Say Anything Blog

What the hell is a “deadly cocktail” the name obviously being a media spin?  Does anyone know what the real contents of this infamous drink?  Were these really mercy killings or something else?

The Supreme Court is a bunch of black robed tyrants

I cannot imagine any humane person could leave an animal to slowly die or drown in the 105 degree heat, let alone another human. I believe these were absolutely desperate circumstances and Dr Anna Pou did what she felt was best for those patients.
Not only the heat, humidity, and vile waste water they were in, these patients had no means of electricity or drinking water. Their supply of desperately needed pain meds would run out if they were even able bodied enough to administer it to themselves for relief.
If that was my mother I would be thanking the dr for risking what she did in order to give her terminally ill patient the comfort of dying peacefully. I watched as my Mom died, but if I had to think of her suffering the fate those patients were facing I would be haunted the rest of my life.
Unlike the other Katrina victims that suffered so many days with an agonizing and torturing death, at least Dr Anna Pou’s patients were fortunate to have the dignity and kindness of a lethal cocktail.

docdave, I’ve heard there are different types but the one I am aware of is first an anesthetic mixture of a drug Diprivan and sodium thiopintal, for complete loss of sensation and consciousness and then next pancurinium bromide, which paralyzes all muscles including those needed to breathe and then finally potassium chloride, which stops the heart and causes cardiac arrest.

Anna,

The scenario you portray is a difficult one no doubt, but not necessarily accurate. It appears the nurses consciences were not clean in the matter.  It appears they testified in exchange for immunity.

“I’m not giving tax cuts for the rich.”

—Discussion with media, reported in “Bush, McCain Snip Over
Tax Cut Plans,” Los Angeles Times, and “GOP Rivals Bicker on Taxes,”
Washington Post, Jan. 5, 2000.

HG, Considering the patients would have died when the staff left, I feel either way they would have had charges brought up against them. Except, the alternative charges to mercy killing would be extremely difficult for society to tolerate and most likely, the maximum sentence possible would be demanded.

These people have become targets of Louisiana prosecutors. It’s a case of you’re damned if you do and damned if you don’t. Prosecutors brought charges against the dr and two nurses for not allowing four of their patients to suffer the cruel death of their fate. Yet, the prosecutors brought charges against a nursing homes for leaving the patients to suffer. I am begining to wonder when they will charge somebody for disrespecting a body by not dragging the corpses with them during evacuation.
Again, I say, SERIOUSLY PEOPLE, this tragic disaster took lives and thse who survived suffered atrocious conditions in midst of chaos.  Sheesh

Perhaps the real cuprit(s) is Mayor Nagin and other of his administration who didn’t put out a serious effort to evacuate the people.  They may have not been able to evacuate the most sickly people but I don’t think they even tried.  I can still see the picture of all those buses mired in several feet of water.

The Supreme Court is a bunch of black robed tyrants

HG....

This doctor never should have been charged in the first place. When many, many of her colleagues fled she and those nurses stayed and treated patients with no air conditioning, dwindling supplies, little food and water, and no security.

Our esteemed Attorney General, Charles Foti, quite frankly used this incident to make a name for himself and I’m pleased that it backfired.

That “jury” you write about is a state grand jury. Grand juries ONLY hear from the prosecutorial side of an issue, not from the defense. They did not find, based on what was presented to them by the Attorney General’s office, cause to proceed with prosecution. Or “no true bill” if you like.

This was NOT a mercy killing. Check your facts. This doctor is a hero, not a murderer.

Election ‘08 - We Are So Screwed

Anyone who has triaged wounded knows this choice. Anna, you are correct. Had they merely abandoned these people they would have been charged, and much more likely to have been convicted. There are case moving forward in MS and LA concerning just such circumstance from Katrina and Rita.

Giving meds to patients who are all ready medically distressed is difficult enough. Doing so in cases of added physical and mental stress, with dehydration thrown in with temps in excess of 90 degrees, is just outright dangerous. What would you suggest they do instead? Give them nothing? They would surely have died in that case.

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

I giving high dose narcotics carries the risk of leading to death, I am not opposed to it as long as there is some small doubt of the outcome, and as long as the REASON the drugs are being given is to alleviate pain.  However, if neither the patient nor the family can give informed consent, all that goes out the window and the doctor MUST restrict the dosage to harmless levels.  It doesn’t sound like these patients gave informed consent.  Strike one.

It sounds like the doctor’s contention is that the circumstances increased the pain of the patients to the point where risky dosages were necessary.  Sorry, morphine does not take away discomfort from thirst, heat, or bad smells.  Strike two.

Since she’s obviously not a sociopath, we have to assume that she was acting out of compassion rather than malice.  Also, there is no doubt that the circumstances were very distressing.  But none of that matters.  Hitle thought that slaughtering the Jews was a good idea and had lots of moral arguments to back that up.  Laws have to be based on decisions that are made in times of controlled scrutiny, precisely so that they will be FOLLOWED during times of distress when our emotions tend to take over.  The grand jury was obviously acting on the vague principle of “moral arithmetic”, assuming that morality is defined by what causese the fewest people the least pain.  That’s great except it disenfranchises those who aren’t around to defend themselves.  Like the victims in this case.  Strike 3.  This lady needs to be locked up.

