ENT surgeon in New Orleans charged with murder...this makes me sick

[almost_there]

A hypothetical:

Let's say that a patient is in terrible pain. In the doctor's best judgment, she is dying, and nothing available can save her from dying in the next hour. A choice is there to be made: application of strong doses of pain-killers that may hasten her death (perhaps very rapidly?), but will ease her pain, or letting her die in whatever condition she may be in. The patient cannot make the decision (e.g. non-responsive), and no next-of-kin is available to make the decision.

Can the doctor legally make the decision in that case?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[robh]

A hypothetical:

Let's say that a patient is in terrible pain. In the doctor's best judgment, she is dying, and nothing available can save her from dying in the next hour. A choice is there to be made: application of strong doses of pain-killers that may hasten her death (perhaps very rapidly?), but will ease her pain, or letting her die in whatever condition she may be in. The patient cannot make the decision (e.g. non-responsive), and no next-of-kin is available to make the decision.

Can the doctor legally make the decision in that case?

If the care (and intent) is palliative, as you have described, I don't think there is a problem with the doctor making that call.

 

[Law2Doc]

A hypothetical:

Let's say that a patient is in terrible pain. In the doctor's best judgment, she is dying, and nothing available can save her from dying in the next hour. A choice is there to be made: application of strong doses of pain-killers that may hasten her death (perhaps very rapidly?), but will ease her pain, or letting her die in whatever condition she may be in. The patient cannot make the decision (e.g. non-responsive), and no next-of-kin is available to make the decision.

Can the doctor legally make the decision in that case?

Agree with the above poster, you can give medicine to lessen the pain, and there are risks with most medicines. You cannot choose to hasten death to eliminate pain though, just lessen it during the natural course of things, subject to certain risks. But that is not what the prosecutor in the NO case is alleging. The allegation is that they were intentionally humanely put to sleep with a mixture of medicines targetted towards actually causing death, not an unintentional complication. To prove that he is likely either going to have to show that the combo of drugs used was far from medicinally accepted norms or have a witness to this doctor's stated intent. Probably both. We shall see.

 

[almost_there]

Agree with the above poster, you can give medicine to lessen the pain, and there are risks with most medicines. You cannot choose to hasten death to eliminate pain though, just lessen it during the natural course of things, subject to certain risks. But that is not what the prosecutor in the NO case is alleging. The allegation is that they were intentionally humanely put to sleep with a mixture of medicines targetted towards actually causing death, not an unintentional complication. To prove that he is likely either going to have to show that the combo of drugs used was far from medicinally accepted norms or have a witness to this doctor's stated intent. Probably both. We shall see.

But isn't the highlighted phrase above subject to interpretation? By applying strong pain medication, the doctor knows that she is running the risk of earlier death than if the "natural course of things" is allowed to occur. It may be very high risk, with the expected outcome (in a statistical sense) hastening the patient's death.

Throw in another wrinkle. What if there are no tests or resources available to do fine-tuning of pain medication dosage (i.e. determine minimimal effective dosage)? e.g. an emergency situation, where professional health provider time is a limited resource. Are they in trouble if they do a quick assessment, and provide a level of pain medication which later turns out to be too high and has hastened the patient's (ultimate, unavoidable) death?

 

[Law2Doc]

But isn't the highlighted phrase above subject to interpretation? By applying strong pain medication, the doctor knows that she is running the risk of earlier death than if the "natural course of things" is allowed to occur. It may be very high risk, with the expected outcome (in a statistical sense) hastening the patient's death.

Throw in another wrinkle. What if there are no tests or resources available to do fine-tuning of pain medication dosage (i.e. determine minimimal effective dosage)? e.g. an emergency situation, where professional health provider time is a limited resource. Are they in trouble if they do a quick assessment, and provide a level of pain medication which later turns out to be too high and has hastened the patient's (ultimate, unavoidable) death?

Your wrinkle in the second paragraph is not the case alleged here so no point speculating. And no, there will be no "subject to interpretation" in this case. The prosecutor has to prove his case "beyond a reasonable doubt". That means he has evidence of the doctor's intent. Let's wait for the evidence.

