N.O. doctors killed critically ill patients rather than leave them to die

[Bush_Eats_Beef]

Patients put down

September 12, 2005

DOCTORS working in hurricane-ravaged New Orleans killed critically ill patients rather than leave them to die in agony as they evacuated.

http://dailytelegraph.news.com.au/story/0,20281,16566858-5001022,00.html

With gangs of rapists and looters rampaging through wards in the flooded city, senior doctors took the harrowing decision to give massive overdoses of morphine to those they believed could not make it out alive.

One New Orleans doctor told how she "prayed for God to have mercy on her soul" after she ignored every tenet of medical ethics and ended the lives of patients she had earlier fought to save.

Her heart-rending account has been corroborated by a hospital orderly and by local government officials.

One emergency official, William Forest McQueen, said: "Those who had no chance of making it were given a lot of morphine and lain down in a dark place to die." Euthanasia is illegal in Louisiana and the doctors spoke only on condition on anonymity.

http://network.news.com.au/image/0,10114,5046942,00.jpg

[OldLeftieLawyer]

1. Good, then

Mercy comes in many guises.

[bertha katzenengel]

2. Yes.

Sadder still: I wonder how long before the first indictments come down. I wonder if Congress will investigate these "murders" before a committee -- ANY committee -- is appointed to investigate the FEMA fuck-up.

[sexybomber]

11. Oh, absolutely.

You can't help a few people die peacefully in today's Culture of life. (You can, however, let 10,000 of your own citizens die horribly while you twiddle your thumbs...)

[fishwax]

44. yeah, that's pretty messed up, but it seems to be how they think

:puke:

[stray cat]

3. Tough decisions to make

[etherealtruth]

4. This is from a Rupert Murdoch rag in Australia ...

There has been discussion in GD yesterday and Saturday that pretty much debunked the story (at very minimum made it's truth highly un likely) ... will try to find the links for those that missed it ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x1772316

edit to add link

[iverglas]

8. some people have a strange idea of "debunking"

The report, Murdoch though it was, QUOTED a doctor, extensively, who said she had been involved in making and carrying out the decisions.

The doctor was not named. She spoke on condition of anonymity. If a doctor had in fact made and carried out these decisions, OF COURSE she would speak on condition of anonymity. She was admitting to criminal offences. Doctors do these things all the time, but they don't go blathering to the press to them. And they don't do them because they have been denied the resources that might have saved the patients -- although it appears that the patients in this alleged instance were regarded as terminal or had do not resuscitate orders in any event.

I find it rather difficult to swallow that even a Murdock rag would make up so much stuff out of whole cloth and put it in the mouth of a non-existent doctor.

Of course, I still find it pretty impossible to understand what interest anyone has in denying reports of people in the disaster zone being denied the assistance they needed by whatever authorities should have been providing it.

In the thread you cite, various nits have been picked about the story and the people quoted in it, the usual efforts made to discredit those people without any basis, and the usual protestations offered that there was no proof of the violence alleged in the story.

http://desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050911/NEWS08/509110346/1010

... oh well, just another non-credible racist Republican with an axe to grind telling lies about patients and their caregivers being endangered by violence to in the disaster zone ...

[etherealtruth]

15. Perhaps I am biased ...

As a former hospice nurse (retired to raise my children) ... I have maintained a large circle of friends in the medical and nursing professions ... located all around the country.

I have friends that have worked through various disasters, including the current one occurring in the aftermath of Katrina, as well as last years devastating hurricanes in Florida ...

There seems to be a common feeling within this circle ... health care professionals busted their butts to PRESERVE LIFE, often being in grave danger and perilous situations themselves in order to do this.
Their experience is clearly reflected in the health care professionals being interviewed on the news.

They (and I) have an other thing in common, rage that such disinformation is being spread and believed.

Yes, I am biased in that I choose to believe my personal experience and that of my friends and acquaintances over reports by dubious news outlets (from info given by even more dubious sources).

[iverglas]

17. "such disinformation"?

There's your problem. No one has any more basis for calling this report, or many other reports of various problems on the ground in the disaster zone, "disinformation" than anyone else has for calling them gospel truth.

Not without REASON.

Have you actually read the report in question?

