Sorry, when someone is terminal, in obvious pain and suffering and the limited resources available must be conserved, for unknown and indefinate times because society has literally collapsed. The rules have changed.
Society allows many excesses and privaleges that lack of it does not.
When society collapses, you are left with survival. If a bed or drug or whatever is needed for a patient that can be saved it is not wasted on one that cannot be.
It may sound cruel, but that’s how life is. This doctor did nothing wrong under the circumstances. If you believe he betrayed Gods law then he will face God’s judgement at the end of his days. He should never have been charged under mans law given the circumstances they were working under.
No, you are wrong. If the patients are in a terminal condition and you can do nothing to save them, you make them as comfortable as possible and let nature take its course.
These doctors had enough morphine to administer lethal doses, so they had enough to relieve the pain of the patients.
Society allows many excesses and privaleges that lack of it does not.
Your excuses about the collapse of society are not convincing. Most of the disaster reporting in New Orleans was greatly overblown. But even if the situation were as bad as you say, it was a temporary condition. Eventually law and order were restored.
A doctor cannot know for certain whether a patient is going to die, or how long it will take, or whether help might arrive before then.
When society collapses, you are left with survival. If a bed or drug or whatever is needed for a patient that can be saved it is not wasted on one that cannot be.
A specious argument. Whose survival was enhanced by killing those patients? Certainly not theirs. Were any "resources" wasted on them that could have saved another patient?
The hospital staff were about to evacuate the hospital, and did not want to leave the non-ambulatory patients behind. So they killed them. No resources were saved for any other patients.
It may sound cruel, but that’s how life is. This doctor did nothing wrong under the circumstances. If you believe he betrayed Gods law then he will face God’s judgement at the end of his days. He should never have been charged under mans law given the circumstances they were working under.
It sounds both cruel and evil. You would give doctors a license to kill people who have become an inconvenience. That is not the way we want life to be.
Although I am not generally convinced by slippery-slope arguments, your reasoning could be used to justify all sorts of evil. You wrote, "If a bed or drug or whatever is needed for a patient that can be saved it is not wasted on one that cannot be." Presumably you meant that rule to apply only in extreme emergencies; but what constitutes an extreme emergency? An earthquake? A power outage? A severe budget crunch?