You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
LA - Hurricane Katrina, Doctors Euthanized Patients?, 2005
- Thread starter tybee204
- Start date
Triage - www.wikepedia
A system used by medical personal to ration limited medical resources when the number of injured needing care exceeds the resources availabe to perform care so as to treat the greatest number of patients possible.
Hummmm, care, treatment, treat patients, I did not find "murder" in that explanation, overdose of drugs, injection of sedatives, painkiller, playing God.
Triage is a "system of care" not "murder. Care being the key word.
The training of a triage medical professional is not to kill the people you treat as "the bottom" of triage cases. I hope the USA medical schools do not teach people that. The future Doctors and Nurses.
BTW class. If you are in a triage situation and a person is "at the bottom" or may die, if you kill them first, you are murdering them, and you will face criminal charges. Do not kill them, as it will be viewed as first degree murder, despite what "decisions" you many want to make to "ration" medical resources.
Doctors may have a patient who has "very life threatening" injuries as opposed to a person who does not. Does the Doctor "murder" the patient, because they may die anyways so they can devote their attention to the patient who will live.
Nurse....this is patient number 10 in the tirage, the others have less serious medical needs and we can use the "ration" of resources on them. So, this is the patient that is going to be killed........murdered, can you get the "hypo" filled with an overdose so we can kill him now, rather then him die later.
That is not a "system" that is playing God.
A system used by medical personal to ration limited medical resources when the number of injured needing care exceeds the resources availabe to perform care so as to treat the greatest number of patients possible.
Hummmm, care, treatment, treat patients, I did not find "murder" in that explanation, overdose of drugs, injection of sedatives, painkiller, playing God.
Triage is a "system of care" not "murder. Care being the key word.
The training of a triage medical professional is not to kill the people you treat as "the bottom" of triage cases. I hope the USA medical schools do not teach people that. The future Doctors and Nurses.
BTW class. If you are in a triage situation and a person is "at the bottom" or may die, if you kill them first, you are murdering them, and you will face criminal charges. Do not kill them, as it will be viewed as first degree murder, despite what "decisions" you many want to make to "ration" medical resources.
Doctors may have a patient who has "very life threatening" injuries as opposed to a person who does not. Does the Doctor "murder" the patient, because they may die anyways so they can devote their attention to the patient who will live.
Nurse....this is patient number 10 in the tirage, the others have less serious medical needs and we can use the "ration" of resources on them. So, this is the patient that is going to be killed........murdered, can you get the "hypo" filled with an overdose so we can kill him now, rather then him die later.
That is not a "system" that is playing God.
Making people you can not save comfortable is NOT murder.
I do want to ask you Cyber when was the last time you went through a cat 4 hurricane? Or some other catacalysmic event where the comforts of every day life were gone and mere survival for days was the only focus you had?
I do want to ask you Cyber when was the last time you went through a cat 4 hurricane? Or some other catacalysmic event where the comforts of every day life were gone and mere survival for days was the only focus you had?
Now - somehow you have a weird picture of the mother with gangrene. She didn't go in with minor gangrene, and maybe had gotten to the point where maybe they'd need to amputate a limb - she started out there.
"may, may, may" - no, it was absolutely that she needed a limb amputated. And why do we amputate a limb with gangrene? Pretty extreme thing to do, after all. The reason why is because it spreads, and once it leaves the limb, it doen't just jump across thin air to the next limb, it flows up the blood vessels to your heart and brain and intestines and all kinds of things you cannot live without. And it moves faster in the heat and humidity, after all, all it is is rotting meat. You somehow think she was in this kind of trouble, and still awake and talking to them as they killed her.Oh you say, I have a "great" idea, we will kill her first, after all she may die or even lose her limb(s). We won't tell her this needle is to kill her, because OMG do you not think that she "might have a problem" with us killing her. We are in control if she lives or dies, we are playing God.
The women may have lost a limb, heck she may have lost her life. But again you committed "preemptive" stealth" murder and "hurried" her along.
Sedation is used in combination with pain relief meds not because they need to restrain this person so they can kill them more easily, but because pain relief meds don't always entirely work, unless you give a high enough dose to be certain it is fatal.
If they just wanted to kill, an overdose of morphine would be all that was needed, and patients have IV lines and the nurse can easily at any time introduce a fatal dose into it without needing to fight or sedate the patient. It's very, very easy - sedatives are not needed at all, except for the patient's comfort when they are trying to keep them alive.
How can you feel comfortable coming to all these harsh, black and white judgements, deciding it's murder based on the evidence, when you don't know these things? I'm no medical expert, but I know at least some about this, and I've read up on this (more than just sappy stories from sad relatives - what person isn't sad when their mother dies? what person doesn't think about how maybe it could have gone another way, if only...).