 

[almost_there]

Your wrinkle in the second paragraph is not the case alleged here so no point speculating. And no, there will be no "subject to interpretation" in this case. The prosecutor has to prove his case "beyond a reasonable doubt". That means he has evidence of the doctor's intent. Let's wait for the evidence.

Your statement, that "You cannot choose to hasten death to eliminate pain," can be interpreted in two ways:

1. You cannot shorten the person's life intentionally to reduce the period of suffering (i.e. "mercy killing")
2. You cannot choose pain amelioration that has the expected outcome (probabilistic sense) of shortening the patient's lifespan.

(1) is clear. (2) seems to me to be subject to judgment and interpretation, and, in its most draconian interpretation, seriously chilling wrt pain amelioration.

Interesting. How does (1) apply to taking someone in a vegetative state off a ventilator to die?

 

[NonTradMed]

Not sure which way it cuts. Many would sympathize with the poor patients over the doctor, I would think. Only on SDN do you find people identifying with doctors more readilly than patients.

According to the NYT, SDN isn't the "only" place where people are identifying with the doctor:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/01/us/01patients.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

In fact, some of the doctor's own patients are defending her.

See, normally, I would oppose euthanasia without express consent, but these were extraordinary circumstances. New Orleans was turned into a Third World in a matter of days, and while hindsight tells us that '4 days isn't too bad', people at that time didn't know that. During times of war or horrible natural disaster, people do extraordinary things they wouldn't consider during 'normal' times. For example, in war times, life and death decision has to be made which people wouldn't make under normal times, these morally grey areas makes it easy for us to second guess them later, but to see these things in simple black and white terms can have ridiculous consequences.


I'm not saying the doctor is innocent of nonconsented euthanasia, but given what I remember during the Katrina disaster, including the information that was coming out of the hospital (low supplies, 100+ temperature, no help etc), I think all the doctors who choose to stay were heroes. The real criminals were the idiots who were all nice and dry and taking their time about sending in help into the city----how come some of them weren't prosecuted? And now these people are painting those that stayed as criminals?

So yes, given the cirumstances, which I think should be taken into consideration, the doctors are hardly criminals warranting murder charges. This sums it up best:

Describing Dr. Pou and the nurses as courageous to keep treating patients for days at the battered Memorial Medical Center, where there was no electricity, temperatures were over 100 degrees and food and medical supplies were running low, a local resident, Brandon Robb, wrote: “Does Mr. Foti truly believe that these women risked their own lives to stay behind so that they could murder people? How absurd.”

 

[Law2Doc]

According to the NYT, SDN isn't the "only" place where people are identifying with the doctor:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/01/us/01patients.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

In fact, some of the doctor's own patients are defending her.

See, normally, I would oppose euthanasia without express consent, but these were extraordinary circumstances. New Orleans was turned into a Third World in a matter of days, and while hindsight tells us that '4 days isn't too bad', people at that time didn't know that. During times of war or horrible natural disaster, people do extraordinary things they wouldn't consider during 'normal' times. For example, in war times, life and death decision has to be made which people wouldn't make under normal times, these morally grey areas makes it easy for us to second guess them later, but to see these things in simple black and white terms can have ridiculous consequences.


I'm not saying the doctor is innocent of nonconsented euthanasia, but given what I remember during the Katrina disaster, including the information that was coming out of the hospital (low supplies, 100+ temperature, no help etc), I think all the doctors who choose to stay were heroes. The real criminals were the idiots who were all nice and dry and taking their time about sending in help into the city----how come some of them weren't prosecuted? And now these people are painting those that stayed as criminals?

So yes, given the cirumstances, which I think should be taken into consideration, the doctors are hardly criminals warranting murder charges. This sums it up best:

Describing Dr. Pou and the nurses as courageous to keep treating patients for days at the battered Memorial Medical Center, where there was no electricity, temperatures were over 100 degrees and food and medical supplies were running low, a local resident, Brandon Robb, wrote: “Does Mr. Foti truly believe that these women risked their own lives to stay behind so that they could murder people? How absurd.”

