July 29, 2007
-
Mercy Killing and Katrina
Dr. Anna Pou was accused of murder by Louisiana Attorney General Charles Foti.
Dr. Anna Pou gave lethal doses of pain killer to nine terminally ill patients during the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. She has said she was only trying to relieve their pain. A grand jury decided not to indict her.
This has brought up the issue of doctors giving painkiller to patients that are suffering that includes lethal doses. In fact, I was just reading an opinion article that asked the question “When is it appropriate to give a terminal patient pain medication at levels that can hasten death?”
Here is the link: Link
Is it ever appropriate for a doctor to give a terminal patient pain medication that will cause that patient to die faster?
Comments (74)
i’m torn with this concept…
if it is consensual and it is understood what is happening…from both the giver of the medication and the person who’s receiving…
who are we to say that she is wrong…
yes. that was a circumstance where the grand jury was correct not to indict…
When I read these posts I with I HAD some of that stuff.
I think ultimately it should be up to the patient. Someone’s fate shouldn’t be decided by random people who don’t care about them.
If I was terminally ill, and in a lot of pain, I would hate for that to be prolonged simply because someone thought it was against THEIR morals to relieve me of it.
If it was in their wishes, I would have to say yes.
If they wished to die faster, yes.
I think if the patient wants it…then why not. I realize there are strong arguments for both sides, but I do believe it should be up to the patient.
Wow that’s tough. I know people who live with pain and at times the pain is so bad they wish they were dead, but once the pain has subsided a little they rethink that thought, and I think as medical professionals they have to determine if this is just one of those desperate times or if it’s really what the patient wants. I wouldn’t want to be in that situation.
if i was dying…id want something to speed up the process and cause less pain….esp if the pain got worse the closer i came to death
I think this argument goes hand in hand with another question: Is it alright to allow nature take its course with newborns with debilitating mental/physical disabilities? When is it more ethical to let them go, rather than “save” them, only to let them suffer their entire lives and cause pain to their families?
The answers to these questions are vague and, in the case of lawsuits, extremely unhelpful. It comes down to what the person wants, and when the person cannot make a decision for him/herself (and there is no living will present), the decision falls to the family. But what happens, in extreme cases, when the person is not able to make a decision as to his or her fate and there is no living will or family available to make the tough decision? It would seem that the responsibility would fall to the doctor’s good judgement. “Do no harm” does not always mean the doctor should do nothing. Personally, if I were to be in a condition that made me chronically ill and I was going to die painfully or let a doctor give me pain medicine to I would suffer, I would choose the medicine. On a whole, people want to die in dignified ways – like falling asleep and not waking up - rather than slowly and painfully. It’s a hard decision, but in the absense of family, the responsibility falls to the doctor who will hopefully “do no harm” in whatever way he or she deems appropriate.
In certain cases, with the right conditions, I do think giving a terminal patient pain medication to let them die peacefully is appropriate.
Yes. I thinkit is appropriate. If you are lying in a bed with NO standard of living… you only have a days to live and are in extreme pain I think it woul behorrible not to give them painkiller. we put down animals that are in similar situations to be merciful… why not humans?
yes but only if there is no chance of a survival for the patient, and only if they are fully aware of their decision.
If the person wants to end their pain, then I think it’s appropriate..
If the person is of age and of sound mind and asks his or her doctor for this as a last request, I see no harm in it. You can’t really call being bed ridden and in horrible pain, life anyway.
Hell yeah.
You gotta pass some of those pills this way. I got a co-worker who like Bright Eyes. He just doesn’t deserve to live.
There’s a certain principle that we have to follow – now is not the time for euthanasia. If we legalized euthanasia, then that will allow doctors and researchers to slack up on their studies and treatments, and will begin the “slippery slope” as they say, and soon, euthanasia takes over as the number one treatment. Maybe it won’t happen. But the time for euthanasia is not now, it is the time to cure.
-David
Is the person asking for the extra medicine?