Perhaps, the few of us that have experienced triage, disasters, or just plain emergencies, have an insight that others cannot comprehend and that is easily understandable.
Even the best planned and prepared situations contain chaos and there is nothing that can stop it. Unfortunately, the blame in this issue is endless. From the gov’t all the way down to the victims. Being poor is not an excuse for lack of preparation.
You can bet, if I lived below sea level in hurricane territory I would be prepared. Dirt poor or not, I would be ready to save my own butt.
Unless you are invalid (as in unable to move) there is no reason not evacuating on time. I am in Washington state and even I was aware of the officially announced warning and required evacuation.
The able bodied evacuees are the ones that should be called murderers. They took the EMS and volunteer manpower away from the real victims. Of course these are the slime bags who are holding others financially responsible for their losses.
(Again) Seriously people, unsympathetically as it may sound, the harsh truth is… SHIT HAPPENS! AND, believe it or not the Katrina victims are not any different than all the other victims of a natural disaster.

midazolam hydrochloride is one nasty drug.  Morphin is less of a problem depending on how it is administered. I wonder what doses the doctor gave the patients.

midazolam hydrochloride =

Midazolam has been associated with respiratory depression and respiratory arrest, especially when used concomitantly with opioid analgesics for conscious sedation or when rapidly administered intravenously, and when used orally for sedation in noncritical care settings; in some cases, death or hypoxic encephalopathy has occurred

The Supreme Court is a bunch of black robed tyrants

John M., Those patients died along with 42 others that were left at that hospital. The only difference was the dr allowed those fortunate few to escape the cruel suffering the other 42 endeared from being left.
Don’t forget that the days, yes plural, included no AC, water, electricity, sanitation, food, pain meds, medical necessitated meds, assistance, and you know what else John M.... bodily wastes from bedridden patients. That’s right, were talking urine and feces and not in a nice way at all. Do you know what all this can do to a person?
Now, add all those together and capture the visual in your mind.
Even now, my heart goes out to those that were left to suffer such torture.

BTW, The drugs were a mixture of morphine and midazolam hydrochloride, which is a depressant that works on the central nervous system and goes sometimes goes by the brand name of Versed.

This was NOT a mercy killing. Check your facts. This doctor is a hero, not a murderer.

Not all there that day felt that way. 

Pilgrim, I tend to give some deference to your opinion since you live there and are likely much more familiar with the story than am I. But some things don’t make sense like this:

Foti said all four would have survived if they hadn’t been given morphine and midazolam hydrochloride.

...also the fact that the nurses testified in exchange for immunity.

Anna, you are correct. Had they merely abandoned these people they would have been charged, and much more likely to have been convicted.

2h9 & Anna,

The argument advanced here that the DR would have been charged had she fled seems irrelevent since those who did flee haven’t been charged… have they?.  Damned if you do damned if you don’t, doesn’t seem to apply to this incident since it didn’t happen for some. 

Actually the whole scenario is a false dilemma since abondoning or killing were not the only two choices.  Remember, 34 others died as well without a cocktail.

Your point about the conditions and confusion is persuasive Anna.  Maybe a better understanding of what exactly went into making the decision would be helpful.  Without a better picture, and based upon what we know, unless maybe Pilgrim can help out here, I personally see this as a case of murder.

Whether or not the four victims would have or could have survived is a matter of testimony. Unfortuantely, the Dr. removed any chance they had.

Like HG I do not have sufficient information to base my judgments upon, so I must speak generally below:

It was said the patients would die when the staff left, and I must ask how could the staff leave at all until every patient possible was rescued? In medicine as in many parts of life there is an oath required to protect those people too weak to protect themselves. These people (Staff) were required by that oath and human decency to risk their own lives and stay with these people, doing all they could to keep every one alive until rescued, no matter how unpleasant or dangerous.

What of the Hippocratic Oath “I will prescribe regimen for the good of my patients according to my ability and my judgement and never do harm to anyone. To please no one will I prescribe a deadly drug nor give advice which may cause his death. Nor will I give a woman a pessary to procure abortion.” But, in Anna’s and to be honest and fair - our modern abortion, euthansia, assisted suicide minded culture, such oaths and beliefs are passé; self sacrifice and fulfilling our oaths are out of date, they are no longer positive moral values and failing to do our duty is no longer an act of cowardice and a positive moral failure.

Who gave these people the right to play God and what criteria did they use, was the white woman of more value and kept alive rather than the ugly old black man, was the Christian of less value than the Muslim? When we play God we can make our own rules about who lives or dies, and so maybe a few years from now the liberal doctor can decide to euthanize the conservative or someone named Anna because he hates the name, you see self anointed gods make their own rules. This is a terribly slippery slope; that is, when anyone decides who lives and who dies and when in preservation of their own worthless lives they are willing to kill others and step on the bodies of their victims as they run out the door to safety.

