Viewing 1 post (of 1 total)
  • Author
  • #16868

    1. It wasn’t fair on her because she was not a murderer. According to her, she said she didn’t murder those patients, she had spent her entire life taking care of patients. She has no reason or history of doing anything other than good for the patients. They were simply given medication to make them comfortable in the most horrific of conditions. She only wants to help them through their pain and make them comfortable.
    2. It was important because there were a lot of homicides, atrocities, and murders rate in most of the hospitals in New Orleans, especially Memorial Hospital. “Euthanasia is something you do to a horse, or to an animal. When you do it to people, it’s called Murder” and all this happened in New Orleans. Patients were euthanized, and toxicology tests on some of the bodies found at Touro and at the specialty Hospital of New Orleans revealed high levels of Morphine and Midazolam, the combination of the same drugs used at Memorial.
    3. In the closing argument, TV attorney Alan Shore claimed that New Orleans was not part of America after Katrina. “During that horrendous week, the United States of America was nowhere to be found.” Only the doctor, by helping the patients go peacefully, retained her “innate sense of humanity.” When Simmons saw the program, he ripped up his copy of the unused version of the show’s ending. The jury in the television case found the doctor not guilty of first-degree murder.
    4. The historical perspectives impact my view on mercy killing, to understand that there is a standards of palliative care that prevail in the United States, the standard makes it clear that no Mercy killing in healthcare, “ The death of patients cannot be the goals of a doctor’s treatment” and the four principles: respect for patients, informed decisions, the duty to treat patients in ways that benefit them and that do not harm them, and the importance of distributing resources justly.
    The factors that Sway thinkers: The history of thought, law, and policy on aid in dying could be arrayed along two axes .one was whether the patient had requested to die, making him or her either a voluntary or involuntary participant.

    He who has the power to cure would necessarily also be able to kill.

    This is a priceless possession which we cannot afford to tarnish, but society always is attempting to make the physician into a killer-to kill the defective child at birth, to leave the sleeping pills beside the bed of the cancer patient. “it is the duty of society to protect the physician from such requests”.

    NO perspectives missing from this historical lesson were all eyes openers.
    5. Dr, Pou’s attorney has a difficult time finding useful guidelines from AMA on comfort in care during a disaster because he cannot document any file, he decided not to have Pou publicly wade into a discussion of end–of–life care issues. He got frustrated and it was difficult for him to find useful guidelines on palliative care, with no standard or any reason for him to go to the courtroom. The AMA rather called for consultation with the family members and documentation of the medication given, neither of which Pou had done.

    Arthur Caplan’s opinion was that what had happened at Memorial did not fit within the purview of palliative sedation precisely because of guidelines. If the accused woman had intended solely to ease pain and discomfort on that very day, then he would expect at least some documentation that the medicines were given gradually and with care but he was unconvinced that the sole option to relieve any pain or suffering was to kill

Viewing 1 post (of 1 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.