It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Doctor admits euthanizing patients during Katrina

page: 7
23
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 30 2009 @ 12:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by oneclickaway

Let's all of us cease writing and making opinions on anything then, as all we are basing it on is news stories or articles and we were not there. Not sure that argument holds much weight. I think if you read that entire article then intent becomes clearer.


Bluntly: this discussion should not even be taking place - - - because in this country this situation should never have happened. These doctors should never have been in this extreme situation to make extreme decisions.

Again: I would support the doctors for not allowing my elderly relative to suffer. If an intern tries to stop doctors from making extreme decisions in extreme circumstances - - he is creating a problem.




posted on Aug, 30 2009 @ 12:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 




Again: I would support the doctors for not allowing my elderly relative to suffer. If an intern tries to stop doctors from making extreme decisions in extreme circumstances - - he is creating a problem.


Wow....wow....unbelievable. The intern was the only one in that place with a conscience and Morality. Ok, so you believe the elderly should happily die, whether they are near the point of dying or whether they will make a recovery and live a few more happy years. What we are talking about here is patients who were perfectly ok and coping, who were then murdered.
Let's place another scenario. Let's say it was children there, who were very ill, although again we may have to place some kids in this scenario who are speaking, comfortable and fed themselves that very morning...(just as in that article)...so obviously can wait out a while longer for rescue.
So in that situation, would you feel that the doctors in their wisdom, and 'compassion' would be right to administer drugs to kill those children who were not at the point of death at all, but were comfortable? Would it be ok to just go and write on their charts 'declared dead'...and then go kill them? How about everyone praying for a child to die and smothering them when they won't...would that be ok too? Or is it just the elderly sick who get such contempt?
The Intern was 'creating a problem'...dear God. You know, reading some posts I absolutely despair for humanity.



posted on Aug, 30 2009 @ 12:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by uplander

...

Of course it would have been better to get them out of there. If you had read my post you would have seen that I said that. But that didn't happen. Of course there were screw ups with the evacuations. DUH! But since that didn't happen this Dr. was put in a terrible position and he did what he thought was right. Some may not like his tone when he states this, but I admire him for stating the facts and not lying about it or just flat out ignoring the inquiry.


"Poor planning on your part does not constitute a crisis on my part"

The Katrina Event was a collection of idiotic moves on the part of an inept local government that has a history of graft and corruption. The ineptitude extended all the way up into the Corps of Engineers (which is Federal, no need to point this out I'm aware of it.)

Most disasters are a collection of errors.

Here's one for you...



Pittman Construction Company, Inc. (Pittman, the Contractor, or Appellant), was awarded Contract No. DACW29-93-C-008 by the US Army Corps of Engineers, New Orleans District (the Government or Respondent) in the amount of $2,564,264. The contract was entitled "Lake Ponchartrain LA. & Vicinity, Hurricane Protection Project, High Level Plan, 17th St. Outfall Canal Flood Protection Improvement Project, Capping of Floodwalls, East Side Improvements, Orleans Parish, LA." The work required Pittman to construct three types of floodwalls along the 17th Street Canal New Orleans, Louisiana: Type 1; Type II, and Type III. During construction of the Type I floodwall, the Contractor experienced problems with movement of the monoIiths beyond the tolerance specified by the contract.

It is Pittman's contention that the lack of structural integrity of the existing sheet pile around which the concrete was poured, and relative weakness of the soils, permitted the concrete to shift during construction, resulting in monoliths that were not in alignment as quired by the contract. The Appellant subsequently Filed a claim seeking additional compensation in the amount of $809,659 and a time extension of eighty days. Following the Contracting Officer's denial of its claim, Pittman filed this timely appeal.

On April 4,1997, with the Board's approval, the parties entered into an agreement to resolve the appeal by means of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR), using the Board's nonappealable, Summary Binding Trial procedure. The parties filed position papers setting forth, in their respective opinions, the essential facts and issues of the matter. A pretrial conference was conducted, providing the parries with what is essentially an "early neutral evaluation" in ADR parlance; this gave the parties a limited opportunity to present their positions and to address procedural aspects of the upcoming trial. The Summary Binding Trial was held on April 21-22,1997, in New Orleans.

...

Each of the legal theones propounded by Pittman to support its contention that the additional costs should be borne by the Government (including differing site condition, defective specifications, superior knowledge, an alleged breach of the Government's duty to cooperate, and that the Government assumed responsibility for successful use of the cofferdam by approving certain submittals) carries with it an essential element of the burden of proof that Pittman has not met. This Appeal is DENIED in its entirety.

Date: February 17,1998

[signature]
REBA PAGE
Administrative Judge
Member, Corps of Engineers
Board of Contract Appeals


msnbcmedia.msn.com...


Now.. getting back to the patients...



