Husel Trial -- NOT GUILTY

[neurodoc]

---

Members don't see this ad.

No one besides a few family members say brain death was ever brought up and those people never said it at the time, only after the investigation was in full force so I question the accuracy of their memory or perhaps their honesty about it.

It's very kind of you to imagine the family members are liars. Unfortunately Husel decided not to take the stand to testify that he never said that. If Husel is lucky the jury will take the same view as you do regarding the truth of these bereaved family members.

 

[Birdstrike]

It's very kind of you to imagine the family members are liars.

I know you were t replying to me, but on this subject:

Family members often do forget or don't hear much of what we say, especially if under stress and full of emotion. But when you use the ”brain dead” or "dead," in any form, they remember that. They know exactly what that means coming from a doctor and remember those words the rest of their life, even if they forget every other thing you ever said.

 

[Robotic Wis-Hipple]

It's very kind of you to imagine the family members are liars. Unfortunately Husel decided not to take the stand to testify that he never said that. If Husel is lucky the jury will take the same view as you do regarding the truth of these bereaved family members.

I’m not sure he’s saying family members are liars per se. But it’s well documented that clinical and consent discussions are extremely poorly remembered by patients and present family members.

Either way, I have a pretty good feeling that it’s believable that Husel was loosely utilizing the term brain dead, using it in its layman context to laymen with the purpose to persuade family to consent. Which is clearly immensely unethical and I think jurors are going to agree.

I’ve said a lot about the dosages and reserving judgement hoping the reporting was sensationalized, context was missing, or the patients were all extremes of tolerant. But that’s just a lot of multiplicative small chances. I think he’s toast. I don’t think they’ll get murder but he’ll get whatever the most severe homicide that doesn’t require willful intent is.

 

[AlmostAnMD]

They aren't "family members."

They are the recipient of multimillion dollar lawsuits with a clear motive to lie. Most of these people will never see a million dollars in their cumulative lifetime and now get millions in an instant.

Including one still pending which, as brought up in trial, would greatly benefit from a guilty verdict.

Would you lie for millions? Maybe not. Do you think everyone thinks that way? Personally I don't, which is why the phrase "I do not recall" was spoken over 100 times by the families on the stand. Sudden attacks of memory fog plagued them, how tragic.

 

[HemeOncHopeful19]

I know you were t replying to me, but on this subject:

Family members often do forget or don't hear much of what we say, especially if under stress and full of emotion. But when you use the ”brain dead” or "dead," in any form, they remember that. They know exactly what that means coming from a doctor and remember those words the rest of their life, even if they forget every other thing you ever said.

I honestly disagree with this based on the experiences I’ve had with multiple laymen friends who’ve run health care situations by me. I can EASILY see someone hearing “your father’s brain has been damaged and he has no chance of recovering meaningful function” as “they said daddy is brain dead!”

 

[Birdstrike]

They aren't "family members."

They are the recipient of multimillion dollar lawsuits with a clear motive to lie. Most of these people will never see a million dollars in their cumulative lifetime and now get millions in an instant.

Including one still pending which, as brought up in trial, would greatly benefit from a guilty verdict.

Would you lie for millions? Maybe not. Do you think everyone thinks that way? Personally I don't, which is why the phrase "I do not recall" was spoken over 100 times by the families on the stand. Sudden attacks of memory fog plagued them, how tragic.

I'm not sure lying changes anything. Aren't their millions are assured in the civil arena, where there is a low bar for guilt, regardless of the criminal verdict?

 

[dpmd]

It's very kind of you to imagine the family members are liars. Unfortunately Husel decided not to take the stand to testify that he never said that. If Husel is lucky the jury will take the same view as you do regarding the truth of these bereaved family members.

Actually I imagine they are remembering incorrectly OR lying about what they recollect. Sort of like how one family member claimed the patient had care withdrawn without it ever being discussed and then lo and behold admitted yeah it was discussed several times and that is why when th patient was extubated with them present they didn't raise any fuss.

