The small group of doctors met to discuss the hospital's precarious situation. They
faced decreasing resources, a worsening climate, and no help. They decided to provide lethal
amounts of medication to patients they thought had no prospect of surviving due to their acute
conditions and lack of resources at this meeting. This was called “Crisis Standard of Care”, a
severe action taken under pressure. The morning meeting formalized these judgments and set a
methodology for selecting euthanasia patients based on medical futility and survival.

Dr. Deichmann opposes euthanasia morally and ethically. Even in desperate situations,
she believes in saving lives and delivering the greatest care. Susan Mulderink is divided, worried
about the ethical implications, but also under pressure. Dr. Pou supports euthanasia as a last
option to eliminate patients' suffering. Dr. Cook looks realistic and eager to follow euthanasia
protocol, reflecting their dire situation. This topic raises ethical issues for healthcare workers
amid catastrophic occurrences, and there is no simple solution.

Limited resources and the necessity to prioritize human lives cause pet-person
conflicts. While terrible, euthanizing pets helped medical professionals allocate limited resources
to human care, making it easier to accept. In hindsight, later pet evacuation boats made earlier
pet fatalities look cruel, but during the crisis, human survival was paramount. This highlights the
ethical challenges healthcare personnel have in making life-or-death judgments in extreme
situations.

As the remaining Memorial patients board helicopters, the reader may feel mixed
feelings. One feels relieved that these individuals are finally receiving the treatment and
evacuation they need, but also aware of the moral and ethical challenges the healthcare workers
experienced in making these difficult decisions. Readers consider the moral and ethical problems
healthcare workers faced after Hurricane Katrina and how such crises can test people.