Lastly, this was active euthanasia, it had nothing to do with a cute little euphemism like ‘Mercy Killing;’ and active euthansia without the patient’s consent is murder, I personally believe even with the patient’s consent it is murder, and anyone even a doctor deciding to deliberately terminate the life of these patients had to plan how to do it and when, and that is a definition of premeditated, First Degree Murder and the Physician and all who assisted her should at least suffer life in prison and in most states, be executed.

No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

Your point is right on, HG. Why are the staff that bugged out early not being pursued with legal charges? Because the ones that stayed are the targets of convenience. Their reward for staying in the face of disaster is to be run through the legal system. No matter what, those personnel who remained with the patients and actually saved the lives of many would be getting screwed. Lawyers outnumber construction workers within the City Limits of New Orleans. Those who abandoned the elderly and sick in the first hours are guiltless, of course.

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

Why are the staff that bugged out early not being pursued with legal charges?

Good angle 2h9.  That would seem to cast some doubt on the credibility of the prosecuter… if they haven’t been charged.

HG, None of us, or anyone for that matter will ever be able to clearly understand what happened in this situation, which may be for the best, I don’t know.
I read the official court documents of the testimonies and it seems highly unlikely that the four patients would have survived and NO OTHER patients did.

September 13, 2005
NEW ORLEANS—Forty-four bodies have been recovered in an evacuated hospital, officials announced. The hospital, in the Mid-City neighborhood had been surrounded by water, stranding patients and staff inside for four days after the hurricane struck. Memorial’s director of support services, said that none of the patients had drowned. ‘’It was over 106 degrees in the hospital after we lost power.”

Regardless as to whether the patients were terminally ill, they became terminal when they were left there for 4 days in unsurvivable conditions. A healthy individual could not survive those conditions and that fact is proven many times over from the 1000 plus deaths that occurred in the wake of Katrina.

..also the fact that the nurses testified in exchange for immunity.

It was very logical of Foti to arrest the nurses for the sole purpose of coercing testimonies against the dr.

Damned if you do damned if you don’t, doesn’t seem to apply to this incident since it didn’t happen for some.

Foti tried the abandonment route but I am assuming it didn’t get the attention he had hoped so why not go for the “big bad wicked murderer”.

Foti discussing the negligent charges: New Orleans nursing home owners charged now with 34 counts of negligent homicide. (Mable and Salvador Mangano deny that they ignored an evacuation order and abandoned their patients).
Foti: I mean, everyone knew all over this nation that this killer storm was going to hit Louisiana and Mississippi. When the time had passed over Florida, they told them time and time again. The governor got on and begged people to evacuate, to get out of harm’s way. The difference between it, Soledad, if you or I decide to stay there, we’re big enough, responsible enough to make that decision. Where you have the entrusted with the lives of other people, you cannot take those chances. Yes, there are risks any time you move people that are receiving healthcare but to not to lose them to death . . .

Why didn’t Foti charge Memorial Hospital with their abandonment deaths? ... Meh, perhaps if he tries the “damned if you do and damned if you don’t” route, by God,there has to be a sure bet conviction somewhere in town for this prosecutor.

Yeah, that bastard Foti went for the murder charge just because a few old patients were murdered, damn him for wanting to prosecute murder, who gives a damn about old people any way?

If the doctor knowingly, deliberately gave lethal drugs to any patient, she violated her oath as a doctor, her moral responsibility as a human being, and she committed cold-blooded, First Degree murder. If any of the staff assisted the doctor or knew about her actions and didn’t stop her or if they ran away from their patients they are accomplices to the act of murder and yes the hospital officials should be charged and sued by the families.

No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

Yeah, that bastard Foti went for the murder charge just because a few old patients were murdered, damn him for wanting to prosecute murder, who gives a damn about old people any way

Yep, the scrupulous prosecuting attorney. I am not even going to dignify that with any further comment on him.
I care Neiman. That is why I commend her for not allowing these patients to suffer. Allowing them to die merciless like the 1000 others suffered is a far more henious crime than the drs attempt at a peaceful death.
Please do not suggest I don’t care about others. If anything, I care to much and I make every attempt possible to avoid letting someone suffer. I have had to pick and chose who gets treatment and who is left to die. Knowing the person died a painful and tramatic death because you cannot save them too is far far more worse than what this dr did. Do you understand what it’s like when a person begs you to save them, the look in their eyes is not forgettable.
Dr Poe deserves to go on with her life with a peaceful heart.

Chances are you will be presented with the same choices as the doctors and nurses.

Science marches on.

Anna:
1. What about your heroine’s sacred oath as a doctor? I quoted it at length above, but here are the salient parts again: “never do harm to anyone. To please no one will I prescribe a deadly drug nor give advice which may cause his death.” She has clearly demonstrated that she has no regard whatsoever for such an important oath - by her acts her word has no value, no meaning, she cannot be trusted. So what is to keep her from ‘offing’ anyone she chooses in the future and then justifying it by her sense of compassion?