If they just wanted to kill, an overdose of morphine would be all that was needed, and patients have IV lines and the nurse can easily at any time introduce a fatal dose into it without needing to fight or sedate the patient. It's very, very easy - sedatives are not needed at all, except for the patient's comfort when they are trying to keep them alive.
How can you feel comfortable coming to all these harsh, black and white judgements, deciding it's murder based on the evidence, when you don't know these things? I'm no medical expert, but I know at least some about this, and I've read up on this (more than just sappy stories from sad relatives - what person isn't sad when their mother dies? what person doesn't think about how maybe it could have gone another way, if only...).
Cyber - do you live in another country? Because you keep quoting things as law that are not. You say the law is black and white, when any attorney knows it is not, that it was not written to be black and white. You say that in a disaster, people breaking into stores and taking things they need to survive is still a crime - and it's not.
You say that injecting someone with a lethal dose is always, always murder - and it just isn't. It isn't if you didn't think it would be lethal; it isn't if it was intended to cure (some medicines or treatments are fatal if you don't have the disease or problem the doctor thought you did); it isn't if it is self defense (not impossible at all), and in many, many cases, it hasn't been when the doctor was doing end of life 'comfort care'.
And you seem to think that triage doesn't involve killing people, when effectively it does. Picking who to care for means some will die. Some who could have been saved, who could be alive today, will die. That's what triage is all about, deciding who will live and who will die - trying to make your best guesses so that the maximum number live, and the minimum die - but they do make choices that kill people.
The law deals with life, real life. That's what the judge and jury are there for, to look at the circumstances, and see how it fits into the law's 'gray areas' - you know this! Everyone on this site knows this! Is it first degree murder? Well, let's look to intention, what was the intent, was there an excuse - if so, it could be manslaughter, it could be self defense. Was the person reasonable when thinking their life was threatened, and it was thus self defense - how do you know? It's a gray area. A man beats his wife - is he an abuser? Nope - he was just trying to get the gun away from her that she had already shot him once with. Excuses matter - a lot!
Yeah, let's ask a relative how they feel about their relative being executed, put to death. How about the mother of a recently executed death row inmate? She misses her son, knows he could have been saved somehow! Unless you are completely evil, anyone who dies has relatives that miss them. It's nice, and a good emotional story - but it's irrelevant. What matters is what the excuses are, what the circumstances really were.
You say that injecting someone with a lethal dose is always, always murder - and it just isn't. It isn't if you didn't think it would be lethal; it isn't if it was intended to cure (some medicines or treatments are fatal if you don't have the disease or problem the doctor thought you did); it isn't if it is self defense (not impossible at all), and in many, many cases, it hasn't been when the doctor was doing end of life 'comfort care'.
And you seem to think that triage doesn't involve killing people, when effectively it does. Picking who to care for means some will die. Some who could have been saved, who could be alive today, will die. That's what triage is all about, deciding who will live and who will die - trying to make your best guesses so that the maximum number live, and the minimum die - but they do make choices that kill people.
The law deals with life, real life. That's what the judge and jury are there for, to look at the circumstances, and see how it fits into the law's 'gray areas' - you know this! Everyone on this site knows this! Is it first degree murder? Well, let's look to intention, what was the intent, was there an excuse - if so, it could be manslaughter, it could be self defense. Was the person reasonable when thinking their life was threatened, and it was thus self defense - how do you know? It's a gray area. A man beats his wife - is he an abuser? Nope - he was just trying to get the gun away from her that she had already shot him once with. Excuses matter - a lot!
Yeah, let's ask a relative how they feel about their relative being executed, put to death. How about the mother of a recently executed death row inmate? She misses her son, knows he could have been saved somehow! Unless you are completely evil, anyone who dies has relatives that miss them. It's nice, and a good emotional story - but it's irrelevant. What matters is what the excuses are, what the circumstances really were.
That's not how it works. In triage situations, patients who are not expected to live are often given high doses of morphine or other painkillers to keep them comfortable as they die. You completely fail to grasp that concept. It is an act of mercy. It's done in war all the time. Look it up.CyberLaw said:Triage - www.wikepedia
Nurse....this is patient number 10 in the tirage, the others have less serious medical needs and we can use the "ration" of resources on them. So, this is the patient that is going to be killed........murdered, can you get the "hypo" filled with an overdose so we can kill him now, rather then him die later.
That is not a "system" that is playing God.
