Husel Trial -- NOT GUILTY

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Dr. Death was a coke fiend that operated on pts while under the influence. Maiming and killing them as a result. Pretty straightforward for a jury to swallow.

What's the prosecution’s angle on Husel? Incompetence? Psychopath? We can debate what dose of fentanyl is appropriate for ICU brain dead pts but burden of proof for the "why" or "intent" is needed for a murder charge. The defense hasn't even started their rebuttal and there’s already reasonable doubt.
 
No trial Friday.

Superjesus returned for the rest of his cross Thursday. Its a good day to watch if anyone wants a summary. Quick run through how hopeless all these patients were. Good point on cross is how he disagreed with the palliative extubation being indicated but lots and lots of notes from social work and chaplain about how families wanted it over, meaning indication no longer matters as much as honoring wishes.

On redirect he actually parried well. I'm still annoyed at how he affirms all these patients could have lived for "hours to months", I think that is probably true for only a couple of them, namely the OD. I mean, as a brainless blob with a trach and peg but it would still be possible.

Watching him again defend baptizing patients in the icu and his pro-life award was cute.

It does make me wonder who the defense expert will be...
 
No trial Friday.

Superjesus returned for the rest of his cross Thursday. Its a good day to watch if anyone wants a summary. Quick run through how hopeless all these patients were. Good point on cross is how he disagreed with the palliative extubation being indicated but lots and lots of notes from social work and chaplain about how families wanted it over, meaning indication no longer matters as much as honoring wishes.

On redirect he actually parried well. I'm still annoyed at how he affirms all these patients could have lived for "hours to months", I think that is probably true for only a couple of them, namely the OD. I mean, as a brainless blob with a trach and peg but it would still be possible.

Watching him again defend baptizing patients in the icu and his pro-life award was cute.

It does make me wonder who the defense expert will be...
All the patients were very sick, but that's not the point, nor is the claim that "families wanted it over" (mainly because what "it" means isn't all that clear...and there is a video interview of one widow who does make it clear Dr. H never asked her if she wanted her husband to be given drugs to end his life). Clearly no one would want their loved ones to suffer needlessly, but I haven't yet heard that any family members were asked if they wanted their loved ones hastened to death with a lethal dose of medication.

I'm still annoyed at how he affirms all these patients could have lived for "hours to months", I think that is probably true for only a couple of them, namely the OD. I mean, as a brainless blob with a trach and peg but it would still be possible.

As regards prognostication the defense apparently wants to claim the patients were "brain dead" and it seems Dr. H declared that to be the case to a family member of a patient who had just been admitted to his care in the ICU. I don't know how he could make a diagnosis like that on the spot. I'm assuming most folks here would know what it takes to diagnose brain death and it ain't gonna happen quite that quickly. So the question is did he just make that up (i.e lied to the family about the patient's condition)? I'm sure he could even come up with an excuse for that..."Oh I was just trying to spare them from having false hope" or "I don't think they're smart enough to understand that regardless of whether the patient is brain dead or not it's better that their loved one dies as quickly as possible and ideally before the end of my shift." The point is that we should respect patient autonomy and treatments require informed consent. Of course claiming a patient is brain dead (or to use your term "brainless")
seems to make it easier to excuse directly killing these patients, but so far as I know none of these patients were actually proven to be brain dead, and in any case it is illegal to administer a lethal dose of drugs with the goal of ending life (and yes I'm aware of the moral doctrine of double effect). For the death to be an unintended effect of treatment with drugs...like opioids...the doses given would need to be reasonable for the primary desired effect (pain control). I think that is how the jury will have to decide what Dr. H's intent was.

Another question might be how a brain dead person would experience pain? If you claim your patient is brain dead how can you claim you need to treat his pain with large doses of opioids?

Superjesus returned for the rest of his cross Thursday.

I guess you thought you were being clever. I disagree.

It does make me wonder who the defense expert will be...

Dr. Kevorkian is no longer available. Maybe Michael Swango?
 
All the patients were very sick, but that's not the point, nor is the claim that "families wanted it over" (mainly because what "it" means isn't all that clear...and there is a video interview of one widow who does make it clear Dr. H never asked her if she wanted her husband to be given drugs to end his life). Clearly no one would want their loved ones to suffer needlessly, but I haven't yet heard that any family members were asked if they wanted their loved ones hastened to death with a lethal dose of medication.

