LA - Hurricane Katrina, Doctors Euthanized Patients?, 2005

[Details]

I think had they only decided not to evacuate, then they wouldn't be charged, or if charged, wouldn't be convicted. But the fact that they didn't tell anyone about these people before they drowned, and they had at least one (and I seem to recall many) chance to try to get them rescued - that is where I think they should be convicted.

I don't think anyone expected them to be heroes (like some of the nurses and doctors at some hospitals) and stay behind at risk of their own life, trying to carry these people to safety, etc. - but they failed to do the minimum of telling people about these lives at risk, telling the rescuers there were people in dire need of rescue.

(CyberLaw - not ignoring you, but will have to read and respond later tonight when I can focus more).

 

[Details]

Hi CyberLaw - OK, I'm home now, and can work out a reply.

What disturbs me is that you don't seem to acknowledge that death is not always avoidable - this isn't a "perm" solution to a "temporary" problem, and these people aren't going to be back out of pain later to have second thoughts. We are talking about when death is imminient and inevitable. That's the reason for my 'fictional' question - to step aside from all the maybes, and look at that case.

Especially since that case is not fictional, but is a quite common and real case.

Life ends. And sometimes it is exceedingly painful as it does.

Now - as to fentanyl - "STORAGE: Store at room temperature between 59 and 86 degrees F (15-30 degrees C) away from light and moisture. " - we don't know that they had any, that they had enough at that point in time, nor if it was usable anymore, as that there was no AC, no refrigeration, inhuman temperatures and humidity inside the hospital. Lots of drugs have these types of restrictions, and if the temps are too hot, they'll break down and become useless - or the hospital will run out because they do try not to keep a huge supply of such tempting drugs in their hospitals.

Another thing about fentanyl, or pretty much any strong pain medicine - they all say that you will be closely monitored - not so easy to do that without any monitoring machines and not enough people. If your heartbeat starts going unstable - how will they know?



This is not a simple case with civilization, and not everything is solvable, not everyone is saveable. Pain isn't always managable - even with all the drugs and machines, but even more so when the medical staff is so handicapped. There's no forethought about choices and signing papers beforehand, because no one could forsee what was going to happen. I love to be optimistic, never say die, keep trying, but you also have to know when the end is, when what you are doing is just for you, and is torture for them. Doctors and nurses have first hand experience with both sides of it - both the places where miracles are possible and they sometimes catch one if they try hard enough, and the places where death is inevitable, and can only be prolonged.

 

[Details]

I remember my delivery too - I wanted to avoid the epidural, planned to. But then the situation changed, and I was thowing up and unable to deal with it (turns out baby was coming fast, and sunny side up, causing some pretty intense pain). To limit me to my prior decision, made under completely different circumstances, with an idea of a normal birth - it's just a bad idea. Times and situations change. And this was a massive change from the original situation.

People are above animals, so why don't we treat them with at least that kind of consideration when death is inevitable and any extension to life is at best in a coma, at worst an extension of pain beyond thought?

 

[SewingDeb]

Where I live the government does evacuate the elderly or sick 3 days before a storm even hits.

I still think that if these people are responsible then the government shares the blame and I do not blame the medical professionals at all.

About the documentary.. In a situation like that not everyone is in the same boat so to speak.
Clearly they had the means to evacuated the man from the documentary .. that doesn't mean that the medical professionals in this nursing home had the same luxary.

The reports from the time said the nursing home owners turned away offers of ambulances to evacuation (three times) and assured family members they had a plan in place. Instead they saved their own family and left the elderly to die. They have no right to sue the goverment...they are clearly in the wrong. JMO.

 

[CyberLaw]

These people are trying to "deflect" blame and "personal responsiblity" to the Federal Government.

Kgeux, thank you for informing the "thread" of the evacuation procedures in place in LA.

With that bit of information, plus the fact that they were offered to evacuate no less then three times, they will be convicted, the lawsuit will fail (no kidding)and the Nursing home owners will go to Prison.

