Nurses in Katrina Euthanasia Case Offered Immunity for Grand Jury Testimony

LifeSiteNews ^ | 6/21/07 | Hilary White

[wagglebee]

NEW ORLEANS, June 21, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Nurses Cheri Landry and Lori Budo, who have admitted to administering lethal doses of medication to patients during the hurricane Katrina disaster, are being offered immunity from prosecution by the Louisiana Attorney General.

CNN reports that in two weeks the two will testify before a Grand Jury that four patients died after being administered what Louisiana's Attorney General, Charles Foti Jr., called a "lethal cocktail" of drugs.

In the immediate aftermath of the hurricane that devastated New Orleans in late August 2005, rumours began to fly around the internet world that patients were being killed by health care workers who wanted to flee the appalling conditions in the inner city New Orleans' Memorial Medical Center. Later, two doctors admitted that patients were euthanized, one doctor saying that he had fled the hospital rather than directly participate in killing patients.

The following July, one doctor and the two nurses were arrested and charged with four counts of second-degree murder for lethally injecting patients. Dr. Anna Pou, a head and neck surgeon who specializes in working with cancer patients, denied the charges insisting that she did not support euthanasia and claimed to have given only comfort care for the patients.

Court documents, however, assert that witnesses have testified that Dr. Pou and the two nurses took syringes full of drugs to a ward for the chronically-ill and injected four patients. 34 dead patients were found in Memorial following the Katrina disaster.

Foti told media, "We …spent almost 10 ½ months investigating and, after all of this, can only come to the conclusion that this crime had been committed."

Read previous LifeSiteNews.com coverage:

New Orleans Doctors Kill Patients Rather Than Leave Them to Looters, Then Flee
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/sep/05091205.html

Doctor Charged in Katrina Deaths Denies Committing Murder, Euthanasia
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/sep/06092502.html

[wagglebee]

If I was dying and in horrible pain living in those hellish conditions, I would hope someone would have the compassion to shoot me up with something.

Unknowingly or not, you are suggesting that doctors should decide whether someone's life is worth living and that based on their judgement, they can break the law.

Putting aside the legal and moral aspects of this case, there is not a bit of evidence to suggest that ANY of these patients asked to be killed.

[wagglebee]

Did they think they wouldn’t have suffering, dying patients to deal with when they went into medicine?

I'm betting they assumed they would not be working in a third world country...which basically, they were.

If I am driving along and see a homeless person and think to myself, "I would never want to live like that," do I, under your "moral code," have the right to kill them?

[wagglebee]

I would have wanted to be euthanized in this situation.

So, you are okay with doctors breaking the law and doing what they WANT to do? What other conditions do you think this should be extended to? Should doctors kill babies with Downs Syndrome or cleft palates because they wouldn't WANT to live like that? Should we kill homeless people because we wouldn't WANT to live like that? Was it okay for the Nazis to exterminate over SIX MILLION people because they wouldn't WANT to live like them?

Keep in mind that there is ZERO EVIDENCE that ANY of the murdered patients asked to be killed.

[P-40]

You have a utilitarian view of life that allows you to coldly calculate the fate of others. This is not normal.

No, I am just well aware that life throws you some really nasty curves sometimes and you may have to make a logical judgment that has no ideal outcome. You can be all emotional about it if you want to but it won't get you anywhere.

They killed them to make their own lives easier.

The fact remains that we know little of what happened and what it was like to be in the shoes of those doctors...and I truly doubt you could understand what they were going through anyway. You want to believe they were a bunch of uncaring murderers...fine. If it keeps you riding comfortably on your moral high horse, enjoy.

[P-40]

It’s been clear that P-40 constantly side stepped questions.

I answered any questions that came my way. Others did not do so.

[P-40]

If you have such proof, go arrest all those doctors and their staff and throw them in jail.

[P-40]

"I would never want to live like that,"

Do you think this is even remotely the same situation?

[P-40]

you are suggesting that doctors should decide whether someone's life is worth living

Go to a hospital in a war zone, or in any area where a major disaster has just taken place, and you will see such decisions being made all the time.

[P-40]

It seems that this is something else P-40 doesn’t grasp.

An argument involves logic, not emotion. Unfortunately many cannot handle a logical argument these days.

[wagglebee]

Go to a hospital in a war zone, or in any area where a major disaster has just taken place, and you will see such decisions being made all the time.

You are WRONG. There is a major difference between combat/disaster triage where evaluations are made as to which lives are able to be saved or not and taking proactive steps to KILL THE PERSON.

[P-40]

combat/disaster triage

That describes the situation at the hospital in New Orleans quite well. What? You think they doctors wanted to kill of the terminally ill so they could go enjoy some looted Heineken?

[wagglebee]

You are still missing the point. There is a difference, both legal and moral, between determining which lives can and cannot be saved and taking proactive measures to end a life.

[P-40]

You are still missing the point.

No, I do not miss the point. For one, I don't automatically presume the doctors guilty, as many here do. Two, in the final analysis there is not much difference in taking action to let someone die and taking no action to let someone die. The result is the same.

[GovernmentShrinker]

There was close to zero chance of any of them getting out alive anyway, and the scarce supplies and batteries were surely needed by other patients who had a reasonable chance of survival. These patients were in no condition to comprehend the situation and make decision; it’s not even clear that they were beyond minimally conscious. The question to ask them was whether they’d prefer to die slowly, suffering in the heat, or die quickly. It’s reasonable to assume that they would have chosen the latter, if they’d been in any condition to understand questions and answer them.

It’s an objective fact that many people with Down Syndrome and cleft palate are enjoying life and wish to continue living. It’s a rare person who’s terminally and critically ill, who would prefer to suffer for another day or two in a sweltering filthy flooded hospital before dying, than to die quickly. When people can’t make decisions, sometimes other people have to make the decision. A veterinarian who refused to euthanize an animal who was suffering like that and was going to die soon anyway, would get his/her license pulled for animal cruelty. Why do so many in our society think it’s okay to force our fellow humans to endure horrible suffering, while we won’t tolerate that for our pets?

[wagglebee]

For one, I don't automatically presume the doctors guilty, as many here do.

Granted, they may very well not be guilty.

Two, in the final analysis there is not much difference in taking action to let someone die and taking no action to let someone die.

For those of us who subscribe to Judeo-Christian Biblical teaching, there is an enormous difference.

[wagglebee]

A veterinarian who refused to euthanize an animal who was suffering like that and was going to die soon anyway, would get his/her license pulled for animal cruelty. Why do so many in our society think it’s okay to force our fellow humans to endure horrible suffering, while we won’t tolerate that for our pets?

So, you think that euthanasia should be legalized?

[P-40]

For those of us who subscribe to Judeo-Christian Biblical teaching, there is an enormous difference.

Really? Where in the Bible does it say it is all fine and dandy to allow needless suffering when all hope is lost? God gave us free will for a reason. He didn't say the choice would always be between choosing the turkey or the beef sandwich.

[wagglebee]

Where in the Bible does it say it is all fine and dandy to allow needless suffering when all hope is lost?

How about, "Thou shalt not kill"?

[oakcon]

The whole point of free will is that we have the capability to sin. So, in this case, yes we have the free will to euthanize these people and commit murder. It is still a sin. I suggest you bone up on your Christian philosophy.

Just because you CAN do something doesnt make it right.

[P-40]

"Thou shalt not kill"?

Actually that is "Thou shalt not murder." The Bible would make zero sense otherwise. From there you can enjoy the centuries old discussion of what constitutes murder, either by action or inaction, such as if I have the power to save your life but choose not to; am I guilty of murder?