Did these medical personnel play God?

http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/07/18/ho...ths/index.html

A doctor and 2 nurses in New Orleans are charged with having injected several patients with a "lethal cocktail" (described in the article). This was done on September 1, 2005, a few days after Hurricane Katrina hit land (on August 29th).

Do you think that what they did was murder, or a "mercy killing"? Did they have that right to even do that?

I'm a little conflicted on this. On one hand, they wanted to end the suffering these people no doubt had. After all, it was really hot and humid, they had no power, little food, and we all know how "quickly" the government responded with help to this area.

On the other hand, they were medical personnel, who's job is to keep people alive as long as possible (and hopefully reduce the suffering they go through). They should've did what they could've to keep these people alive, despite the fact that relief was slow in coming.

I suppose I'll side with "they shouldn't of killed them". Although I can understand why they did it, they should've tried to keep those people alive as long as they could (even though they were old). That way, if those people did die, you can't blame them as much, because what else could they have done? While those people would've no doubt suffered in their last few days, at least they'd have a chance at survival should help arrive.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

I'm not really sure how it could be simplier. They murdered people under the pretense of alleviating pain.

When I entrust myself to a doctor, I expect them to try their best to care for me, regardless of situation; that only ceases when I express desire to die, which doen't seem to be the case here, or when I excuse myself from the doctor's care.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

This can't be justified, really. It's understandable, but that can't ever make it right. It's not like the kind of mercy killing where the patient is begging for death, which you could at least acknowledge as a grey area. It doesn't sound as though the patient was consulted, or involved.

A doctor ended their lives, when they had entrusted themselves to his/her care. This isn't even a gray area, it's something that needs to be punished to the fullest extent of the law. It should certainly be treated the same as murder. The charge of "Playing God" is bandied around a lot, especially by the Religious Right, but in this instance, it's entirely justified.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

If there was no hope, it was justified. It wasn't right, but there was at least a good reason. There's no point in keeping someone alive when the chances of them pulling through a very slim. It's better to end their lives quickly so you can focus on those who need the help, and who can actually benefit from it.

Under any other conditions, there would likely be no justification. But this is a special case.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

So doctors can now decide whether you deserve to live if a hurricane hits? If I entrust myself to a doctor and provide no desire to die, I fucking expect them to take care of me, regardless of situation.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Never said that.

Most amazing jew boots

They did a story on this on NPR a few months back and one part of their angle came from the daughter of one of the women who was murdered. The daughter kept telling them that she did not want this to happen, didn't want her mom to die in their care on purpose. She was escorted from the building by officers on more than one occasion and the patient was lucid enough to know that she wasn't going to be leaving the hospital. Scary stuff. :\

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by Vampiro

Never said that.

It's the logical extension of your justification, regardless of whether you support it.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

According to what I remember of United States law (as shown by Law & Order), if a person is falling from a building to his/her immediate death, and someone shoots and kill them before they hit the ground, the person who shot them would still be held accountable for murder. After all, it wasn't the ground that killed the person falling from the building, it was a person holding a gun that killed the person falling from the building.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by Interrobang

It's the logical extension of your justification, regardless of whether you support it.

Fair enough. Mind you, I simply used the word "justified," as in they're free of (personal) guilt. Nothing more. I'm sure it was a hasty decision made under pressure and stress; they were in a tight situation with very little resources to spare. They decided quickly, maybe wrongly, but I don't think they're completely to blame.

Whether it's a "logical extension" of my justification or not doesn't matter. You're putting words in my mouth that I never intended, nor implied.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Gecko3

On the other hand, they were medical personnel, who's job is to keep people alive as long as possible

You're wrong.

Anyway, the people killed were basically hopeless. By dying, they ensured that resources they would've otherwise taken were available for the rest of the patients in the hospital, until they were evacuated. I'm not just talking food or water, but significantly important medical supplies. It is outrageous that the doctors could be forced into such an otherworldly what-if scenario, and then judged by the context of everyday doctorin'.

Originally Posted by Interrobang

When I entrust myself to a doctor, I expect them to try their best to care for me, regardless of situation; that only ceases when I express desire to die, which doen't seem to be the case here, or when I excuse myself from the doctor's care.

When I entrust my money to the hospital and to the government, I expect - no, I demand - that I'll be evacuated if Hell rears it's face in my neighbourhood. But alas! Such selfish expectations live to be ignored.

Most amazing jew boots

I still can't justify killing somebody because their situation is perceived as hopeless. That takes away the decision of what to do with their life away from the person, and to a person they never entrusted to kill them in times of danger.