 

[AlmostAnMD]

Actually I imagine they are remembering incorrectly OR lying about what they recollect. Sort of like how one family member claimed the patient had care withdrawn without it ever being discussed and then lo and behold admitted yeah it was discussed several times and that is why when th patient was extubated with them present they didn't raise any fuss.

That's the family that still has the suit pending. Yeah, there was a lot of BS from the daughter and the mom on the stand. They really have to ham it up. No matter how "evil" you portray husel absolutely no doctor would just go and withdraw care without telling anyone. The defense attorney asked her that question like five times and reminded her she's under oath when telling that line of BS.

In the background of all of this I think of myself more and more as a gold coin box from mario games. Families just need to keep hitting us again and again and money pops out

 

[Jabbed]

I'm not sure lying changes anything. Aren't their millions are assured in the civil arena, where there is a low bar for guilt, regardless of the criminal verdict?

Hardly, but a guilty criminal verdict all but assures an outcome for the plaintiff in civil court.

 

[thegenius]

Little old lady comes in after a GLF, concern for head trauma as she’s agitated, was on anticoagulation etc. You’re concerned for her safety and IV access during her scan. Do you push 10mg IV versed and send her off to CT why or why not? Do you expect her gas to be fine and for her to tolerate the bolus of versed for 15min of transport and scan?

I honestly can’t believe none of you have ever seen respiratory depression with versed, at any dose. I see it regularly.

I’ve never pushed 10 versed IV at once. Max is 5 if I recall. Little old lady would get the absolute minimum like 1 as needed until she sits still long enough for a CT

 

[Birdstrike]

Hardly, but a guilty criminal verdict all but assures an outcome for the plaintiff in civil court.

Upwards of 30 civil suits were filed against Husel and Mt. Carmel. I believe (somebody fact check me on this) all have already settled but one case, with totals in the tens of millions of dollars. You think all the dozens of plaintiffs witnesses are lying to help one holdout who's refusing to settle to bump their guaranteed millions up a bit?

cc @AlmostAnMD

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

Upwards of 30 civil suits were filed against Husel and Mt. Carmel. I believe (somebody fact check me on this) all have already settled but one case, with totals in the tens of millions of dollars. You think all the dozens of plaintiffs witnesses are lying to help one holdout who's refusing to settle to bump their guaranteed millions up a bit?

cc @AlmostAnMD

If it turns out the others are caught lying, seems a easy grounds to try and get the previous verdicts overturned.

 

[Birdstrike]

They aren't "family members."

They are the recipient of multimillion dollar lawsuits with a clear motive to lie.

Actually I imagine they are remembering incorrectly OR lying about what they recollect. Sort of like how one family member claimed ...

If it turns out the others are caught lying..

You guys think members of 15 families all lied in a conspiracy to frame Husel? That's the theory now?

Did they hack in the medical records to plant false doses of Versed 10 + fentanyl 2,000mg followed by death in 5 minutes?

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

You guys think members of 15 families all lied in a conspiracy to frame Husel? That's the theory now?

Did they hack in the medical records to plant false doses of Versed 10 + fentanyl 2,000mg followed by death in 5 minutes?

I didn't say anything about what I think. You asked a question, I answered it.

 

[Birdstrike]

Prosecutors have asked for the jury to be able to consider a lesser charge of reckless homicide on each of the 14 counts. The judge has not yet ruled on that issue. The outcome of the case could hinge on this decision.

 

[Jabbed]

They aren't "family members."

They are the recipient of multimillion dollar lawsuits with a clear motive to lie. Most of these people will never see a million dollars in their cumulative lifetime and now get millions in an instant.

Including one still pending which, as brought up in trial, would greatly benefit from a guilty verdict.

Would you lie for millions? Maybe not. Do you think everyone thinks that way? Personally I don't, which is why the phrase "I do not recall" was spoken over 100 times by the families on the stand. Sudden attacks of memory fog plagued them, how tragic.