2. I have seen more people up close at the point of death than you ever will, both in combat and while I was involved in trying to save their lives. So spare me your ‘I have had to pick and choose who gets treatment and who is left to die,’ implying a moral and professional superiority on this issue” a. This implies you were a triage nurse and involved in Emergency Medicine? b. In all those cases wherein I was involved, nothing, no amount of pain would cause me to take their lives and play God. c. Based on your statements, I have to wonder if you have engaged in active euthanasia or assisted suicide in the past, both of which are morally repugnant acts.

3. Either we are a nation of Law or we have reverted to the jungle in America, wherein every one can make up their own laws and apply their own sense of right and wrong to their official duties to the harm of other human beings. This prosecutor would have been negligent in upholding his oath of office, and yes I know that depending upon the circumstances these oaths mean nothing to you; but following his oath he sought to indict and prosecute a person that according to law committed acts of First Degree, premeditated murder. If the people of that state choose to let this murderer go, she will still face the Judge of us all one day, she hasn’t gotten away with her acts of murder.

You either do not understand or out of your sense of compassion, you choose to reject the value of a person’s sacred oath and the need for everyone, especially those in the healing profession to obey the law and do no harm. It appears by your defense of this doctor that if you see a case of murder that you think was justified, you believe the physician’s oath and the law should be thrown out the window. I do understand how you feel about this case, you genuinely care about the suffering of those involved; but either our oaths can be relied upon in all circumstances and the law has clear meaning or we are no better than any of the so-called lower order of other animals that share our planet.

This doctor, no matter how she justified it in her own mind, broke the law, committed murder and now the state has said that premeditated murder is legal if the murderer can convince others they did it out of a sense of mercy. The guy down the street ‘off’s’ his wife or kids who are sick, because he is being merciful; the lady from Texas drowning her children was trying to save them from the evils of this world, that is certainly while lunatic, a description of compassion. Damn slippery slope you want this country to go down and it places us all at risk every time we see a doctor or nurse or any allied health care professional.

No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

Neiman, the choice was not to kill them or let them die a peaceful death.  Water was limited, power was limited, they were too sick to evacuate without killing them and the doctors and nurses were being ordered to evacuate.  The choice was to give them a peaceful death or to let them die in excrutiating pain.  Its not as simple as an oath.

We are a nation of laws and one of those laws is that juries make judgements.  The jury heard the facts and decided this was not wrong. 

Stop your moralistic bullshit.  You attack Anna for saying that she has been there by claiming you have been there.  I doubt either of you have ever had to make the decision this doctor did.  I applaud her courage.

Lestat:

Stop your moralistic bullshit.

1. So expecting people to keep their binding oaths and obey the law is just so much ‘moralistic bullshit?’ Interesting, then all our oaths and the law are meaningless and we can not trust anyone in a place of trust to keep their oaths for fear of public condemnation and when appropriate legal penalties. That is a wonderful world you live in!

2. Why in looking at this situation from a different viewpoint than Anna and passionately appealing to her sense of justice and logic is attacking her? First, I never intended to personally attack Anna, I apologize to her if she thought I was; but that charge by you means that all opposing debate is precluded and this blog has no reason for existing, unless it is to demand we all sing the exact same songs.

3. Let us see professor and blog dictator Lestat, the O.J. Simpson jury was right? Just because a jury hears the evidence and makes a decision hardly means they are right, because they are all being manipulated by the opposing attorneys and the one best able to tell a good story sways them, even to the point of jury nullification of the facts and the law, it happens all the time, but that doesn’t make them or the decision right.

4. If oaths are to mean anything at all, then they must guide our decisions even in the darkest hours, when we are the most tempted to justify violating our word. An oath: a legally and/or morally binding pledge to do something.

5. You were not there and neither was I, so how do you know there were not other options? You don’t and neither do I! But, when a doctor or other health care professional is involved, no matter the self justification, to cause death is to violate the most sacred and binding oath any human being can ever give.

6. I never had to decide to inject drugs to terminate a life, but I am not totally alien to this doctor’s experiences, albeit I admit I was never exactly in her situation. But your charge implies that unless we have been in her exact situation we are not entitled to an opinion on the matter, but you also not having been in her situation or even near it, are entitled to an opinion. Hardly fair, but your entire post reflects that attitude!

Lastly, it is apparent by your attacks upon me that you reject all morality as bullshit; that is you subscribe to a doctrine of relative morality, situational ethics and that is part and parcel of the heart of the Democrat Party, Liberalism and Socialism. The founders of this country gave their sacred oaths to give their fortunes, their sacred honor and their lives in defense of liberty; and I thank God they didn’t see fit to violate their oaths, because oaths were ‘bullshit! and they didn’t apply your doctrine of situational ethics’

I am out of here for tonight, so any counter attacks will not be satisfied today.

