It’s Time to Go Home: Gary Harvey’s Case in Review

 
 
By Carrie K. Hutchens
 
The holidays are fast approaching and Gary Harvey isn’t home yet.  Why not?
 
The wheels of justice turn slowly?  Someone needs to get out the grease because this situation has gone beyond unreasonable, illogical, irresponsible and control-freak mode.  It’s unacceptable!
 
In review:
 
“This is a case where a 55 year old man had a heart attack, fell down the basement stairs, and ended up severely brain damaged. It is a case where still another so-called ethics committee felt it had some sort of god-like wisdom and right to determine life or death for a stranger. It is a case where a so-called ethics committee decided, behind closed doors, that it was perfectly okay to starve and dehydrate this man — Gary Harvey — to death by termination of his Total Parenteral Nutrition (TPN) feeding tube.”
 
The system appears to be exploiting a situation and taking no responsibility for their irresponsibility.
 
“Right or wrong, Sara did cut a “fish line” on an allegedly defective trach. (Gary was not on a ventilator or respirator. The trach is an aid to hopefully prevent aspiration.) While ill-advised for non-medical personnel to do such a thing, and no one is advising others to likewise do it, it isn’t as black and white as it sounds.
 

From what it appears, the trach was defective for at least two weeks and staff was well aware that it was. However, nothing was apparently done to fix the problem. Instead, there was Gary pulling on the “fish line”, as he had been frequently doing through those two weeks.

Sara told the nurse that it was bothering him. The nurse, I’m told, did not even walk over to see for herself, though she was right there. Sara said she was going to cut the “fish line”. The nurse shrugged. Sara cut the line, with the facility’s scissors. The nurse did nothing to either stop Sara or in response to her having cut the line. As a matter of fact, Sara stayed perhaps another two hours before going home around 8:30 PM.

At approximately 10:30 PM, she received a call saying they were taking Gary to the ER to have his trach evaluated.

Though Gary suffered no injury or distress, and the problem was resolved as it should have been done two weeks prior, Sara was to be considered (from then on) a danger to her husband. She was to lose her say in his care decisions and restricted to supervised and limited visitation.

However, though Sara was (and is) supposedly considered a threat to her husband’s life, and therefore restricted to only supervised visits, it appears that it is the very people who are supposedly protecting Gary from being killed off by her that are striving to kill him off themselves. Makes sense, I suppose, if one were living in the Twilight Zone.”

In my opinion, a reasonable person should hold the facility and medical staff at least as responsible as Sara with regard to the defective equipment.  It wasn’t working as it was designed to do, so what would the results have been had it been necessary that it was?  Weren’t they putting Gary at risk with their failure to address and replace defective equipment?  Isn’t two weeks long enough to have done so?  Why isn’t a finger being pointed at them, as well?

The irony is that the facility and staff members not only appear to have gotten a free ride for failure to provide proper care, they got rewarded with guardianship placed into the hands of the county and no need to answer to Sara, when she questioned/questions their care of her husband.  How convenient.

Right or wrong, Sara was attempting to get the defective equipment replaced for her husband.  What excuse does the facility have for it’s failure to act?  What excuse is there for deeming Sara a possible threat to her husband, while the accusers then try to get Gary put to death by starvation and dehydration?  There is no excuse.

Sara’s visits are supervised.  She only cut a “fish line” — others failed to replace defective equipment.  Still others attempted to have an innocent man put to death by a method that can not be used on animals or convicted murderers.  Why are they not supervised when in the room with Gary?  Why are they not supervised when involved with decision-making for his case?  How is any of this rational?

It isn’t.

In my opinion, there are players in this case that have tried to make Sara look bad, so as to take the spotlight off their inappropriate actions and/or lack of action.  They have done it because they can.  Sara is only one person.  They are a group.  Sara has limited funds.  They apparently have, at least in part, the taxpayers money to fight, until Sara is broke, Gary is dead or both.  That is obvious.  What isn’t obvious is why they are fighting so desperately to keep Gary under their control.  Just why is that?

The so-called ethics committee already wanted to put Gary to death and a DNR has been put on him.  So, if they don’t care if he dies, why are they worried about Sara being alone with him?  What can they possibly be worried about?  That she is going to kill him?  But that is what they — not Sara — tried to do and they aren’t planning on saving him if anything goes wrong.  So why are they desperately fighting to keep Gary in their control?  Just what is it that they are scared of?

The purpose of hospice, is to allow the person to be in the comfort of their own home with the people they love.  With all the people advocating hospice, why is there any doubt that home with Sara is in Gary’s best interest?  Perhaps it isn’t doubt.  Perhaps there is no doubt at all.  Perhaps it is something else.  Perhaps that is what should be reviewed. 

The wheels of justice definitely need to be greased.  It is, after all, time for Gary to be released with time served and sent on home with his wife that loves him!

 

Author’s Note: Brief interviews with Sara Harvey can be found at WENY-TV (Dying With Dignity, Emma Wright  June 3, 2009)  and at Family Life (”FLN News/The Gary Harvey Story” , Sarah Harnisch – July 9, 2009) as well as articles by The Corning Leader’s John Zick and Star Gazette’s Ray Finger and ongoing coverage by National Association to Stop Guardian Abuse (NASGA). 

Carrie Hutchens is a former law enforcement officer and a freelance writer who is active in fighting against the death culture movement and the injustices within the judicial and law enforcement systems.

8 Responses to “It’s Time to Go Home: Gary Harvey’s Case in Review”

  1. Carrie, thank you for the update. In this case, “no news” is “bad news.” You asked the proper questions, and it seems to me this is another small part of the left's worming their way into a position of complete control over the population. With the left, it's always about power and control. What other explanation could there be for the illogical behavior of the “authorities” in this nightmare case? These situations create “precedents,” for future power grabs. It only makes sense if you're a megalomaniac.

    I pray that Gary will go home to Sara.

    Gina Miller

  2. Thank you for continuing to follow this important case.

    Gary Harvey's court-appointed “protectors” afford him less rights and liberties than a convicted murderer.

    If a person treated Gary Harvey with the same neglect and disregard as the county has done, that person would be brought up on abuse charges. But, the county can neglect, abuse, isolate, and even attempt to terminate Gary Harvey's life, and they call it “care.”

  3. Thank you Carrie for a well stated, truthful, honest article. I am not sure what it is they want with Gary Harvey either…….Jethro Bodine could figure this one out… …Money? they took that…Tax payers money? maybe.that would be an income…….Still have a house maybe that's it..No it can't be that they like their homes paid for in full. I Forgot they don't like mortgages silly me……can't be a compassionate attachment can it? One would have to have a heart for that. Go figure what is the motive?

  4. Gina, this is definitely a scary situation! How did we get to this possibility? We definitely have to fight back or we are all victims waiting to happen!

    I, too, pray Gary will hurry up and get to go home with Sara, the wife that so loves him!

  5. Elaine, you are so right! “Some” people are held accountable. “Some” people are not. “Some” people get to slide on by, splashing their irresponsibility all over the place and making sure others take “the” blame, even when obviously not deserved!

    This case needs a true review!

  6. It does, especially under the circumstances, seem odd that they can't just let Gary go home with his wife, Sara, that loves him!

  7. This appears to be a total coverup for poor or inadequate care.

    Sara wants her husband home.

    The County cannot continue this outrageous behavior

  8. This appears to be a total coverup for poor or inadequate care.

    Sara wants her husband home.

    The County cannot continue this outrageous behavior.

    LET GARY GO HOME!