Seriously, CyberLaw, have you ever watched anyone die? It is not always peaceful. Sometimes it is agonizing and brutal and slow. If I was lying in 100 degree heat with my leg stinking and rotting off, in terrible pain, drifting in and out of consciousness, with fever and chills from my sepsis, suffocating as my lungs began to fail from ARDS, wishing to God that it would just end already, I hope someone would have enough mercy to give me some damn pain medicine and not think, "Oh, no, it might make her die a little bit faster, so instead we'll just watch her suffer longer!" By your logic, we shouldn't give any pain medication or sedatives to anyone who is terminal because we shouldn't take the risk of hastening their death. I think that is just downright cruel.
O.K. so the patients are kept comfortable while they die.
But they are not given "lethal injection of a sedative, to knock them out, then another massive dose of painkiller to "kill them.
So, how do I "fail" to grasp the "difference" between the two. One is to "keep a patient" comfortable" while they die naturally, so they do not die in pain, if they are "conscious" they will not be in pain.
But no one "suggests" to "knock them out" with a powerful sedative, so they are not conscious when they are given a "massive" does of painkiller.
One is a natural death, the other is murder....one may be seen as "mercy" the other as murder........and we all know that "there is no law" on the books "excusing" any "legal" consequences for mercy killing and murder.
What is the point, except death, then to "give an unconscious" person a massive does of pain killer except to "cause their death".
I hope this situation does clarify "the law" on the difference between "keeping a patient comfortable" when they are going to die a "naural death" and causing their death "in a pre-emptive" strike........
But they are not given "lethal injection of a sedative, to knock them out, then another massive dose of painkiller to "kill them.
So, how do I "fail" to grasp the "difference" between the two. One is to "keep a patient" comfortable" while they die naturally, so they do not die in pain, if they are "conscious" they will not be in pain.
But no one "suggests" to "knock them out" with a powerful sedative, so they are not conscious when they are given a "massive" does of painkiller.
One is a natural death, the other is murder....one may be seen as "mercy" the other as murder........and we all know that "there is no law" on the books "excusing" any "legal" consequences for mercy killing and murder.
What is the point, except death, then to "give an unconscious" person a massive does of pain killer except to "cause their death".
I hope this situation does clarify "the law" on the difference between "keeping a patient comfortable" when they are going to die a "naural death" and causing their death "in a pre-emptive" strike........
Your still not grasping the reality of what goes on.CyberLaw said:O.K. so the patients are kept comfortable while they die.
But they are not given "lethal injection of a sedative, to knock them out, then another massive dose of painkiller to "kill them.
So, how do I "fail" to grasp the "difference" between the two. One is to "keep a patient" comfortable" while they die naturally, so they do not die in pain, if they are "conscious" they will not be in pain.
But no one "suggests" to "knock them out" with a powerful sedative, so they are not conscious when they are given a "massive" does of painkiller.
One is a natural death, the other is murder....one may be seen as "mercy" the other as murder........and we all know that "there is no law" on the books "excusing" any "legal" consequences for mercy killing and murder.
What is the point, except death, then to "give an unconscious" person a massive does of pain killer except to "cause their death".
I hope this situation does clarify "the law" on the difference between "keeping a patient comfortable" when they are going to die a "naural death" and causing their death "in a pre-emptive" strike........
If someone is not conscious should they still be permitted to suffer?
IMO certain injuries will be painfull conscious or not the Dr's job is to allieviate that pain.
No one is denying that intentionally murdering someone is illegal. What many of us are trying to clarify for you is that there is a good possibility that these patients may not have been intentionally killed, but may have died what you call a "natural death" along with some morphine and midazolam to keep them comfortable.CyberLaw said:O.K. so the patients are kept comfortable while they die.
But they are not given "lethal injection of a sedative, to knock them out, then another massive dose of painkiller to "kill them.
So, how do I "fail" to grasp the "difference" between the two. One is to "keep a patient" comfortable" while they die naturally, so they do not die in pain, if they are "conscious" they will not be in pain.
But no one "suggests" to "knock them out" with a powerful sedative, so they are not conscious when they are given a "massive" does of painkiller.
One is a natural death, the other is murder....one may be seen as "mercy" the other as murder........and we all know that "there is no law" on the books "excusing" any "legal" consequences for mercy killing and murder.
What is the point, except death, then to "give an unconscious" person a massive does of pain killer except to "cause their death".
I hope this situation does clarify "the law" on the difference between "keeping a patient comfortable" when they are going to die a "naural death" and causing their death "in a pre-emptive" strike........
Terminal patients expected to die may very well receive doses of sedatives as well as painkillers. It is common. The sedatives are typically used if a patient is experiencing severe shortness of breath causing a suffocating sensation, or other significant discomfort that is not exactly pain. The idea is to make them feel more tranquil and less conscious of the discomfort, NOT to "knock them out" with a powerful sedative, so they are not conscious when they are given a "massive" does of painkiller as you say.
