[Melissa White]

The group of Dr’s met to discuss and make decisions about the ongoing crisis at the hospital. They faced difficult decisions about who would be saved and who they could not save. As resources were scarce and conditions in the hospital were deteriorating.

Some of the decisions made at this meeting were prioritizing patients, the committee established criteria for the patients evacuation. They focused on saving those who had the best chance at survival.
Evacuation orders, they prioritized patients on the second floor for evacuation, they thought it was the safest location. Patients on other floors would be evacuated if there were time and resources too.
No patients left behind, they decided that no patients, regardless of their condition, would be left behind in the hospital when evacuations took place.
Ethical and legal concerns, they discussed the implications of their decisions, acknowledging that they might have to leave who were not dying.

Dr Deichmann follows ethical guidelines and adhering to the principles of medical ethics. He is concerned with the legality of it all. Susan Mulderink she is seen as a person of concern and caution in these discussions. Dr Pou’s views evolve through out. She initially opposes the idea, but as the situation becomes worse, and resources become even worse her views then change. Dr Cook initially is an advocate for life. As the disaster unfolds and the situation gets worse, she too becomes more open to the idea.

The decision to euthanize pets and patients were separate and distinct choices. But both driven by the dire circumstances. It may have made it easier for some staff to euthanize patients after the pets but still it was a challenging situation for all. The availability of boats to rescue the animals highlights the complex nature of decision making process during the disaster.

[Author]

Posts