Especially given the "horrible" situation in which they "knew they made the wrong choice, did not want to accept any responsibility for said choice and told no one that the frail and elderly people were at the Nursing Home.

Not a chance they are not going to Prison, not a chance that the lawsuit will prevail on the merits.

As for the other "Doctor and Nurses", the law is very black and white. It deals with facts, not emotion. The only question will be: Did you or did you not, inject people with a powerful sedative to render them "unconscious" and then "inject" them with an overdose of painkiller. Did you cause their death, did these actions kill them.

If the answer to those questions are yes, then convictions will prevail.

The Law is not concerned with excuses, justification, or "because I thought" it was right "given the circumstancs". The law is concerned with: Was a life taken by another person, did that person cause the death of another person. Were these deaths "natural or unnatural".

It is akin to a man who robs a grocery store: He is out of work, he is hungry, he needs food. So he robs the store to get money, or takes food to eat. Well "does the law" join the "pity party" or do they convict on the charging provision of robbery and theft.

The law will convict him of robbery and theft. Despite the fact that he "was hungry, had no money, had no food, had no job". Those might be the situation that brought him to break the law, but it does not "excuse" or "justifiy" illegal actions.

Can you "imagine" what the court system would be like if "emotions" and "sorry circumstances" prevailed, instead of law, facts, and evidence.

A man in Canada, killed his "very disabled" daughter. He did this out of "love for her, and his "desire" to end her suffereing". He saw it as a mercy killing, the courts saw it as "manslaughter" and he received 10 years in Prison, which was upheld on appeal.

He saw it as an "act of a Father, who wanted to end the "suffering" of his daughter, to "have her go to a better place". The courts saw it as "he took his daughters life", for what ever reason he may have had, the facts remain that he killed her.

The facts of the nursing home. They refused to evacuate, left people to die, saved themselves, did not inform others of the "dying" people.

The facts of the Doctor and Nurses: They made the decision to kill people with "powerful" drugs.

These two trials will be interesting though.........

 

[Peter Hamilton]

Yes,both trials will be very interesting indeed--kgeaux,you say you would not be surprised if the nursing home owners are found not guilty--Well,if you have read the fine posts here by CyberLaw and others,I find it unfathomable that you could even suggest such an outcome--Not only will they be convicted,the judge will send these two creatures to prison with the most maximum sentence allowable by law--They are a worldwide disgrace,and justice will be done

 

[Amraann]

Being that the government did a lot of damage control (or tried to) via the media I think it may be best to see what these people ACTUALLY did rather then take the media version at face value.

IN light of the fact that a previous evacuation ended in death of many to frail to be moved I don't know if it was wrong not to evacuate them.
Lets also remember the storm itself passed and all seemed fine it was not until after when the levee's broke that the problem occured..
Had the Levee's been maintained the flooding would not have occured and the call to not evacuate would have been the proper choice.

It is the governments fault those levee's broke no if and or but about it.

 

[Details]

As for the other "Doctor and Nurses", the law is very black and white. It deals with facts, not emotion. The only question will be: Did you or did you not, inject people with a powerful sedative to render them "unconscious" and then "inject" them with an overdose of painkiller. Did you cause their death, did these actions kill them.

If the answer to those questions are yes, then convictions will prevail.

The Law is not concerned with excuses, justification, or "because I thought" it was right "given the circumstancs". The law is concerned with: Was a life taken by another person, did that person cause the death of another person. Were these deaths "natural or unnatural".

It is akin to a man who robs a grocery store: He is out of work, he is hungry, he needs food. So he robs the store to get money, or takes food to eat. Well "does the law" join the "pity party" or do they convict on the charging provision of robbery and theft.

The law will convict him of robbery and theft. Despite the fact that he "was hungry, had no money, had no food, had no job". Those might be the situation that brought him to break the law, but it does not "excuse" or "justifiy" illegal actions.

Can you "imagine" what the court system would be like if "emotions" and "sorry circumstances" prevailed, instead of law, facts, and evidence.

