they did put her on a vent against your wishes, she was on a vent, and I wonder if you had an expert witness who evaluated the amount of medication she had and testified about that - because it seems like multiple doses of morphine and lorazepam and also the other one may have contributed to the outcome. So if they gave her meds, could they, for example have given Narcan to overcome the effects of morphine? Anyway, the reason that was given for assuming she should be a DNR does not quite add up in my mind because she was already being vented and in any case, it would seem to me they had a reason to have asked you about the DNR in that you had not specified that, and if there was confusion - they should not be making assumptions about something as serious as that. That particular issue should be addressed. And that could be considered in a further investigation. I was very disappointed when I read the outcome of this case, but I would love to see what might happen if an extensive investigation by appropriate authorities were undertaken. It concerns me that that they say your position on "no ventilator" was taken as reason for DNR, but then they put her on a vent (against your wishes) so that reason no longer existed, but then they gave her a good bit of medication that all interacted with each other according to a drug interaction checker, and then with all the meds on board, and with the reason for the imagined DNR no longer present - they did not resuscitate - I think more eyes on this is worthwhile. Especially both at the federal level and through Joint Commission, with consideration of whether her rights were violated, for one thing. But even issues already considered in the case you lost, could still be pertinent to Medicare / Medicaid, and Joint Commission which both set standards. It is not my intent for any of this to be considered as legal advice, but simply for educational purposes that you have other venues to whom you can complain and reasons for considering such complaints. This is all simply information to consider in terms of rights of disabled persons and venues for having a complaint heard. And I'm not giving you medical advice, since the patient is deceased, but merely points for consideration / further inquiry. The additional investigation could lead to other possibilities regarding civil or criminal charges and also regulatory consequences by regulatory agencies. Ethically and legally, it is my own opinion, and I do know something about medical ethics refusal for one form of treatment should never be taken as refusal for all treatments or for DNR, but unless this mindset is challenged, it will become the norm and it is increasingly that way in reality.
I particularly liked the unique, eye-opening view on how the alternative media’s exposure of evil is used to deceive us — reinforces that we need to be careful about what we see and what we hear. Thank you! 🙏 💜
Thanks Margaret.
We so need these reminders. Thank you.
We sure do. Thanks Gayle.
Hi. I have some suggestions and I hope this is seen by Grace's father. From what I have read in news reports, I am thinking it is possible that the rights of a disabled person may have been violated since Dad and sister were power of attorney and were required to leave, that right there is a concern. Fact that there was no authorization for a "Do Not Resuscitate" order is concerning - declining the ventilator does not automatically mean you are declining resuscitation. Fact that she was given multiple doses of sedating meds including morphine and lorazepam is also a concern- medication interaction checkers caution about these meds being used together, and "multiple doses" is a concern. I don't know if the family has considered, but it could be considered to make a complaint to Medicare. I believe that if there was concern about possible involuntary euthanasia or a Medicare patient having rights violated, that Medicare would investigate, and in that case, depending on results of investigation, doctor and or hospital could be kicked out of Medicare / Medicaid program - my understanding is that Grace had Downs Syndrome, and thus was probably on Medicare and or Medicaid and if she was on one or the other both, CMS within HHS (CMS = Center for Medicare Services, which probably includes Medicaid which is state and federal) would investigate. If there were any federal crime involved, this would be referred to DOJ for prosecution. Depending on what may be found this may also provide additional grounds for a civil suit or perhaps whistleblower compensation, not sure. BUT - besides Medicare, you could ask your Congressional rep to find out for you if they will - I think there is a separate division of HHS that has asked to be informed about any violation of rights of disabled persons. I belong to a medical organization that invited HHS to provide a speaker during Trump's first admin, and speaker was addressing concern over disabled newborns being left to die and not cared for - an HHS rep whose name I have forgotten said that the admin. would investigate these things and there was no tolerance for any violation of rights of disabled persons. He was particularly focused on infants, but I think he was expressing concern for all disabled individuals - but I don't know if who in HHS should be contacted for sure other than Medicare/Medicaid - but I think there is another division that would also have interest. In addition, the Joint Commission is who accredits hospitals, and healthcare facilities. If a hospital loses accreditation, they cannot function. They would have to shut down, because Medicare / Medicaid will not pay for services at a hospital that has no accreditation. But I think private insurers would also "deplatform" a hospital with no accreditation, so the hospital could stay in business if private individuals wanted to pay, but who can afford that? So for that reason, everyone fears an audit or investigation by the Joint Commission - but they would investigate, and again, if the hospital had failed in some way in regard to Grace, then the Joint Commission could put the hospital on probation or even terminate their accreditation - but if they had on record specific failures that might lead to criminal charges and or also different civil claims. For example, if you had original sued for wrongful death, but it turns out that there is a separate cause for