Chron misses the point on Katrina hospital killings
by Owen Courrèges · 07/25/2006 2:57 pmI know this is dated, but I’ve been itching to respond to the Chronicle’s editorial from Sunday condemning Louisiana Attorney General Charles Foti for ordering the arrest of medical personnel from Memorial Hospital here in New Orleans, on charges that they murdered patients in the wake of Katrina. Here’s the Chronicle’s argument:
So far, only Foti is grandiose and destructive. Like so much relating to the Katrina tragedy, his conduct shows the triumph of politics and narcissism over the public interest.
Whatever happened in that wretched hospital ward merits expert investigation. Doctors are not permitted to kill patients intentionally. Because the case requires knowledge of dosages and best practices, medical professionals should be the first to review it. Louisiana’s Board of Medical Practice — which assesses physicians accused of making bad medical decisions — would be the best choice to gather and study the facts.
It’s my understanding that Foti gathered affidavits from four administrators to the effect that Dr. Pou, one of the accused, ordered lethal doses to be given. This was well reported in the news:
Three days after last year’s deadly hurricane, Dr. Anna Pou came up to the seventh floor of flooded Memorial Medical Center and told a nurse executive that patients remaining there would likely not survive and that a “decision had been made to administer lethal doses” to them, the affidavit said.
“‘Lethal doses of what?’ the nurse asked. According to the affidvit, Dr. Pou answered: “morphine and ativan.”
This is pretty strong stuff. I don’t want to believe that a respectable doctor would order lethal doses to be given to patients, particularly without their permission. However, eyewitnesses say it happened. This involves more than the possiblility of “bad medical decisions;” it involves the probability of murder. When a doctor commits a criminal offense on the job, it doesn’t go to the medical board — it goes to the police and prosecutors.
I don’t know if the Chronicle was simply unaware of the facts, and thought Foti had no evidence, or whether they simply think euthanizing old people is fine and dandy. In either case, their blustering in this editorial was misguided and inappropriate.
Filed Under Uncategorized · · · · 
Print This Post
··
Comments
55 Responses to “Chron misses the point on Katrina hospital killings”Search
Our Sponsors
Poll
Loading ...
Can they send some of that lethal cocktail here? After the FEMA free ride is cut off, our Katrina refugees are unlikely to survive.
The refugees are like roaches, they won’t die. The poor souls trapped in the hospital would’ve probably left on their own had they been given the chance.
It’s not murder. These doctors risked their lives to save others. Those that would die horrible deaths were given medication to ease their suffering; even if death resulted, it was better than the alternative under the circumstances.
Sometimes, bad things happen even when people’s intentions are good. That does not make them a criminal.
You wonder why I shake my head™
Clambanger,
they could have at least brought these poor folks a plate of crawfish before the lethal injection.
Lightbulb time! I just figured out why liberals think euthanasia - depriving a dying patient of a few hours of life - is OK. It’s related to their belief that depriving me of a few hours of my life each year doing income taxes or waiting in line at the county tax office or DPS is a good thing, too!!
Liberals are consistently anti-life!
Clamboy,
Textbook legal hypothetical.
A man falls off a building. As he falls, I shoot him in the chest, killing him. Was there a crime?
Sure. It was murder.
None of these medical professionals had the right to administer lethal doses to these patients. That they may well have died anyway, and in a worse way, is irrelevant.
Yet our laws see nothing wrong with murdering bibies before they have had a chance to take their first breath.
#6 Owen
You’re not comparing apples to apples, hence, your metaphor is completely invalid.
It’s a pretty common rule of ethics that one may not do evil in order to achieve good.
#9 Matt
What is evil?
#8 ClamBoy
How is that not apples to apples? In Owen’s analogy, a person was enroute to certain death that could have been very painful, someone decided to put them out of their misery.
#9 Matt
I Agree.
#10 Clammy
Murder?
Hmmmm… Using Shakeylogic™, since Helen Thomas is going to die anyway….
This does not bode well for the medical profession any way you look at it.
fasternu
#13
Shakeylogic™! LOL!
