« Should the Court Have Interfered? | Main | NY Court of Appeals Rejects Product Line Exception to the Rule Against Successor Liability »

July 23, 2006

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Richard

I read the article you linked to. The key question seems to be whether the morphine and Versed was given to the patients to ease their symptoms, or whether it was put into them with the intent to kill them. If we are really a nation of laws, then our personal opinions about it are not very relevant, as the latter scenario (i.e., intent to kill them) is clearly still illegal, disaster zone or no disaster zone. I conjecture the intent was a little of both, that is, ease of symptoms and a bit of, “Well, if it kills them, they’re chances of quality of life were slim anyway.” It’s going to be hard to prove for the prosecution.

I suspect you’d see this case differently if the patients who died from the drugs had been ages 11 to 40 rather than 61 to 90. Truth is, our society and our medical community do not really value the lives of the old to the extent we do the lives of the young, because the old have less quantity and quality left than do the young, but we will vigorously beat away anyone who suggests this fact might be true of us.

p.s. Check this out about Versed: “VERSED has been associated with respiratory depression and respiratory arrest, especially when used for sedation in noncritical care settings. VERSED has been associated with reports of respiratory depression, airway obstruction, desaturation, hypoxia, and apnea, most often when used concomitantly with other central nervous system depressants (e.g., opioids). VERSED should be used only in hospital or ambulatory care settings, including physicians' and dentists' offices, THAT CAN PROVIDE FOR CONTINUOUS MONITORING OF RESPIRATORY AND CARDIAC FUNCTION. IMMEDIATE AVAILABILITY OF RESUSCITATIVE DRUGS AND AGE- AND SIZE-APPROPRIATE EQUIPMENT FOR VENTILATION AND INTUBATION, AND PERSONNEL TRAINED IN THEIR USE AND SKILLED IN AIRWAY MANAGEMENT SHOULD BE ASSURED. For deeply sedated patients, a dedicated individual, other than the practitioner performing the procedure, should monitor the patient throughout the procedure.”

Pretty powerful stuff. With all the safety and monitoring requirements, why would you give it to a patient in a hospital that had lost, as you put it, all the “bells and whistles of modern medicine”? Doesn’t sound good for the defense, does it?

NBlack

First off, it was a critical care setting--I've read a number of articles indicating that it was an acute care unit-albeit one without power. So, Versed was not necessarily contraindicated.

And, the info. you listed includes all known risks, since the whole point of listing the risks is to CYA, right? And, a known risk isn't necessarily a likely risk.

Additionally, give this article a quick read: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003144085_ethics22.html

From that article: "Intention is the single most important element" in judging the ethical appropriateness of such decisions, Murray said.

"In normal circumstances, we have a clear, bright line between relieving pain and hastening death," said David Magnus, president of Stanford University's Center for Biomedical Ethics. "You are allowed to relieve pain even if it has a foreseeable but unintended consequence of hastening death."

****

Accordingly, if the Versed and other drugs were given with the intent to relieve pain as opposed to hastening death, then no medical line was crossed. It was simply ordinary discretionary medical judgement exercised in extraordinary conditions.

I think that the prosecution has an uphill battle ahead of them in terms of proving intent. How exactly can they do tha, unless they were able to flip one of the co-defendants?

Also, see this article: http://www.nola.com/news/t-p/frontpage/index.ssf?/base/news-6/1153639893230580.xml&coll=1

regarding the difficulty proving the levels of meds in the bodies given the amount of time that had passed and the fact that blood was unavailable.

Yet another hurdle for the prosecution...

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

About This Blog

Sui Generis Partner

Other Sui Generis Sponsors





lawtechtalk


Receive Updates Via Email

Search


  • Google
    Web Sui Generis


  • Legal Search Engine - Law.com Quest

disclaimer

  • This site is intended purely as a resource guide for educational and informational purposes and is not intended to provide specific legal advice. This site should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a professional attorney in your state. The use and receipt of the information offered on this site is not intended to create, nor does it create, an attorney-client relationship.

    Please feel free to contact me via e-mail or otherwise. However, please be advised that an attorney-client relationship is not created through the act of sending electronic mail to me.

    The comments on this blog are solely the opinions of the individuals leaving them. In no way does Legal Antics or Nicole L. Black endorse, condone, agree with, sponsor, etc. these comments.

    Further, any information provided on this blog or in the comments should be taken at your own risk.