What you don't grasp is that those medications can cause them to die more quickly than they would have otherwise. The tradeoff is that the death is peaceful and comfortable, as opposed to agonizing. This is generally agreed to be a kind and merciful thing to do in the medical community. It is so common that you could make an argument that it is the standard of care. It is rare that a physician will stand by and let someone die in pain or suffering without intervening with medication. The end result, death, is the same; but the process is made as peaceful as possible.
So, if a prosecutor really wanted to cause trouble, he or she could accuse ANY physician of murder when that physician administered pain meds or sedatives to any terminal patient and the patient died more quickly as a result. The exact same argument that you keep repeating could be made: the doctor gave the patient medication that resulted in the patient's death, therefore it must be murder, right? Very simplistic, concrete thinking that misses the entire point of giving the medication in the first place.
In fact, I remember reading the case of another doctor accused of murder a few years back, in a similar situation. He was accused of murder after he discussed giving a terminal patient morphine with the patient's son. The son became hostile and irate for unclear reasons; possibly he was in denial about how sick his mother was. He demanded that she be transferred to another facility. Before this could be done, and without the patient even receiving medication, she died. The son was convinced that the doctor somehow murdered his mother and contacted police. The doctor was charged with murder and had to spend significant amounts of time and money defending himself before the case was eventually dropped.
The fact is that any time people have discussions about end-of-life care, emotions can run high and people can become very upset. We have seen it here on this thread. It would not surprise me at all if that is what happened in this case, and that is why we are now seeing these women accused of murder. As has been illustrated so vividly in the Duke rape case, prosecutors sometimes charge people with crimes based on flimsy evidence and may have ulterior (political) motives for doing so. It is my opinion that Foti is using this case for political gain and may be eying a run for governor of La. He had the three women arrested by surprise to create a media event, despite their attorney's agreements with him that they would be allowed to turn themselves in.
I was forwarded this website today by colleagues who trained Dr. Pou during her residency here in Pittsburgh. I have never met Dr. Pou but the physicians and nurses here who do know her have very good things to say about her.
http://supportdrpou.com/
Some interesting tidbits from the site:
From her attorney:
AMA statement regarding the arrest:
http://supportdrpou.com/docs/ama_caution.pdf
From a patient:
http://supportdrpou.com/
Some interesting tidbits from the site:
At 9:00 p.m. on July 17, following a long day of surgery and treating patients, Dr. Pou was arrested and handcuffed by four armed agents of the Attorney Generals office, at her home in Baton Rouge, and processed at East Baton Rouge Parish Prison. After several hours she was again handcuffed and driven to Orleans Parish Prison. This dramatic arrest, conducted as some made-for-TV police show, came despite a firm agreement between Dr. Pous attorney and the Attorney Generals office that she would be allowed to present herself to authorities without a formal and public arrest.
Notably, the surprise manner of Dr Pous arrest left several of her hospitalized patients without a primary physician, thus depriving those patients of the personal care of their own physician.
In a similar fashion, nurses Cheri Landry and Lori Budo were arrested as if they were violent criminals and flight risks: Landry at the hospital where she worked and Budo at her home in front of her young children.
From her attorney:
Dr. Pou is in legal limbo in that she has been arrested but not formally charged. We are not entitled to the background information on the affidavit which was used for the arrest nor have we been provided any evidence which supposedly supports the allegations such as laboratory results, autopsy reports or medical records.
AMA statement regarding the arrest:
http://supportdrpou.com/docs/ama_caution.pdf
From a patient:
Dr. Anna Pou is by far one of the most dedicated, committed, compassionate people I have ever had the pleasure of being acquainted with. When diagnosed with a malignant tumor of the sinus cavity, and there was minimal hope of my survival, Dr. Anna Pou refused to give uphope. She was diligent, she was conscientious, and she was relentless. When I wanted to give up, she drew out the fight in me. She saved my life.
FYI...excerpts from the AMA Code of Ethics (www.ama-assn.org): (italics are mine)
E-2.037 Medical Futility in End-of-Life Care:
...When further intervention to prolong the life of a patient becomes futile, physicians have an obligation to shift the intent of care toward comfort and closure. However, there are necessary value judgments involved in coming to the assessment of futility. These judgments must give consideration to patient or proxy assessments of worthwhile outcome. They should also take into account the physician or other providers perception of intent in treatment, which should not be to prolong the dying process without benefit to the patient or to others with legitimate interests...