I'm still annoyed at how he affirms all these patients could have lived for "hours to months", I think that is probably true for only a couple of them, namely the OD. I mean, as a brainless blob with a trach and peg but it would still be possible.

As regards prognostication the defense apparently wants to claim the patients were "brain dead" and it seems Dr. H declared that to be the case to a family member of a patient who had just been admitted to his care in the ICU. I don't know how he could make a diagnosis like that on the spot. I'm assuming most folks here would know what it takes to diagnose brain death and it ain't gonna happen quite that quickly. So the question is did he just make that up (i.e lied to the family about the patient's condition)? I'm sure he could even come up with an excuse for that..."Oh I was just trying to spare them from having false hope" or "I don't think they're smart enough to understand that regardless of whether the patient is brain dead or not it's better that their loved one dies as quickly as possible and ideally before the end of my shift." The point is that we should respect patient autonomy and treatments require informed consent. Of course claiming a patient is brain dead (or to use your term "brainless")
seems to make it easier to excuse directly killing these patients, but so far as I know none of these patients were actually proven to be brain dead, and in any case it is illegal to administer a lethal dose of drugs with the goal of ending life (and yes I'm aware of the moral doctrine of double effect). For the death to be an unintended effect of treatment with drugs...like opioids...the doses given would need to be reasonable for the primary desired effect (pain control). I think that is how the jury will have to decide what Dr. H's intent was.

Another question might be how a brain dead person would experience pain? If you claim your patient is brain dead how can you claim you need to treat his pain with large doses of opioids?

Superjesus returned for the rest of his cross Thursday.

I guess you thought you were being clever. I disagree.

It does make me wonder who the defense expert will be...

Dr. Kevorkian is no longer available. Maybe Michael Swango?
If multiple of the patients lived for hours or longer on the medications he gave, it’s not clear he ordered lethal doses. And unless someone uncovered new info, We don’t know what the previous doses the patients were receiving, or even what time frame the ordered doses were given in or if they were given in divided doses.

A patient’s family claims be told them the family member was brain dead. That doesn’t necessarily mean it is actually what he said. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve taken great pains to explain something to a patient (I usually do this at around a 7th grade level) then the teachback or them explaining to a family member ends up a garbled mess. I am sure you have experienced this as well. We don’t know what was said.
 
If multiple of the patients lived for hours or longer on the medications he gave, it’s not clear he ordered lethal doses. And unless someone uncovered new info, We don’t know what the previous doses the patients were receiving, or even what time frame the ordered doses were given in or if they were given in divided doses.

A patient’s family claims be told them the family member was brain dead. That doesn’t necessarily mean it is actually what he said. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve taken great pains to explain something to a patient (I usually do this at around a 7th grade level) then the teachback or them explaining to a family member ends up a garbled mess. I am sure you have experienced this as well. We don’t know what was said.
This is yet another reason he’s at serious risk here.

In a jury of SDN pseudo peers it’s about 50/50 with people thinking he euthanized most if not all of the patients in question (with mostly the crazy anesthesiologists holding out hope based on either the huge alleged doses and/or his intent being mischaracterized). Not many of us truly think any of his victims were living more than hours longer if they received standard of care dosing.

But a jury of lay peoples? Nobody here will be surprised when over half the jury thinks many of those patients weren’t that sick or could’ve walked out of the hospital one day. Just imagine the courtroom teaching on the ins and outs of brain death and having to explain the difference between current or expected loss of cortical function often referred to as being brain dead vs actual clinical brain death. Any feelings of that being referred to inappropriately or just their misinterpretation of meanings and that’s a big deal, they’ll think murder.
 
Last edited:
Who cares how many vials there were or that he overrode the pyxis? As a pgy2 I took out 1000-2000 mcg of fentanyl regularly.

The prosecution is trying to prove that it takes a lot of effort to get out 1000 mcg of fentanyl when it's 100 mcg per vial. It means someone has to get 10 vials. It's like reloading a gun or emptying the entire chamber on someone. Prosecution is trying to prove that it was no mistake and the defendant had clear motives to keep getting vials of fentanyl to achieve an objective.

Wikipedia gives a footnote that refers to a news article from 2019, which mentions that the info is from US District Court documents...which you could obtain if you are interested. The behavior for which he was convicted seems more than just a simple college "prank." And planting evidence against an innocent person is a rather antisocial act. More evidence would be needed to diagnose antisocial personality disorder, let alone psychopathy.