If so, and if that person is of sound mind, then she should acquiesce to that request. Make me comfortable. I don’t want to die in pain. If an exorbitant amount of Morphine is what does the trick, then Morphine away.
I find this type of argument remarkably similar to the debate in the early ’80s about patients’ rights to ask for a DNR order.
if that’s what the patient chooses, yes.
I’d like to clarify what I meant by my earlier post. If euthanasia is legalized, then soon euthanasia will be the treatment doctors and researchers suggest for patients who are a difficult inconvenience. And being killed out of convenience is not an enjoyable idea. Everyone has hope, even if it’s by some sort of improbable miracle.
-David
If you have the patients consent, then yes, but only if it is clear they are going to die soon anyways, and with no way of stopping it. If that is the case, I believe the last few days of the patient’s life should be painless. But if the patient does not ask for any extra medication, or requests none, if they are awake and able to discuss things of that matter, I believe that they should be given that last bit of their life to say goodbye to loved ones and do what they wish until their time comes.
So over all, I believe that it should be the patients choice, and if they are unable to make that choice, let the closest in their family make it.
Yes!
Yes.
Her story was that these patents were dying very badly, as the medical treatment was cut off due to the floods. The respirators were turning off, things like that. Give all the pain meds it takes, to make the death painless. If that hurries things up, so be it.
as long as the patient requests, then yes it’s appropriate.
This is such a loaded question. In a situation where full medical attention could take a long time to get, I dont think it could be a bad thing. Now if the patients wanted to rough it out, by all means ok. As much as I’d like to consider myself strong and able to tough stuff out, part of me still thinks that if the going got that tough I might want someone to help me along too.
I really dont know Dan. I think hind sight is 20/20 and you really only know what you would do if you were in the situation.
I have my doubts that Dr. Pou deliberately overdosed those patients. I think the bigger crime was how long it took rescuers to get to the hospital. Hospitals, nursing homes and emergency shelters (remember the Superdome?) should have been the first places rescuers evacuated. I lay the blame on the mayor of New Orleans and the governor of Louisiana for the entire mess in which Dr. Pou was mired. And to answer your question, no.
I haven’t been on your xanga tv in a while cause I’ve been falling asleep at insane hours.. Like at seven.. o.o
I got mixed feeling about this.
YES.
Yes, if the patient decides that’s what they want.
Or, during Katrina, some doctors killed their patients because they were unconscious, had a short time to live and would have suffered a very painful death. Desperate times call for desperate measures.
Yes, if they are lucid and old enough to consent.
I think it’s cruel drawing out that pain any more than necessary when the hope of survival is nil.
yes
If the patient wants it, it’s it should be their decision…
If the patient wills it, yes.
If the patient does not, but their family (majority) wants it, no.
I think the jury was correct in not indicting Dr. Pou
if it would put the people out of their suffering. hurricane katrina… i hate my name.
If it were in Michigan she would get 10 years. But since that’s not the article, I don’t really believe it’s appropriate to assist terminally ill people in suicide, for one reason (and even though it’s kind of the thinking of denial) doctors could make a mistake in a diagnosis and people sometimes are paranoid about something there afraid to get, that they think they have it. <—– That last statement is kind of hard to explain….. acureatly.
It’s okay if the patient asks and signs a consent form (and is in their right mind)
Otherwise, yes, it’s murder.
I’m not sure.. Still undecide on that one..
with their consent
no. she has no right if the patient doesnt want those things
I think it’s awfully scary to give doctors the opportunity to deliver lethal doses of anything.
…isn’t there something in the hippocratic oath about that?
Only if the patient knows what the medication does.
it depends on what the pt wants.
In that case nobody would be in their right mind (The hurricane, I mean). It’s just shock+injury. Plus mortal injury, as in, it’s hopeless and a waste of valuable resources (Hurricane, remember). This was fine, although I think it would’ve been equally okay to leave them there and save the painkiller for someone else (Then again, they probably would’ve gotten more in a few days, but whatever). So, I think the court was right, in short.
