The "Mercy" Killing at Memorial Hospital

Better to Die?: The "Mercy" Killing at Memorial

• Doctors sometimes face situations with no right choice.
• Five Days at Memorial recounts the events at Memorial Medical Center after Hurricane Katrina.
• There were over 2,000 people at the hospital, including 200 patients and 600 staff members when the hurricane hit.
• On Tuesday, the levees failed, flooding the city.
• On Wednesday, the backup generators failed, leaving the hospital without lights, air conditioning, and running water.
• There were still over 100 patients, including several who needed to be ventilated by hand.
• Sickest patients were bedbound on the seventh floor, making evacuation difficult.
• Staff sorted remaining patients into three evacuation priority groups.
• Highest priority group ("1s") were in decent health and could move independently.
• "2s" were less healthy and mobile.
• "3s" were very sick or had "do not resuscitate" orders.
• Police announced that everyone who could leave the building had to leave that evening due to city unrest.
• It became highly doubtful that the "3s" could be evacuated by the deadline, so staff were evacuated.
• This prompted a conversation about euthanasia and a fateful decision, which led to all living patients dying.
• According to toxicology reports, 18 patients died with high doses of morphine and midazolam.
• One patient, Emmett Everett, was a paraplegic awaiting surgery who was given a lethal injection for dizziness.
• Another patient, Janice Burgess, had advanced cancer and kidney failure, and she was not expected to live for more than two days.
• Her morphine dosage was increased significantly, causing her death within minutes.

Responses

• The doctors believed the patients could not be evacuated, that pain-relieving drugs would wear off, and that the patients would die miserable deaths if left alone.
• The decision they made led to lethal injections, that some would argue are in the patients’ best interest.
• One objection is that the only reason lethal injections were in the patients' best interests is that doctors decided to leave the hospital and to stop administering comfort care.
• Also, a second objection is they killed their patients and there is an absolute prohibition on actions that lead to the death of innocent and non-threatening persons, even when death comes as a benefit to them.
• However there is general agreement that sometimes causing a patient to die is permissible so long as the doctor does not intend the patient's death.
• There is an absolute prohibition on acting or omitting to act while intending death as a means or as an end.
• We know that the Memorial doctors acted with the goals of relieving and preventing pain.
• It's clear that they way they injected those injections to prevent that future pain and suffering was by ending the patients' lives.

To Kill, or Let Die? Rachels on Active and Passive Euthanasia

• Patients can ask to stop life-preserving care, and remove life-support devices, that lead to the death of a patient
• Difference is, withdrawing (or withholding) care and providing medical aid in dying lead to death.
• The latter involves killing while the former only involves letting die of underlying disease.
• James Rachels presents cases to shake confidence in moral relevance of distinction between killing and letting die.

Smith

• Smith inherits if his cousin dies.
• Smith goes to kill his cousin in the bath, and drowns him making it seem like an accident.

Jones

• Jones also has the same motive and plan as Smith.
• Jones sees his cousin slip, hit his head, and drown.
• Jones does nothing but watches.

Responses

• The fact that Smith actively kills his cousin, whereas Jones passively lets him die is not worse than what Jones does.
• Invites to infer there is no basic moral difference between killing and letting die.
• Conclude euthanasia, or killing is not worse intentionally than the much more widely accepted practice of passive euthanasia.
• Philosophers resist that they are morally equivalent and normally don't see moral distinctions.
• A factor doesn't make a difference alone.

What Does it Mean to Kill? Stopping Hearts, Artificial and Otherwise

• Bioethics is a large part of what we can do to people's bodies and we don't consider why something counts as part of the body.
• Tech raises issues in away should make us think harder about issues.
• Many people rely on implantable medical devices like pacemakers and ICDs.
• Prescribed implanted from expert prolong physicians to usually life; patients are happy.
• People ask to have the devices taken or deactivated out but is an end of life measure or want to hasten decrease suffering
• Young patients have asked to have the vital prostheses deactivated/removed, from world case in Canada: Pullman and Hodgkinson 2016)
• Pat- patient that required ICD to treat serious congenital disease that cause their death; requiring a shock during restarting

Responses

• Tell if removing or deactivation is like a care request to stop suicide
• Rights can have something to can we is have is a matter distinguish and depend the answer seem regarding
• It’s about rights devices what we call or part depend body/persons depend on suggestions depending, society's

What Does it Mean to die, 1? Jahi McMath and the Definition of Death

• What does it mean for a human to die is the essential questions
• Jahi McMath was announced on January 3, 2014 as deceased after experiencing uncontrolled bleeding
• Jahi's heart continued to beat and and function continued as as well as the hospital requested to discontinue life support for heart's brain
• However, mother moved her in New Jersey since they did not want to declare a death due to the circumstances

Responses

• Jahil's case brought on issues in understanding it more in the nature of death
• The body maintained of all her life functions, in and out for years
• After the brain has loss functionality, integrating body processed still continues
• All bodily stem losses include functions ability organs from human integrating to provide