I don't know Ohio law, but in California Murder (PC 187) is defined as the unlawful killing of a person with malice aforethought. If there is premeditation it is Murder in the 1st Degree. If just malice aforethought it is Murder in the 2nd Degree. Given the facts in this case the prosecution to prove murder would need to show it was the intent of Dr. Husel to kill his patients. It doesn't matter if he believed he was being merciful in killing them. Euthanasia** is not legal in Ohio, and in states where it is there are requirements to protect patients and assure autonomy (like informed consent etc.), none of which seem to have been followed by Dr. Husel.

Other forms of illegal killing (in California) are considered Manslaughter (PC192) and there are two broad types: voluntary and involuntary. Voluntary manslaughter requires knowledge and intent to kill. Involuntary manslaughter is unintended death caused by reckless actions (i.e "the conscious disregard of human life"). Vehicular manslaughter is a special type of unintentional involuntary (i.e. accidental) killing that may be charged depending on circumstances of the accident, with negligence of some sort being required for a criminal prosecution.

Based on Ohio law he could be found guilty of some form of murder. The jury could also find him guilty of Ohio's equivalent of some form of voluntary manslaughter. If the jury is very sympathetic he could be found guilty of involuntary manslaughter (up to 4 years here). And if extremely lucky he could be acquitted of all charges.

Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer, I just watch them on Court TV.

**addendum: I was speaking of states with "Right to Die" laws. Neither euthanasia nor suicide is legal in the USA but what is permitted by law in these states is essentially the equivalent. [edit]
California law doesn't mean squat here. So bringing it up doesn't mean anything. We should only talk about Ohio law since that is all that applies here.
 
I'm surprised the hospital didn't have a formal brain death determination protocol. Seems that the standard nationwide is need for two physicians to determine brain death, and most requires at least 24 hours between exams.
Is it possible that the hospital did have a protocol and Husel chose not to follow it?
 
Possibly, but one would think it would've already came to light.
If this article is to be believed, the hospital did have a policy and Dr. Husel did not follow it.

"Mount Carmel has a brain-death policy, which includes a number of steps that physicians must follow before declaring a patient legally brain-dead, said spokeswoman Samantha Irons."

Of course, the spokeswoman could simply be trying to cover the hospital's a$$, but it also seems quite likely that a hospital system that size would have a brain death policy on the books.
 
The prosecution is trying to prove that it takes a lot of effort to get out 1000 mcg of fentanyl when it's 100 mcg per vial. It means someone has to get 10 vials. It's like reloading a gun or emptying the entire chamber on someone. Prosecution is trying to prove that it was no mistake and the defendant had clear motives to keep getting vials of fentanyl to achieve an objective.


California law doesn't mean squat here. So bringing it up doesn't mean anything. We should only talk about Ohio law since that is all that applies here.
I thought it made sense because Ohio has exactly the same distinctions for illegal killing but just uses different terminology. "Aggravated Murder" is the equivalent of 1st Degree Murder and plain old "Murder" is equivalent to 2nd Degree Murder. The other forms of illegal killing in Ohio are classified as Manslaughter, either voluntary or involuntary, with subcategories for each, most of which have equivalents in California law. I didn't want to look them all up (but did after reading your comment) to make sure the types of illegal killing I was trying to explain could be applied in this case...and the answer is they could, just under different names. Sorry if my intent was not clear to you or other folks
 
If this article is to be believed, the hospital did have a policy and Dr. Husel did not follow it.

"Mount Carmel has a brain-death policy, which includes a number of steps that physicians must follow before declaring a patient legally brain-dead, said spokeswoman Samantha Irons."

Of course, the spokeswoman could simply be trying to cover the hospital's a$$, but it also seems quite likely that a hospital system that size would have a brain death policy on the books.
Yeah, hard to trust the hospital propaganda 100%.

But there is no way a fellowship trained Intensivist doesn’t know how to do a brain death exam or have some protocol in his/her head whether it’s the one used in their training institution or the current hospital. I’m sure there was a protocol or system in place.

Husel’s use or complete lack of use of said protocol would also be easy to check for in this case. Do they have multiple cases Husel was the accepting physician on that proceeded to a brain death clinical status with all appropriate specialists, imaging, and verifications documented? Or do all the other intensivists have examples of this but none could be found for Husel? Or are there no brain death declarations complete with associated specialist signatures/imaging to be found at all?