Civil settlements in this case seem especially egregious. Every single patient was either assured of death or, at the absolute best, total dependent care. What are the economic damages?

 

[dpmd]

You guys think members of 15 families all lied in a conspiracy to frame Husel? That's the theory now?

Did they hack in the medical records to plant false doses of Versed 10 + fentanyl 2,000mg followed by death in 5 minutes?

There are some very specific things said that don't appear to match reality. Not everything, and not a conspiracy to set him up because it is only like two people who have said those things. Those two may fully believe what they said at the time but that doesn't make those things true (especially since one of those things was that the patient was made comfort care without family approval and the person who claimed that at one point later admitted that there was family approval. Was he lying or was his memory flawed? Only that person knows for sure but either way it was an untrue statement).

 

[Dred Pirate]

Civil settlements in this case seem especially egregious. Every single patient was either assured of death or, at the absolute best, total dependent care. What are the economic damages?

ironically you could argue an earlier death = less costs for the family.

 

[Apollyon]

ironically you could argue an earlier death = less costs for the family.

I don't recall where I saw/heard it, but, it was that some absurdly high number of dollars, either 1/3 or 1/2 of all Medicare dollars, are spent in the last 6 months of life.

 

[WilcoWorld]

I don't recall where I saw/heard it, but, it was that some absurdly high number of dollars, either 1/3 or 1/2 of all Medicare dollars, are spent in the last 6 months of life.

I recall it being 1/2

We do death wrong in the US, IMO

 

[Dred Pirate]

I don't recall where I saw/heard it, but, it was that some absurdly high number of dollars, either 1/3 or 1/2 of all Medicare dollars, are spent in the last 6 months of life.

End-Of-Life Care: A Challenge In Terms Of Costs And Quality - KFF Health News

The Medicare NewsGroup takes a long look at the issues surrounding end-of-life care within the American health care system with a series of stories.

khn.org

According to this it is 28%, but I honestly thought I remember hearing a lot higher percentage

 

[neurodoc]

one of those things was that the patient was made comfort care without family approval and the person who claimed that at one point later admitted that there was family approval. Was he lying or was his memory flawed? Only that person knows for sure but either way it was an untrue statement).

So what difference would that make? Being on comfort care is no justification for ending a patient's life with an overdose of fentanyl. THAT is what this case is about.

 

[dadaddadaBATMAN]

I recall it being 1/2

We do death wrong in the US, IMO

To be fair, so does Dr. Husel.

But our current system is ludicrous.

95yo M cad dm2 chf copd s/p multiple cvas with Trach peg suprapubic cath who is aaox0 and full code with a stage 4 sacral ulcer needs to not be a thing. It’s just cruel.

 

[dpmd]

So what difference would that make? Being on comfort care is no justification for ending a patient's life with an overdose of fentanyl. THAT is what this case is about.

What difference would it make if the doctor unilaterally made the patient comfort care without consulting family or against their wishes? Really?

 

[neurodoc]

What difference would it make if the doctor unilaterally made the patient comfort care without consulting family or against their wishes? Really?

You obviously missed my point, which is simply that their being on comfort care in no way excuses Dr. Husel killing (either on purpose or accidentally) those patients, and that is the main issue to be resolved by the jury. Whether or not he informed the families about the patients being on comfort care is (or at least seems to me) a lesser issue that would certainly not prompt charges of murder or manslaughter. From your numerous posts on this thread I already know you don't believe he was guilty of anything in his care of these patients and have been strongly advocating that position, which is just fine. The jury, and not you or I, will determine whether he's guilty or not.

 

[dpmd]

You obviously missed my point, which is simply that their being on comfort care in no way excuses Dr. Husel killing (either on purpose or accidentally) those patients, and that is the main issue to be resolved by the jury. Whether or not he informed the families about the patients being on comfort care is (or at least seems to me) a lesser issue that would certainly not prompt charges of murder or manslaughter. From your numerous posts on this thread I already know you don't believe he was guilty of anything in his care of these patients and have been strongly advocating that position, which is just fine. The jury, and not you or I, will determine whether he's guilty or not.