Bear in mind that the AMA and most states don't permit euthenasia OR assisted suicide, with or without consent (so your mention of consent is not really relevant to the issue of law here.). That the circumstances were extraordinary might have justified a lower standard of medical care (because what is reasonable varies with the circumstance), but that wasn't what is being alleged here. The allegation is that the doctor was proactive in causing these individuals' death. If the doctor intentionally helped people out of their misery by putting them humanely to sleep, with or without those individual's consent, she committed a murder in the State of Louisiana.
It will be very interesting to see where people's alliegences lie. The NY Times readership isn't exactly reflective of the typical La. jury pool. Also bear in mind that most of the pro-doctor publicity you see now is somewhat being orchestrated by defense counsel -- in hopes of creating a friendly public opinion should his/her client be bound for a trial. I continue to say wait until you see what evidence is going to be presented by the prosecutor before you buy into some of the sentiments. The case might be what you have seen in the papers. It might be a whole lot worse. Sit tight. We can decide whether or not we should be chastising the doctor or the prosecutor once all the facts are in.

 

[velo]

Bear in mind that the AMA and most states don't permit euthenasia OR assisted suicide, with or without consent (so your mention of consent is not really relevant to the issue of law here.)

treatments with "double effects" are well within her rights though. If the physician can simply prove that her intent in delivering the narcotics and benzos was to relieve the suffering of the patients in extraordinary circumstances and she did this with the knowledge that the doses needed to relieve suffering may lead to respiratory depression and death--then she's in the clear so long as she had consent from the patients or family.

 

[cfdavid]

Who is hiding behind the law? Nonvoluntary euthanasia is wrong, in my opinion. The AMA takes this position as well. And most religions. If that's what this doctor did, it is wrong, and she was playing god and should face the consequences. What we are waiting for is for the prosecution to present the case, because at this point we don't know if this doctor even did what is alleged or if there is any evidence. Unlike your Sadam victims, this doctor will get to put on a defense, and has the presumption of innocence that a prosecutor will have to overcome with evidence which a jury feels is convincing beyond a reasonable doubt. But until the trial happens, the debate is meaningless because we don't have the facts or know what her defense is going to be.

Law2Doc, I'm sorry to see that you've missed the point entirely. The previous poster is questioning the validity of the law in and of iteself, and within the context of the situation. We all know that the defendants will get due process in the U.S. But, that's not the point.

The contention seems to be with applying a blanketed law to such a broad array of circumstances. And it is a matter of religion (not law) to presume that alleviating tremendous suffering during a period of absolute desperation should be punishable. So, just as you've taken a stance on behalf of the exitsing law (which could never specify the myriad of applications in which it could apply), many of us would rather hold exceptions to this law. So, perhaps this case is the initiative for that action.

 

[Law2Doc]

Law2Doc, I'm sorry to see that you've missed the point entirely. The previous poster is questioning the validity of the law in and of iteself, and within the context of the situation.

No- the prior poster I was responding to wanted to get past what the law said to get to my opinion on the issue. And my response was that my opinion actually is alligned pretty nicely with the law on this one. (Hence my need to wait for the facts at trial). Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and I happen to have mine.

 

[Law2Doc]

treatments with "double effects" are well within her rights though. If the physician can simply prove that her intent in delivering the narcotics and benzos was to relieve the suffering of the patients in extraordinary circumstances and she did this with the knowledge that the doses needed to relieve suffering may lead to respiratory depression and death--then she's in the clear so long as she had consent from the patients or family.

The physician needs not prove her intent. The prosecutor needs to prove that her intent was NOT what you just described. He thus far claims in the papers that the case will show that. I'm guessing that means either he has a witness, or that the medicines used were not even close to consistent with mere suffering relief, or both. But lets wait for the case to see what he's got.

 

[cfdavid]

No- the prior poster I was responding to wanted to get past what the law said to get to my opinion on the issue. And my response was that my opinion actually is alligned pretty nicely with the law on this one. (Hence my need to wait for the facts at trial). Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and I happen to have mine.