I think even if the doctors decided to administer lethal doses to patients maybe It was a bad thing but in my opinion we cannot qualify that like a murder because the intention wasn’t to kill them in order to still their money or for the pleasure, the intention was saving them from the suffering, in this case we can speek about a mistake or a smudge
Geoffroy
#16
We call that manslaughter. Same but different.
Without knowing all of the circumstances, it’s impossible to determine the “criminality” of their actions.
Again, the armchair quarterbacks love to say “I would have done this instead” or “they shouldn’t have done that”, but until/unless you are in that type of extreme situation, you simply cannot pass judgment.
It’s like losing a child. It’s easy to say “I know how you must feel”, but there’s no way you can know unless you’ve gone through it yourself.
Shakey
It is like a murderer on trial. “You don’t know how I felt when I pulled the trigger!” “You weren’t there, how can you judge me?” “You don’t know the circumstances - the guy deserved killing and I just happened to be there to accomodate him.” There are many, many excuses for murder, but it all boils down to murder, pure and simple. That is why there are degrees in sentencing (1st degree, 2nd degree, manslaughter, etc.)
Neo, this was not murder. Period. End of story.
ClamBoy
And I vehemently disagree. They took lives. They decided patients should not live. They, in essence, played God. Did the patients have a choice? We don’t know.
If a natural disaster is coming, would you move patients or just wait until the last minute and give them lethal injections? They had a choice. They chose death by lethal injection. Period. Paragraph!
So we agree to disagree.
Hippocratic oath:
I swear by Apollo Physician and Asclepius and Hygieia and Panaceia and all the gods and goddesses, making them my witnesses, that I will fulfil according to my ability and judgment this oath and this covenant:
…snip
I will apply dietetic measures for the benefit of the sick according to my ability and judgment; I will keep them from harm and injustice.
I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody who asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. Similarly I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy. In purity and holiness I will guard my life and my art.
…snip
If I fulfil this oath and do not violate it, may it be granted to me to enjoy life and art, being honored with fame among all men for all time to come; if I transgress it and swear falsely, may the opposite of all this be my lot.
Or is it a set of guidelines like the Pirate’s code?
fasternu
#22
Good comment. It seems liberals are losing sight of this in today’s world.
Nonsense.
People with well-formed consciences think about these things beforehand, so that they don’t have to make up their moral code on the spot.
Why didn’t they stick around? I could not in any good conscience have left them. I was not there, but for those docs to snuff ‘em out and skedaddle was just wrong! And disgraceful to the profession. If I were left in charge of someone’s welfare I could not kill them! Someonw ould have eventually came for them! And they did! They may have lost some or most of them, but they shirked their responsibility.
How about the cops that fled? Aren’t they at least as culpable as the cops?
Note to self:
DO NOT GIVE SHAKEY POWER OF ATTORNEY
#20
“..this was not murder. Period. End of story.”
This was murder. Period. End of story. No apples and oranges these poor people died at hands of the Doctors in charge, no ifs, ands or buts. I go as far to say it was their duty to stay with these people to the end, comforting them until the end.
GoodJobTim
#27
Well said! Murder is murder! Don’t couch it in liberal terms. It is simple. They took someone’s life.
#26 faster
Love it!
Not one of you would have stayed. You can’t even handle the evacuees being here, never mind giving up your life to see them possibly live, or to die with them.
That’s called being a hypocrite.
Clammy
I don’t think you can justify that statement. No one can judge what another person will do in times of stress or what one will do to save another persons life.
That’s called: you are being judgemental.
#31 Squawk
Are you saying there is a Double Standard here?
Apparently everyone else here can judge and call them murderers without due process. Innocent until proven guilty only applies to Tom DeLay?
I stand by what I said.
Prove it.
Prove that they would have. Based upon their comments about the evacuees, it’s highly unlikely.
Prove it.
I’d remind you again that conclusion is a very high cliff to jump off of.
DAMN DIALUP Arrgghhh.
Excuse me had to yell. My DSL is down.
Let’s take a poll.
