[Olabisi Adekoya]

1.Her treatment was unfair because she wasn’t a murderer. She said that she did not murder those patients because she had spent her entire life caring for them. She has never had any motivation to do anything other than what is best for the patients. Simply to keep them comfortable in the worst of circumstances, they were given medication. She merely wants to relieve their suffering and provide them with comfort.

2. The majority of the hospitals in New Orleans, particularly Memorial Hospital, had high rates of killings, atrocities, and murders; therefore, it was crucial. The act of euthanizing a horse or other animal is called such. Everything that occurred occurred in New Orleans, and when you do it to people, it’s called murder. Patients were put down, and toxicology examinations of some of the bodies discovered at Touro and the specialty hospital in New Orleans revealed high concentrations of morphine and midazolam—a combination of the same medicines used at Memorial.

3.After Hurricane Katrina, New Orleans, according to TV lawyer Alan Shore, was no longer a part of America. The United States of America was absent throughout that terrible week. The only person who still had their “innate sense of humanity” was the doctor, who assisted the patients in passing away quietly. Simmons tore up his copy of the show’s ending when he saw it on television. The doctor was found not guilty of first-degree murder by the jury in the case featured on television.

4.The historical perspectives have an impact on how I view mercy killing. I now realize that there are standards of palliative care that are in place in the United States. These standards clearly state that there should be no mercy killing in healthcare and that “the death of patients cannot be the goal of a doctor’s treatment.” They also include the four guiding principles of respect for patients, informed decisions, the responsibility to treat patients in a way that is both beneficial and non-harmful, and the significance of disseminating information.
According to Sway, these variables could be used to plot the development of help in dying theory, legislation, and policy. One was if the patient had expressed a desire to pass away, in which case they would be considered either voluntary or involuntary participants.
It follows that whoever has the ability to heal also has the capacity to murder.
This is a priceless asset that we cannot afford to have tarnished, but society is always trying to turn the doctor into a murderer by forcing him or her to kill the faulty child at birth or leave sleeping tablets next to the cancer patient’s bed. “It is the obligation of society to defend the doctor against such demands.”
This historical lecture opened everyone’s eyes in all the right ways.

5. Because Dr. Pou’s lawyer cannot provide any documentation, he finds it challenging to locate appropriate AMA standards on comfort in care during a disaster. For this reason, he decided against having Pou publicly address the topic of end-of-life care. He became frustrated because he had trouble finding practical advice on palliative care; there was no set norm, and he had no good reason to go to court. Pou had not done one of the two things that the AMA had recommended—consulting with the patient’s family members and recording the medications that had been administered.

According to Arthur Caplan, the circumstances at Memorial did not fall outside the scope of palliative sedation due to the rules. He would expect at least some documentation showing the pills were administered carefully and with care if the accused woman had intended only to relieve pain and discomfort on that specific day. However, he was not persuaded that killing was the only alternative available to alleviate any pain or suffering.

[Author]

Posts