I swear by Apollo Physician and Asclepius and Hygieia and Panaceia and all the gods, and goddesses, making them my witnesses, that I will fulfil according to my ability and judgment this oath and this covenant:

To hold him who has taught me this art as equal to my parents and to live my life in partnership with him, and if he is in need of money to give him a share of mine, and to regard his offspring as equal to my brothers in male lineage and to teach them this art–if they desire to learn it–without fee and covenant; to give a share of precepts and oral instruction and all the other learning to my sons and to the sons of him who has instructed me and to pupils who have signed the covenant and have taken the oath according to medical law, but to no one else.

I will apply dietic measures for the benefit of the sick according to my ability and judgment; I will keep them from harm and injustice.

I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody if asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. Similarly I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy. In purity and holiness I will guard my life and my art.

I will not use the knife, not even on sufferers from stone, but will withdraw in favor of such men as are engaged in this work.

Whatever houses I may visit, I will come for the benefit of the sick, remaining free of all intentional injustice, of all mischief and in particular of sexual relations with both female and male persons, be they free or slaves.

What I may see or hear in the course of treatment or even outside of the treatment in regard to the life of men, which on no account one must spread abroad, I will keep myself holding such things shameful to be spoken about.

If I fulfill this oath and do not violate it, may it be granted to me to enjoy life and art, being honored with fame among all men for all time to come; if I transgress it and swear falsely, may the opposite of all this be my lot.



Interesting eh?



posted on Aug, 30 2009 @ 01:22 PM
link   
From what I read, it was ONE patient and she was terminally ill with uterine cancer and kidney failure... (Edit: I see now there were other patients. My opinion still stands)



"It was hot, over 100 degrees, four nurses were trapped on the floor caring for her, and we could not get her down," he told The Associated Press.


AP

They couldn't get her down 6 flights of steps. She weighed 350 lbs. I think he did the right thing. I would have wanted him to do it for me or anyone I loved.

Am I missing something? Because I don't find this a terrible thing from what I've read.


[edit on 30-8-2009 by Benevolent Heretic]



posted on Aug, 30 2009 @ 01:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by oneclickaway
reply to post by Annee
 


Wow....wow....unbelievable. The intern was the only one in that place with a conscience and Morality.


We all have our understanding of Morality.

Mine isn't blinded.



posted on Aug, 30 2009 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by nixie_nox
reply to post by Rams59lb
 


If I was 80 years old or crippled and couldn't get out on my own, I would tell that doctor to fill me up and let me go. I had lived my life and that staff needed to go save younger people and themselves.


I think that is great that you would make that choice for yourself, it's ashame that they wouldn't and didn't give people that choice but instead decided they're fate for them.



posted on Aug, 30 2009 @ 01:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by A Fortiori
reply to post by Rams59lb
 


Have you seen Children of Chernobyl? There is this scene in the documentary where the doctor is speaking very harshly and coldly with the parents, then he turns the corner and is clearly distraught and emotional.

Perhaps, it was a "brave front"? Maybe he has regrets but has to tell himself daily that he did the right thing?

Honestly, I believe that humans have outgrown their environment to the point where we can only be depressed, stressed, or angry.

The ancients had a difficult life, no doubt, but they didn't have the stress of driving in rush hour traffic, of paying bills, of being "available" at all times. They also didn't have to answer life and death questions with so many "what ifs"? Parents would look at babies for their viability and make a decision. It was part of daily life. Soldiers would look at each other's wounds and make a decision. Death and life were brothers. The afterworld to the ancients was better than this place so the guilt of taking a life was removed.

Terry Schiavo's mother would have grieved when her daughter died from the original seizure. She would have mourned her and lived the rest of her life knowing her daughter was in peace. Instead she lived in limbo, hoping she would "wake up" and talk to her again, that the flickering eye movements meant something. What a terrible burden for a mother to bear.

I'm not arguing against life support. I would certainly put my child on it because I could never ever let go of my child. It's terrible to say but I would hold out hope to the end that she would come back to me, somehow.

One hundred years ago I wouldn't have to make this decision.

I hate the complexity of modern life. I wish there was some new planet to go to without technology. *sighs*


I understand your point of view, honestly... I'm glad you chose to agree with this Doctors statements and what he had to do but I would want the choice regardless.



posted on Aug, 30 2009 @ 01:38 PM
link   
This is just disturbing. It almost makes me wonder if we are going to be orced to accept this as normal procedural behavior?



posted on Aug, 30 2009 @ 01:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 




Am I missing something? Because I don't find this a terrible thing from what I've read.


There weren't just 'other' patients...there were 17 known cases of injection of morphine and midazolam. 45 corpses were found in the morgue altogether, more than in any other comparably sized hospital within the disaster area.
You may need to read the article properly.



posted on Aug, 30 2009 @ 01:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic


Am I missing something? Because I don't find this a terrible thing from what I've read.