Which I respect. Also, I didn't mean to come off like a bit of a chump in my first sentence.

 

[robh]

it is a matter of religion (not law) to presume that alleviating tremendous suffering during a period of absolute desperation should be punishable.

Religion? Hardly. It's a matter of civilization. I note how you frame the discussion "alleviating tremendous suffering." Nothing in the law prevents that. You left out: By intentionally killing the patient. If I am ever critically ill, I hope I don't have you as my doctor. You see, I don't want you killing me. I want to live. It's not your call, it's mine. I suppose if I was a religious person, I might believe I have something to look forward to after death and therefore might actually be more sympathetic to your point of view. My life is all I have. If you take that from me you've taken everything of value I possess.

Now tell me, how do we know that each of those patients did not feel as I do? Further, is not the fact that they were in the hospital receiving life sustaining care, at a minimum, evidence supporting a presumption that they did want to live? And if they did, is it still okay, in your estimation, to kill them if their suffering is more than you think they can tolerate? And please explain to me why you think the law should allow you to kill me, if you think my life is no longer worth living? Is this a power that the law should grant just to doctors because of their superior skill at deciding who should live or die, or do we need another professional class of people to do it? Maybe any one of us can decide for our neighbor?

 

[caffeinefree08]

Not that I am advocating anyone avoiding responsibility, but considering the chaos in the hospital at the time, isn't any prosecuter going to have difficulty proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that there was intent to kill? Unless you can bring forth witnesses that explicitly state the physician stated her intention to kill the patients - there are some obvious ways to argue that it was all a mistake.

I mean - no electricity, no relief for the staff, no sleep, no help. One could argue that in the dark and confusion, the wrong medicines were administrated and know one realized it. Or that without computers, a safe way to chart, or a consistent way to communicate with staff, a few medications were administered that should not have been put near each other. In a completely innocent fashion, if you are by yourself and you have multiple patients who are in such critical condition during that disaster, would anyone have been sure that you had complete knowledge over what was going into your patients?

Of course, I haven't done an ICU rotation, so maybe it is completely off-track. Then again, I probably know more about medicine than an average juror and I thought about this. Any pathologists or coroners in the house to comment?

 

[robh]

Not that I am advocating anyone avoiding responsibility, but considering the chaos in the hospital at the time, isn't any prosecuter going to have difficulty proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that there was intent to kill? Unless you can bring forth witnesses that explicitly state the physician stated her intention to kill the patients - there are some obvious ways to argue that it was all a mistake.

I mean - no electricity, no relief for the staff, no sleep, no help. One could argue that in the dark and confusion, the wrong medicines were administrated and know one realized it. Or that without computers, a safe way to chart, or a consistent way to communicate with staff, a few medications were administered that should not have been put near each other. In a completely innocent fashion, if you are by yourself and you have multiple patients who are in such critical condition during that disaster, would anyone have been sure that you had complete knowledge over what was going into your patients?

Of course, I haven't done an ICU rotation, so maybe it is completely off-track. Then again, I probably know more about medicine than an average juror and I thought about this. Any pathologists or coroners in the house to comment?

Well, I think the standard is beyond reasonable doubt, but yes absolutely, unless there is excellent evidence for it. If there was a discussion among several people culminating in a decision to administer lethal doses of medication, as is alleged in this case, I don't think the prosecutor will have too much trouble, especially when multiple defendants start trying to cut deals.

I hope that this is all a big mistake and that perhaps euthanasia was discussed, and that discussion started a rumor, but no one actually did it. I can see that happening. As Law2doc has said repeatedly, we'll see what the evidence is at trial, if it gets that far.

 

[cfdavid]

Religion? Hardly. It's a matter of civilization. I note how you frame the discussion "alleviating tremendous suffering." Nothing in the law prevents that. You left out: By intentionally killing the patient. If I am ever critically ill, I hope I don't have you as my doctor. You see, I don't want you killing me. I want to live. It's not your call, it's mine. I suppose if I was a religious person, I might believe I have something to look forward to after death and therefore might actually be more sympathetic to your point of view. My life is all I have. If you take that from me you've taken everything of value I possess.