E-2.20 Withholding or Withdrawing Life-Sustaining Medical Treatment:
...Physicians have an obligation to relieve pain and suffering and to promote the dignity and autonomy of dying patients in their care. This includes providing effective palliative treatment even though it may foreseeably hasten death...
E-2.037 Medical Futility in End-of-Life Care:
...When further intervention to prolong the life of a patient becomes futile, physicians have an obligation to shift the intent of care toward comfort and closure. However, there are necessary value judgments involved in coming to the assessment of futility. These judgments must give consideration to patient or proxy assessments of worthwhile outcome. They should also take into account the physician or other providers perception of intent in treatment, which should not be to prolong the dying process without benefit to the patient or to others with legitimate interests...
E-2.20 Withholding or Withdrawing Life-Sustaining Medical Treatment:
...Physicians have an obligation to relieve pain and suffering and to promote the dignity and autonomy of dying patients in their care. This includes providing effective palliative treatment even though it may foreseeably hasten death...
Who determined that these "victim of homicides" were "terminal", they were not terminal. They were not in the hospital for a terminal illness, they were not in a "pallative" care ward. They "were murdered" by a Doctor and two nurses, who "thought" it was in the best interest to "kill their patients".
Even if the "murder" victims were going to die, the job of the Doctor would be to "attempt" to make them comfortable, not "through" stealth, come up to their bed, smile, and inject them with a "drug" that would render them unconscious, the give them a massive dose of painkiller.
They were obviously "awake" and aware, of the situation, to render them unconscious, they just did not know that the shot they were getting would end their life.
That is called murder, it is not "pallative", it is not "mercy" it is one person decision to kill another person.
Murder is defined as: The killing of one person by another. Be it by a gun, smotherings, stabbing, a fatal intentional drug overdose administered by a "health" care professional. The end result is the killing of one person by another, BY ANOTHER.
Now the murderer is the person who did the killing. Be it a man shooting his wife, a person killing another person during a robbery, a man killing another person with a gun, or a Doctor and Nurse(s) injecting another person(as in killing that person)with an injection of lethal drugs.
Just the "fact" that these people were charged with "1st degree, intentional homicide, with pre-med and intent, is that there was "no question" that they intended to kill these people and planned it that way before hand.
MSM - just for your information, A "medical association, as in AMA, code of ethics does not in any way shape or form trump the law.
There is no law on the books for mercy killing, euthensia(sp), so if a Doctor claims "well I just followed" the code of ethics of the AMA, I did nothing wrong because the AMA says so, that better have a DARN good lawyer, because again, the law will trump the AMA.
No one spoke for the "murder" victims, no one, now at least the "murder" victim will have a voice in the courtroom......
Withholding or withdrawing "life saving" substaining "medical treatment" is a far cry, from murdering your patient with an overdose of drugs...with the intent to "kill the patient".
The case that you may refer to: A patient "discusses" with their Doctor to 'substain" from "future" cancer treatment. The Doctor "advises" against it. The patient is "well aware" through THEIR CHOICE that this will "hasten their own death", as it is their choice. So the doctor "does everything within his/her power to "make the patient" comfortable, as the patient has "choosen by their own 'accord" to "hasten their own death".
So the pain become very bad, the Doctor "gives the patient" a massive dose of pain killer, to relieve the pain, but knowing full well that only this massive dose will "relieve" the pain, but very well may kill the "patient" who has choosen to die anyway......
Again, you have a patient with "massive" injuries, it is "almost" certain that no medical miracle is forthcoming. The person is at "deaths" door from injury, well not one person makes the choice to "end life substaining" care it is a value judgement of "not only that Doctor but others", so no more "treatment" is given, because again the efforts are futile.
But in both circumstances, no one made the "choice" to kill the patient, they did not make the decision to "administer" a massive dose of sedative, then kill the patient with another massive dose of pain killer.
In one case, a patient chooses to substain from "treatment" by their own choice, in the other case, the person is not going to be saved by Doctors.
That is why the "red flag" was raised, when it was discovered during "post mortem" that both drugs were in the system of the murder victims.
Again, that is murder, just like a man who decides to end a "terminal" patients life, but make that decision for him or her. It is not the patients choice, it is the "murderer" choice for making the decision to kill that person.
Remember "by another person" is part of a homicide charging provision.
The "other persons" in this case is the Doctor, and two nurses...........
I was under the impression that all involved are charged with first degree.
The sedative given these "murder victims" is a pre-op sedative, used during and before "an operation" to cause the patient to lose consciousness.
This is a very powerful drug..that is why it was "extremely" unusual to find this drug in the system of the murder victims........it has no purpose except to render them unconscious.......