I don't know what to say if you don't think extubating a vent dependent patient without having discussed it with family (or doing it against their wishes without a court order or the support of ethics committee) is worse ethically and legally than providing any dose of pain medication to a dying patient. I think that would be more reasonable to result in criminal charges than doses of pain meds to an actively dying patient.

 

[Birdstrike]

95yo M cad dm2 chf copd s/p multiple cvas with Trach peg suprapubic cath who is aaox0 and full code with a stage 4 sacral ulcer needs to not be a thing. It’s just cruel.

Here is where the disconnect is. We ALL AGREE, that this scenario where the 95yo you describe, being keep in a suffering state while providing futile care that prolongs the suffering against their will, should not happen. Where we disagree, is that some of you think a single physician should be '007, licensed to kill' marching around unilaterally 'ending that suffering' with lethal doses of medication, without the consent of the patient, without the consent of their decision maker, without the consent of society and without the consent of the law. The rest of us, don't.

 

[IMGASMD]

You obviously missed my point, which is simply that their being on comfort care in no way excuses Dr. Husel killing (either on purpose or accidentally) those patients, and that is the main issue to be resolved by the jury. Whether or not he informed the families about the patients being on comfort care is (or at least seems to me) a lesser issue that would certainly not prompt charges of murder or manslaughter. From your numerous posts on this thread I already know you don't believe he was guilty of anything in his care of these patients and have been strongly advocating that position, which is just fine. The jury, and not you or I, will determine whether he's guilty or not.

The four Principles for medical ethics: autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, and justice.
We in this country champions autonomy, as we can see during the pandemic. It’s my body, no one else can tell me what to do with it, even if it kills me, even if it may hurt someone else, even if it takes an icu bed from someone else. At the same time, we throw all other three out the door.

I am not critical care trained, raised catholic, and personally have never given 1mg of fentanyl to any patients. I’ve also seen patients who are terminally extubated who linger on for hours if not days; or family member come out of the room and ask me if their loved one is in fact dead.

Is 12 lay people jury the best group to determine Husel’s fate/intention? Perhaps that’s why the we spent the last 30 posts debating on lay people’s understanding of brain death. I stop defining “general anesthesia” to my patients or even my surgical colleagues anymore. If highly educated surgeons/proceduralists who are “seeing” anesthetized patients everyday cannot understand, how do you expect distressed patient to “really” understand. Let along, people who are experiencing distress (family dying) to understand what the proper definition of brain death is?

 

[turkeyjerky]

Civil settlements in this case seem especially egregious. Every single patient was either assured of death or, at the absolute best, total dependent care. What are the economic damages?

Economic damages--lost SSI checks. Majority for punitive damages for the loss of watching "Meemaw" gasp for an extra 15 minutes.

 

[neurodoc]

I don't know what to say if you don't think extubating a vent dependent patient without having discussed it with family (or doing it against their wishes without a court order or the support of ethics committee) is worse ethically and legally than providing any dose of pain medication to a dying patient. I think that would be more reasonable to result in criminal charges than doses of pain meds to an actively dying patient.

I have to wonder whether you really don 't get what I've said or if you are willfully misrepresenting and distorting it to make it seem like you have a valid objection. I am not talking about providing any dose of pain medication. And, yes, the other things you mentioned are ethically questionable, but I think (or at least hope) you'd agree that killing someone with an OD of pain meds is worse ethically that those other things. And please don't repeat the mantra that these were all patients who would have died of their diseases, which of course was the claim of the sole defense expert. They might well have eventually died of their diseases, but the question before the jury is did Dr. Husel effectively euthanize them. From reading this thread I get the sense that there are quite a few posters who seem to believe euthanasia is morally or ethically OK. As has been noted several times in this thread euthanasia is illegal homicide.