action related to violation of rights or something like that, then maybe you would have a separate cause for action with that. Anyway, complaints can be made to state Medical Board, Medicare, HHS (if one finds out who / which division would specifically be monitoring disability issues), and the Joint Commission. I think this is a common, frequent problem that IF one declines one treatment, they assume this means that you are DNR and that ALL treatment is delined. I had a family member who had a feeding tube surgically placed, for the purpose of feeding her. The staff responsible for feeding her fed her too fast resulting in vomiting, thus my family member was left for two days where she was given no food and no water, and she was very ill and died within a week even after food and water were resumed. Somehow there was this mindset that if we had refused one particular treatment, which was refused, then why would anyone care if she was eating and drinking or not. Well, we did care, which was why the patient and the power of attorney agreed to the surgical procedure for the feeding tube. Our family member was malnourished and in her case, we wondered to what degree she would improve if properly nourished, then we could decide about whether or not we agreed to additional treatment. But in everyone's mind, if you refuse one treatment, that means "Do not resuscitate" but I am not so sure it means the same thing legally and it might be good to establish that in federal court. I am very interested in preserving the rights of disabled people so even though Grace is now in God's care, there may still be possibilities for assuring that other disabled people do not have their rights trampled on. It seems to me that she should have had the right to have her POA and family members present due to her limitations that required an advocate to be with her in which case of course she would not have died, and her providers would have better understood the wishes of Grace and her legal representatives. Her rights and the rights of other similarly disabled individuals might be better protected if this were clarified by these investigations and by any resulting litigation. I do not know whether you have a right to appeal the decision of the jury from your original case, but if you do, I don't know what the time limits would be. It may be that the original attorney would need to be the one to handle any appeal, but for example, if new possibilities for litigation arose or might be considered as a result of additional investigations, two non-profit firms that might help with any additional litigation would be the Thomas More Society or Alliance Defending Freedom - either of these might be interested in a case involving the rights of disabled persons to having access to their POA at all times, or perhaps an issue of involuntary euthanasia.
One thing I did not understand was that someone giving testimony on the side of the hospital reportedly said - well, if you refuse a ventilator, then that means you are a do not resuscitate, because if you have someone who is not breathing and you can't vent them, then - we can't resuscitate. Now, the reason this doesn't make sense to me is that news reports say, yes, you said you did not want a ventilator and yet, reports say she was indeed put on a ventilator and then they gave her many doses of meds to control her agitation. So since they did put her on a vent against your wishes, she was on a vent, and I wonder if you had an expert witness who evaluated the amount of medication she had and testified about that - because it seems like multiple doses of morphine and lorazepam and also the other one may have contributed to the outcome. So if they gave her meds, could they, for example have given Narcan to overcome the effects of morphine? Anyway, the reason that was given for assuming she should be a DNR does not quite add up in my mind because she was already being vented and in any case, it would seem to me they had a reason to have asked you about the DNR in that you had not specified that, and if there was confusion - they should not be making assumptions about something as serious as that. That particular issue should be addressed. And that could be considered in a further investigation. I was very disappointed when I read the outcome of this case, but I would love to see what might happen if an extensive investigation by appropriate authorities were undertaken. It concerns me that that they say your position on "no ventilator" was taken as reason for DNR, but then they put her on a vent (against your wishes) so that reason no longer existed, but then they gave her a good bit of medication that all interacted with each other according to a drug interaction checker, and then with all the meds on board, and with the reason for the imagined DNR no longer present - they did not resuscitate - I think more eyes on this is worthwhile. Especially both at the federal level and through Joint Commission, with consideration of whether her rights were violated, for one thing. But even issues already considered in the case you lost, could still be pertinent to Medicare / Medicaid, and Joint Commission which both set standards. It is not my intent for any of this to be considered as legal advice, but simply for educational purposes that you have other venues to whom you can complain and reasons for considering such complaints. This is all simply information to consider in terms of rights of disabled persons and venues for having a complaint heard. And I'm not giving you medical advice, since the patient is deceased, but merely points for consideration / further inquiry. The additional investigation could lead to other possibilities regarding civil or criminal charges and also regulatory consequences by regulatory agencies. Ethically and legally, it is my own opinion, and I do know something about medical ethics refusal for one form of treatment should never be taken as refusal for all treatments or for DNR, but unless this mindset is challenged, it will become the norm and it is increasingly that way in reality.
https://rumble.com/v49kp1w-proving-collusion-from-the-top-down.html?e9s=src_v1_ucp_a
Please take time to listen to this recording I did on all these dead ends. Until you realize they are all in on it, you will continue to be deceived.
Thanks for writing.
You're welcome, Tracey. God bless you too.