A man in Canada, killed his "very disabled" daughter. He did this out of "love for her, and his "desire" to end her suffereing". He saw it as a mercy killing, the courts saw it as "manslaughter" and he received 10 years in Prison, which was upheld on appeal.

He saw it as an "act of a Father, who wanted to end the "suffering" of his daughter, to "have her go to a better place". The courts saw it as "he took his daughters life", for what ever reason he may have had, the facts remain that he killed her.

The facts of the nursing home. They refused to evacuate, left people to die, saved themselves, did not inform others of the "dying" people.

The facts of the Doctor and Nurses: They made the decision to kill people with "powerful" drugs.

These two trials will be interesting though.........

The law is not black and white at all. That's why the father of the disabled daughter was convicted of manslaughter, not first degree murder. That's why the people who stole food from the grocery stores during the Katrina flooding were not prosecuted at all, and police even stood there and watched (let them in when they didn't have enough tools to break in themselves). A person who kills is not automatically a murderer - it could be self defense, it could be unintentional, it could be good intentions gone wrong - and in any of those cases the law will aquit.

Take that doctor who operated and saved that guy you were talking about. It could easily have gone the other way. Would you then say, "Was he alive" - yes. "Did you cut him open with a knife" - yes. "Did the bleeding resulting from this kill him?" - yes. The law is very concerned with excuses and justifications and intentions and situations.

The doctors and nurses in this case - the intention was to help the people who died (not to mention, the too often forgotten many, many helpless patients they saved, while risking their own lives to stay behind). The situation and intentions will defintely be relevant. The judge or jury will be deciding if a reasonable person might also believe that this would help those people, and if so, it definitely is not murder.

 

[kgeaux]

Yes,both trials will be very interesting indeed--kgeaux,you say you would not be surprised if the nursing home owners are found not guilty--Well,if you have read the fine posts here by CyberLaw and others,I find it unfathomable that you could even suggest such an outcome--Not only will they be convicted,the judge will send these two creatures to prison with the most maximum sentence allowable by law--They are a worldwide disgrace,and justice will be done

I know, and I totally agree with you. But the family that owned the nursing home is well liked and well known. They have a "reasonable" story---the one about evacuations causing deaths the year before.......and they have had a reputation for providing excellent care for the residents. I guess they could be found guilty---they probablyshould be since they ignored the evacuation order---but truly, it will not surpirse me if they aren't.

Cyberlaw has excellent points, but this is Louisiana. The "good ol boy" system is alive and well.

 

[Details]

I really don't think it'll be about ignoring the evacuation order - as you say, they've got a perfectly good reason for doing that. But their actions after the flooding are not so easy to explain - I think that's what they need to be convicted on.

 

[Opie]

Did anyone watch "60 Minutes" Sunday night? They interviewed the doctor and 2 nurses from the hospital. Very enlightening as to what conditions really were like inside the hospital. They had pictures too. Just ghastly!

 

[CyberLaw]

Did they interview the "relatives" of the people who "were put to death" by the same Doctor and Nurses......you know the patients that were "executed".

I would be interested to see what their "feeling" are about the "murder" of their relatives, who were not terminal or had "life threatening"' conditions.......who again may still be alive today....if it were not for the "injection" of powerful lethal drugs.

As to the looters in N.O., as I understand it, LE was "way too outnumbered" to match the looters.

I did see several "looters" who were apprehended with, or had "robbed" stores in handcuffs though......

It may have been "lawlessness" in the streets, but that does not "spill" over to hospitals, where "lawlessness" prevailed and lead to "murder".

As for the Doctor who "operated" on his patient, he did so in his own best judgement, to "SAVE a life", he had no intention of killing the man, did nothing to kill him and if he did not "act" then he may have been held responsible for "inaction" that lead to his death.

No action (legal)that was an attempt "to save" him, especially by a Doctor who is trained in such care can be seen in the same light as "intentionally" with "knowledge" of the outcome "injecting" patients with lethal drugs.