If that's what some people think, they should come right out and say that here on this forum rather than obfuscating the point. Which gets me to wonder whether or not Dr. Husel ever expressed any opinions about putting dying patients out of their misery. Since he decided not to testify the prosecution never got to ask him directly whether he thought it was OK to administer intravenous coup de grace to his patients.

 

[Robotic Wis-Hipple]

Here is where the disconnect is. We ALL AGREE, that this scenario where the 95yo you describe, being keep in a suffering state while providing futile care that prolongs the suffering against their will, should not happen. Where we disagree, is that some of you think a single physician should be '007, licensed to kill' marching around unilaterally 'ending that suffering' with lethal doses of medication, without the consent of the patient, without the consent of their decision maker, without the consent of society and without the consent of the law. The rest of us, don't.

Well, if there ever was no consent of the patient/family then it’s open and shut. Or if he coerced said consent with preemptive or misleading “brain dead” statements he’s guilty as he used grossly unethical methods to get his will.

However if there WAS consent of the patient/family and Husel decided or simply interpreted this to be more favorably done as a quick act I think it’s semantics and though I recognize it’s illegal by the letter of the law I don’t see him as a 007 assassin. In fact I hope society can get to the point where when I’m there I’m not limited to 25-50mcg of fentanyl q15 min because some joker witness set the standard to insure nobody hastened my demise.

 

[WilcoWorld]

I hope society can get to the point where when I’m there I’m not limited to 25-50mcg of fentanyl q15 min because some joker witness set the standard to insure nobody hastened my demise.

I think a point I've been struggling to make here is that it doesn't have to be EITHER 1000mcg boluses OR 25mcg q15min. There's a better way, and that's attentive and deliberate titration of opioids, starting with a dose determined by the individual patient's characteristics - preferrably in a PCA pump operated by a trained nurse or doc at the bedside. This is how compassionate extubations are done with palliative care, and the families almost unanimously perceive their loved ones to have "died a good death" when this is done.

 

[Southpaw]

Here is where the disconnect is. We ALL AGREE, that this scenario where the 95yo you describe, being keep in a suffering state while providing futile care that prolongs the suffering against their will, should not happen. Where we disagree, is that some of you think a single physician should be '007, licensed to kill' marching around unilaterally 'ending that suffering' with lethal doses of medication, without the consent of the patient, without the consent of their decision maker, without the consent of society and without the consent of the law. The rest of us, don't.

You and I have read different threads. I haven't seen anyone who's sympathetic to Dr. Husel's plight of being charged with 14 counts of murder put forth a 007-like defense. No one believes it's okay to kill patients left and right or any of the other nonsense you said. However, just about everyone here also thinks too many financial and human resources are geared towards end of life care. Most of us here also hope that we die outside of the hospital, and that we don't want a lot of the life prolonging care that we give to patients who no longer have the ability to actuallly enjoy life.

We all know that as the law is currently written he practiced outside of it in some fashion. There are however posters, and I am one of them, who believe he didn't commit murder because the reality is that as far as I can tell those those patients had already been sentenced to die by God and were actively in the dying process. And I honestly believe every single one of the families believed that also. And every single nurse, pharmacist, and physician colleague of Dr. Husel believed the same.

 

[Robotic Wis-Hipple]

I think a point I've been struggling to make here is that it doesn't have to be EITHER 1000mcg boluses OR 25mcg q15min. There's a better way, and that's attentive and deliberate titration of opioids, starting with a dose determined by the individual patient's characteristics - preferrably in a PCA pump operated by a trained nurse or doc at the bedside. This is how compassionate extubations are done with palliative care, and the families almost unanimously perceive their loved ones to have "died a good death" when this is done.

Oh of course. I don’t think that’s lost on anyone. Titration to effect is the way it should be. But FAST titration to effect.