Though again, I’d have to assume all of the brain dead talk is all miscommunication on the part of the family, their memory of goals of care discussions, or journalistic errors. He certainly wasn’t pushing grams of fentanyl on actual, clinically verified brain death patients….right?
 
Hypothetical question.

Your PA comes to you and says, “Doc, I saw a patient in room 10. I bolused him with 2,000 mcg of fentanyl, then went to the lounge to get us a snack.”

Select your reaction below:

A) “Good job easing suffering,” you say. “Tell me more about him.”

B) “You did what?” you ask, as you hurry to the room to check if the patient is still alive.

C) Other. Explain answer____________.

Which did you choose and why?
 
Last edited:
Your PA comes to you and says, “Doc, I saw a patient in room 10. I bolused him with 2,000 mcg of fentanyl then went to the lounge to get us a snack.”

Select your reaction below:

A) “Good job easing suffering,” you say. “Tell me more about him.”

B) “You did what?” you ask, as you hurry to the room to check if the patient is still alive.

C) Other. Explain answer____________.

Which did you choose and why?

My pa comes up to me and says

“doc, the patient in room 10 has been in the icu for a prolonged period of time on hundreds of ug a minute after repeated cardiac arrests and is living in a persistent vegetative state, we terminally extubated him with consent from the family and gave him divided doses of 500ug x4 when he kept gasping, then he died several hours later.”

Showcasing facts to suit the narrative is the job of the persecution. No one has seemed to show any evidence that what you’re describing is what happened vs what was described above. Obviously the situation you described is murder. Obviously the situation I described is not.

If you can find any evidence that one or the other happened, would be thrilled to hear it, otherwise it’s not really productive.
 
Your PA comes to you and says, “Doc, I saw a patient in room 10. I bolused him with 2,000 mcg of fentanyl then went to the lounge to get us a snack.”

Select your reaction below:

A) “Good job easing suffering,” you say. “Let’s sit down, eat those pop tarts and talk more about this case.”

B) “You did what?” you ask, as you hurry to the room to check if the patient is still alive.

C) Other. Explain answer____________.

Which did you choose and why?
Lol. Nobody is arguing it was even within 1 standard deviation of standard of care to give 1000mcg’s as an IV push let alone 2000mcg’s.

But context matters. There’s apparently proof that multiple patients received 1000mcgs and weren’t declared dead for hours. Now, it could be that;

A. those patients weren’t actually bolused 1000mcgs and it was actually titrated. Clinical effect of fentanyl is literally 1-2min.

B. those pts were immediately rendered apneic, further hypoxic brain injury would occur minutes later, but cardiac arrest took hours.

C. patients arrested but TOD wasn’t declared for hours for some reason. (Extremely nefarious implications)

D. Pts had extremely high tolerance and bolus of extremely high doses weren’t immediately apnea inducing.

We just don’t truly know. It’s hard for me to believe any pt could be expected to tolerate 2500mcg’s of fentanyl or 1000mcg’s plus 10mg of dilaudid, but I think we have to reserve judgement without knowing the full context. Yes, there are clear signs he was practicing outside of the standard of care, and signs he knew it. Is giving 2-5x the upper end of normal for most palliative docs automatically murder? What if most of the time those patients you gave admittedly high doses to didn’t immediately die, and you’ll never know if they passed at the same time or hours earlier than with “standard” doses because of it? I’m not sure, I’m not a lawyer.
 
I mean I give fentanyl literally every day. We have an EMR and it’s literally a pain in the rear to adjust the time stamp of titrated doses. If you try to input an additional dose of the same drug within 4 minutes of the last dose the EMR literally merges the doses into one cumulative dose at the original time given. You have to change the entire log to a q1min measurement scale. You want to guess how often we do that? If I’m concerned it may read poorly it’s faster to type a note along with the cumulative dose charted that says “divided doses titrated to effect over 5 minutes”.

Now I know nothing of RN charting systems, but it wouldn’t shock me if in some instances RNs chart the cumulative dose given or when they attempt to chart q2-3min titrated doses it shows up as one dose. My point is, what the system says, or how the reports are generated can be flawed. Junk data in junk data out etc. (There are RN witnesses that report giving 1000mcg’s as an IV push however)
 
He certainly wasn’t pushing grams of fentanyl on actual, clinically verified brain death patients….right?