Here's a link to what appears to be the original source

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=361980&in_page_id=1770&in_a_source=&ct=5

which you'll notice I've also cited in the LBN thread on the story:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=1772316&mesg_id=1773807

There are journalists' names in the by-line, and they say that they interviewed a doctor:

In an extraordinary interview with The Mail on Sunday, one New Orleans doctor told how she 'prayed for God to have mercy on her soul' after she ignored every tenet of medical ethics and ended the lives of patients she had earlier fought to save. ... Euthanasia is illegal in Louisiana, and The Mail on Sunday is protecting the identities of the medical staff concerned to prevent them being made scapegoats for the events of last week.

The characterization of what the doctor did is quite arguably sensationalist -- and the doctor's own characterization of what she did is conflicted and undoubtedly affected by her own feelings of guilt for what was essentially beyond her control. But she is reported to have said:

"I didn't know if I was doing the right thing. But I did not have time. I had to make snap decisions, under the most appalling circumstances, and I did what I thought was right. ... This was not murder, this was compassion. They would have been dead within hours, if not days. We did not put people down. What we did was give comfort to the end. I had cancer patients who were in agony. In some cases the drugs may have speeded up the death process. ..."

It is still formally disapproved under medical practice codes, and she would still be potentially subject to criminal liability.

There seems to be a common feeling within this circle ... health care professionals busted their butts to PRESERVE LIFE, often being in grave danger and perilous situations themselves in order to do this. Their experience is clearly reflected in the health care professionals being interviewed on the news.

And this particular doctor seems to have been very much one of them. Believing the report in no way necessitates condemning the doctor, although it might prompt one to condemn some other people, as the families are doing:

Their families believe their confessions are an indictment of the appalling failure of American authorities to help those in desperate need after Hurricane Katrina flooded the city, claiming thousands of lives and making 500,000 homeless.

[etherealtruth]

19. Yes, I did read read the entire story ...

Which only solidified my position.

In this thread, and in the others on this topic, you appear to be emotionally invested in believing this to be true ... so be it. I expressed my reasons for disbelief and admitted my bias (preferring to believe my experience and reports of other health care professionals).

I will stick to my beliefs as will a plethora of others, http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x1772316
until proven wrong by reports coming from reputable media outlets, not Rupert Murdoch owned or reports based upon the "Murdoch" stories.
Referring to quotes from the same sources and the same same story are not convincing to me.

Perhaps you are correct, I simply do NOT believe it from the evidence given.

You are welcome to the last word ...

[iverglas]

27. oh, I'll gladly take it -- please try to see the truth of this

Because I always believe that there is a chance that people will see through their biases and received wisdom and own vested interests (which it's always entertaining to see them of accusing others of having, without any evidence ...).

But that may not be the whole problem here -- I think the problem is that people just aren't grasping what this was really about.

... senior doctors took the harrowing decision to give massive overdoses of morphine to those they believed could not make it out alive.

... "I injected morphine into those patients who were dying and in agony. If the first dose was not enough, I gave a double dose. ... The pharmacy was under lockdown because gangs of armed looters were roaming around looking for their fix. You have to understand these people were going to die anyway."

This is the actual crux of the thing, that everybody is missing.

Under normal circumstances, medical professionals would give morphine in sufficient doses to relieve pain, regardless of whether the effect might be lethal.

In these circumstances -- knowing that the morphine then on hand might be all the morphine that they would have for some time, since no rescue efforts were underway -- the doctor decided to intentionally administer certainly lethal doses rather than leave the patients to suffer when she ran out of morphine.

Why would acknowledging the reasonableness of such a report be so contrary to your interests, or the interests of any healthcare professional?

When faced with the choice between administering sufficient morphine to relieve pain but not cause death and then running out of morphine while the patient was still alive and in agony -- which is what the doctor reasonably expected to happen, because the situation appeared hopeless to the people in those hospitals, no rescue appeared likely in the immediate term -- and administering sufficient morphine to cause death right away ... which would you do?

You'd be trying to predict the future based on the bizarre, unbelievable things you had experienced in the last couple of days, having to work in condtions that a week before you would never have imagined to be a possibility -- you'd be saying "I do not expect these patients to be rescued before I run out of morphine", and that would be a situation you would never have had to deal with before and never imagined having to deal with -- and you'd be having to trust your own instincts on that question. And imagining how you would feel, and thinking about what you would have done, if rescue came two hours after you made the decision and carried it out.