It would help if the article clarified whether the patients were comatose or were aware, though. If witholding medicial supplies would've assuredly caused a comatose patient to die, I would've been more receptive to the idea.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

You honestly think that doctors would kill people who did not need medical supplies to live, because the hospital was in a situation they perceived as hopeless?

I have no words.

I was speaking idiomatically.

How is withholding treatment any different than giving them a lethal cocktail? According to you, the patients are under the doctors' care, meaning they should do what they can to save them or prolong their death, right? They, most likely, had the means to do at least one or the either, but they didn't. So in this case, letting them die and out-right killing them isn't any different. So that should be fairly irrelevant.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

What? I'm asking whether the patients killed were comatose or aware, and stating some "right of all sentient beings" bullshit. I didn't say that the doctors killed anybody who didn't need medicial supplies.

I'm clearly acting like an excessive retard to get your attention like this.

Originally Posted by Vampiro

How is withholding treatment any different than giving them a lethal cocktail? According to you, the patients are under the doctors' care, meaning they should do what they can to save them or prolong their death, right? They, most likely, had the means to do at least one or the either, but they didn't. So in this case, letting them die and out-right killing them isn't any different. So that should be fairly irrelevant.

I'm obviously ignoring my position on the role of the doctor; I've never been consistent in my opinions, especially when someone I respect implies that I'm a idiot. I've always been a pushover like that.

In a situation like this, drastic measures have to be taken, including witholding medicial supplies. The reason I'm asking is if whether the patients are aware or comatose is that the aware patients have the ability to express desire to die when confronted with the fact that they won't be getting medicial supplies. Or they wish to continue, anyway. Comatose patients can't give input on anything, so the default action is to kill them to reduce pain.

In retrospect, the fact that they most likely only killed the comatose patients seems obvious now. Oh, well.

FELIPE NO

Triage is more for the purposes of allowing death to take it's natural course so that attention can be focused on others with a better chance of survival.

In other words, they had the right not to treat them, but not the right to take life from them.

The Hippocratic Oath seems to contradict some of this, but I think its contextual use is if a patient is already dying. Giving them an overdose of morphine, for instance, or having them die on an operating table, is basically the doctor's responsibility, but not really his fault.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

While in an ideal situation, one should follow the principles of first aid resuscitation ABC etc; however, it should be said a disaster scenario like post hurricane is NOT ideal at all. In such a situation, the principle to follow (as I remember being shocked last year) is basically, “No breathing + no pulse = dead: MOVE ON”

If there’s no breathing, the only thing that can be done is to stab a pneumothorax. Even with an Oxygen tank, it’ll only give 10-20/min max, and such luxuries are not easy to come by.

It’s a difficult situation to resolve: even following a principle to save those who have the best chance of survival provides no justification for euthanasia. The implication could be that if you do have the equipment to perform such acts, it might be put to better use. Ethically, it’s a bitch.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

I personally believe in Mercy Killing and Euthenasia (however you spell it).

I mean, It makes sense:

You're in pain, but you're in so much pain that you can't express your displeasure and will probably end your life completely doped up on pain-killers.

You're really old and completely senile. Don't even know that you used to be a person. Don't you feel sorry for people that used to be SO brilliant and now are just out of it?

I know for a fact that If I were in that position that there is no hope of me ever becoming the functioning and free-thinking being that I once was, I would beg someone to put an end to it.

Then again, if you really don't know that you were once such a person, then who decides that you're unhappy?

I think they did the right thing, but I think that they should have asked their families, or at least looked for them.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

They are murderers. Not only did they violate the law, they also violated their oaths: "Do no harm."

Mercy killings are plain and simply wrong. Mind you, I believe in a person's "right to die" and am perfectly fine with assisted suicide regardless of what the law says; any person should have the right to say "I'm okay with this" . . . These patients, however, were not given that basic human right. Some people have an inordinate amount of willpower, and what this doctor and these two nurses did was beyond wrong. It was pure evil.

Originally Posted by a lurker

You're wrong.

According to the law and to the oaths they take, you're the one wrong here.

Originally Posted by a lurker

Anyway, the people killed were basically hopeless.

You don't know that and neither do they. That's the whole point here. Neither you nor they are psychic, so you don't know. What they did to those patients was pure evil. I say lock them up and throw away the key. I imagine most people would agree with me.

Any which way, they broke the law and behaved in a very immoral manner. That's a one-two punch that can't be ignored. Doctors have no right to play God. Especially in the case of the woman's mother, when the woman said flat-out not to do it. That right there is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. How could you ignore that and be so heartless and cruel?

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.