I highly doubt he was.

I haven't read anything claiming he gave truly brain dead patients 1,000 mcg boluses of fentanyl, or that proper brain death protocols were followed at all. What is alleged, is that he told families that patients were "brain dead" as justification for giving 1,000-2,000 mcg boluses of fentanyl, without having actually followed legal protocol to declare them brain dead.

A properly and legally declared brain dead patient is already legally dead. You can't murder someone already dead. But that's not what is being alleged.

"Family members said that despite being sedated, Penix would respond to family members, open her eyes, smile, make gestures and interact. On November 20, Penix sat up in her bed and complained of stomach pain, according to attorneys. A few hours later, Leeseberg said Husel told the family Penix was brain dead shortly after 9 p.m. The family was encouraged to remove care, to which they consented.
Leeseberg said Penix was given a 2,000 mcg dose of fentanyl at 10:48 p.m. and was pronounced dead five minutes later."
 
@dadaddadaBATMAN @Robotic Wis-Hipple

Would you have done was Husel did? If not, why not?

In a word? No.

But this is more because (other than not being an Intensivist/palliative care physician) I like my job, I have zero desire to stick my neck out and be on any reports being tabulated on out of the norm practices, I don’t want to be sued, and 1000mcgs as a bolus is likely just unnecessary, etc.

I don’t think pushing 250mcg x 4 q5min or maybe 500mcgs to tolerant pts is automatically criminal murder. Still, would I push 500mcg’s? Probably not. Again, because I don’t want the appearance of hastening death etc. Would I be comfortable titrating to effect quickly, in say 10min, even if that dose added up to 500+? Yes. Resoundingly so. But I would document personally present titration.

I just think the doses alone, as extraordinary as they are shouldn’t be considered criminal unless they clearly show criminal intent. Intent to relieve any and all discomfort, or the appearance of discomfort, in a much more hasty way as Husel did, while misguided to many I don’t think is AUTOMATICALLY murder. It’s clearly outside of standard of care, it’s likely to be found to be hastening death and therefore by the law and our ethics will be determined to be illegal. He’s screwed, he’ll never practice medicine again, and he’s seriously at risk of going to jail for a very long time.

Now I could be wrong and he could be a sociopath who either enjoyed euthanizing patients or liked his census to be absent of any he deemed unlikely to recover so he took things into his own hands. But as it stands now I choose to believe he had a misguided desire to absolutely insure no pain or suffering was shown and this somehow got positively reinforced into regularly giving huge doses. The fact I wouldn’t have pushed 500mcg+ doses does not disprove that his intent was relieving suffering to terminal patients or prove his intent was overtly malicious. It just implies his outlook, comfort level/narcissism, local hospital factors added up to his actions.

He very well may be the madman he’s portrayed as. Or not. The doses aren’t the key.
 
In a word? No.

..I like my job, I have zero desire to stick my neck out and be on any reports being tabulated on out of the norm practices, I don’t want to be sued, and 1000mcgs as a bolus is likely just unnecessary, etc.
...because I don’t want the appearance of hastening death etc.
This, what you said, is very important. I won't form a definite opinion on whether he's guilty or innocent of murder without sitting in the jury box and hearing all the evidence. But the opinion I have formed, is that Husel's personality was that he was an extreme risk taker. He was comfortable with reckless extremes. He had poor judgement, to an extreme. Giving 10-20 times the dose of any drug, let alone an opiate, is extreme risk taking. It's asking for a target to put on your back, in my opinion.

Also, making a pipe bomb, storing it in your dorm, blowing it up on campus, then trying to frame another student for it by planting evidence in their car, also, all show poor judgement to the extreme, at a minimum.

"Applying for his Ohio state medical license in 2012 he is reported to have written: 'I learned my lesson and will never make those types of mistakes again.'"

Did he?
 
Hypothetical question.

Your PA comes to you and says, “Doc, I saw a patient in room 10. I bolused him with 2,000 mcg of fentanyl, then went to the lounge to get us a snack.”

Select your reaction below:

A) “Good job easing suffering,” you say. “Tell me more about him.”

B) “You did what?” you ask, as you hurry to the room to check if the patient is still alive.

C) Other. Explain answer____________.

Which did you choose and why?