Now tell me, how do we know that each of those patients did not feel as I do? Further, is not the fact that they were in the hospital receiving life sustaining care, at a minimum, evidence supporting a presumption that they did want to live? And if they did, is it still okay, in your estimation, to kill them if their suffering is more than you think they can tolerate? And please explain to me why you think the law should allow you to kill me, if you think my life is no longer worth living? Is this a power that the law should grant just to doctors because of their superior skill at deciding who should live or die, or do we need another professional class of people to do it? Maybe any one of us can decide for our neighbor?

While I can't speak of the actual conditions in that hospital, during those days (since I wasn't there), I'd like to give the doctor(s) the benefit of the doubt. It was a tough call. Things looked extremely hopeless during those hours, and with no help in site or even the presumption that there would be any at all. So, unless you've been in a comparable situation, you should be a bit more measured in your willingness to call those docs murderers.

 

[robh]

While I can't speak of the actual conditions in that hospital, during those days (since I wasn't there), I'd like to give the doctor(s) the benefit of the doubt. It was a tough call. Things looked extremely hopeless during those hours, and with no help in site or even the presumption that there would be any at all. So, unless you've been in a comparable situation, you should be a bit more measured in your willingness to call those docs murderers.

Ah yes, the "if you haven't been there, you can't possibly judge" argument. Actually I can judge it. You certainly are. I notice that you have attacked my supposed lack of judgement. I know, I'm evil, but you have not addressed my argument. Will you answer the questions I posed? Surely if you advocate changing the law to allow involuntary euthanasia, those are critical questions that must be answered.

Now to be clear, I have called no one a murder. We have been discussing what is alleged to have happened. If the accused are convicted of murder after all the evidence is heard, then I will call them murderers.

 

[cfdavid]

Ah yes, the "if you haven't been there, you can't possibly judge" argument. Actually I can judge it. You certainly are. I notice that you have attacked my supposed lack of judgement. I know, I'm evil, but you have not addressed my argument. Will you answer the questions I posed? Surely if you advocate changing the law to allow involuntary euthanasia, those are critical questions that must be answered.

Now to be clear, I have called no one a murder. We have been discussing what is alleged to have happened. If the accused are convicted of murder after all the evidence is heard, then I will call them murderers.

All I'm arguing is that we need to give the doctors the benefit of the doubt. At the time, they thought that they were acting in the patients best interest, by alleviating undue suffering. It's obvious that you disagree with this on a religious or philosophical basis. That's your right.

Were the patient(s) themselves proponents of voluntary euthanasia? We don't know those facts. Were they capable to express their desires? I'm not sure if those facts have been made public. But, I am sure that, at that time, and under those circumstances, the docs felt as if they were truly acting to alleviate pain and suffering. What I don't believe is that doctors with otherwise clean records would suddently flip out and start killing people for no reason.

This arguement is academic since, I for one, don't have access to all of the facts. But, there are many of us out there that would feel compelled to alleviate a patients suffering under such hopeless conditions. And, as certain as you seem to be in your opposition to euthanasia, there's ample evidence that those steadfast beliefs can quickly disintegrate under the "right" circumstances. So, don't be so quick to judge.

 

[Law2Doc]

Not that I am advocating anyone avoiding responsibility, but considering the chaos in the hospital at the time, isn't any prosecuter going to have difficulty proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that there was intent to kill?

The standard is beyond reasonable doubt, which is not as extreme a standard as beyond a shadow of a doubt. More than likely the prosecutor will have a witness (or more) from the event, to testify as to this doctors statements and actions, as well as expert witnesses to testify on the medication, dosages, etc. used. We don't know what his case is yet.

 

[robh]

All I'm arguing is that we need to give the doctors the benefit of the doubt. At the time, they thought that they were acting in the patients best interest, by alleviating undue suffering. It's obvious that you disagree with this on a religious or philosophical basis. That's your right.

Were the patient(s) themselves proponents of voluntary euthanasia? We don't know those facts. Were they capable to express their desires? I'm not sure if those facts have been made public. But, I am sure that, at that time, and under those circumstances, the docs felt as if they were truly acting to alleviate pain and suffering. What I don't believe is that doctors with otherwise clean records would suddently flip out and start killing people for no reason.