And your patients' welfare would be uppermost in your mind.

I think that this is the actual reality that has not been made clear in the reports or in discussion of them. The doctor administered intentionally lethal doses because that was the best way to use the stock of morphine available to her in the best interests of her patients. If she had used the morphine to ease their pain and they had been alive when she ran out of morphine, they would have been in agony and she would have had unbearable guilt.


Nonetheless, appeals to the vox populi at DU (all those folks who just don't believe this) are irrelevant, and appeals to your own belief or disbelief or what you are or are not convinced of are irrelevant, and I'd really like to see an end to such practices in discussions of reality.

[etherealtruth]

16. "I injected morphine into those patients who were dying and in agony".

Upon further inspection of these vague quotes attributed to an un-named physician, and further discussion among friends (health care professionals) we find NO actual claims of euthanasia ... morphine (and other potent drugs) ARE given to people in agony, this is proper medical and nursing practice, this is PALLIATIVE CARE. In terminally ill patients this is often the only course of treatment even in the best circumstances ...

I have no doubt that in the horrendous circumstances these workers faced, they would express regret that other (basic) comfort measures could not have been instituted.

I firmly believe that reports of euthanasia / "killing patients" are a media construct designed to grab attention and provide sensationalism vs. reporting the facts that health care professionals valiantly struggled to provide the best life preserving care!

[Threedifferentones]

61. So basically

since neither you nor any of your friends in this profession have ever done this, it did not happen in NO. Riiiight. I'll agree that this report is certainly not proof of what happened, but to say its untrue because you just can't believe it...

[flyarm]

20. but buzzflash put it up as well now..so what makes any of us the

reporter?? we could say every story we have seen is not credible!

shrimp boat guys found 14 people dead in a nursing home, left to die alone by the staff ..so is that story not credible??

this is now in 2 papers and on buzzflash....

so is every story on buzzflash not credible?

we would not be discussing the credibility of this , if we didn't know our government failed all those in NO and if the government hadn't failed the hospitals and first responders...

many nurses and doctors were doing resuscitation manually throughout 4 days of government neglect!

i won't feel good about any of this until those at the top of our government are held accountable and charged with negligent homicide!!

i think any paper would be so incredibly stupid and should be held accountable for a story like this, if it is proven a lie!

but i will not judge that, as i was not there,, and i did not talk to the doctors!
I would hardly think any reporter would put their name on a story like this if is was false!

fly

[etherealtruth]

25. The buzzflash story is based on the stories coming from ...

The Rupert Murdoch outlets ... we've got it here on the DU (and I think generally we are very accurate); again based on the story put out by Murdoch's outlets (I haven't seen a story on this that did NOT ORIGINATE there).

my real objection to this story is your point: "many nurses and doctors were doing resuscitation manually throughout 4 days of government neglect!" ... a story such as this diminishes the actions of those professionals who worked tirelessly to preserve life.

I can not imagine "bagging" (using an Ambu bag in place of a ventilator) for days ... I've done it (in mini shifts) for a 1/2 hour ... it is not easy and is very staff intensive ...

Why would a news outlet (using an anonymous source) release a story like this if it were not true ... my guess is "what's going on right here," they have generated a tremendous amount of publicity and interest in themselves ... their source is an "un-named" physician so it can neither be verified or debunked, there other source is a person that it would be unlikely for this info to be shared with (or even allowed to overhear, this would NOT be spoken of casually... conversations would be highly guarded).

I don't disparage those believing this (and may even come to believe with reports I find more credible) ... There was WAY too much suffering that went on in NOLA and to some this is a sign that some were mercifully relieved of their suffering.

[flyarm]

38. well i will tell you the first US media stories i have believed in 5 yrs

is during this disaster..when you could finally see reporters truly moved to tears and desperation for these people..and yet i still see Ms Phillips on cnn and wolf nazi blitzer who still don't get the truth..so i will believe more from any foreign media than i will give one ounce of credence from any US outlet!!