I find true morality in their decision under extreme circumstances. I find their decision to be in the best interest of another human being already suffering.

Has anyone bothered to check this doctor's history prior to being forced into an extreme situation?

Did he have reprimands prior to this? Or was he considered a very competent doctor?



posted on Aug, 30 2009 @ 02:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by uplander
What would you rather had happened to those poor people there who could not get out? Would you rather the Dr. die with them? Or would you rather they were left there to die in the mud? Can you imagine the horror that would be? Lying in a bed, not able to help yourself, all sane people having already left, alone, to suffocate in water and mud as it inched up your face?



Excuse me... This was a 6-STORY HOSPITAL. Just had to move patients off the first floor to stay out of the water. Break out the windows to get cooling, put a sheet hanging out the window to tag critical care patients to the rescue helicopters to get priority service there.

If you were going to die without electrical/mechanical support, then you would die naturally, as they would of done anyway. It's not a doctors business to make sole death decisions, especially a low level eye, earth and throat doctor who was not the doctor of record for these patients.

Another example is police who show up at a car on fire with a live victim still inside who cannot get out. Should he shoot and kill the victim to put him out of his supposed pain? (he's going to die anyway so put him out of misery).

Answer is NO since you never know alternate savings methods might be available that you didn't think of, like maybe the fire truck that showed up right after you shot and killed the victim did have a way to rapidly put out the fire and extract the victim.

If I were a relative of one of the people this stupid bitch doctor killed, I would hunt her down and blow her brains out.



posted on Aug, 30 2009 @ 02:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


If it was just one patient that was unable to be transported then of course there is not a problem in the case you described.

From what I understand it was many patients.

Sorry but most Doctors are full of Ego and have a God complex. They dance with the pharmaceutical companies from the time they are in Med school and most are not very good at out of the box thinking.

Any other country would have asked for assistance from all over for helicopter transport and gotten it from many sources. Not just Med flight choppers but police, news, fire and forest service. They were turning away most help. They being FEMA.

No excuses.



posted on Aug, 30 2009 @ 02:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by chuckk

Excuse me... This was a 6-STORY HOSPITAL. Just had to move patients off the first floor to stay out of the water.



Move them how?

Wheel their beds and all their life saving equipment by elevator?



posted on Aug, 30 2009 @ 02:23 PM
link   
I think one must weigh each case, in a situation like Katrina. My friend had a doctor friend in one of the hospitals in New Orleans. It had been four days, 100 degree heat, the water was up to the third floor of the hospital, they were running out of food, water, supplies, gang-type people were banging on the door and trying to get in to steal drugs, etc. It was a terrible situation. Common sense is the key. I think it was probably common sense. Mercy killing? Probably!



posted on Aug, 30 2009 @ 02:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Move them how?

Wheel their beds and all their life saving equipment by elevator?


The same way we move them in the F.D.

Back board, carry, light weight gurney resperate them with a bag-valve-mask and portable O2 and carry the IV lines by hand.

How do you think you get moved from a burning structure?

Its called an emergency move because if the patient is dieing then you take a chance and transport any way possible.

Its called saving lives!



posted on Aug, 30 2009 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blueangel7
gang-type people were banging on the door and trying to get in to steal drugs....



"Gang-type"


Just come out and say it: Black people were in need of medical supplies and went to the place that had them


(but you think they just wanted to get high... "Gang-type people...
)



[edit on 30-8-2009 by Exuberant1]



posted on Aug, 30 2009 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by truth/seeker
reply to post by Rams59lb
 


under Obama care the government will decide who will live, and who will

die, and they decide when, not you or family


And you'd rather have a corporate for-profit insurance loss-adjuster do the job instead?

[edit on 30-8-2009 by Taikonaut]



posted on Aug, 30 2009 @ 02:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Taikonaut
 


Since this is my thread and it's starting to lean away from the topic I'll answer that statement of ignorance.

No, neither GOV or the Insurance Co. should be making those decisions. That is what proves this current Healthcare Reform Bill isn't about reform but instead it's more about control... Fix Big Pharma, the Insurance Co and Medicad/Medical/The VA and that would be reform!!!



posted on Aug, 30 2009 @ 02:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1

Originally posted by Blueangel7
gang-type people were banging on the door and trying to get in to steal drugs....



"Gang-type"


Just come out and say it: Black people were in need of medical supplies and went to the place that had them


(but you think they just wanted to get high... "Gang-type people...
)


[edit on 30-8-2009 by Exuberant1]


MS-13 might object to being gathered up in your interpretation of the stereotype.

[edit on 30-8-2009 by RoofMonkey]



posted on Aug, 30 2009 @ 03:08 PM
link   
What if some asked to be put under? I would if I was on my death bed while hell ran wild outside.



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join