Not overly restrictive dosing at intervals that are oh so safe to the point of allowing for suffering because hospital protocols, legal ramifications, and social or family stigma are afraid of and willing to punish the provider with homicide if there’s the appearance of hastening patient death. And let’s face it, the argument that the death is hastened with this rapid, even patient controlled analgesia, could always be made. So my fear is the social and legal overreaction leading to structuring of optimal safety but suboptimal comfort care protocols and patient suffering in their last hours.

How many patients going through comfort care/terminal extubations in his old hospital will be receiving suboptimal dosing over the next 5 years would you imagine? I’d wager most. Is that justice for these future patients?

His way was clearly not the way, but there has got to be a better way and as a society we need to allow for that rather than litigate and criminalize everyone until everything is safe to the point of family controlled torture.

 

[DrSnips]

From reading this thread I get the sense that there are quite a few posters who seem to believe euthanasia is morally or ethically OK. As has been noted several times in this thread euthanasia is illegal homicide.

Ethics and legality are not equivalent. The progression of civil rights in our country has often depended on people who were willing to do the ethical thing, even when it was illegal. It seems to me like Husel violated the letter of the law, but whether what he did was unethical depends on if he actually misrepresented to families the condition of the patient or his care plan.

 

[dpmd]

Ethics and legality are not equivalent. The progression of civil rights in our country has often depended on people who were willing to do the ethical thing, even when it was illegal. It seems to me like Husel violated the letter of the law, but whether what he did was unethical depends on if he actually misrepresented to families the condition of the patient or his care plan.

He only violated the letter of the law for murder at least if his only reason for selecting the dose he did was to kill the patient. If he selected the dose to ensure comfort then the doctrine of double effect means he was practicing medicine. Some feel he was practicing it poorly regardless of his intent but then the question is whether it was poorly practiced enough to become criminal. I mean think about it. We hasten death every time we terminally extubate and stop pressors. Should we have to worry that every time we do this after ascertaining it is what the patient would have wanted we might still get a criminal charge because someone believes there is no circumstance where hastening death is OK?

 

[DrSnips]

Should we have to worry that every time we do this after ascertaining it is what the patient would have wanted we might still get a criminal charge because someone believes there is no circumstance where hastening death is OK?

No, we shouldn't have to worry about this. Regardless of the outcome of this case, it will only serve to lead to more suffering for our end-of-life patients, because now we know that a colleague will testify against us for using more than 50mcg of fentanyl at once.

 

[neurodoc]

Ethics and legality are not equivalent. The progression of civil rights in our country has often depended on people who were willing to do the ethical thing, even when it was illegal. It seems to me like Husel violated the letter of the law, but whether what he did was unethical depends on if he actually misrepresented to families the condition of the patient or his care plan.

If you read what I said you will note I referred to the moral or ethical evaluation of euthanasia. There is a difference between morals and ethics. Both terms relate to "right" or "wrong" behavior, but ethics refers to rules of conduct provided by a source external to the individual, e.g. by "society." That includes religious, professional, and governmental organizations. These rules are generally referred as "codes of conduct," "regulations," or "laws." Civil and criminal laws are therefore a form of "ethics" (as opposed to "morals"), and my point is that euthanasia is "illegal" and therefore unethical. What you are describing should be more accurately called morality. And yes, I know that some folks make a distinction between "law" and "ethics" but in fact they are making a distinction between law and morality. Feel free to disagree, but at least try to understand the point I'm making.

 

[DrSnips]

If you read what I said you will note I referred to the moral or ethical evaluation of euthanasia. There is a difference between morals and ethics. Both terms relate to "right" or "wrong" behavior, but ethics refers to rules of conduct provided by a source external to the individual, e.g. by "society." That includes religious, professional, and governmental organizations. These rules are generally referred as "codes of conduct," "regulations," or "laws." Civil and criminal laws are therefore a form of "ethics" (as opposed to "morals"), and my point is that euthanasia is "illegal" and therefore unethical. What you are describing should be more accurately called morality. And yes, I know that some folks make a distinction between "law" and "ethics" but in fact they are making a distinction between law and morality. Feel free to disagree, but at least try to understand the point I'm making.

