Medical experts never testified in Katrina hospital deaths

CNN ^ | 8/26/07 | Drew Griffin and Kathleen Johnston

[wagglebee]

(CNN) -- A New Orleans grand jury that declined to indict a doctor on charges that she murdered patients in the chaotic days after Hurricane Katrina never heard testimony from five medical experts brought in by the state to analyze the deaths.

All five concluded that as many as nine patients were victims of homicide.

In detailed, written statements, the five specialists -- whose expertise includes forensic medicine, medical ethics and palliative care -- determined that patients at Memorial Medical Center had been deliberately killed with overdoses of drugs after Katrina struck New Orleans in 2005.

The grand jury had been asked to consider second-degree murder charges against a doctor and two nurses in four deaths. But in July, the grand jury decided that no one should be indicted.

A grand jury is charged with determining whether there is sufficient evidence to indict a defendant and pursue a trial. The grand jury's proceedings are held in secret, and grand jurors and officers of the court are typically prohibited from divulging what goes on in grand jury sessions.

In a decision that puzzled the five experts hired by the state, New Orleans District Attorney Eddie Jordan never called them to testify before the grand jury. What remains unclear, because of grand jury secrecy laws, is whether the grand jury even saw the experts' written reports.

"They weren't interested in presenting those facts to the grand jury," said Dr. Cyril Wecht, the former coroner of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, and a past president of the American Academy of Forensic Scientists.

"The hard scientific facts are those from five leading experts, [the patients died] from massive lethal doses of morphine and Versed. As far as I know the toxicological findings were not presented to the grand jury and certainly not with quantitative analysis."

[Mamzelle]

"Lethal dose" is something easily disputed. A dose that is lethal for one person (generally someone not already on the medication) may not be lethal for another (who may be taking larger and larger doses of meds to control pain). It is a fact that these meds often hasten death, a risk that is balanced. Weighing risks is not intent to murder.

Dosage is controlled in CCUs by gadgets. Even in the best of circumstances, these gadgets require maintenance. In the worst of circumstances, they don't get that mainenance. Then the patients get their meds by injection--in the dark, in sweltering heat with stale air--under stressful conditions that you cannot begin to appreciate from your safe, lighted, air-conditioned, well-plumbed office.

And before you jump in with your infernally silly--"That's no excuse to commit murder"--poor outcomes happen for reasons other than murder--like catastrophic floods!!

[spunkets]

"No, you are just flat wrong on all accounts."

No substance.

[Iwo Jima]

According to the affidavits attached to the indictment,Dr. Pou told no less than three executives of LifeCare, the long term care facility on this floor of the Tenet hospital, that a decision had been made to give lethal doses to selected patients. One of the persons to whom she told this was the pharmacy director. Why he dispensed the drugs, I'll never know.

You can bob and weave all that you want, but the conclusion is inescapable that the decision was made to give lethal doses of narcotics to these patients, that the reason, intended purpose, and unavoidable consequence of giving lethal doses to these patients was to kill them, that Dr. Pou and the 2 nurses gave lethal doses to the patients in order to kill them, and the patients died as a result.

These are the unavoidable facts and inescapable conclusions. You can deny it as some deny the Holocaust, but the truth is there.

[wagglebee]

Dosage is controlled in CCUs by gadgets. Even in the best of circumstances, these gadgets require maintenance. In the worst of circumstances, they don't get that mainenance. Then the patients get their meds by injection--in the dark, in sweltering heat with stale air--under stressful conditions that you cannot begin to appreciate from your safe, lighted, air-conditioned, well-plumbed office.

Why are you grasping at straws? Dr. Pou never even tried to allege any of this. Filling a syringe with a given amount of morphine DOES NOT require electricity or any equipment "maintenance" and can certainly be done by a window even at night.

[spunkets]

"NO! That is very clearly covered under option 2."

Here's your #2:

"2. There was no intent to kill the person. (They really hate this option because it totally contradicts their premise that euthanasia is ALWAYS "humane.")"

Your #2 clearly says the intent was euthanasia. Pau's intent was simply sedation, which was justifiable. You are making an unwarranted accusation, that is not supported by facts.

[wagglebee]

No, the parentheses indicate the dilemma this places the culture of death apologists in.

[wagglebee]

Let me ask you a VERY SIMPLE question that can be answered with a simple YES or NO:

Do you believe that euthanasia of human beings should be permitted under any circumstances?

[spunkets]

"According to the affidavits attached to the indictment,Dr. Pou told no less than three executives of LifeCare, the long term care facility on this floor of the Tenet hospital, that a decision had been made to give lethal doses to selected patients. One of the persons to whom she told this was the pharmacy director. Why he dispensed the drugs, I'll never know. "

I'd say the pharmacy doc denies any such discussion took place. Nevertheless, 8mg isn't anywhere near a lethal dose. Cough up the tox reports that prove a lethal odes was administered. Data talks. BS walks.