Even if the "murder" victims were going to die, the job of the Doctor would be to "attempt" to make them comfortable, not "through" stealth, come up to their bed, smile, and inject them with a "drug" that would render them unconscious, the give them a massive dose of painkiller.
They were obviously "awake" and aware, of the situation, to render them unconscious, they just did not know that the shot they were getting would end their life.
That is called murder, it is not "pallative", it is not "mercy" it is one person decision to kill another person.
Murder is defined as: The killing of one person by another. Be it by a gun, smotherings, stabbing, a fatal intentional drug overdose administered by a "health" care professional. The end result is the killing of one person by another, BY ANOTHER.
Now the murderer is the person who did the killing. Be it a man shooting his wife, a person killing another person during a robbery, a man killing another person with a gun, or a Doctor and Nurse(s) injecting another person(as in killing that person)with an injection of lethal drugs.
Just the "fact" that these people were charged with "1st degree, intentional homicide, with pre-med and intent, is that there was "no question" that they intended to kill these people and planned it that way before hand.
MSM - just for your information, A "medical association, as in AMA, code of ethics does not in any way shape or form trump the law.
There is no law on the books for mercy killing, euthensia(sp), so if a Doctor claims "well I just followed" the code of ethics of the AMA, I did nothing wrong because the AMA says so, that better have a DARN good lawyer, because again, the law will trump the AMA.
No one spoke for the "murder" victims, no one, now at least the "murder" victim will have a voice in the courtroom......
Withholding or withdrawing "life saving" substaining "medical treatment" is a far cry, from murdering your patient with an overdose of drugs...with the intent to "kill the patient".
The case that you may refer to: A patient "discusses" with their Doctor to 'substain" from "future" cancer treatment. The Doctor "advises" against it. The patient is "well aware" through THEIR CHOICE that this will "hasten their own death", as it is their choice. So the doctor "does everything within his/her power to "make the patient" comfortable, as the patient has "choosen by their own 'accord" to "hasten their own death".
So the pain become very bad, the Doctor "gives the patient" a massive dose of pain killer, to relieve the pain, but knowing full well that only this massive dose will "relieve" the pain, but very well may kill the "patient" who has choosen to die anyway......
Again, you have a patient with "massive" injuries, it is "almost" certain that no medical miracle is forthcoming. The person is at "deaths" door from injury, well not one person makes the choice to "end life substaining" care it is a value judgement of "not only that Doctor but others", so no more "treatment" is given, because again the efforts are futile.
But in both circumstances, no one made the "choice" to kill the patient, they did not make the decision to "administer" a massive dose of sedative, then kill the patient with another massive dose of pain killer.
In one case, a patient chooses to substain from "treatment" by their own choice, in the other case, the person is not going to be saved by Doctors.
That is why the "red flag" was raised, when it was discovered during "post mortem" that both drugs were in the system of the murder victims.
Again, that is murder, just like a man who decides to end a "terminal" patients life, but make that decision for him or her. It is not the patients choice, it is the "murderer" choice for making the decision to kill that person.
Remember "by another person" is part of a homicide charging provision.
The "other persons" in this case is the Doctor, and two nurses...........
I was under the impression that all involved are charged with first degree.
The sedative given these "murder victims" is a pre-op sedative, used during and before "an operation" to cause the patient to lose consciousness.
This is a very powerful drug..that is why it was "extremely" unusual to find this drug in the system of the murder victims........it has no purpose except to render them unconscious.......
Really? You know this how? Where's your source, aside from the patients' relatives who have obvious bias and no medical knowledge? Do you have medical records? Do you know the survival rate of patients with gangrene, who are unable to undergo a needed amputation? Here's a hint. IT'S VERY LOW. That would be what we call "terminal."CyberLaw said:Who determined that these "victim of homicides" were "terminal", they were not terminal.
You know this how? Where's your source?They were obviously "awake" and aware, of the situation, to render them unconscious
No, it just provides guidance for doctors on what to do in difficult situations. It makes it clear that one of Dr. Pou's responsibilities was to treat suffering in the dying patients. I think that is what she was trying to do when she gave them the medications.MSM - just for your information, A "medical association, as in AMA, code of ethics does not in any way shape or form trump the law.
Actually, the AMA has a position against euthanasia. The issue up for debate here (although you refuse to accept that it is debatable) is whether or not this WAS euthanasia.There is no law on the books for mercy killing, euthensia(sp), so if a Doctor claims "well I just followed" the code of ethics of the AMA, I did nothing wrong because the AMA says so, that better have a DARN good lawyer, because again, the law will trump the AMA.