No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

Lastly, it is apparent by your attacks upon me that you reject all morality as bullshit; that is you subscribe to a doctrine of relative morality, situational ethics and that is part and parcel of the heart of the Democrat Party,

No, I reject your idea that all we can do is follow rules and not make decision.  There is no doubt that this was a choice of lesser evils.  Those people were going to die, the decision was how.  She chose to not make these people suffer and the jury understood that.  The first line of the oath you keep referencing is “First, do no harm.” I contend that abandoning those people to die of thirst and starvation would have been a greater harm than what she did.

Just because a jury hears the evidence and makes a decision hardly means they are right,

You keep championing the US as a country of laws, yet you have no faith in the jury system, which is the fundamental base of our system.

... sometimes the right thing doesn’t seem right yet is.

Anna’a point about the conditions here are right.

If you weren’t here you cannot begin to imagine what it was like. It was eerie, no lights, no power, the heat was incredible, oppressive. No flushing toilets. Everything filthy.

There was a silence over everything that is a singularity. We live with the sounds of life around us, traffic, the hum of air conditioners, planes, a hum that is everywhere. We’re used to it so we don’t notice it. It. Just. Stopped. Stone quiet. It was like an end of the world movie.

Nobody knew when - or if - help was coming. Those doctors and nurses who stayed with their patients did so not knowing if help would ever come and they had to make some VERY hard decisions.

Nobody who wasn’t there can have ANY idea what it was like and I hope you never do.

Bottom line....justice was served in this case.

Election ‘08 - We Are So Screwed

Well, Anna under another thread defends sexual assault, which alone is quite sad to behold; and in this case she defends first degree murder under the guise of a new code of behavior, that being, relative morality, and in the latter case Lestat and Pilgrim concur that murder isn’t murder if you can justify it under the rubric of “mercy Killing.”

To Ms. Anna, Lestat and Pilgrim just to name a few here, sacred oaths no longer have any real meaning at all, they are just empty words, they are not at all binding upon the person swearing the oath. Things like duty and honor are now passé, and this is the society my grandkids will face; where murder is an antiquated concept, it is a quaint custom of old fashioned moralists, senile old fools that believed it was important to keep their word when they gave it and not to play God by taking the lives of other human beings.

The Bible told my generation that when we swore an oath, even if later we regretted giving it and even if keeping it will cause us harm, our word was our bond, it was the only true measure of a man or woman, it was something other people felt deserved special respect, and those not keeping their oaths were not to be trusted at all, they were dishonest people not even being able to keep their own word. That was the old fashion, now apparently idiotic idea behind duty, honor and country, concepts that are now only so much garbage to be tossed into the trash can of history.

Well you people can find all kinds of ways to defend the indefensible if you wish - to your own peril I might add; but this doctor violated her most sacred oath as a health care professional, she committed premeditated murder and nothing will ever make those killing justifiable.

Lestat: As to the juries and the Law, unfortunately your generation has told juries that relative morality and situational ethics are the new standard of human behavior and if they tell an O.J. that he is innocent, if they nullify the Law, it is okay with you. So, juries are no longer trustworthy, they are no longer servants of the law, they don’t apply the law at all, they only apply their weak and shifting emotions; and because you cannot respect the law and a sacred oath, you and my grandchildren will inherit the whirlwind caused by your setting aside truth, deceny and the value of an oath all for expediency.

No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

You don’t get it, Nieman....

Sacred oaths have very little to do woith the harsh reality of trying to save as many lives as you can. Under theose conditions you save the ones you can and let the others go. It’s called triage.

Not only that, those four deaths were ruled as “unclassified” by the coroner’s office, a very important point. The coroner couldn’t determine that the medications had been administered with intent to murder or to ease suffering. AND...those very medications are given together quite often. Foti’s Follies took it on themselves to create a murder.

By the way, Nieman.....99.999999% of the people here support that doctor and how she handled herself during this horror. There is much rejoicing now that she’s not been charged, her life ruined, all because instead of going softly into the night with so many others she chose to stay. For her patients.

Election ‘08 - We Are So Screwed

So, juries are no longer trustworthy, they are no longer servants of the law

They never were servants of the law.  They are the servants of justice and the law is a tool.  If they in their collective wisdom realize that the facts of a particular case were never contemplated by the law writers and justice can only be served by nullifying the law, than they have a duty to do that.

Do you really think it was best to abandon these people to die of thirst and starvation?  Because that was the choice.  There was no option where they made it out alive and healthy.

Pilgrim;
1. I know a hell of a lot more about triage than you do my friend, that is not a put down to you, nor am I bragging that I have superior knowledge to anyone, that is just a fact. Yet, I must tell you that never did any triage I was involved with include giving anyone medication to cause their deaths, where I lived health care professionals simply did not ever justify murder.