I don't even care if the story is true or not..that is not the point...at least thats the way i see it..this shouldn't even have to be questioned, as a story , and it wouldn't be if our government had done their job!

if our government had gone in immediately and secured those hospitals..this wouldn't be a subject!

if our government had gotten food and water to those hospitals immediately like they should have doctors and nurses would not have been in a position to have to give themselves I.V.'s

if our government can get into a hospital in iraq and do a phony rescue of Jessica lynch..where were they after this disaster getting in and securing these hospitals..all of these hospitals....they knew there would be desparate drug addicts...

hell go to philly on a weekend night and see how secure the hospitals are with armed guards!! Major medical centers!!

and this government had no clue to drop security people on top of those hospitals??

bullshit!

that is what this story points out..our government failed the most basic responsibility they have..be it state or fed level...i don't care ..our government failed the first responders and the weakest of our society...
that is a pretty lousey indictment of our government!!

and of humans!

i will say it again..we would not be even questioning this story ..if our government had done their jobs!! period the end!

fly

[etherealtruth]

40. I agree with everything you said ...

I too have believed and defended the media reports (in general).

I was particularly (how does one pick among the horrors) disturbed by the exceptionally slow evacuation of the patients at charity hospital (generally poor and uninsured) vs. the evacuation of patients and STAFF at the Tulane medical center (read $$$ and insurance).

The physician (Charity hosp) reports of their patients dying while on a roof top awaiting rescue was heart wrenching. (report: Sanjay Gupta CNN)

I agree whole heartedly that our government set up the conditions for all kinds of horror to happen ... I would not fault the physicians if they did that which was reported.

I do find this particular report dubious (comes from one source, with a set of circumstances that I consider questionable). I do agree that in the scope of the horror that the administration created through it's lack of response, this is but one story among thousands ... I, however want to put my energy into areas such as the Charity Hospital rescues (which has been widely reported and verified by many sources)

[Divernan]

5. You should change your heading to "terminally", not "critically"

The article refers to those who would die inagony.

[Bush_Eats_Beef]

12. No, the heading came from the article...

Normally, if I write the title of a thread myself, I'll change it if people present a good case for it being misleading / inaccurate.

But in this case, it's a direct quote from the article. Because of the sensitive nature of the subject matter, I was very careful to offer a direct quote. Whether it's accurate or not is another matter, and accuracy of what is presented in the article, as long as I don't alter it, is not my responsibility.

:patriot:

[rocktivity]

6. And how many of those people could have survived

if they HAD gotten prompt medical attention? And are they going to be arrested for not participating in Georgie's "culture of life."

:headbang:
rocknation

[Bush_Eats_Beef]

13. That was my immediate reaction, and my reason for posting this.

The euthanasia issue generates strong opinions on both sides.

HOWEVER...how many people came to that crossroads because they didn't get the attention they needed?

How many could have been saved?

How was the cake?



:grr:

[alkaline9]

7. this is about the best news i've heard so far in NO...

...I saw my grandfather go through a long struggle with Alzheimers, and I have always been a proponent of euthanasia.

I'm happy to see that these people went as peacefully as possible. Good on these doctors who mentally overcame the rules and did (in my mind) the right thing.

[Mr_Spock]

9. Were these the "still alive" people put into morgues described on Oprah?

I'm wondering...?

[bloom]

22. Those people were at the temporary morgue at the airport... eom

[Mr_Spock]

24. Oh, nevermind...

I wasn't sure of the details...

[flyarm]

30. no..these were not the Oprah people..

the people discussed on Oprah were put in a make shift morgue at the airport..this was in a hospital..
according to the story.

This story i believe is not an indictment of any of the care givers, nor was the Oprah story, it is an indictment of our government..of there gross negligence in getting care and back up docs and nurses and generators running.

there were doctors that came outside NO who were turned away, volunteer docs and nurses...they were turned away, no attempt to get generators running immediately after the storm on MONDAY NIGHT for the hospitals immediately affected..that is the responsbility of our government! NO was not flooded MONDAY night! The feds should have had people in every hospital the minute the winds stopped!

the hospital should have been secured and generators up and running immediately!
food and water should have been in there immediately...that is what this story is really about..it is about the neglect of our government..

what the docs did or didn't do can not be questioned under the conditions they were left in by this government!