" You can bob and weave all that you want, but the conclusion is inescapable that the decision was made to give lethal doses of narcotics to these patients, that the reason, intended purpose, and unavoidable consequence of giving lethal doses to these patients was to kill them, that Dr. Pou and the 2 nurses gave lethal doses to the patients in order to kill them, and the patients died as a result."

Data talks. BS walks.

[Iwo Jima]

Dr. Pou went around telling people, not involved in the decision, that the decision had been made to administer lethal doses of narcotics to these patients. They signed affidavits to that effect which were the basis of the indictment.

If you have a problem with the term "lethal dose," take it up with Dr. Pou. It is the term she chose to use. And it is correct.

As far as hastening death, these patients were not dying. They were not generally reported to be in any particular type of pain (although some could certainly have been in pain as many patients are). They were not in any particular medical crisis. The most seriously ill patients had already been evacuated.

There was no medically stated reason for these drugs to have been given to them other than the stated reason -- they were lethal doses.

To use Dr. Pou's term, she engaged in "reverse triage". Convinced that only so many could live and that some must die, she decided who would live and who would die.

[Iwo Jima]

The pharmacy doc gave an affidavit to that effect. Why do you think that there was an indictment? Just people looking for something to do?

[NittanyLion]

Dr. Pou went around telling people, not involved in the decision, that the decision had been made to administer lethal doses of narcotics to these patients. They signed affidavits to that effect which were the basis of the indictment.

Do you have a source for that info?

[wagglebee]

Cough up the tox reports that prove a lethal odes was administered.

The coroner's autopsy reports that the deaths were the result of morphine overdoses has NEVER been contested.

[Iwo Jima]

If that question is directed to me, the answer is "no," excepting certain battlefield and Last-of-the-Mohicans situations.

The VERY worst part about this is how the medical establishment has rushed to Dr. Pou's defense. That tells me that they do this sort of thing all of the time, but usually it is much more subtle and easily disguised. Now they are very defensive and all outraged.

The hit dog hollers.

[spunkets]

"No, the parentheses indicate the dilemma this places the culture of death apologists in. "

Ridiculous. It's written in English. The message is that the doc's intent was to kill the patients.

"Let me ask you a VERY SIMPLE question that can be answered with a simple YES or NO: Do you believe that euthanasia of human beings should be permitted under any circumstances?"

Irrelevant.

[metmom]

"You can get into a dispute about the circumstances and all the rest of it, but at face value there is no other conclusion I think that's possible, other than these people -- or someone -- killed them."

It's that reasonable doubt thing. She denies doing it. Someone probably did. It's a he said/she said kind of thing. Unless someone was willing to be an eyewitness and step up and swear that they saw her do it, I don't think it's possible to know.

[wagglebee]

If you have a problem with the term "lethal dose," take it up with Dr. Pou. It is the term she chose to use. And it is correct.

Which is further proof that some here are pushing the culture of death's agenda and have no interest in the facts of this case or any others. Many of these people also routinely state that Terri was "brain dead" and "wanted" to be killed.

[Iwo Jima]

I am not good at the computer and cannot do "links." But I just googled "versed" and "morphine" and came up with many articles on this case. More than one spoke about the affidavits that were attached to the indictment and addressing Dr. Pou's statements to the pharmacy director and other LifeCare executives.

If you cannot find what I did, let me know and I will see if I can get someone to teach me how to do links.

[wagglebee]

Ridiculous. It's written in English. The message is that the doc's intent was to kill the patients.

Huh? I wrote it and for clarification I was telling you the intent of the parentheses.

Let me ask you a VERY SIMPLE question that can be answered with a simple YES or NO: Do you believe that euthanasia of human beings should be permitted under any circumstances?

Irrelevant.

Very telling.

[Diana in Wisconsin]

“This is about money folks, nothing more.”

That’s my take on it, too. And the fact that CNN has spent two years “investigating” this situation (in other words looking for scapegoats to sue) makes me doubt anyone (either the Grand Jury or the Public) has gotten the truth on this matter.

Liberal. Biased. Media.

Just look back through the myriad stories that came out of Katrina that ended up being 100% bogus. I believe each one was dissected right here on FR and most were debunked here as well.

Not sure why this incident is getting a different treatment. (Well, I DO know why, but I won’t go into it...)

[spunkets]

"The coroner's autopsy reports that the deaths were the result of morphine overdoses has NEVER been contested."

Ridiculous. Those involved claim that a lethal dose wasn't given and that's what the tox report shows. Still no data, just empty claims. If all the lawyer's got is 8mgs, the coroner's full of it.

BTW, did these patients have do not resusitate orders?

If the doc that started all these slanderous claims cared so much about the folks involved, why did he desert them, instead of staying to care for them?