Viewing 1 post (of 1 total)
  • Author
  • #17988

    The small group of doctors grouped in a meeting, those doctors were actually unhappy that memorial leaders had turned down the chance to continue the rescue. They met to decide a way forward in helping everyone at memorial medical , because patients and family members wanted to know exactly when and how they were going to out of the hospital. however at the meeting there are answers they couldn’t give them so they reinstated hope in their patients that seem anxious saying they were waiting on more boats and helicopters and somehow they will all get out of memorial safely.

    Euthanasia is the practice of intentionally ending a life to relieve pain and suffering. It is also known as “mercy killing. Euthanasia can be voluntary, where the person who dies requests it, or involuntary, where another person makes the decision on behalf of the person who dies.

    What side dose Dr. Deichmann take?
    Deichmann, clearly through and said euthanasia is illegal throughout the hurricane Katrina and that idea shouldn’t even be consider in the first place.

    Susan Mulderink thinks, According to chapter 7, Susan thought is euthanasia as an option to use in helping the patients with out their consent to ease their suffering. Mulderick was one of them who decided to administered lethal doses of morphine to most of the patients as a way forward to reduced their pains.

    Dr. Pou was one of the physicians at the memorial medical who also throughout and decided the only way to ease patients suffering was to administer lethal doses of morphine to patients.

    Dr. Cook was one of the physicians who as well decided to prioritized the comfort of the patients and believed that he should help the patients with their pain, especially when basic necessities weren’t available. He seemingly believed that morphine was the only way to do so.

    Euthanasia is an incredibly sensitive and important issue. Ultimately, I believe that every individual deserves to live their life to its fullest, and a doctor’s first obligation is to preserve human life. Death is a natural occurrence, not something that should be controlled by man. Furthermore, suffering can often serve as an opportunity for personal growth and for God’s purposes to be made known. As such, we should allow natural death to occur when it is ready; otherwise, we are overriding God’s plan.

    When allocating resources in the aftermath of a natural disaster, negotiating between caring for pets and caring for people can be challenging. While some refused to evacuate without their pets, others had to make heartbreaking decisions as to leaving them behind or euthanizing them to spare them further suffering. This may also have distressingly impacted the perception of mercy killing on humans reports claim that Memorial Medical staffs injected patients with lethal drugs after Hurricane Katrina. It is an intricate balance between resource conservation and moral obligations, which cannot be taken lightly.
    The article alludes to a harrowing set of conditions endured by the hospital staff, such as lack of power, supplies, safety, and food. This environment may have caused them to consider euthanasia of patients out of compassion rather than necessity. However, there is still controversy surrounding this decision even when done with care and consideration.

    It’s easy to look back on the situation and criticize the lack of planning which could have prevented the initial deaths of both humans and pets alike. From hindsight, authorities should have taken into account increased public awareness of pet evacuations in their crisis plan. However, those facing this unprecedented situation did not know what awaited them and had limited information available at the time; thus it may be unfair to judge their decisions retroactively. Ultimately it was only after public outcry that later boats enabled pet evacuations as part of legal reforms recognizing animals’ roles in people’s lives—it was too little too late for those who tragically experienced loss already.
    However, based on what I have read and concentrated on, I told myself that I should never be put in a situation where I have to make some difficult choices that will cost live or death decisions .

    I think I would feel a mix of emotions, such as:
    Relief that some of the patients were able to get out safely and receive proper care elsewhere.

    Sadness that some of the patients had to die or be left behind, either by choice or by necessity.

    Anger that the authorities did not provide adequate support and resources for the evacuation of the hospital.

    Fear that I or my colleagues might face legal or ethical consequences for our actions during the crisis.

    Exhaustion from working under extreme conditions for days without rest or relief.

    Hope that things would get better and that I would be able to reunite with my family and friends.

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