The people in the hospital, did nothing to "save the patients" that were given massive doses of drugs that were intended to and did kill the patients. That was not the "intent" of the injections.......

There is a Nurse, Cullen, he was sentenced for injecting people with very powerful drugs that killed them. He decided they should die, he got drugs, he injected the drugs, the persons died.

Not much difference.........both Cullen and the other Doctor played God and used RX drugs to kill people.

I very much wonder if the "Doctor" who "ordered" the injection of drugs, was "balanced" and "not affected" psychologically" by the situation and Katrina, or was an "unblanced" decision...given the circumstances.

But again, the situation might have been "horrible" terrible" "beyond" the thought and experience of any person, but you cannot "depend" on a situation to justify "murder" of "helpless" people, who were not even aware that they were "choosen" to die that day.

If given a "choice", maybe the Doctor may have "wanted" to consult each patient as asked them: We have a needle here, that is going to put you unconscious, when you are unconscious we are then going to give you a masive "dose" of painkiller, which is lethal and you will die.

What do you think the patients would say: Go right ahead, kill me.

I don't think so........

The choice was made for them, by others who knew when they gave the first needle that the second needle would result in their death......which again is called murder........1st degree murder. Premediated.

 

[Details]

Sorry, but you're very wrong about the looters. People who stole things that were not needed for survival - the police did arrest those. But people who stole what they needed were not to be prosecuted - the mayor said so, the police said so - and they haven't been. No black and white there. The police did open food stores to help people out - technically breaking and entering - and are not prosecuted, nor are the people who went into those stores. The law is no more black and white than the world is.

 

[Details]

Did they interview the "relatives" of the people who "were put to death" by the same Doctor and Nurses......you know the patients that were "executed".

I would be interested to see what their "feeling" are about the "murder" of their relatives, who were not terminal or had "life threatening"' conditions.......who again may still be alive today....if it were not for the "injection" of powerful lethal drugs.

Why interview them - were they there? Beside their relatives bedsides, risking their lives to care for them? And what makes you say the relatives were not terminal, and did not have life threatening conditions? The only one where I've heard the medical story was a woman with gangrene bad enough that she was going in for an amputation - without the amputation, gangrene goes into the blood, and is absolutely fatal.

As to the looters in N.O., as I understand it, LE was "way too outnumbered" to match the looters.

I did see several "looters" who were apprehended with, or had "robbed" stores in handcuffs though......

It may have been "lawlessness" in the streets, but that does not "spill" over to hospitals, where "lawlessness" prevailed and lead to "murder".

It was not lawlessness, the police allowed 'looting' of survival supplies. They arrested those who stole what they did not need to survive. The mayor and others made statements saying that none who took food or other supplies they needed to survive would be prosecuted at all - it wasn't that LE was too outnumbered to stop them, it was that in this desperate situation, even without guidance, any LE with any heart knew that this was one of those gray situations, where taking food wasn't truely theft.

As for the Doctor who "operated" on his patient, he did so in his own best judgement, to "SAVE a life", he had no intention of killing the man, did nothing to kill him and if he did not "act" then he may have been held responsible for "inaction" that lead to his death.

No action (legal)that was an attempt "to save" him, especially by a Doctor who is trained in such care can be seen in the same light as "intentionally" with "knowledge" of the outcome "injecting" patients with lethal drugs.

The people in the hospital, did nothing to "save the patients" that were given massive doses of drugs that were intended to and did kill the patients. That was not the "intent" of the injections.......

Did nothing - hmmm... It's getting bad, and it seems you don't know much about this case. They did plenty. They worked around the clock for days, manually ventilating people who would have died without it, moving patients from spots where they would have drown, protecting the drugs their patients needed from thugs who wanted to steal them for a high.

