How shortly after were each of those doses (we talking minutes or hours) and what was the patient response to each? If it was 5 minutes between each of these earlier doses and the patient was visibly still significantly suffering I could see it being perfectly logical to decide to quit just doubling the dose and not helping the patient.
I honestly don't remember. It was the first day of Ely's testimony.
You seem to take some otherwise very innocuous comments on this thread, very personally. Do you have a personal relationship or connection with Dr. Husel?
For one, you can leave Ohio.
So that’s the solution every time a bad legal precedent is set? Pretty soon, you’ll be running out of states to live in…
Husel isn't on trial for giving 100mcg of fentanyl while doing painful procedures. He's on trial for giving 1000mcg of fentanyl to patients who are not having any more painful procedures done to them.
What was the state’s proposed theory again? I watched almost all the trial but never saw any evidence or testimony hinting at a motive. Everyone here keeps referring to these as “mercy killings”, but I don’t recall that ever being brought up exactly.
I don't think that a not guilty verdict will have any impact on the civil suits. Completely different standard of proof and, if I recall correctly, most of the suits have already been settled out of court. Any pending civil cases would benefit from a guilty verdict, but even without them, they only have to show more likely than not to win the case.
Honest question here: is the opioid requirement to get relief from air hunger lower than ET tube discomfort?
Yes, it usually is significantly lower. It would be better if I could give you a citation, but I'm going off my clinical experience hare.
I presume Husel innocent, until proven otherwise by a court of law. Let's let the facts of the case and the jury determine the outcome, not our own personal fears or interests.
Wilco already answered this from an ICU palliative extubation standpoint but I’ll also answer from a non-palliative standpoint.
I'm not sure what Husel could sue the hospital or other actors (like the Ohio Medical Board) for if he is not convicted of murder. The hospital fired him and the medical board suspended his license for what they perceived as poor medical practices. As regards the wrongful death civil suits, one can be found not guilty of murder and still lose a wrongful death suit...think of OJ Simpson. If Husel is found not guilty, which I think is certainly possible since the jury (from what I've read) has only two charges to consider, murder and attempted murder. As I wrote earlier I don't think I'd be able to convict him of murder, were I on the jury, even though I believe from all that I've read and watched of the trial testimony that he intended to hasten the death of his patients.
In reading between the lines of your prior comments on this thread including these comments quoted, you seem quite opinionated despite your intermittent charade of portraying yourself as objective. Comes across as somewhat disingenuous. You imply toning down the rhetoric, but at the same time stoke the flames.
This is just weird on many levels. I’m not a fan and he’s not my guy. And all of the other stuff has nothing to do with this.
Someone being presumed innocent under the law, doesn't strip the rest of us of our opinions. Forget for a minute Husel is facing a murder rap, right now (x 15).In reading between the lines of your prior comments on this thread including these comments quoted, you seem quite opinionated despite your intermittent charade of portraying yourself as objective. Comes across as somewhat disingenuous. You imply toning down the rhetoric, but at the same time stoke the flames.
That's a very defense lawyer-ey answer. It's kind of like saying, "I'm 98% certain my client is guilty. But since you need to get to 99.9%, goodie for me!"
I’m not sure what to think about his adolescent/early adulthood buffoonery. Maybe it means he’s a sociopath, maybe he just was stupid with the wrong friends. Doesn’t mean he couldn’t mature to be a talented physician.
That’s exactly how it should be. To put it in clinical terms, you want a highly specific process to put someone away for murder. It’s not acceptable to be screened in for murder. Ffs.
Except I didn’t say I’m 98% sure he wanted to kill them? I said no one knows but him, and the state has proven nothing. It sounds like you have a problem with the judicial system
There's a reason that medical ethics in palliative care and hospice, as well as the law, prohibits the hastening of death. That's because there is often a strong motive to hasten death. No matter how painful the death process, for patient, family or healthcare providers alike, it's still prohibited in the U.S. to actively speed up, i.e. "hasten," the process with a medication. While we can't read minds, we can follow patterns, doses, and willingness (or refusal) to practice within a reasonable range of standards. We can also examples past history of behavior, ethics, judgement and motive.
You are incorrect about palliative care and hospice care prohibits hastening of death. It very explicitly permits it as long as that isn't the primary reason an action is taken. Your misunderstanding of this is a good explanation for your stated positions in this thread.
OK, add "intentional" to his statement and it's true. It is prohibited to intentionally hasten death.
No, it's legal.
Which is why I think the jury should have been allowed to consider manslaughter (eg reckless homicide) as a lesser included charge. Although the prosecution may not have convinced the jury of murder beyond a reasonable doubt, I believe they did prove negligent homicide beyond a reasonable doubt.
I don’t disagree.
Do you really not think the distinction between murder and reckless/negligent homicide is massive?
Both are serious felonies, but certainly murder is more serious. Murder can be punished by a life sentence (w/ or w/o possibility of parole) whereas the various types of manslaughter are usually punishable by a determinate prison sentence. I think Husel lucked out when his jury was not allowed to consider manslaughter as a lesser included charge, though it is still a sort of gamble that could lead to him being convicted of a more serious charge. This is a jury in Ohio, not some very blue part of California.
Do you expect everyone to believe that every person doing a palliative extubation doesn't intend or want the patient to die more quickly than they otherwise would? That they don't know that the patient is definitely going to die because of that action and are ok with it because of reasons?
I know you think you've got me, but I disagree. You've instead revealed your own assumption. You "believe that every person doing a palliative extubation [wants] the patient to die more quickly than they otherwise would".
You can't do it intentionally. "Actively" or "intentionally" as opposed to passively doing it like withdrawing a treatment and allowing nature to take its course or accidentally doing it (doctrine of double effect).