No, no, no. WRONG. Where is your source for this? Where are you getting the idea that it is unusual to find both midazolam and morphine in the body of a patient who died in the hospital? Both drugs are commonly used together in critically ill patients or patients undergoing surgery. If all patients who died in the hospital were autopsied, a significant percentage would have both medications in their bodies. That finding does not, in any way, imply that the patients were murdered. For example, I operated on two patients today. Both received midazolam and fentanyl. Was I trying to kill them? I think not!That is why the "red flag" was raised, when it was discovered during "post mortem" that both drugs were in the system of the murder victims.
Wrong again. None of them have been charged with anything.I was under the impression that all involved are charged with first degree.
At least you got this one partially right. But Google is not going to give you the whole story. Midazolam is used preoperatively, but it is most commonly used to relax patients as they are being taken into the OR. Most patients are still awake and talking after receiving the drug. It does not automatically cause loss of consciousness; that depends on the dose. It is basically an IV form of Valium. Get it? Understand why it might be used to treat a suffering patient?The sedative given these "murder victims" is a pre-op sedative, used during and before "an operation" to cause the patient to lose consciousness.
It's not THAT powerful. There are other medications that are more potent sedatives, and there are better ways to kill people if that is your purpose. Again I tell you that it is not unusual at all to find midazolam in the system of hospitalized patients. In fact, it is very common. And it does have other purposes; i.e., to treat anxiety or agitation.This is a very powerful drug..that is why it was "extremely" unusual to find this drug in the system of the murder victims........it has no purpose except to render them unconscious.......
Wow. That statement pretty much says it all. Just the fact that they were charged with a crime (which, by the way, they haven't been) means they must be guilty. No evidence needed, no trial. Who cares what the facts are. Just an automatic conviction in your mind. Thanks for enlightening me on how you think. Now I know I am wasting my time discussing this case with you. I do hope that you never find yourself on a jury because you are obviously unable to uphold the "innocent until proven guilty" ideal that our justice system is based on.Just the "fact" that these people were charged with "1st degree, intentional homicide, with pre-med and intent, is that there was "no question" that they intended to kill these people and planned it that way before hand.
Interesting tidbits from this article: http://www.bestofneworleans.com/dispatch/2006-10-31/cover_story.php
The Katrina deaths that the three women were arrested for have not even been classified as homicides to date by the coroner's office! This is mind-boggling to me, how the LA AG can decide to arrest people for murder when the coroner has not even classified the deaths as homicides.
Quote:
Three months after the arrests, there have been no indictments.
The case now sits with New Orleans DA Eddie Jordan, in whose jurisdiction the deaths occurred.
Jordan needs evidence to present to a grand jury. A pivotal factor for Jordan is how Orleans Parish Coroner Dr. Frank Minyard decides to classify toxicology data from lab specimens of the four deceased seniors. Samples have gone to out-of-state labs, with toxicology consultants yet to render opinions. Police can arrest and prosecutors can charge or seek indictments, but only a coroner can classify a death as a homicide. Without that classification, there can be no murder case.
"I can't say anything about the case," Minyard said to an interview request. But in a Feb. 16 NPR report -- months before Foti's office arrested the three women -- Minyard said it would be difficult to prove whether levels of morphine were lethal in the four bodies. A total of 34 corpses stayed in overheated Memorial hospital decomposing for two weeks after Katrina.
***********************
Now, 14 months after the storm and three months after the arrests, many are wondering why the attorney general made such high-profile arrests without the most basic evidence needed -- lab reports and a coroner's classification of the deaths -- to ensure an immediate indictment.
Foti did not return three calls to his press staff requesting an interview.
"ARRESTING THOSE WOMEN WAS A CLEAR ABUSE OF POWER in [Foti's] office and it blew up in his face," declares New Orleans attorney Allen Usry, who defended Orleans Parish Prison against civil lawsuits during Foti's 29 years as the city's criminal sheriff, until his election as attorney general in 2003.
"He should have turned the information over to [New Orleans District Attorney] Eddie Jordan, without arrests, and let Jordan decide whether to take it to a grand jury," says Usry.
Why did Foti arrest the suspects?
"He thought it would be good political PR," states Usry.
Foti reaped a harvest of media attention for weeks because of the arrests, including a recent interview on CBS' 60 Minutes.
On July 20 -- two nights after the press conference announcing the arrests -- the attorney general spoke to a $500-a-plate fundraising dinner held in his honor at the Windsor Court Hotel in New Orleans. The room was packed with lawyers and political heavy-hitters in response to letters sent weeks earlier, signed by the attorney general, asking them to serve on his campaign "finance committee." Charlie Foti, once the popular and politically untouchable criminal sheriff of Orleans Parish, was on a roll, chomping a cigar, pumped up from the recent news coverage. "Some people say I should run for governor," he said to several guests. "What do you think?"
