N.O. patients euthanised

[Helevitia]

Wow, tough situation to be in.

DOCTORS working in hurricane-ravaged New Orleans killed critically ill patients rather than leave them to die in agony as they evacuated.

http://dailytelegraph.news.com.au/st...001022,00.html

[Jessterw]

Without a doubt. I'm sure we'll hear from those who think the decisions made in this case were wrong in every sense, but I definitely agree that this was done out of compassion.

[Helevitia]

And there other end of the scale... pretty ****ed up IMO

The owners of a nursing home where 34 people were found dead after Hurricane Katrina have been arrested and charged with 34 counts of negligent homicide for not evacuating those patients, the Louisiana attorney general's office said on Tuesday.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050913/ts_nm/katrina_charges_dc

[Dr Mordrid]

There are good reasons for them to be charged;

1. as health care personnel they have a legal duty to do all they can to protect their charges. This is not only a legal obligation but also a civil one and in the medical code of ethics.

2. they had forewarning that the hurricane was coming, that it would be severe and they had been advised many times by authorities that the patients should be moved ASAP. They ingnored all such advice, deciding to keep the patients on the premises.

3. they had contracted with a company to move their patients immediately under such circumstances and failed to make the call.

4. they left the building for their own safety but failed to provide for the safety of their charges. In most states this act alone is enough to charge them with involuntary manslaughter.

5. If it can be shown that patients were indeed euthanized then the charge would be 2nd degree murder, and justifiably so, in any state. This because the US Supreme Court has held that euthansia laws are unconstitutional.

I don't really have a problem with this since the first step in the Nazi's "final solution" was to enact euthansia laws. IMO this makes them a very slippery slope we need not go down again.

6. Even if euthansia laws were legal they would still have to be applied with some level of consent, either by the patients or their guardians. Without such consent these people would still be charged even in a legalized euthanasia environment.

Dr. Mordrid

[Jon P. Inghram]

Are you talking about the nursing home, the hospital, or both? You just say "them" and "they."

[UtwigMU]

I very much agree with Doc, especially his 6th point. Euthanising people without their consent and any legal basis for it is very problematic and is indeed a first step on a path to slippery slope.

I am especially surprised this happened in USA where religious values and pro-life ideals play substantial role.

Otherwise on euthanasia in general, based on my dicussions with doctors and their views on this, there are very few cases per year in countries where euthanasia is legalised - only a fistful of terminally ill are interested in that. Also the practice is not forcefully extending life (people being affraid of being forcefully plugged on support and kept alive). In general here they give them sedatives and paliative treatment and let them die of their disease/natural causes (terminally ill cancer patients and similar).

The only way I'd support it is, if there is a legal basis and only with consent of person involved, said person being declared mentally fit by experts to be able to make decisions, consent by guardians is problematic IMHO.

[Brian Ellis]

The thin line is where the patient is in agonising pain and requires opiates in ever-increasing doses. This will certainly shorten the patient's life by hours, days or a week or two but, IMHO, is infinitely preferable if it means that (s)he will depart with dignity, instead of screaming until (s)he relapses into a merciful coma. Not only is it kinder to the patient, but also to the family having to watch him/her writhing in agony for days on end, conscious that (s)he will suffer needlessly. IMHO, doctors who refuse such treatment with opiates on the grounds that they should do nothing to shorten a patient's life are little more than callous brutes, comparable to some of those who operated in Nazi death camps.

[GT98]

Are you talking about the nursing home, the hospital, or both? You just say "them" and "they."

I'd assuming that he ment both...there was no need for this to happen and I have my doubts to the story that was in the OZ newspaper...more ugly journalism

[Sasq]

its news.com.au so I suspect the source is semi accurate.

don't diss oz news sources too much unless they are preceded by ninemsn.com.au

the level of ugly journalism for them is nor more or less then fox or cnn.

[Dr Mordrid]

Just to clarify for Brian;

There is no such option in the US: the medical staff has to stay with the patients even if it puts their lives in peril. It's their fiduciary duty once they have taken responsibility for their patients.

That should have resulted in only one course of action: evacuation as soon as the authroties recommended it. Anything else put's the staff in legal jeopardy.

DEF: FIDUCIARY DUTY

An obligation to act in the best interest of another party. When one person does undertake to act for another in a fiduciary relationship, the law forbids the fiduciary from acting in any manner adverse or contrary to the interests of the client, or from acting for his own benefit in relation to the subject matter. The client is entitled to the best efforts of the fiduciary on his behalf and the fiduciary must exercise all of the skill, care and diligence at his disposal when acting on behalf of the client.

Dr. Mordrid

[Helevitia]

Although I agree with most of what has been said here, the one thought that crosses my mind is:

I would probably have to be in their shoes to really appreciate the decision they made.

[Marshmallowman]

A horrible decsion to have to make, but by I think by doing that they hoped that they had more resources to keep the people alive that did have a chance.