This arguement is academic since, I for one, don't have access to all of the facts. But, there are many of us out there that would feel compelled to alleviate a patients suffering under such hopeless conditions. And, as certain as you seem to be in your opposition to euthanasia, there's ample evidence that those steadfast beliefs can quickly disintegrate under the "right" circumstances. So, don't be so quick to judge.

I judge involuntary euthanasia to be wrong under any circumstances. I am not quick to judge. I've considered it carefully for 25 years of adult life. My state has a physician assisted suicide law. I don't like it. I would not prescribe lethal medication myself but I understand why the law was passed and I feel a great deal of sympathy for the people who feel they need to resort to suicide to end their suffering. There is a critical difference between Oregon's physician assisted suicide law and what is alleged to have happened in New Orleans. The difference is consent of the patient.

You are correct, we don't know what the patients wanted, therefore we must make a reasonable presumption. As I wrote before, they were there for life sustaining care, therefore without any new information to the contrary, we must presume they wanted to live. Doing anything to a patient without consent is generally criminal (there are situations where consent is implied such as showing up in an ambulance at the ER). Killing them involuntarily certainly qualifies as doing something without consent, and that is what this discussion is about. If those patients were begging to be killed and the doctor obliged, I am inclined to agree that no serious charge should be brought, given the circumstances. If that decision was made unilaterally without the consent of the patient, then I think the proverbial book should be thrown at them.

As for steadfast beliefs, they are the lights by which we navigate dangerous waters. It is the lack of those steadfast beliefs that results in this kind of situation. My steadfast belief is that every human being is sovereign over his or her own life and body. This right has been enshrined in every free society and is reflected by our laws. If you think this principle can simply be set aside because of difficult circumstances, then I beg you to reconsider.

See: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5219917

 

[Law2Doc]

Killing them involuntarily certainly qualifies as doing something without consent, and that is what this discussion is about. If those patients were begging to be killed and the doctor obliged, I am inclined to agree that no serious charge should be brought, given the circumstances. If that decision was made unilaterally without the consent of the patient, then I think the proverbial book should be thrown at them.

Killing patients "involuntarilly" will not support the charge of murder, so we know that is not the allegation here. (For a charge of "murder" to withstand a directed verdict by the judge, the prosecutor will have to show some form of intent or at least some degree of depraved indifference/criminal recklessness.).
In most states (including La), a patient's degree of consent is irrelevant -- it is still murder to put them to sleep humanely even if they are begging for it. If that was the case here (and there will almost certainly be evidence otherwise once the case starts), the book should still be thrown at this doctor, because as a physician you still have to obey the law.

 

[1Path]

From the sounds of things it would appear that there is only ONE hospital in New Orleans. What happeneded to the patients in the more affluent neighborhoods? I don't recall hearing horror stories from those but then perhaps they got evacuated.

 

[samenewme]

From the sounds of things it would appear that there is only ONE hospital in New Orleans. What happeneded to the patients in the more affluent neighborhoods? I don't recall hearing horror stories from those but then perhaps they got evacuated.

This is based on my recollection of news stories at the time and MAY NOT BE ACCURATE:

It depends on where they were, I think. Patients in Charity were evacuated sooner (not an affluent neighborhood by any stretch of the imagination). Oschner and East Jefferson hospitals, in more affluent neighborhoods, also happened to be in higher and dryer neighborhoods and managed to keep generators running for patients who could not be moved. Staff slept at the hospital for as long as needed. My niece is a nurse in the NICU at Oschner and she stayed for several days.

It's not just about the affluence of the neighborhood. It's the depth of the water in the streets near any given hospital and the completely broken down emergency communication in the city during and after the storm. I get the impression people in charge of emergency response didn't know where the patients were, how many there were, or where to take them once they picked them up.

 

[lexrageorge]

One thing to keep in mind: the extreme conditions CAN and possibly WILL be used as a defense. Naturally, the extent of these conditions will probably be debated in that case.

But, I do believe the defense can use the fact that the extreme conditions either clouded the physician's judgement to the point that the physician thought she was acting the best interest of her patient. Yes, the prosecution will argue that it is not an excuse, but much more depraved murder cases have ended being dropped to manslaughter as a result of "extreme conditions". Now, there probably are some nuances in LA law of which I am not familiar. But, the conditions are certainly relevant facts.

As Law2Doc has said repeatedly, we'll see what evidence is produced by both sides (not just the prosecution).

 

[cfdavid]

I judge involuntary euthanasia to be wrong under any circumstances. I am not quick to judge. I've considered it carefully for 25 years of adult life. My state has a physician assisted suicide law. I don't like it. I would not prescribe lethal medication myself but I understand why the law was passed and I feel a great deal of sympathy for the people who feel they need to resort to suicide to end their suffering. There is a critical difference between Oregon's physician assisted suicide law and what is alleged to have happened in New Orleans. The difference is consent of the patient.

You are correct, we don't know what the patients wanted, therefore we must make a reasonable presumption. As I wrote before, they were there for life sustaining care, therefore without any new information to the contrary, we must presume they wanted to live. Doing anything to a patient without consent is generally criminal (there are situations where consent is implied such as showing up in an ambulance at the ER). Killing them involuntarily certainly qualifies as doing something without consent, and that is what this discussion is about. If those patients were begging to be killed and the doctor obliged, I am inclined to agree that no serious charge should be brought, given the circumstances. If that decision was made unilaterally without the consent of the patient, then I think the proverbial book should be thrown at them.

As for steadfast beliefs, they are the lights by which we navigate dangerous waters. It is the lack of those steadfast beliefs that results in this kind of situation. My steadfast belief is that every human being is sovereign over his or her own life and body. This right has been enshrined in every free society and is reflected by our laws. If you think this principle can simply be set aside because of difficult circumstances, then I beg you to reconsider.

See: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5219917

I respect that. And can relate to that. I have a different "code" by which I choose to live my life. Perhaps it's not as black and white, though I don't know you enough to suggest your belief does not have some gray as well.

I tend to liken this situation to what many of our soldiers have endured in Iraq and other places in the past. Things get murky when conditions become difficult to unbearable. I honestly can not say that I've experienced anything in my life that comes close to the environment of a major natural disaster or war. But, I do know that such stressors can cause people to do things in which they thought, at the time, they had either no other viable option, or were doing what became right in that situation. And to "throw the book" at such people seems cruel and unjust.

 

[Law2Doc]

From the sounds of things it would appear that there is only ONE hospital in New Orleans. What happeneded to the patients in the more affluent neighborhoods? I don't recall hearing horror stories from those but then perhaps they got evacuated.

It does not appear that any other doctor in New Orleans is alleged to have taken the same actions. It will be interesting to see if that will be part of the prosecutor's case. Agree with a prior poster that this is more a question of the location of flooding than of affluence.

 

[Dr. McDreamy]

it's good to see people are this passionate on SDN!

 

[IVIG]

"While I am aware of the horrendous conditions that existed after Hurricane Katrina ravaged New Orleans and left so many stranded without food, water, electricity and the basic necessities, I believe there is no excuse for intentionally killing another living human being,” the attorney general said. “The fact is, the law was broken and it is my job to seek justice for the victims in the case.”

Where the hell were Attorney General Charles Foti and LA politicians during Katrina? Sitting on their as*ses in a cush hotel room? They can't even make logical decisions sitting in a cush air conditioned hotel room and they criticize this ENT doc? I don't think any doctor would have been able to make a sound decision considering a circumstances..after all she is human.. not a god!! She probably made the best decision she possible could considering the heat, insanity and lack of supplies.
Foti and the incompetant LA politicians are just creating a diversion because they have done NOTHING to fix NOLA yet.
I wish they would concentrate on the last 40 murders that occured in New Orleans this past month and get the real criminals off the street. Or actually come up with a plan to rebuild the city--it's been a year already!!!

I wrote all this and I'm still mad!!!