You don't know what they did - and you don't know what their intention was - I'd think they too could be held responsible for inaction that lead to unnecessary pain if they withheld the pain meds to ensure the maximum survival time before the certain death. Did they intend to merely reduce pain, and the dosage required to do so was high, or did they intend euthanasia. To me, in this situation, I see either of these as being OK - but it seems to me like you might see a difference there, and they have not at all admitted to taking any action to deliberately end a life.

There is a Nurse, Cullen, he was sentenced for injecting people with very powerful drugs that killed them. He decided they should die, he got drugs, he injected the drugs, the persons died.

Not much difference.........both Cullen and the other Doctor played God and used RX drugs to kill people.

:sick:

I very much wonder if the "Doctor" who "ordered" the injection of drugs, was "balanced" and "not affected" psychologically" by the situation and Katrina, or was an "unblanced" decision...given the circumstances.

But again, the situation might have been "horrible" terrible" "beyond" the thought and experience of any person, but you cannot "depend" on a situation to justify "murder" of "helpless" people, who were not even aware that they were "choosen" to die that day.

If given a "choice", maybe the Doctor may have "wanted" to consult each patient as asked them: We have a needle here, that is going to put you unconscious, when you are unconscious we are then going to give you a masive "dose" of painkiller, which is lethal and you will die.

What do you think the patients would say: Go right ahead, kill me.

I don't think so........

The choice was made for them, by others who knew when they gave the first needle that the second needle would result in their death......which again is called murder........1st degree murder. Premediated.

It's just sad - I hope they aren't judged by jurors such as you - you just don't seem to be willing to understand that death is sometimes inevitable, the true horrors of the situation, and how awful a death can be.

 

[kgeaux]

I really don't think it'll be about ignoring the evacuation order - as you say, they've got a perfectly good reason for doing that. But their actions after the flooding are not so easy to explain - I think that's what they need to be convicted on.

I'm not sure what you mean. The water came up VERY quickly. Like from a puddle to 6 plus feet deep in maybe less than 10 minutes, from what I've heard. And the state (Gov. Blanco) was NOT allowing rescuers in! MANY of my friends drove down there with boats and were turned back. BUSSES and ambulances drove down there and were turned back. I just don't know what the owners could have reasonably done at that point.

Those poor old people either had to be out before the flooding or they weren't getting out.

We need to remember, too, that the residents were not left alone. Their caregivers stayed with them and died with them. The owners were not in resident every day, so it is not unusual that they weren't there during the flooding.

 

[MSM]

Cyberlaw, we have a saying in medicine, that a little knowledge is more dangerous than no knowledge. Why? Because you don't know enough to realize how much you don't know, so you think you know more than you do. And that is what I hear from you in all of your posts related to this case.

You repeatedly state that the doctor in question "killed" the patients by injecting them with "lethal drugs." The drugs used were morphine and midazolam. These drugs CAN be lethal in an overdose, but they are used every single day on thousands of patients in hospitals across the country who do not die as a result. These medications are ROUTINELY used to treat anxiety and pain in patients who are undergoing surgery and who are in intensive care units. It is completely reasonable that patients suffering in the aftermath of Katrina would need to be treated for anxiety and pain, therefore requiring such medications. You then suggested fentanyl as an alternative medication to treat the patient's pain. Do you not realize that fentanyl is an opiod analgesic just like morphine, with the same risk of respiratory depression and death from overdose? They are closely related; for all practical purposes the same thing. You somehow seem to think that morphine is a "lethal" drug used to kill, while fentanyl is used to treat pain. Not so. If the patients had been treated with fentanyl and not morphine they still may have died. So your point is what, exactly?

Furthermore, we DO NOT KNOW that the physician and nurses intended to cause death. We have affadavits from a few witnesses who claim that they made statements to that effect. We also have statements from the physician that contradict the allegations. We know that the coroner found morphine and midazolam in the patient's bodies, so we know that these medications were given, but we DO NOT KNOW in what doses. The presence of morphine and midazolam in the bodies in no way proves that they were euthanized. To prove that, one would have to prove that lethal doses were given. I don't see how the government is going to establish that since there is scant evidence in this case.