what the docs and nurses did in this entire disaster was and is heroic...under the worst possible conditions...

this is an indictment on all of us...not the doctors...and not the nurses...

this same crap has been going on for over 2 years in iraq as well..and yet we all sit in our nicey nice homes and don't give it a thought..or maybe a passing thought...but what have any of us done about it??

this administration and particularly * doesn't give a rats crap about the sick or indigent, he doesn't care how many he has killed, he hasn't taken any resposibility of any of his actions or lack of thereof...

but what have we done about our responsibilities....each of us..

that constitution does not say we the government, we the president..we the congress.....

it says we the people...so what are we going to do about it??

what are we going to do about those who are poor, who are sick , who are indigent...do we keep looking the other way..

do we keep posting on boards, or do we dedicate as much time as each of us has.. demanding our congress hold those accountable for their negligence...

we were blind sighted on 9/11...we are not so blind now...

we all on these boards have incredible knowledge of the failure of this government...can we all educate 2 people...can we stand up and allow ourselves to be mocked by telling the truth..do we all have the guts for that??

because truth can be painful for many..and many times we attack (in maybe innocent ways)..the truth...will we stand for truth no matter how painful...

today we read about doctors and nurses put in a horrible situation..even if this story is fake..it must make all of us look deep within ourselves..because no matter what, our government, in our name, neglected the sick and indigent...it neglected the poor, young and old...

I was a flight crew for one of the 9/11 airlines...after that beautiful sunny fateful day..from the get go ..i was screaming to all around me..that we were being lied to..i have lost many friends...but their loss is not as valuable to me as the loss of truth...i have fought my family ,as i have spent thousands upon thousands of hours going out and speaking in the past 4 years..and on the computer and on the ground trying to educate all who i could get to listen...i have been treated like a pariah...by many..i get eyes rolled when i walk in a room...my family thinks i neglect them ..but the <truth> is that important to me...it is my responsibility as an American, as a human, and as a WE THE PEOPLE.

are you willing to stand up with your truth and demand the truth of others , and your government??

thats what this story is to me..it is facing what we have seen, is the negligence of this government and are we strong enough to stand up now and be counted..and dooooo something about it..or next year will we face another disaster and say..gee we should have done something last year??

yesterday was 4 yrs since 9/11 what have any of us done to change the negligence of this government??

did all of us drive older people to vote?? did all of us reach into poor neighborhoods to make sure the people were fed or cared for, or did we just assume it was being done??

how many good americans went into the projects before the hurricane and drive down the street asking if they could take just one senior citizen out with them when they evac'ed?

we are each others keeper...we are

"WE THE PEOPLE"

THAT DOES NOT MEAN SHAKING A LITTLE FLAG ON HOLIDAYS... it means looking in the faces of those who do not have what we have, or are as physically well as we are...

and i don't say this innocent...i am guilty of what i write as well.

but no more!

fly

[defiant1]

10. Wow....

Poor doc.

[zanne]

14. The second paragraph begins...

"With gangs of rapists and looters rampaging".... Why bother reading the rest of the article?

[iverglas]

18. well, maybe to learn something

Like what the DOCTOR, whom JOURNALISTS who put their NAMES on the article claim to have interviewed, and whose identity they state they are protecting because she could be subject to prosecution for her acts (which she could), is reported by them to have said:

"The pharmacy was under lockdown because gangs of armed looters were roaming around looking for their fix. ..."

Now if someone can only come up with some evidence that the doctor in question was a racist Republican making up lies to make the 100% non-criminal, non-drug addicted, non-violent population of New Orleans look bad ...

[bloom]

23. That is what I think people should be the most suspicious about.

Maybe some doctors did give high doses of morphine to people. I wouldn't have a problem with that.

Heard on Democracy Now! today - the GUARDSMAN outside of Charity Hospital:

NATIONAL GUARDSMAN: Well, the devastation, I mean, it’s – here it’s pretty bad. This is actually worse than anything I think I saw in Iraq, as far as devastated cities go.

AMY GOODMAN: Rhode Island National Guardsmen outside of Charity Hospital in New Orleans, which has been condemned. They were talking about clearing the enemy out of the hospitals, that hospital where the doctors and nurses and more than a thousand patients waited for day after day after day to be rescued.