2. Very early in the thread I admitted my comments were general, not having investigated all the facts. So, assuming that the doctor gave the medications to kill some of her patients, if she did, she violated her sacred oath as a doctor and she committed cold blooded murder, that is the only detail that matters - did she kill those patients. If it could not be determined by a fair coroner that the drugs were given and no one testified to having first hand knowledge she gave those drugs, then absent sufficient evidence would be justification for acquital.

3. I don’t care if 1000% of the people agreed with the decision, if the doctor gave the drugs she violated her oath and committed murder and no matter what the court has decided, she is guilty of murder. Truth is not a matter of voting in a damn poll. 100% of Muslims can say they love America, but that won’t change the facts. 100% of the people can say O.J. was a victim of circumstances and he didn’t kill his wife, God knows if he is guilty. The same applies to this female doctor death, this self anointed demi-god, if she gave these people a fatal does of drugs.

I don’t expect you to ever, not in a zillion years, understand what an oath really means, or duty, honor, country or any of the values of my generation. You are, no matter your political leanings, part of the relative morality and situational ethics generation and the idea of a person being honor bound to keep their word even to their own harm is now and always shall be a foreign concept. That is not your fault, it is simply like we are from two different planets with no possibility of understanding each other; but, if this doctor gave the fatal dose of drugs to these patients, no matter what the jury says or all of the people of Katrina Land say, she is a murderer in my book and her word has absolutely no value.

None of the foregoing is to say you don’t have a right to an opposite opinion or a right to reject values I believe to be the only values real men and women should live by; but on the opposite side of that token, I cannot ever accept the idea that a doctor could knowingly give a fatal dose of a drug to cause death. The only exception being that in cases of terminal illnesses with extreme pain, I have no problem with a doctor administering a sufficient amount of a pain killer, as long as the only motive is pain amelioration, even if that dosage might cause death. That rule cannot apply to offing someone when the goal is not pain amelioration but to knowingly killing them.

No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

Lestat: I don’t accept the idea that any honorable health care professional would/should leave those patients at all, I reject that proposition out of hand. I wouldn’t have left them, it would have been my duty to stay with them until the end theirs and mine, and I damn sure would have found water somewhere, no matter how hard that task might have been, includes food as well.

If those patients died of starvation and/or dehydration then as unpleasant as that might be, that fact cannot justify murder or playing god.

To use your jury nullification rationale, then the Law means nothing, it cannot ever be depended upon to protect the innocent and judge the guilty, because it is always at the whim of fallible human beings legislating from the Jury box. The Law is meaningless under your system of jurisprudence, no citizen may very trust the Law and it represents legal anarchy.

No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

Not only that, those four deaths were ruled as “unclassified” by the coroner’s office, a very important point. The coroner couldn’t determine that the medications had been administered with intent to murder or to ease suffering. AND...those very medications are given together quite often.

Ok, this is a very important peice of information.  If the cause of death wasn’t, or cannot be proven to be the cocktail administered (apparantly to ease pain, not to kill?) then there is no criminal intent, much less a murder, right? Well, I guess it would be somewhat telling if the cocktail was given only to these four and supplies remained to administer additional cocktails.  It would be harder to prove her intention at that point wasn’t to take their lives.

However, if the intent of administering the cocktail was to end the “suffering” of the vicitims by ending their lives, then it is unlawful IMO.  1st degree murder seems to me to be a little harsh Neimen.  There are clearly special circumstances that the law recognizes in killings like these.  2nd degree or even voluntary manslaughter would legally fit the actions of the DR—if she intended to take their lives.

They never were servants of the law.  They are the servants of justice and the law is a tool.  If they in their collective wisdom realize that the facts of a particular case were never contemplated by the law writers and justice can only be served by nullifying the law, than they have a duty to do that

You are so right, lestat, and you are so wrong, neiman.  The Supreme court has asserted and confirmed many times that juries have the right to judge BOTH the law and the fact because the original intent of the jury system was that one would tried and judge by their peers and not by the state.  Of course, that hasn’t prevented the state from perverting the jury system with the selection process, the phony oath to take instructions from the bench which the jury does not have to do, etc.

The Supreme Court is a bunch of black robed tyrants

Anna under another thread defends sexual assault

Neiman, You along with everyone else here knows that statement is false and it’s disappointing you would even suggest such a thing.

HG: If the doctor gave a lethal does of medicine, she had to plan her actions, have a motive and the opportunity. Isn’t that a legal defintion of First Degree Homicide? Oh, sorry relative morality applies here, she was trying to prevent suffering, unwilling to wait any longer placing hereself at further risk and offed them as an act of mercy. Sorry, you are all right no murder here.

DocDave: Then the Law is meaningless! At least admit that if juries can nullify the law, then the law can never be trusted and is therefore meaningless. Further, if someone breaks the law, we are always wrong to convict them because many years later a jury can nullify any law and thus this person would have been unlawfully convicted.

Anna: You defended butt slapping in another thread, oh you did not call it sexual assault, considering relative morality and situation ethics it was just horseplay, so you can rightfully claim that since you don’t call it sexual assault you are not defending sexual assault, because you changed the definition to fit your prejudices.