Since this has probably come to Euthanasia debate (I’ve barely read the first page, I’ve stopped reading every comment), yeah, Euthanasia’s cool. Who wants to be a drain on a family’s money when they’re going to die with or without the Life Support? Suicide has always been an option, an option that goes from “Not a good idea” to “Honorable” depending on the situation
There’s nothing simple about this, but if a person is in pain and has little chance of ever enjoying life again after such a huge disaster then I wouldn’t blame the victims for wanting to ‘move on’. There is so much loss involved in Katrina not only in worldy belongings but in a community. Although there is always the possibility that one might find a better life. It depends on how able they feel to go on with the healing. How much is too much should be to the individual.
Well, its socially acceptable to put away animals when they are injured or sick and in pain, so why not people?
It seems like the humane thing to do in the situation she was in. Like Kevorkian said, “dying is not a crime”.
if the patient is informed and in a state to give consent, yes.
if they are truly in pain and desire pain relief we (docs and nurses) are obligated to act.
I don’t think so. I have a close friend who just died of cancer. He was kept “comfortable” and just closed his eyes and died in the end. I know it isn’t always the case for some people. Each family and individual has their own wishes, I understand this. But, I don’t think I could get over knowing that I “sped up” someone’s death, to put them out of their misery. I would be concerned that “some” doctors would take advantage of this and try to become a bit more god-like in their decisions.
A lot of the debate centers around what the patient chooses. I honestly don’t think that is the issue. I mean, most of us oppose suicide, yet we make an exception for this issue. That being said, I believe that if a patient is terminal and in a great amount of pain then painkillers should be given to them without consideration for its consequences on the patient’s life span. They’re dying, so let them do it in as much peace and comfort as is possible. However, note that I only apply this to terminal patients. A patient who has a reasonable chance of recovery should not be given leathal doses. You can’t murder a dying man, but to hasten the death of a patient on the road to recovery is murder, even if they ask for death. We didn’t choose to be born; why should we think death ought to be any different? Our lives are not our own. They belong to God and the people who depend on us. The sooner we come to understand this, the better.
It should be up to the patient.
Yes … if a TERMINALLY ill patient requested it. I know that brings into play suicide laws and such, but if I’m in THAT much pain and I’m going to die anyway… I’d rather be hopped up on pain meds and going into a nice deep sleep instead of fighting pain until my last breath.
Just my opinion though. I think it’s just too complicated to make it legal though.
If they are definatly terminal, I think that giving medicine to bring on death is appropriate. My mother suffered months with Terminal cancer. I didn’t see her last days, but I was told that except for my grand mother, she didn’t recognize anyone around her, and that she had regressed mentally to a time when she was a child ;_;.
NEVER. I would heal those who are dying and in pain, through a command for God to work through me, and prayer for those particular persons, individually. That would be effective, if it were God’s Will, as far as the answer to the prayer would be. Is there no hope for those dying in rest homes? I know of a man (the murderer) who ordered an overdose of a morphine for his 101-year old father, who had been complaining that bed-sores were being a little painful, killing him, by the practices of the nurses administering this lethal dose to the elderly man. In the same local nursing home, a man recovering from a slight backbone Staff infection, in pain but not terminal, was ordered a lethal dosage of morphine at the insistance of the medical staff, and even though he refused it, he then went into a heart attack. That killed him.
Dum bitch!
Obviously the families of these patients did not come to rescue the loved ones. Only now after the fact are they pointing fingers. If those patients were killed in the hurricane and not by lethal doses of painkillers, would the patients’ families be charged with murder for not saving them?
People fucking piss me off. They didn’t give a damn about these dying relatives until someone else kills them, then suddenly pointing fingers and let’s go to court. Let’s see if we can profit off this poor doctor who was taking care of the “loved ones” we never gave a damn about and abandonded to save ourselves. Anyone pointing fingers needs to be slapped silly with a very large, dead fish. The same kind of people that won’t visit a dying relative but will happily show up at the funeral to see if there’s anything in the will for them. People disgust me. Bah.