You have no idea what the motivations are of these people who are making the allegations, if they are telling the truth, or if they misunderstood the intentions of the physician. You assume that the allegations are accurate. Personally, I don't assume that at all. I've been in medicine long enough to know that some medical personnel have only a faint idea of what is really going on with a patient's care. Like I said before, sometimes a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

Finally, it has been mentioned in previous posts but bears repeating: at the end of a patient's life, the physician's priority often shifts from prolonging life as long as possible to maximizing comfort. Medical ethicists and the medical community at large recognize that it is acceptable to unintentionally hasten a patient's death due to side effects of palliative treatment, if the treatment is given with the intent of alleviating suffering. We know that at least one of the patients who died was in fact terminal. You fail to understand that because you are not in the medical field. A patient with gangrene severe enough to require amputation, which then could not be performed due to the hurricane, would be expected to live days, not weeks. In plain language, gangrene means her leg was dead, rotting, and infected. It simply does not matter what the patient's relatives said about her looking so great just before the hurricane. If she did look good, it was because of the modern medical care that she was receiving to combat her life-threatening infection, made possible in part by electricity. Take that away, and her prognosis changes from bad to dismal.

Maybe before you rush to judge a physician that you don't know and have never met, on the basis of medical facts that you do not understand, and in a situation that you cannot imagine, you should acknowledge the possibility that it is not so simple and you do not have all the answers.

 

[concernedperson]

MSM, I won't quote your entire post but I know what you say is true.The patient is the most importent person. The doctors have to make decisions after a certain point and then the advanced directive comes into play. Where the patient actually says what should be done or not. Suffering is not acceptable after a long and lengthy illness.The patient doesn't want it and the medical practitioners don't want to see anyone suffer. The family clings to unrealistic hopes sometimes. I know this personally so don't bash me.

The meds you speak of are only part and parcel to what can be administered. Some work better than others.....morphine doesn't work for severe pain. I know, my daughter has been in a hospital for over a month. Had cancer surgery to remove a kidney and a bypass from her bile duct. Her guts have been layed open and fluid build up is causing many complications. Her pain is extreme. I dare anyone who hasn't experienced seeing a loved one suffer give an opinion on who is humane.

With that said....she needs drugs. Pain will make you not heal. Complications are a and everyone is doing what they can. But we aren't having A HURRICANE in Atlanta, Georgia tonight.

 

[BhamMama]

MSM, I won't quote your entire post but I know what you say is true.The patient is the most importent person. The doctors have to make decisions after a certain point and then the advanced directive comes into play. Where the patient actually says what should be done or not. Suffering is not acceptable after a long and lengthy illness.The patient doesn't want it and the medical practitioners don't want to see anyone suffer. The family clings to unrealistic hopes sometimes. I know this personally so don't bash me.

The meds you speak of are only part and parcel to what can be administered. Some work better than others.....morphine doesn't work for severe pain. I know, my daughter has been in a hospital for over a month. Had cancer surgery to remove a kidney and a bypass from her bile duct. Her guts have been layed open and fluid build up is causing many complications. Her pain is extreme. I dare anyone who hasn't experienced seeing a loved one suffer give an opinion on who is humane.

With that said....she needs drugs. Pain will make you not heal. Complications are a and everyone is doing what they can. But we aren't having A HURRICANE in Atlanta, Georgia tonight.

I won't bash you. I've been in your daughters shoes. They didn't close one of my bile ducts after removing my gall bladder and my whole insides filled with burning bile. That was the worst pain in my life. I lay in er for 10 hours before they even gave me morphine, this on the day they had released me from the hospital from having the gall bladder surgery. I ended up with 4 surgeries in 3 months just to fix the damage and live with it everyday. I know suffering. I know my husband felt helpless, but ya know, it was my pain, not his and my shot on if I wanted to relieve that pain, not his.