Who would have stayed behind under the circumstances, knowing that you had a high risk of dying and you probably could not do anything to save terminally ill/incapacitated patients who were facing an unimaginably horrible death?
C’mon, let’s hear from you non-judgmental people who always advocate doing the right thing and claim that someone is innocent until proven guilty (yeah right).
Clamboy,
I’m not saying that they’re guilty of murder; I’m just saying that in order for them NOT to have been guilty of murder, the four witnesses — who have no apparent motive to lie — would have to nonetheless be lying. That seems unlikely to me, so I believe they’re guilty.
These were difficult circumstances, but difficult circumstances don’t justify murder. I’d say the same thing if a random New Orleans resident started running around shooting everybody he thought was a looter. Nobody has a right to play God.
Owen, my remarks are not meant for you. Only the ones who continually practice Double Standards here.
Hence the terms PODS™
Clamboy,
Come now… They were deplorable conditions, but the hospital staff didn’t have a “high risk of dying.”
ROTFLMAO…..I’m outa here before I falme ya. See ya when you get back.
#41 Squawk
LOL can you tell I’m bored?
#40 Owen
Oh, didn’t know you were there. Thanks for clarifying.
Shakey I can honestly say I would have not left these people to die, much less kill them. Your saying you would have?
Oh, and Tom Delay is innocent until proven guilty.
#44 Tim
Yes, I would have in order to save others who had a better chance of surviving.
These are decisions/judgments that a person must make for him/her self. What is the greater good: to leave and help others survive/live, or to stay with terminally ill/long-term care patients who probably won’t survive.
There are no easy answers.
#45 Tim
And so are these doctors/nurses. Yet you’ve already branded them murderers.
Thanks for validating what I said about PODS™ here.
I did not see in the story where they left to help others, where was that?
I’m calling it murder for them to have left these people, and there is no doubt about that.
#49
Innocent until proven guilty applies only to Tom DeLay and his ilk.
I love it, y’all are so easy it’s like taking candy from a baby.
Sure, they’re innocent until proven guilty. However, if indeed they are found guilty, then they should be punished accordingly. Funny, that’s the same thing I said about Tom DeLay (as if DeLay’s situation bears any resemblence or relevance to this situation whatsoever).
I will say this, just as I have before for DeLay: It looks bad for them. I don’t know if I could justify murder charges in my mind, but maybe manslaughter.
Finally, Shakey/ClamBoy, it’s completely unfair for you to summarily declare everyone here PODS™ because they come down on the side of life, especially when you throw DeLay’s name into the mix as the evidence of the “double standards”.
jimb,
Manslaughter? That’s murder without intent. This was intentional murder. If they went around killing patients without their permission, that clearly merits a murder conviction.
For Shakey to make the blanket statement that we are all PODS™ is typical Shakeylogic™. The thing is, (allegedly) the doctors left their posts to save their own skins. That by itself is cowardice. But, before leaving, they injected ill patients who (could not take care of themselves and relied on the docs to keep them alive) with enough drugs to kill them. Why did they do this? To appease their own consciences for abandoning helpless people to their deaths. They justified it by commiting ‘mercy killings’.
The report says they were there three days before they killed (murdered) the patients. How much longer was it before the Nat’l Guard arrived at the hospital? A day or two or three later?
To bring Tom Delay in this is shameful and ridiculous. Delay is not accused of multiple murders! I might bring up Jeffrey Dahmer or John Wayne Gasey, that would be more appropriate. But You can justify any argument, including murder when you have the moral liberal high ground (Shakeylogic™)!
If you are going to play God, at least learn how to part the sea or walk on it!!
#52 - I agree that it looks like murder, but the way the law often works, I wouldn’t be suprised to see them wind up with a manslaughter conviction…
you’ve got to understand clamboil er clamboy or is it shakey?
It depends on what the meaning of is; is?
So if there are no easy answers, we should kill if in doubt?
#46;
how would killing these people have saved the life of others?
#50;
“I love it, y’all are so easy it’s like taking candy from a baby.”
you’ve done nothing to justify your “loving it”. Once again you have proven yourself to be nothing more than a fool.
rj