Oh, to actually answer the question… yes, this would have been an appropriate time. If I were strapped to a bed and couldn’t be saved, I’d rather die comfortably in my sleep before the storm than get thrown around like a doll by the storm. And at the patient’s request. That should be another good one.
I think it is if the person is in great pain or unable to function (like their brain is dead). If someone is terminally ill, but can still go out and do things, then no. If they are capable of speaking and say no, then fine, don’t do it. It’s a very touchy subject… some would say even if someone was able to say they wanted a lethal dose and were really suffering it’s still murder… But if they want to, I think its alright. If possible, people shouldn’t have to die in pain.
It is never right. Mercy Killing it is an oxymoron. True Mercy is that which allows a soul to purify or leads one to deeper dependence on God. Suffering is a part of life and when joined to the Cross of our salvation can be redemptive…That is true mercy. We are called to carry our crosses.
Romans 8:16-18
16 The Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God,
17 and if children, heirs also, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him so that we may also be glorified with Him.
18 For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory that is to be revealed to us.
I’m pro-euthanasia! There are lots of situations that would be appropiate for a doctor to help a patient along to those pearly gates.
Dr. Kevorkian probably wishes he could have gotten the same treatment as she did. They did basically the same concept. It’s assisted suicide any way you paint it.
The only argument I can bring to this subject is look at the Dr. Kevorkian cases.
PeAce Love Soul
Yes. I thinkit is appropriate. If you are lying in a bed with NO standard of living… you only have a days to live and are in extreme pain I think it woul behorrible not to give them painkiller. we put down animals that are in similar situations to be merciful… why not humans?
<LI class=itemtimestamp>7/29/2007 6:46 PM
<LI class=itemsubmitter>angi1972 (message)
I will tell you why not humans. Humans have a soul. We are worth more than animals. An animal always doesn’t quite understand what pain is. Why it’s happening. We are humans. We should be able to handle it. We have God on our side.
If the patient wants it. But then again, there is this whole thing about whether or not the patient is in “the right state of mind” to make that kind of decision.
Well i don’t know but i know that i wouldn’t want to go down slow and painful. That is torture. I want to go fast and painless.
I actually just got back from Washington, D.C., where I attended the National Student Leadership Conference on Health and Medicine. We had some bioethical debates, and we watched this movie called W;t (Wit–an HBO special) about a literature prof who ended up with Stage IV ovarian cancer (there is no stage V). Her doctors (with her consent) experimented with a certain treatment to try to kill the cancer. She ended up dying. This raised the question of DA suicide in a terminally ill patient, which we discussed in our groups that night. One of the girls said that she had had this discussion at her school, and that she had reached a certain conclusion, to which I agree. It’s fairly simple:
The whole issue with DA suicide is that the doctor is killing the patient (with the patient’s consent, thus the term DA suicide). If the patient is on life-support or some other artificial means of living, it is not wrong to “pull the plug”, because they are living unnaturally, and would die naturally from the disease or whatever it is that’s wrong with them. So, if you pull the plug on someone in that condition, you are helping them die naturally, and thus it is not the doctor, but the disease/nature/whatever the condition is that is killing them. Thus, that is not DA suicide.
If the nature of the disease is that the victim dies slowly and painfully, and there is no hope for a cure, I agree with DA suicide. Otherwise, no.
Just ask Kevorkian.
No, I don’t think that it is. I think that if the family is OK will the person dying, they should be allowed to say “pull the plug” and take the person home if there’s still time before the end. In the end, it is the patient or the family’s choice, not the doctor’s.
it’s appropriate if the patient requests it.
Well of course, as long as the patient asks for it. Who should have to SUFFER before they die??
Kevorkian for dessert anyone?
Yes.
Probably. If they want to die at that point..