What's the real agenda?
During the New Orleans Hurricane Katrina disaster, a physician and two nurses were charged with euthanizing patients. The three were arrested in July on homicide charges after a 10-month investigation into the allegations.
The medical community appears to largely support them as they believe they were trying to alleviate pain rather than actually terminate their lives.
The grand jury is preparing for the trial and will likely be looking for ways to convince the jury that what they did was more humane. The Television show Boston Legal recently had a similar case and the jury there acquitted the doctor there showing compassion for the situation.
Will this same verdict also occur in real life or should it?
Is there an underlying media agenda supporting euthanasia?
The medical community appears to largely support them as they believe they were trying to alleviate pain rather than actually terminate their lives.
The grand jury is preparing for the trial and will likely be looking for ways to convince the jury that what they did was more humane. The Television show Boston Legal recently had a similar case and the jury there acquitted the doctor there showing compassion for the situation.
Will this same verdict also occur in real life or should it?
Is there an underlying media agenda supporting euthanasia?
Labels: euthanasia, Katrina
posted by Anonymous at 6:05 AM
12 Comments:
The grand jury is preparing for trial? And the grand jury will be convincing the jury?
Are you qualified to comment on this issue? You don't seem to understand what's going on. Grand juries don't do those things.
Wow, HB. You are one weird dude. One weird, paranoid dude. How long have you known about this vast left-wing conspiracy?
For you who cannot seem to understand the concept, here is a link. The Grand jury will hear the evidence presented. I am sorry you need everything spelled out so plainly. I'll work on being more specific for you critics.
http://crime.about.com/b/a/257156.htm
HB,
An "...underlying media agenda..." because a TV showed a euthanasia episode? That is a pretty far reach, even for you. You are better than that and I mean that as a compliment.
When TV airs Charlton Heston and The Ten Commandments, is that an underlying agenda? When they air the Wizard of OZ, are they advocating believing in flying monkeys and wizards? When Fox News tries to tell us that President Bush is always right, are we supposed to believe it is real?(a little smile on that one)
Or could the agenda for controversial issues on television shows possibly be...um...Idunno...RATINGS? They always tackle controversial issues on Boston Legal, and provide very compelling arguments on both sides. I don't always agree with the content, but it is at least entertaining and thought provoking. The moral often seems to be that there are two sides to every story, and that things are not always as they appear. Oh my goodness, that must be it. That's the agenda...and I think it might be directed at you. You're so lucky. I wish I could get James Spader to direct his agenda at me...
I'm sure that if there was any "underlying media agenda" supporting euthanasia, they would spell it out for you. Kind of like the underlying media agenda supporting homosexuality when Diana Ossana adapted "Brokeback Mountain" into a screenplay. If the media wants people to know they support euthanasia, they will make sure no one has any doubt of it.
You can stop trying to save the world now. Jesus beat you to it!
I think there's a place for folks like Dr. Kevorkian in our world. If I get to the point where I don't even know my name and I have to wear a diaper then its time for me to bow out. For starters, I'd like a fentanyl patch to get my buzz going while the nurse gives me a sponge bath in that special place.(Please no male nurses!) After that concludes(it would only take a second) start the morphine drip until I get a big grin on my face(Hell, I might even see Jesus) and I stop breathing and then hire a band from New Orleans and do some second line and have a party.
HB,
The grand jury may hear evidence to issue indictments. That is clear from the article. But that is not what you wrote in your original post. You wrote:
"The grand jury is preparing for the trial and will likely be looking for ways to convince the jury that what they did was more humane."
The critics are correct in their assessment that you mischaracterized what is going on. It's not an issue of specificity; it is an issue of accuracy.
If you are justified in holding the hospital accountable for everything that you point out, the "critics" are justified in holding you accountable for the accuracy of your statements.
And yes, the role of the grand jury matters. They will not decide the case. They will simply decide whether prosecutors can (or should) pursue criminal indictments against those involved. Generally, a prosecutor could still take the case to trial even if a grand jury declines to indict. If the grand jury decides to issue the indictments, prosecutors will then likely proceed to bring charges and take the case to trial, where a jury (not a grand jury) will decide the question of guilt or innocence. A grand jury helps the prosecutor determine the strength of the government's case.
While I know the general rules surrounding grand juries, I am not an expert. Perhaps an attorney would be more qualified to provide deeper insights. I do know, however, that your initial statement was inaccurate and confusing, and your response was a little harsh.
Hopefully this helps clear up any confusion on all sides.
My view of all this: I think the burdens of operating a family medical practice, trying to manage the hospital, debunking evolutionary theory, providing religious guidance and riding herd on the virginity of Floyd County teenage females has finally pushed ol' HB over the ledge.
Anonymous 5:05, please don't use the words "riding," "virginity," and "teenage females" in the same sentence. Thanks.
Love,
Mom
Addendum to post from 4/3/07, 5:08 p.m.: No Canadians, please.
What exactly were these physician and nurses supposed to do with these patients, who were probably too sick to move, too sick to know what was going on? Were they to sit back and watch them drown while waiting for our government to come and help?
Our government STILL hasn't helped some of the people of this area!
If this is now the case, the governor and mayor should be charged with murder for not bringing in help sooner so that patients could have been safely moved. They had ample opportunity to do so, I was vacationing in the Gulf and had enough time to leave just by watching The Weather Channel! The only difference, I guess, was that I had the money to come home, and the New Orleans government didn't care about their indigent to get them out.
Post a Comment
<< Home