Patients Killed in New Orleans
 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...n_page_id=1770

This is pretty sad

They should have been able to protect the hospital instead of doing what they did. We should have had troops on the ground within hours of the hurricane passing.

Seriously? GANGS OF RAPISTS?

Did I miss a broadcast or is this reporter punching this story up a little?

My wife was watching the Oprah show and said she was talking to people who said that they had to get their families out of the Superdome because there were rapists grabbing women and children and raping and kiling them. They said you had to step over dead bodies all over the place.

It was a most unfortunate act, but I believe it was the right decision to make.

Couldn't that mean that:
1) There were *stories* about rapists grabbing women and children, so they wanted to get their family out.
2) There were dead people in the superdome, which has nothing to do with 1.

I can understand that the superdome would be a pretty bad place, but I cannot believe that there would be "gangs of rapists" running around grabbing random women. Or, to be more accurate, I dare not believe that...

I heard that women basically stopped using the restrooms in the Superdome at some point, for fear of being raped. Instead, they found boxes in which to crouch and relieve themselves. Appalling.

To those people those days probably seemed like the apocolypse. We would all probably be appalled to find out what some people are capable of in that situation. I wonder how many people were killed over bottled water or canned vegetables.

:crazy:

Within hours, really? Precidence, any?

Can you name me one hurricane that hit the US where we had troops on the ground within hours of the hurricane passing?

Not only that... the Federal Government cant just invade a city without it's Mayor or Governor asking for it first (open rebellion excluded). That request didnt come until about 5 days after the storm.

And even after a request is made it typically takes 48 hrs to get the first troops there.

Its easy now to say that they should have had troops there as soon as the winds died down, but isn't it just as easy to say they should have evacuated all those people to begin with?

I heard a report today (I'll try and find it), that we had troops in New Orleans days earlier then we had in Homestead, Florida, after Andrew.

I can't believe the original story here.

EDIT: stevo posted it on another thread; I actually heard it on the radio this morning during the news.

The post: http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...&postcount=113

The story: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05254/568876.stm

First off the request didn't come days afterword, someone recently posted a link where the request was made before the hurricane hit. So unless that person posted a false link they should have had help. Second there are also local troups which should have stayed to help. The police force should have all bunkered up somewhere safe (maybe the super dome?) and then as soon as it was safe hit the street in mass. Third I find it funny that we can invade a forgien land and have troups at the oil ministry within minutes but we can't defend our own hospitals from our own people?

I'll be the first to admit that I'm not surprised we didn't have troops on the ground within hours, and Rekna you've got to admit the Operation Iraqi Freedom was planned pretty well in advance.

About the state of emergency thing:

Blanco's Website with pdf linkage to the request for expedited federal disaster status on August 28.

I do find it hard to belief that we could drop supplies in or anything, period, for days afterwards. I would think it might have chilled people out a little bit, at least.

The title of the article was "We had to kill our patients"... Yet after reading the article, I couldn't find where the doctors or staff killed anybody. I also watched a doctor being interviewed in TV and he told of nurses inserting IV's into each other just to remain hydrated.

Is comforting a patient by giving him/her pain medication killing them? Is having compassion for the dead and dying killing them? No it isn't. I guess the reporter would have had the medical staff ignore the patients pain, and just let them suffer. About all these people (doctors & nurses) could do was comfort the sick and dying. They were completely out of resources, with no more on the way. No power, no food, no water, no nothing...

That article is complete BS. The reporter, publisher, and owner of this publication ought to be ashamed. They should be sued.

the 5 days later story about the request for aid has been demolished elsewhere, i don't think it merits serious consideration.

what i worry about in this account is the way perception altered the triage practices in this case. Indeed, the gangs of rapists story has been pretty much dismissed as hyperbole. Individual sexual assaults may have/are likely to have occured, and this is a serious problem. However, the level of danger is inflated by misperception from serious to beyond comprehension.

i should hope that no patient classified as too weak to transport on account of such hyped up fear...but i do commend the medical professionals who gave the dying the best care possible in the situation, even if that means pain management in the face of certain death.

What I didn't see in the article that I'd be curious about is where they drew the line. the split 'em into 1. going to die, 2. critical need, and 3. will be ok. Was it only #1 that got the morphine?

I think it's horrible to have to do it, but it's the only responsible thing to do.

well here is another source

http://www.pej.org/html/modules.php?...ticle&sid=3276


The doctors gave them a lethal dose and the nurses stayed with the patients until they died.

Two things come to mind here. Firstly, both of my kids had a visit to the NICU thankfully for nothing serious. The wife and I got to know a few nurses fairly well, and one night I asked a nurse what she owuld do if there was a fire or catastophy.She got real serious, looked me staright in the eye and said that if they couldn't get all the kids out, she at least would stay with them.. and if it got really really bad, she would call her husband if possible to say goodbye. We all got a little misty eyed over that.

Secondly and quite a bit less personally, I wonder if either side of the euthanasia debate will use this as a precedent or springboard for their cause.

This is shocking.

"I didn't know if I was doing the right thing. But I did not have time. I had to make snap decisions, under the most appalling circumstances, and I did what I thought was right."

This seems like all we can actually ask of people in this situation. I believe the doctors did the right thing.

it actually looks like the same source, repackaged by a different outlet.

It's unclear from the article whether this was actually euthanasia. Given the circumstances, I would definitely give the doctors the benefit of the doubt.
Still, if true, it certainly is a tragic situation.

I certainly can't imagine having to make such decisions!

However, in the face of failing power, failing backups, depleting supplies, locked-down pharmacies, increasingly-unsafe conditions, along with the fact that many of these patients simply wouldn't make it...I'm glad they gave these patients the opportunity to die in at least a painless manner.

Truth be told, doctors make this kind of decision every day. We just don't like talking about it. When a cancer patient's treatment options run out and s/he is transferred to hospice for pain relief / to die, it is the SAME decision. It just takes longer for death to occur.

I'm torn on whether I hope that investigations occur and the people involved are prosecuted - I think that each case needs to be taken on an individual basis. Certainly there have been doctors in the past who did this kind of thing for a power-trip. We need to look at each of the patients' histories & see if there really was NO HOPE for them in the medium-term (say, 8 days without support). If so, then let it go. If not, then prosecute for negligence/homicide.