You implied that those who stated euthanasia is morally OK are incorrect because it is illegal. I don't think I misunderstood your point.

 

[WilcoWorld]

Oh of course. I don’t think that’s lost on anyone. Titration to effect is the way it should be. But FAST titration to effect.

Not overly restrictive dosing at intervals that are oh so safe to the point of allowing for suffering because hospital protocols, legal ramifications, and social or family stigma are afraid of and willing to punish the provider with homicide if there’s the appearance of hastening patient death. And let’s face it, the argument that the death is hastened with this rapid, even patient controlled analgesia, could always be made. So my fear is the social and legal overreaction leading to structuring of optimal safety but suboptimal comfort care protocols and patient suffering in their last hours.

How many patients going through comfort care/terminal extubations in his old hospital will be receiving suboptimal dosing over the next 5 years would you imagine? I’d wager most. Is that justice for these future patients?

His way was clearly not the way, but there has got to be a better way and as a society we need to allow for that rather than litigate and criminalize everyone until everything is safe to the point of family controlled torture.

That's where the well established principle of double effect comes in. I can defend my FAST titration with that principle, even when my doses aren't "safe" because my intent is to relieve suffering rather than hasten death, and someone who practices end of life care will be able to ascertain that from my actions.

I think you and I generally agree. Except that I worry Husel was not operating under the principle of double effect, because his doses were disproportional to relief of pain/dyspnea, and that our defending his actions could undermine the public's confidence in good palliative care. So it appears that where you and I differ is in our speculation of how the public will react to our reactions - I'm happy to admit that this is so speculative I'm not willing to stake much claim on it.

 

[WilcoWorld]

He only violated the letter of the law for murder at least if his only reason for selecting the dose he did was to kill the patient. If he selected the dose to ensure comfort then the doctrine of double effect means he was practicing medicine. Some feel he was practicing it poorly regardless of his intent but then the question is whether it was poorly practiced enough to become criminal. I mean think about it. We hasten death every time we terminally extubate and stop pressors. Should we have to worry that every time we do this after ascertaining it is what the patient would have wanted we might still get a criminal charge because someone believes there is no circumstance where hastening death is OK?

I think you've got this quite wrong, and I don't want others to think that you are accurately describing the relevant ethics here. I also am of the impression, based on your posts in this thread, that if I post an explanation that you will intentionally misunderstand and/or misconstrue my words, so I'll choose not to do so.

 

[neurodoc]

You implied that those who stated euthanasia is morally OK are incorrect because it is illegal. I don't think I misunderstood your point.

What I said was: From reading this thread I get the sense that there are quite a few posters who seem to believe euthanasia is morally or ethically OK. As has been noted several times in this thread euthanasia is illegal homicide. I didn't imply "that those who stated euthanasia is morally OK are incorrect because it is illegal." You inferred that. This is what I mean about people misinterpreting statements to mislead. Some folks here may feel euthanasia is morally ok, and if that's the case I believe they should just come out and say so. To those who think it's ethically OK, I pointed out that euthanasia is illegal. If you are confused about this, see my previous post. Actually, I don't know if you're confused or just being argumentative. I doubt that further discussion on this particular issue will be of any value to folks here, so I won't have anything more to say about it, even you try to bait me to respond, so I'd suggest don't bother.

 

[DrSnips]

You inferred that.

Yes, and I think it was a logical inference based on what you said.

I won't have anything more to say about it.

That sounds fantastic, I'm holding you to that.

 

[Birdstrike]

Some folks here may feel euthanasia is morally ok, and if that's the case I believe they should just come out and say so. To those who think it's ethically OK, I pointed out that euthanasia is illegal.