D) charge them with murder
 
This, what you said, is very important. I won't form a definite opinion on whether he's guilty or innocent of murder without sitting in the jury box and hearing all the evidence. But the opinion I have formed, is that Husel's personality was that he was an extreme risk taker. He was comfortable with reckless extremes. He had poor judgement, to an extreme. Giving 10-20 times the dose of any drug, let alone an opiate, is extreme risk taking. It's asking for a target to put on your back, in my opinion.

Also, making a pipe bomb, storing it in your dorm, blowing it up on campus, then trying to frame another student for it by planting evidence in their car, also, all show poor judgement to the extreme, at a minimum.

"Applying for his Ohio state medical license in 2012 he is reported to have written: 'I learned my lesson and will never make those types of mistakes again.'"

Did he?
I for the most part agree with or understand everything you’re saying.

Being a “risk taker” as a character trait is not typically highly regarded let alone rewarded in medicine. This is at least part of the reason for diagnostic or treatment algorithms, protocols, and evidence based medicine. So I agree and do think that played into how he personally got to where he did.

I’m personally conflicted on his prior history. I can see both sides. Yes, he exhibited one episode (that we know of) where he did a very bad, anti-social thing, in his adolescent/young adult life. Is it a harbinger of things to come? Do we just write off anyone in society that does anything like that? Or only those going into “professional” fields? Nike executive Larry Miller literally killed another teen at 16yo for example.

By all accounts Husel went 15+ years without any other issue right? And that’s if you believe what he did in the ICU was criminal. Does that prior issue not taint the perception of him to the jury? I’m just not sure if A then B equals murderer here.

And this is just my anesthesia brain nitpicking but that 10-20x figure the quack stated is sensationalism to a fault. It’s alluding to the idea that nobody in their right mind or intent would ever give more than 100mcg of fentanyl for pain, terminal pain at that, and that’s just ludicrous. Every cath lab, EP lab, or IR procedure in this country starts with “2 and 2” of fentanyl/versed. And that’s for a couple groin sticks. On patients that were never on sedative continuous infusions. The idea that a dying patient you’re terminally extubating can’t possibly ever need more than 100mcgs is crazy to me. (Full disclosure; I’m not an Intensivist and I’m also not saying that 100mcgs can never be plenty or too much or that cath lab conditions aren’t called for too much fentanyl……..)
 
In a word? No.

But this is more because (other than not being an Intensivist/palliative care physician) I like my job, I have zero desire to stick my neck out and be on any reports being tabulated on out of the norm practices, I don’t want to be sued, and 1000mcgs as a bolus is likely just unnecessary, etc.

I don’t think pushing 250mcg x 4 q5min or maybe 500mcgs to tolerant pts is automatically criminal murder. Still, would I push 500mcg’s? Probably not. Again, because I don’t want the appearance of hastening death etc. Would I be comfortable titrating to effect quickly, in say 10min, even if that dose added up to 500+? Yes. Resoundingly so. But I would document personally present titration.

I just think the doses alone, as extraordinary as they are shouldn’t be considered criminal unless they clearly show criminal intent. Intent to relieve any and all discomfort, or the appearance of discomfort, in a much more hasty way as Husel did, while misguided to many I don’t think is AUTOMATICALLY murder. It’s clearly outside of standard of care, it’s likely to be found to be hastening death and therefore by the law and our ethics will be determined to be illegal. He’s screwed, he’ll never practice medicine again, and he’s seriously at risk of going to jail for a very long time.

Now I could be wrong and he could be a sociopath who either enjoyed euthanizing patients or liked his census to be absent of any he deemed unlikely to recover so he took things into his own hands. But as it stands now I choose to believe he had a misguided desire to absolutely insure no pain or suffering was shown and this somehow got positively reinforced into regularly giving huge doses. The fact I wouldn’t have pushed 500mcg+ doses does not disprove that his intent was relieving suffering to terminal patients or prove his intent was overtly malicious. It just implies his outlook, comfort level/narcissism, local hospital factors added up to his actions.

He very well may be the madman he’s portrayed as. Or not. The doses aren’t the key.

I think we agree on just about all of this, and I agree that the dose doesn't answer the question in and of itself, but I want to push back on the idea that we can never infer intent from a dose.

It's trivially easy for a pharmacist to guess what I'm treating from my ceftriaxone dose. Try it yourself:

Conditions: Gonorrhea, Meningitis, Pneumonia
Doses: 2 grams IV, 250mg IM, 1 gram IV
Can you match the dose to the intention?
 