To everyone posting on this subject in this thread: If this doctor gave lethal doses of drugs to these patients, which actual act, I admit is now in some question, then she murdered them and you might as well move on because I will never, ever approve of a doctor violating here most sacred oath and committing murder. If there was no direct conclusive evidence she offed these patients, then acquital was appropriate; but if despite the inconclusive nature of the evidence she actually did kill these patients, she is a murderer and I will never approve of what she did.

You are all beating an old dead horse who grew up in a time when honorable, decent people simply did not commit such acts and other decent, honorable people would never justify them. I will die believing in the value of keeping al our oaths despite any personal costs, doing our duty because it is our duty - not because of any rewards, being honorable in all our words and deeds in our private lives and business dealings, and I will never, not ever, embrace your relative morality and situational ethics to justify evil.

I am alone and against everything you are all defending in this case, and I don’t care, fighting for the Truth and the life of s single human against any odds is always worthwhile.

No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

Further, if someone breaks the law, we are always wrong to convict them because many years later a jury can nullify any law and thus this person would have been unlawfully convicted

When a jury nullifies the law, it does not do it for all time.  It does it for that one specific fact scenario.

You miss the point of how our justice system is constructed.  The state can charge you with a crime based on the law, but you can only be convicted when the people say you are guilty.  The jury is the foundation, not the law.  That is why the Bill of Rights does not talk about the law, but guarantees juries.

Lestat: I have to run some errands, I cannot let my entire summer vacation go by and do nothing but blog myself to death.

If the jury in the case in question has by their decision, said that killing patient’s out of a sense of mercy is not murder and in fact not a crime at all, then haven’t they for all time said that mercy killing is not a crime and thus despite your protestations, they have changed the law on this matter for all time?

I must note that most of my arguments are based on the assumption the doctor administered these fatal doses, and since I have heard nothing to prove she did, by direct evidence or by witnesses, then the outcome might be just. I am arguing, if she killed these people, that: 1. This doctor violated her sacred oath as a doctor and should lose her license and be an outcast within that profession forever. 2. That mercy killing is just another name, a cute euphemism by liberal America, for good old fashioned murder.

No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

DocDave: Then the Law is meaningless! At least admit that if juries can nullify the law, then the law can never be trusted and is therefore meaningless. Further, if someone breaks the law, we are always wrong to convict them because many years later a jury can nullify any law and thus this person would have been unlawfully convicted.

Man, you need to spend some time reading about the jury cause are you ever mislead.  I recommend We, The Jury by Godfrey D. Lehman and Jury Nullification by Clay S. Conrad.  There are also other books that explain the purpose of the jury system.  Contrary to your beliefs, the jury is not a rubber stamp for the prosecution although that is what they would like it to be.  In a jury trial, the jury is supposed to be in control with the judge as only a bystander administrating to the orderly conduct of the trial.  In essence, the jury is the law in a jury trial.

Another thing you got wrong, the jury has no part in any court actions after a verdict has been reached except to exact punishment for convictions..

The Supreme Court is a bunch of black robed tyrants

DocDave: You want to get snotty and pick a fight you got the right guy, because I love fighting and I don’t ever fight fair. Talk down to me on this issue, you damn sure better be a lawyer, and any lawyer is lower on the social scale than a child molester as far as I’m concerned.

You earlier made a comment about what the Supreme Court said, well in the past 50 years or more SCOTUS have been acting like a super legislature, they are the idiots that manufactured separation of church and state out of whole cloth and foisted that lie upon us by invoking stare decisis.  So, you’ll forgive me if your reference to them does not instill me with a lot of confidence. SCOTUS does not interpret the Constitution they manufacture new laws every year and that is all they do!

Jury system: a legal system for determining the facts at issue in a law suit or criminal trial, the legal system for interpreting and enforcing the laws. Such a jury system presupposes the people serving on the jury have a respect for the Law.

I find no basis in this definition for a jury making law, which is what is at stake in this case, they will have established “mercy killing” as a defense against charges of murder; with any future case based on ‘mercy killing’ making a charge of murder impossible to make and enforce. That is what you and your fellow travelers want, to make the cold blooded killing of anyone based on a wholly subjective and ever shifting definition of “mercy killing.”

Well you can play with definitions and play the lawyer, but one thing you can never change, no matter how you twist the truth; if this angel of mercy physician administered a lethal dose of drugs to terminate the lives of these patients, she violated her oath and committed murder. I also realize that such things as oaths and murder are very unimportant to you, the only thing that is on your agenda is euthanizing old people and making it legal!

Now you should go and study the Constitution and perhaps religion because you are in sore need of an education on our Founding Documents and in an old fashioned concept called morality!

No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

Damn, DD, that stonk bracketed the target perfectly.

Nman, it is the height of immorality and the full depth of inhumanity to leave a crippled and helpless old person to die a slow, agonizing death.

