Katrina "Euthanasia" Murder Indictments
I thought this would turn out to be an urban legend, but one doctor and two nurses have now been arrested for second degree murder, apparently arising out of their alleged intentional overdosing of patients in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. I am not ready to draw any larger lessons from this episode about euthanasia advocacy or what has been called the culture of death. But we should watch these cases closely to see what the defendants have to say, if anything, about their alleged criminal conduct.
posted by Wesley J. Smith @ 8:45 AM
19 Comments
19 Comments:
I don't expect any of them to be convicted. They did the only humane and compassionate thing. The alternative would be to let them die through neglect. It would be immoral to deny them peace in the only possible way under those circumstances.
They'd never get convicted, in the same way that Phillip Nitschke would never get convicted. We all know how long it took for Kevorkian to get convicted, and that's only because the jury was instructed not to invoke jury nullification.
Winston Jen,
We don't know whether or not they would have died through neglect. Further, that does not justify intentionally taking the lives of these people, if that is what happened.
You also misread Louisiana, in my opinion. Its citizens are among the most pro-life in the United States. I doubt that jury nullification will happen in this case in that particular State.
Winston Jen, taking someone's life is against the law. Why can't you just deal with that?
Hey, my neighbor is grossly overweight, always short on cash, disagrees constantly with her husband and has a car that insists on breaking down on her every other month.
Wouldn't the merciful thing be to just take her out of her misery? How immoral and neglectful it would be to let the poor soul go on like this. After all, I wouldn't want to live like that.
Stop excusing murder and grow up. Laws are laws. Deal.
"Winston Jen, taking someone's life is against the law. Why can't you just deal with that?"
REALLY, now? How about in these cases?
http://www.mindprod.com/humanrights/euthanasia.html
Any circumstances? You right wingers often make exceptions for:
Killing in war: even when the person killed objects most strenuously.
Capital punishment: even when the person executed objects strenuously.
Homosexuals: Leviticus says it is your duty to kill them.
Whaling: killing whales and dolphins, even though they have superior intelligence to us.
Childbirth: It is ok to kill a child in order to save the mother's life.
Abortion:
Self defense: or defense of a third party.
SWAT: when a SWAT team kills a sniper.
If you're going to oppose assisted suicide and VE, start by opposing the death penalty. Hypocrite.
"Hey, my neighbor is grossly overweight, always short on cash, disagrees constantly with her husband and has a car that insists on breaking down on her every other month.
Wouldn't the merciful thing be to just take her out of her misery? How immoral and neglectful it would be to let the poor soul go on like this. After all, I wouldn't want to live like that."
She probably wants to live. You don't have a right to help her die without her permission, and neither does anyone else.
"Stop excusing murder and grow up. Laws are laws. Deal."
You grow up. The only reasons that referrendums fail in the US is because voting is optional, and because the anti-choice, pro-suffering lobby has more money than their opponents.
If there really WAS public opposition to assisted suicide and VE, Kevorkian would have been convicted much earlier. He wasn't. You lose, bucko.
I say we don't prejudge the case.
Fine with me. I'm pretty certain that acquittals would occur, though.
If we jailed doctors who have practiced euthanasia, society would lose 30-40% of all doctors.
Oh, baloney.
winston jen, not all prolife people believe it's OK to kill 'homosexuals'.
I'm a lesbian and prolife.
I suffer from an autism spectrum disorder. If you kill me you will spare me suffering (because life is suffering) but if someone come after me with that poison shot I'll smack him with a ball peen hammer
You say it's wrong to kill people without their permission--- are you saying that the possible euthanasia victims gave their permission? Do you have evidence to that effect? If you do, CNN will want to put you on TV.
Do you dispute the anonymous surveys that indicate that most doctors approve of it, and quite a large number have already done it, even though it's illegal.
37% of physicians who look after AIDS patients would be unlikely assist a patient with established AIDS to commit suicide but 48% said they would be likely to do so (see reference 40). 48% of 1355 physicians in Washington state agree that euthanasia is never ethically justified but 33% said they would be willing to perform euthanasia (see reference 8). 40% of 1119 Michigan physicians involved in the care of terminally ill patients were in favor of legalization of assisted suicide and 17% favored prohibition of assisted suicide. 22% of physicians would participate in either assisted suicide or euthanasia (see reference 7).