But I never lost sight of the fact that I didn't want extra meds in my body, not once. Each person is different as to how they handle pain. I wasn't willing to take it just to stop my husband from feeling bad. After the doctor nearly killing me from a silly mistake, I wanted to be awake as possible to know what they were doing to me. As it was they gave me meds I was allergic to twice in a row and touched me with latex, even though I had a cart outside my door and had been in hospital for a month. And that was when I was coherent enough to pay attention.

Just for the sake of argument, because I'm close to this subject, what if, just an if, the patient had a dnr, plus had a directive that due to their religious beliefs wanted nothing heroic done in the case of extremes. Or didn't want to be part and partial to what some may say is assisted suicide and this happened to them, what then? Because believe it or not, I don't think doctors are G-d's, they certainly aren't a replacement to my G-d in any way, shape or form. And as such, have no right to make decisions that I am not informed about to my person. Esp if they knew before hand that I felt I may go to hell if I gave in and helped them kill me by agreeing to accept the meds, even in pain, even in danger, even if they didn't mean to overdose. Then it would be MY soul in the balance on one hand and theirs on the other.

I don't see how people can say, this doctor knew better than me or they wanted to end suffering but they didnt know the meds would kill them. You can't be that smart on one hand and that dumb on the other. They knew, I'm pretty sure, that giving someone an overdose would kill them. Sorry, in my book, ending suffering, under any circumstances put themselves out of the suffering, not the person in pain. I call it murder and I hope to heavens I never run across a nurse or doctor who plays G-d. Sometimes there are reasons to not want help, sometimes, as hard as we try, we have to understand that doctors are humans with book learning but still have the same fallible instincts that the rest of us do. I don't look up to doctors or place nurses on pedestals. My own grandmother was a nurse but she was just herself first with the same human faults as the rest of us.

Not saying those doctors and nurses didn't do something wonderful by staying, it's their actions during that staying that worry me. I saw many courageous people doing the same thing as far as staying and helping that never resorted to taking a life. I know someone who stayed 17 days next to his wife who was bed bound in knee deep water after he'd pulled her to the second floor. He swam in those nasty waters to walmart twice just to get her something to drink. She died, but it was G-d's will, not his.

Maybe I can't seperate my religion from what others may deem as fact and make sense out of it. Maybe I think G-d's law before mans law and maybe I see it as they played G-d and I feel that is wrong.

 

[Details]

....And as such, have no right to make decisions that I am not informed about to my person. Esp if they knew before hand that I felt I may go to hell if I gave in and helped them kill me by agreeing to accept the meds, even in pain, even in danger, even if they didn't mean to overdose. Then it would be MY soul in the balance on one hand and theirs on the other.

I don't know about your religion, but everything I know of says you wouldn't be going to hell if you didn't consent, but they gave you the pain meds anyway when you were unconscious and dying.

I don't see how people can say, this doctor knew better than me or they wanted to end suffering but they didnt know the meds would kill them. You can't be that smart on one hand and that dumb on the other. They knew, I'm pretty sure, that giving someone an overdose would kill them.

How sure are you? The difference between a fatal dose and pain control is slim to nonexistient when a patient is that near death, and in that miserable a state.

Sorry, in my book, ending suffering, under any circumstances put themselves out of the suffering, not the person in pain. I call it murder and I hope to heavens I never run across a nurse or doctor who plays G-d. Sometimes there are reasons to not want help, sometimes, as hard as we try, we have to understand that doctors are humans with book learning but still have the same fallible instincts that the rest of us do. I don't look up to doctors or place nurses on pedestals. My own grandmother was a nurse but she was just herself first with the same human faults as the rest of us.

Not saying those doctors and nurses didn't do something wonderful by staying, it's their actions during that staying that worry me. I saw many courageous people doing the same thing as far as staying and helping that never resorted to taking a life. I know someone who stayed 17 days next to his wife who was bed bound in knee deep water after he'd pulled her to the second floor. He swam in those nasty waters to walmart twice just to get her something to drink. She died, but it was G-d's will, not his.