Highly intelligent people can suffer from what are called blind spots.

"My-side" bias can lead to a blind spot, where one assumes that because they're around like-minded people, that everyone around them agrees with their viewpoint. But what happens if almost everyone agrees, and one or two don't, but you're not willing to see evidence of it?

Everyone around him might have agreed at 100mcg, they're easing suffering without hastening death. Everyone might have agreed at 200mcg. Everyone still, perhaps, at 500mcg. At 600mcg, are one or two starting to get uncomfortable? What about 500mcg q15 min x 4?

Then, 2,000 mcg happens. Suddenly, a switch flips. "Everyone agrees" becomes "almost everyone" agrees.

And everything changes.
 
I think we agree on just about all of this, and I agree that the dose doesn't answer the question in and of itself, but I want to push back on the idea that we can never infer intent from a dose.

It's trivially easy for a pharmacist to guess what I'm treating from my ceftriaxone dose. Try it yourself:

Conditions: Gonorrhea, Meningitis, Pneumonia
Doses: 2 grams IV, 250mg IM, 1 gram IV
Can you match the dose to the intention?

Can I? Maybe. I pretty much just give ancef or cefoxitin. Anything else and it’s outside my knowledge base.

I was really just referring to opioid analgesics that are inducible and given for a condition or sxs’s that are highly variable on a case by case/individual basis.
 
@dadaddadaBATMAN @Robotic Wis-Hipple

Would you have done was Husel did? If not, why not?

First, super impressed you spelled out that username. If I ever get logged out I’m gone forever

Second, robotic wis-hipple pretty much gave my response.

In a word? No.

I also think he is likely guilty of euthanizing these patients, which is illegal regardless of the ethical questions involved.

I personally follow a hierarchy in my decisions.

1. Will laws of physics get me in trouble (will I die in a car crash doing it, will it physically harm someone)
2. Will the laws of my county/state/country get me tossed in prison
3. Is it wrong or right

This one likely fails #1 and #2.

But they gotta prove it, and there’s a lot of missing info for beyond a reasonable doubt.

In a civil case he’s unquestionably screwed.
 
Highly intelligent people can suffer from what are called blind spots.

"My-side" bias can lead to a blind spot, where one assumes that because they're around like-minded people, that everyone around them agrees with their viewpoint. But what happens if almost everyone agrees, and one or two don't, but you're not willing to see evidence of it?

Everyone around him might have agreed at 100mcg, they're easing suffering without hastening death. Everyone might have agreed at 200mcg. Everyone still, perhaps, at 500mcg. At 600mcg, are one or two starting to get uncomfortable? What about 500mcg q15 min x 4?

Then, 2,000 mcg happens. Suddenly, a switch flips. "Everyone agrees" becomes "almost everyone" agrees.

And everything changes.
Yeah, I think he was much more likely to be a doc with initially good intentions but because of his personality was susceptible to the cultural milieu that was present in that hospital than he is a cold blooded sociopathic murderer in a white coat.
 
Can I? Maybe. I pretty much just give ancef or cefoxitin. Anything else and it’s outside my knowledge base.

I was really just referring to opioid analgesics that are inducible and given for a condition or sxs’s that are highly variable on a case by case/individual basis.
I did specify that a pharmacist could easily guess my intention in this case, not an anesthesiaologist. But I'd bet you could tell what I was trying to achieve if I ordered 0.6mg/kg of Roc vs 1.2mg/kg.
 
1. Will laws of physics get me in trouble (will I die in a car crash doing it, will it physically harm someone)
2. Will the laws of my county/state/country get me tossed in prison
3. Is it wrong or right

This one likely fails #1 and #2.

But they gotta prove it, and there’s a lot of missing info for beyond a reasonable doubt.

In a civil case he’s unquestionably screwed.

I don't think I've been able to articulately state my viewpoint as succinctly as what you said. I'm in general alignment with this view. There are plenty of patients I've seen that I know damn well are not served by "living" further. I'll aggressively bring up palliative care options or introduce the idea and leave a mention of it in my note to guide floor colleagues to move it further along. I do not have the iron-clad testicles of Husel to swap #1 for #3 and move the process along.
 