And why no outrage directed at those, not just from this hospital but from many hospitals and nursing homes, who bugged out before the conditions were even moderately hazardous, much less life-threatening? Why the deflection?

Why are you not screaming for THOSE doctors to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law? Is there some interest you need to protect in all this?

They bugged out merely to save themselves inconvenience. Not to save their lives. They just did not want to deal with it. That is the crime. And yet you care not.

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

2Hotel9:

And why no outrage directed at those, not just from this hospital but from many hospitals and nursing homes, who bugged out before the conditions were even moderately hazardous, much less life-threatening? Why the deflection?
Why are you not screaming for THOSE doctors to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law? Is there some interest you need to protect in all this?

You are wrong, I am very angry at the people and organizations you mentioned, I said that earlier, I am mad at Nagin and a host of other people that allowed these conditions to exist and how they treated the victims of the hurricane. I am quite frankly angry that many responsible parties knowing this area was so prone to flooding allowed any hospitals or other emergency services to be built or remain in areas below sea level and did not, whether or not the Corps of Engineers dropped the ball, paid whatever was necessary to avoid this catastrophe.

It is the height of immorality and the full depth of inhumanity to leave a crippled and helpless old person to die a slow, agonizing death.

That is your subjective opinion, you have a right to it; but to my mind to kill these people absent their permission or in the absence of that their family approval is murder, and that is a greater sin, a more profane immoral act. Plus, the doctor had to violate her oath to do it and play god in the process.

Remember, we are talking as if the doctor gave them a lethal dose, and as I understand from some posts above; there was no direct evidence or witnesses and the toxicology reports were inconclusive. If that is the truth and revealed in the trial, then the presumption of innocence goes to the doctor. I am solely arguing about the principle involved if she had killed these patients because I believe keeping a sacred oath of ones profession and not doing murder are principles worth defending.

No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

No. That is not subjective opinion. That is fact. You are sub-human if your moral code allows you to leave another person to die a slow, agonizing death they have not earned. Is that your point? That these old cripples deserved to die a slow tormented death? Where is your evidence? Prove they deserved to die that way. Prove it was God’s will that these 4 people deserved to die long, slow, agonizing deaths. You sound like a fucking Wahabi Imam.

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

2Hotel9: Your cursing and calling me names only reflects on your own low intellect, your fears, your inadequacies and says absolutely nothing about me.

Subjective means: based on somebody’s opinions or feelings rather than on facts or any evidence. You cannot prove by any reasonable measure that what you are saying is true, it is your half-assed, biased, subjective opinion and it is at least partially based on your personal hatred of me because I won’t submit to your constant bullying tactics and absence of facts in your arguements. By the way, at times we are all guilty of bullying and behaving like asses, including me; but lately you have filled that role nicely all by yourself.

Prove it was God’s will that these 4 people deserved to die long, slow, agonizing deaths.

1. Jesus died a slow agonizing death, many of His servants, like Apostles and Missionaries have died slow, agonizing deaths. Many people throughout history have died slow agonizing deaths, and God has obviously permitted all of them to die that way according to the counsels of His Own Perfect Will, never needing yours or my advice.

2. Only God gives life and only He has the right to take it away, whenever man takes a life in murder, they are usurping God’s authority and will answer to Him. God did not command this woman to kill these people, if she did; she took it upon herself to sit upon His Throne and decide life and death for innocent human beings, just as abortionists do; and in absence of His Divine Authority, she cannot defend herself by saying these were ‘Mercy Killings.’ How do you know that God did not intend to still save each one of them? No matter how dark the storm in life, God has often shown His Mercy in the most impossible of circumstances; and had He been allowed to do His Will, it might have been a great miracle and a wonderful testimony of His existence and many might have been saved thereby. No, if she did this, she was not fullfilling God’s Will unless He spoke to her directly and absent that she played God, plain and simple. Now had she only given enough medication to ameliorate their pain and they died in that condition, that would have been merciful and not an act of murder.

3. It was God’s Permissive Will that these people die, whether it was murder or not, because as with Abraham He could have stayed her hand and they would have remained alive. God doesn’t tell us to kill in war or self defense, but because He gave us a Free Will, He will not except in the most rare circumstances, interfere. Every evil act on this earth is allowed because of His Permissive Will and His granting man Free Will. That is why it is wrong to accuse God of evil in not stopping things like mass starvation or genocide, man exercises their Free Will and commits evil acts and they are responsible for them and will answer to God on Judgment Day; but they chose to do the evil.

I don’t like debating anything with you because you are incapable of ever acting like anything but a cheap bully, because it appears you have serious doubts about your own manhood and are filled with self-hatred. If anyone posting here needs God as much as yours truly, surely it is you as you are such a hate monger.

Don’t bother to answer, I won’t come back to this thread to repsond, you are not worth debating. Learn to be civil when debating issues and then come back and debate like a civilized human being.

What is it about ”Thou shalt not kill (do murder),” that you don’t understand?

No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

Run as always, coward.

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem