The way we have defined things typically in medical ethics sure. Hence my point about the strictness of the definition used making something we all (well not all, I had an attending who felt strongly enough that no one should be allowed to die by withdrawal of support even if that was their written or previously stated wish and so would not do so and would try to talk the family members into ignoring those wishes resulting in me needing to get ethics involved frequently, sometimes resulting in the family getting to honor their loved one's wishes, sometimes getting me excused from participating if the family let her talk them into things I felt were very wrong like traching and pegging the 90 yr old brain injury patient who had a very detailed written advanced directive against such a thing) agree is a fine and in fact good thing to do can be described as a form of a thing that is considered illegal (euthanasia)
I do not think intentionally causing someone's death is a fine thing to do. Or at least I see euthanasia as an open question on which I haven't made up my mind yet.
I am saying that the definitions used matter. We all mostly agree that withdrawing things to allow natural death is a fine and good thing to do (for appropriately selected patients I mean) and we don't think of it is as the same as euthanasia. But it actually is defined as passive euthanasia by some. Here is one way it is defined.
My point in bringing this up is not to claim that passive and active euthanasia are equivalent morally or legally. My point is that the distinction can be considered somewhat arbitrary and some could argue for making passive euthanasia (or what we call normal end of life palliative care) illegal and we should all have a problem with anyone non medical who tries to do that. And if you agree with that part of it then you can perhaps understand why I think we should have a problem with non medical people judging if palliative medication for end of life care (which can also be defined as indirect euthanasia) should be illegal regardless of your opinion on the details of this case.
Which is pretty much what is happening right now.
A difference yes. A big difference? It depends. I consider it a big difference if we are talking about holding someone's head under water versus not trying to help a drowning person. If we are talking about a person on multiple pressors and not generating much inspiration pressure on their own then I don't consider it a big difference between stopping the meds and pulling the tube with a little whiff of an opiate (or maybe none at all which some folks might advocate for) versus a whopping dose of opiates and anxiolytics. And either or those would be different than a big dose of kcl with no opiate or something to numb the vessel at least.
If I saw a colleague ordering 1000mcg doses of fentanyl on extubated patients, or large hydromorphone doses paired with benzos, my first action would be to pull them aside and have a discussion and hope to either a) get a very good explanation or b) agree to a change in practice pattern. If the practice continued I would escalate it "to a higher pay grade". If that didn't work, I'd probably contact the hospital legal team.
At least once a nurse said hey that dose seems too high and he changed it then the nurse had to end up giving his desired dose when the lower didn't work. So it isn't like he wasn't open to being questioned about it.
I don't believe you. And "having a discussion with the person" is not the appropriate response to somebody you suspect of murder.
Catching up on it now. I’m shocked some sort of reckless homicide wasn’t included, as it was the only charge I could see them proving beyond reasonable doubt.
I mean I guess it is like if I try to shoot you but miss and you didn't realize it and just happened to develop a pulmonary embolism afterward related to the cancer diagnosis you already had and it killed you then I would still be guilty of attempted murder?
Ahhh....I get it now.
Where's the Youtube link? Is it on Youtube?
In my experience a discussion can resolve a suspicion. And you don't have to believe me for that to be true.
Oh, I guess maybe l shot you but the miss hit you in the foot or somewhere else not vital and then you died of you cancer induced PE that was definitely not related to the gun shot?
Because you agree that the dose alone isn't evidence of murderous intent and there may be a good explanation for it right?
I could maybe stretch my mind to accept that someone would hear extubation and confuse it with a procedure like intubation.
Seems quite plausible that admin also did some shady stuff. If that's the case, it would be unfortunate if they didn't also have consequences.
I watched the prosecution's expert go through a case on cross examination. Patient was admitted to the ICU, given 25mcg by the physician (Not Husel) then shortly after that given 50mcg then shortly after that given 100mcg then I think they upped it once more to 200mcg. Little bit later there must have been a shift change because then Husel ordered 2000mcg. Don't remember if they said how long that patient lived after that dose.
plus he used a Casablanca reference
That’s an insane jump. Unimaginable to me to make. I mean with recent proof of a verified working IV and 200mcg bolus that did not relieve si/sxs of discomfort, I can see doubling the dose again. But 10x is nuts. But if the patient didn’t pass inside of 10min I don’t see how you can say it was murder.
Agree about the jump to 2,000mcg dose.
I can understand the possible mindset. "Hey, we've doubled the dose of fentanyl 3 times with no/minimal relief in a patient that's already dying why not go for a dose that I know will relieve their pain? After all, we've spent 3 hours not relieving their pain."
collectively or individually? you need all 12 to convict, correct?