Read Angels of Death for more information:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0300094396/sr=8-1/qid=1153278213/ref=sr_1_1/102-6064565-4829713?ie=UTF8
"winston jen, not all prolife people believe it's OK to kill 'homosexuals'.
I'm a lesbian and prolife."
I was using an extreme example to show that most "pro-lifers" are only pro-life when it suits them.
"I suffer from an autism spectrum disorder. If you kill me you will spare me suffering (because life is suffering) but if someone come after me with that poison shot I'll smack him with a ball peen hammer"
Good for you. Killing people without their permission is wrong. Killing them when they have SAID THEY WANT TO LIVE is even worse.
"You say it's wrong to kill people without their permission--- are you saying that the possible euthanasia victims gave their permission? Do you have evidence to that effect? If you do, CNN will want to put you on TV."
I never said that, but I doubt they consented to being forced to suffer in a situation where medical resources are already stretched very thinly.
"'This is not euthanasia. This is homicide,' Attorney General Charles Foti told reporters. 'We're talking about people that pretended that maybe they were God.'"
This is the case that is being levied against the doctor and two nurses.
"'They were not receiving these drugs on any routine basis,'" Foti said of the patients, ages 61, 66, 89 and 90. 'When you use both of these drugs, it becomes a lethal cocktail and it guarantees you're going to die.'"
The Attorney General is levying these charges because, according to him, they weren't receiving any care prior to the injection. Obviously, the materials and methodology used are obviously also under question.
Due to the circumstances of Katrina, it is quite likely that these medical practioners felt the inability to effectively do their job. Consequently, it could be assumed that this stress provided the basis for euthanising these patients, not necessarily the patients suffering. Ultimately, the article didn't specify , but given the circumstances of Katrina, it is quite likely that the events transpired as such, or in a similar fashion.
This is the kind of thing those of us who don't support the legalization of euthanasia are concerned about Winston. Personally, I'm not necessarily concerned about the "sanctity of life" as much as I am the control that is relinquished by one person, especially since the nature of suffering can be so subjective. Since it is subjective, it is up for interpretation, and therefore it is easily exploitable by legal means. I hope I've been reasonably lucid in this post, if I haven't please let me know so I can clarify my points. Thanks.
"This is the kind of thing those of us who don't support the legalization of euthanasia are concerned about Winston. Personally, I'm not necessarily concerned about the "sanctity of life" as much as I am the control that is relinquished by one person, especially since the nature of suffering can be so subjective. Since it is subjective, it is up for interpretation, and therefore it is easily exploitable by legal means. I hope I've been reasonably lucid in this post, if I haven't please let me know so I can clarify my points. Thanks."
It's already being exploited NOW. The law has more holes than swiss cheese. Doctors can starve patients without their permission, and they can give lethal doses of morphine without consent, as long as they lie about their intentions and "justify" it as having a palliative benefit.
There is little consideeration for patient desires and consent.
Winston Jen:
"She probably wants to live. You don't have a right to help her die without her permission, and neither does anyone else.
Likewise, it's not okay for a doctor to help people die without their permission.
And, I'm not a right-winger, but don't let that stop you from your frothing. It's entertaining.
Winston, I understand that doctors have the ability to starve patients and give lethal injections of morphine, even against the patients will. Like I said before on the matter, this is medical malpractice and punishable by the law. There was no disagreement on this point.
You have highlighted a chief concern of mine regarding the legalization of voluntary euthanasia. If you could please address how you or others intend to regulate voluntary euthanasia and assisted suicide in a manner that patients couldn't be taken advantage of, I might reach some kind of agreement with you.
I also suggest you read this article. Personally, I find it somewhat biased but I think there is some validity contained in the article: http://www.dyingwell.com/prnh.htm
Very funny, Deep Toad.
I also said it was wrong to force or allow people to suffer without their consent. When a doctor can no longer cure someone, their duty is to reduce their suffering. When patients cannot say "yes" or "no", I think it is up to the doctor to use his or her best judgement.
You're entertaining too, DT.
You're associated with Fred Phelps and others on FSTDT.
Dan:
"Winston, I understand that doctors have the ability to starve patients and give lethal injections of morphine, even against the patients will. Like I said before on the matter, this is medical malpractice and punishable by the law. There was no disagreement on this point."