******************
What I think is that it's all starting to make sense now.
The Katrina deaths that the three women were arrested for have not even been classified as homicides to date by the coroner's office! This is mind-boggling to me, how the LA AG can decide to arrest people for murder when the coroner has not even classified the deaths as homicides.
Quote:
Three months after the arrests, there have been no indictments.
The case now sits with New Orleans DA Eddie Jordan, in whose jurisdiction the deaths occurred.
Jordan needs evidence to present to a grand jury. A pivotal factor for Jordan is how Orleans Parish Coroner Dr. Frank Minyard decides to classify toxicology data from lab specimens of the four deceased seniors. Samples have gone to out-of-state labs, with toxicology consultants yet to render opinions. Police can arrest and prosecutors can charge or seek indictments, but only a coroner can classify a death as a homicide. Without that classification, there can be no murder case.
"I can't say anything about the case," Minyard said to an interview request. But in a Feb. 16 NPR report -- months before Foti's office arrested the three women -- Minyard said it would be difficult to prove whether levels of morphine were lethal in the four bodies. A total of 34 corpses stayed in overheated Memorial hospital decomposing for two weeks after Katrina.
***********************
Now, 14 months after the storm and three months after the arrests, many are wondering why the attorney general made such high-profile arrests without the most basic evidence needed -- lab reports and a coroner's classification of the deaths -- to ensure an immediate indictment.
Foti did not return three calls to his press staff requesting an interview.
"ARRESTING THOSE WOMEN WAS A CLEAR ABUSE OF POWER in [Foti's] office and it blew up in his face," declares New Orleans attorney Allen Usry, who defended Orleans Parish Prison against civil lawsuits during Foti's 29 years as the city's criminal sheriff, until his election as attorney general in 2003.
"He should have turned the information over to [New Orleans District Attorney] Eddie Jordan, without arrests, and let Jordan decide whether to take it to a grand jury," says Usry.
Why did Foti arrest the suspects?
"He thought it would be good political PR," states Usry.
Foti reaped a harvest of media attention for weeks because of the arrests, including a recent interview on CBS' 60 Minutes.
On July 20 -- two nights after the press conference announcing the arrests -- the attorney general spoke to a $500-a-plate fundraising dinner held in his honor at the Windsor Court Hotel in New Orleans. The room was packed with lawyers and political heavy-hitters in response to letters sent weeks earlier, signed by the attorney general, asking them to serve on his campaign "finance committee." Charlie Foti, once the popular and politically untouchable criminal sheriff of Orleans Parish, was on a roll, chomping a cigar, pumped up from the recent news coverage. "Some people say I should run for governor," he said to several guests. "What do you think?"
******************
What I think is that it's all starting to make sense now.
FYI...an update on this case.
The coroner has classified the cause of death of the four patients in question as undetermined, not homicide.
http://www.nola.com/news/t-p/frontpage/index.ssf?/base/news-7/117031723220570.xml&coll=1
The long-awaited toxicology results "did not clearly show lethal amounts of medication" in the patients' bodies.
http://www.abcnews.go.com/GMA/LegalCenter/story?id=2843959&page=1
I don't think that the prosecution will be able to prove a murder case against Dr. Pou and the nurses with these reports.
The coroner has classified the cause of death of the four patients in question as undetermined, not homicide.
http://www.nola.com/news/t-p/frontpage/index.ssf?/base/news-7/117031723220570.xml&coll=1
The long-awaited toxicology results "did not clearly show lethal amounts of medication" in the patients' bodies.
http://www.abcnews.go.com/GMA/LegalCenter/story?id=2843959&page=1
I don't think that the prosecution will be able to prove a murder case against Dr. Pou and the nurses with these reports.
:dance: The grand jury, in spite of every trick the DA could play - refused to indict - the case is finally dead! They gave immunity to the nurses to get their testimony, they put all the blame on Pou - and it didn't work. The grand jury turned them down!
:dance: :dance: :dance: :dance: :dance: :dance: :dance:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/07/24/katrina/main3093411.shtml
:dance: :dance: :dance: :dance: :dance: :dance: :dance:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/07/24/katrina/main3093411.shtml
Opie
Well-Known Member
I agree with Details on this one. So glad it turned out this way. There was some mention of 3 lawsuits from family members of those who died. Will have to see how those go.
DNASolves
Online statistics
- Members online
- 173
- Guests online
- 2,054
- Total visitors
- 2,227
Totals may include hidden visitors.