Maybe I can't seperate my religion from what others may deem as fact and make sense out of it. Maybe I think G-d's law before mans law and maybe I see it as they played G-d and I feel that is wrong.

However - assuming these patients were terminal, and very terminal (which really, really seems to be true) - how is it playing God? The person is dying no matter what. Giving them pain relief might (or might not) shorten that by a few hours, but nothing will prevent it.

Why do you think they would pick 4 patients to just randomly kill who weren't terminal, while wearing themselves to the bone saving so many others that were also very weak and couldn't resist being killed?

 

[CyberLaw]

We have a saying in law: If you "inject someone with lethal drugs(for whatever "reason that you "may feel justifies" your actions) it is called murder.

Not murder with excuses, not murder because "I thought" that was the only choice I could make. Not murder because I am a Doctor. Plain and simple murder.

In the autopsy report: The reason that these "murders" were detected was due to the fact that a dose of sedative, ALONG with a massive dose of painkiller, would lead one to believe that the "murder" victims were sedated to kill them. If it was "only" a massive dose of "painkiller", the deaths may have gone un noticed.

I don't care what the circumstances are, the "FACTS remain that you killed people, you "unjustly" without the color of "right" took the life of "vulnerable" people.

You can say: I did this, I did that, this was so hard for me, this was such a terrrible situation for me, but the point of the "law" is that you are alive, the other people are dead. You killed them......

Guess what, it is not about you, its about the people that you "killed" through an injection of "lethal" drugs.

They are called your "victims". So instead of saying the "patients" that died, we will now refer to them in the proper terms: Murder victims......

No one can play God with the lives of others. A child is terminal. Do you now act out of "selflessness" by killing the child. No, you don't. That is not your decision to make. You are a mere mortal, not God.

A women has gangrene, that may "eventually" kill 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.

The FACTS remain, I am not the only one who "will not even consider" entertaining excuses for murder. No, sorry. It would be akin to entertaining "excuses" and "lame justification" for child abusers, men who beat their wives, people who kill for a car(because they have to go to work at their brand new job).

Excuses are excuses...........and the law deals with facts.

Why not "interview" the relatives, there are always two sides to every story. One being the criminal, the other being the law and facts and victims relatives.

Ask a relative how he/she feels about their relative being "executed" put to death...........how they miss their Mom, or other relatives.......those are the people who are the "second" victims of the "choices" that were made irrationally that particular day.

The first "victims" are the men and women who are six feet under in a grave. Those are the people that I am "most" concerned about.

The Doctor and Nurses "unlawfully" took the life of other human beings......as simple as that. You can "attempt" to justify it with "excuses" but again, you are giving a TV interview, the other people, who are your murder victims are dead.

Sure it was tough for them, horrible, but the situation did not warrant nor excuse the "taking of another person's life, under any "circumstances"

Just like the patients lives were as valuable as anyone elses that day. Too bad the Doctor and Nurse, thought that their lives were "disposible" and "they threw" their life away.

If I was "allowed" to serve on Jury duty (my profession is excluded) I would listen to the facts of the case, weigh the evidence and law. I really don't entertain "sob stories" of "how horrible" it was.

Because I am listening to you, while viewing the "autopsy" report of your victims.

The people you choose to murder. I will determine that is it not "all about you" we are here today because you "choose" to kill, you are on trial.........you are accountable and responsible for your actions and "must" accept responsibility for said actions.

Even if there "was no hope" the circumstances were "beyond imagination" that again still does not give you the "legal" right to be "excluded" and excused" for the crime that you committed which is first degree murder.

A man jumps off a building. On the way down, you put your hand out a window with a gun and shoot him and kill him, he lands on the ground dead. Do you say: Well he was going to die anyway, so therefore I should not "be held responsible" for his death, as he jumped off the building.

The point of that is yes, you are responsible, as he was alive when the bullet hit him and killed him before he "landed" on the ground. Even if his intent that day was to die and his death was certain, you "hastened" his death by killing him with a gun. You killed him, he is your "murder" victim.