I did specify that a pharmacist could easily guess my intention in this case, not an anesthesiaologist. But I'd bet you could tell what I was trying to achieve if I ordered 0.6mg/kg of Roc vs 1.2mg/kg.
Yes, with NMBD’s I can absolutely infer purpose/intent with your ordered dose.

I still maintain, this analogy fares poorly and cannot be generalized to opioid analgesics. Or at the very least has a much much wider therapeutic window than typically acknowledged; i.e. until you start talking thousands of mcg’s in naive pts. The variance in pharmacodynamic clinical effect with a given dose quite simply varies widely among patients saying nothing of the pharmacokinetic, induction, and tolerance variances even among purely opioid naive patients. Whereas your antibiotic dose is more simply chosen based on desired blood concentration required to impact the nidus of infection and paralytics by and large are merely weight based dosing with the exception of minor liver, biliary, or renal insufficiency implications.

All of this is pedantic if he actually was pushing 2500mcg’s and calling TOD 10min later however.
 
Yes, with NMBD’s I can absolutely infer purpose/intent with your ordered dose.

I still maintain, this analogy fares poorly and cannot be generalized to opioid analgesics. Or at the very least has a much much wider therapeutic window than typically acknowledged; i.e. until you start talking thousands of mcg’s in naive pts. The variance in pharmacodynamic clinical effect with a given dose quite simply varies widely among patients saying nothing of the pharmacokinetic, induction, and tolerance variances even among purely opioid naive patients. Whereas your antibiotic dose is more simply chosen based on desired blood concentration required to impact the nidus of infection and paralytics by and large are merely weight based dosing with the exception of minor liver, biliary, or renal insufficiency implications.

All of this is pedantic if he actually was pushing 2500mcg’s and calling TOD 10min later however.
I think we agree.
 
I just want you all to know if I was ever in the situation of these patients, I don’t want 1,000 mcg of fentanyl, I want 1,000 meq of potassium in an adenosine push style.

B084AEF5-D108-4E7A-A1BB-509FACBCCAED.jpeg
 
Last edited:
I just want you all to know if I was ever in the situation of these patients, I don’t want 1,000 mcg of fentanyl, I want 1,000 meq of potassium in an adenosine push style.

View attachment 351735
I’d wager that’s quite uncomfortable for a minute or two. 1000ug fentanyl not so much.
 
I think we agree on just about all of this, and I agree that the dose doesn't answer the question in and of itself, but I want to push back on the idea that we can never infer intent from a dose.

It's trivially easy for a pharmacist to guess what I'm treating from my ceftriaxone dose. Try it yourself:

Conditions: Gonorrhea, Meningitis, Pneumonia
Doses: 2 grams IV, 250mg IM, 1 gram IV
Can you match the dose to the intention?
You're treating meningitis, gonorrhea like it's 2020, and pneumonia.

Current Gc/Ch treatment guidelines are 500mg CTX IM plus DC with doxycycline, no more 1g Azithro.
 
You're treating meningitis, gonorrhea like it's 2020, and pneumonia.

Current Gc/Ch treatment guidelines are 500mg CTX IM plus DC with doxycycline, no more 1g Azithro.
Is the switch from azithro to doxy for chlamydia coverage actually based on any evidence or reasoning? I've tried to research it and haven't found anything. I still like giving azithro in the ED, just don't think that many of these patients are reliable enough to fill a scrip.
 
Is the switch from azithro to doxy for chlamydia coverage actually based on any evidence or reasoning? I've tried to research it and haven't found anything. I still like giving azithro in the ED, just don't think that many of these patients are reliable enough to fill a scrip.
There are many trials showing greater cure rates with doxy than azithro. Azithro is still recommended in the "I can't be bothered" patient subset though.


Sorry for sidetracking. If anyone wants to discuss this further, I'll make a new thread and merge this over.
 
You're treating meningitis, gonorrhea like it's 2020, and pneumonia.

Current Gc/Ch treatment guidelines are 500mg CTX IM plus DC with doxycycline, no more 1g Azithro.
Figured that would've spoiled my original point, so I left it out, but I was wondering how long it would take till someone said that... 😆
 
I'm surprised the hospital didn't have a formal brain death determination protocol. Seems that the standard nationwide is need for two physicians to determine brain death, and most requires at least 24 hours between exams.
They have a policy, he didn't follow it because he was not treating brain dead patients. We know this because of all the references to palliative extubation which isn't what we call it when we extubate dead people (brain or otherwise).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top