The logic people are using is this: They believe euthanasia is morally ok. They also realize it's illegal, and therefore homicide. That creates cognitive dissonance; simultaneously believing something is homicide, yet 'morally okay.' It's very uncomfortable simultaneously being in favor of something 'morally ok' and also technically homicide (euthanasia). They also can't reconcile seeing someone being severely punished for an act that 'morally okay,' no matter how severe the violation in legal terms. Therefore the brain takes the easy way out and does everything it can to delete, minimize, ignore and rationalize the 'illegal' and 'homicide' parts.

90% of our decision are made very quickly first based on emotion. Then as the facts are revealed our brains pick and choose which facts to use as building blocks to support our initial snap decision. We all do this.

Read the book, Influence, by Robert Cialdini.

 

[Birdstrike]

Looking ahead: If Husel is convicted of even a single murder or even a reduced reckless homicide charge, we know what's in store for him. But let's say he's found not guilty on all counts. What happens next?

Does he somehow get a license somewhere? I seriously doubt Ohio would give it back to him. They already suspended it fully. Does some far away state, short on docs, or perhaps where physician assisted suicide is legal, wipe the slate clean and give him a license, allowing him to attempt to rebuild some semblance of his pre-arrest life?

Does he end up having to go to some other country in Europe or Canada, where euthanasia is legal?

Or does he face irreparable financial ruin, only able to work menial jobs, even if found innocent?

Thoughts?

 

[narcusprince]

He sues the pants off the hospital for 30 million. Moves to a country that doesn’t know what happened and raises his children.

 

[Robotic Wis-Hipple]

He sues the pants off the hospital for 30 million. Moves to a country that doesn’t know what happened and raises his children.

He’s gonna owe millions in civil court. He can sue the hospital, probably settle and pay some of his civil cases. But he’s not getting a license back and not working in medicine again.

 

[Señor S]

Looking ahead: If Husel is convicted of even a single murder or even a reduced reckless homicide charge, we know what's in store for him. But let's say he's found not guilty on all counts. What happens next?

Does he somehow get a license somewhere? I seriously doubt Ohio would give it back to him. They already suspended it fully. Does some far away state, short on docs, or perhaps where physician assisted suicide is legal, wipe the slate clean and give him a license, allowing him to attempt to rebuild some semblance of his pre-arrest life?

Does he end up having to go to some other country in Europe or Canada, where euthanasia is legal?

Or does he face irreparable financial ruin, only able to work menial jobs, even if found innocent?

Thoughts?

Even if he somehow managed to get his license back or get a new license somewhere I cannot imagine anyone employing him. He’s radioactive at this point. I also don’t see how he has any claim against the hospital or anyone else. All the judgments against him he’ll probably never pay a penny on, so there’s that at least. Realistically he’s cut off from medicine or any other highly-paid occupation. If I were him I’d move somewhere remote (this will probably have to be in the US, his prior record and all the murder indictments would be a bar to immigration basically anywhere IMO) and just try to forget about society as much as I can.

I’d he shocked if he doesn’t get convicted of something, but the damage to his name and reputation has already been done regardless.

 

[thegenius]

I recall it being 1/2

We do death wrong in the US, IMO

100% agree, as is with most of what you write as well.
We physicians basically do whatever families want us to do, whether patients are sick or not sick.
Interesting that we tend to push back more when patients are "not sick."
But when patients are extremely sick and the odds are overwhelmingly against their survival, it is very hard for doctors to "just say no, no more."

 

[thegenius]

To be fair, so does Dr. Husel.

But our current system is ludicrous.

95yo M cad dm2 chf copd s/p multiple cvas with Trach peg suprapubic cath who is aaox0 and full code with a stage 4 sacral ulcer needs to not be a thing. It’s just cruel.

Take out the 95yo. The sentence is still true.

Actually...ramdonly remove 3 of any of the chronic medical conditions and the sentence remains true!

95yo M cad dm2 chf copd s/p multiple cvas with Trach peg suprapubic cath who is aaox0 and full code with a stage 4 sacral ulcer needs to not be a thing. It’s just cruel.

Still true.