It's not "malpractice". Doctors are protected by the "double effect excuse" so long as they claim it was for "palliative" purposes and the patient dies over several hours. Medical paternalism wins over patient autonomy yet again!
"You have highlighted a chief concern of mine regarding the legalization of voluntary euthanasia. If you could please address how you or others intend to regulate voluntary euthanasia and assisted suicide in a manner that patients couldn't be taken advantage of, I might reach some kind of agreement with you."
It would be regulated by PROHIBITING starvation and lethal doses of morphine without the patient's consent. I consider killing people who have said they want to live to be murder, as do most supporters of VE.
"I also suggest you read this article. Personally, I find it somewhat biased but I think there is some validity contained in the article: http://www.dyingwell.com/prnh.htm "
Interesting article.
Still, prohibiting PAS won't stop patients from committing suicide. They'll simply die sooner (and more violently, possibly hurting innocent bystanders) rather than risk being one of the 10% that palliative care cannot help.
Winston:
"It's not "malpractice". Doctors are protected by the "double effect excuse" so long as they claim it was for "palliative" purposes and the patient dies over several hours. Medical paternalism wins over patient autonomy yet again!"
Could you provide me a source where a doctor has successfully defended VE with the "double effect excuse? It's believable, I'm just slightly wary of that statement. I guess I fail to see how the Doctrine of Double Effect would successfully apply to these circumstances.
"It would be regulated by PROHIBITING starvation and lethal doses of morphine without the patient's consent. I consider killing people who have said they want to live to be murder, as do most supporters of VE."
I assumed that the point I wanted to address was understood. Sorry, I'll clarify: The fact that patients can easily be taken advantage of in the current system is a concern of mine. I am quite concerned in a system which allows VE and PAS that the physicians understanding of the patients suffering can override what the patient is actually suffering. The consequences of a system where doctors can manipulate patients - and vice versa - needs to be addressed in order for me to feel like this system can work.
Dan:
"Could you provide me a source where a doctor has successfully defended VE with the "double effect excuse? It's believable, I'm just slightly wary of that statement. I guess I fail to see how the Doctrine of Double Effect would successfully apply to these circumstances."
You raise a fair point. In 1999, a British doctor by the name of David Moor was charged with causing the death of his patient, George Liddell.
Dr. Moor admitted performing "slow euthanasia" (terminal sedation). Despite confessing to his INTENTION to kill his terminally ill patient, the jury acquitted him after 69 minutes of deliberations.
http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/318/7191/1095/a
"A general practitioner in England who admitted in media interviews that he had helped terminally ill patients to die was in the dock at Newcastle Crown Court this week on trial for murder.
Dr David Moor's foray into the euthanasia debate nearly two years ago has brought him face to face with the possibility of an automatic life sentence if found guilty of the murder of 85 year old retired ambulanceman George Liddell in July 1997 with a large dose of diamorphine."
Another source - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/340901.stm
In the case of the New Orleans disaster, it is likely that the doctors saw no other way to relieve suffering other than death. Their resources were extremely scarce.
"I assumed that the point I wanted to address was understood. Sorry, I'll clarify: The fact that patients can easily be taken advantage of in the current system is a concern of mine. I am quite concerned in a system which allows VE and PAS that the physicians understanding of the patients suffering can override what the patient is actually suffering. The consequences of a system where doctors can manipulate patients - and vice versa - needs to be addressed in order for me to feel like this system can work."
You're right - the current system is open to abuses because doctors, not patients, have more power over the patient's last weeks and months. Nonvoluntary and involuntary euthanasia increase when there is insufficient resources for palliative care. Those are much greater dangers.
Odd how double effect was argued successfully...
My concerns aren't with the current system, they are with the system you are proposing.
This is very short and indirect, sorry.
That's all right.
In reality, the prohibition on euthanasia is as effective as the prohibition on alcohol was.
All it does is make it difficult for those who really want it to have access to it, and it makes it accessible to the rich who can find the right doctor or travel to Switzerland.
And relying on "intentions" for the double-effect doctrine is very problematic. It cannot be verified, so all we have is the word of the doctor. Surely written consent from the patient would be better.
Post a Comment
<< Home