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/09/12/1426247

[ohio_liberal]

21. I'm really surprised the docs are admitting this

I think it was the right thing to do but the government isn't going to think so.

[cynatnite]

26. This story was posted before and thread locked...

Questions were raised about it's veracity.

I question it as well given the vague details.

Here's the locked thread and the questions raised:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=4736809&mesg_id=4736809

[iverglas]

29. ask all the questions you like

And anybody who wants to keep trying to shut down discussions of reports of conditions in the disaster zone, whether by complaints or by intimidation, can go right ahead and keep on trying.

The original source of the report:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=361980&in_page_id=1770&in_a_source=&ct=5

may be one that one would not look to as an authority for much of anything, but the report is BY-LINED -- it bears the names of the two journalists who QUOTE what they report as being said by several individuals, including a doctor whose identity they state they are protecting because she could be liable to prosecution for her acts.

Would claiming that those journalists do not have a tape of the interview, or have intentionally invented things not said by the doctor they say they interviewed, or invented the doctor, be reasonable skepticism, or something else?

And what earthly reason would there be for doing that?

The doctors did not have enough morphine available to them to be able to keep suffering patients comfortable for very long. They did not expect rescue in the immediate future. They did not have access to the pharmacy in the hospital. (Oh yes, the doctor said there were "gangs of armed looters were roaming around looking for their fix" ... and who could possibly believe that ...)

So the doctor did what she believed to be in her patients' best interests -- intentionally administer certainly lethal doses of morphine, while she still had it, rather than administer only enough to relieve pain and leave the patients to suffer in agony when she ran out.

Who's got a problem with a doctor doing that?

What good reason does anyone have to disbelieve that she did it -- or what vested interest would anyone have, even, in denying it?

I keep on not getting it.

[flyarm]

33. would we have ever believed that doctors and nurses would have

to use I.V.'s to keep themselves going in this rich nation of ours...to keep being able to help their patients , doctors and nurses were giving themselves i.v.'s in those hospitals to keep from total dehydration..and starvation...that was reported on cnn and msnbc...i heard it with my own ears...so is that story true and this one not because we did not hear this on our "oh so truthful media?"??


how do we know that this doctor did not first take her story to a U.S. media reporter and it wasn't reported by our "OH SO HONEST MEDIA??"
this story is pretty indicting of our government and this administration..do you think Murdoch doesn't shit where this administration does?? why would he run a story this indicting of the * administration.. if it wasn't true??

[iverglas]

34. there you have it

this story is pretty indicting of our government and this administration.

And the great British public seems to be lapping up such stories just now, and so Murdoch would presumably be happy to tell them.

Just because it sells papers doesn't mean it isn't true. ;)

[cynatnite]

36. There's enough bogus reporting that goes on as it is

I've seen it time and time again. It happens here at DU. If the story fits with an opinion, many believe it. If it doesn't, it will get dismissed.

I dismiss this story based on the fact that there are no facts.

[cynatnite]

35. It's vague at best...no details and nothing to back up any of this

I have no reason to take it seriously. I am not one who blindly believes everything I read and this is no different.

When more details and evidence comes forward, I will rethink it.

[iverglas]

41. congratulations

I am not one who blindly believes everything I read and this is no different.

Me, I believe all the tales of two-headed babies that I can find in the supermarket.

That's what a degree in philosophy, and three years of law school, and a lot of years representing refugees -- who almost always had NOTHING BUT THEIR OWN WORD as "proof" of the claims they were making -- taught *me* to do. Yes sirree. I have no clue how to assess credibility, and apparently have some reason to be spreading nasty rumours. So I gather.

Thank heaven all that didn't teach me to sit around refusing to believe anything ever because it couldn't be "proved" according to some ridiculous standard that no reasonable person would ever apply to reality.

Hell, I'd be rejecting the theory of evolution, if it had.


When more details and evidence comes forward, I will rethink it.

More details and evidence of quite a few things keep coming forward -- reports of people who suffered harm because of the authorities' failure to act to protect them -- and the same thing keeps getting said about each one of them.

Have you tried this one maybe?

http://desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050911/NEWS08/509110346/1010

Helicopters eventually couldn't land on the parking garage because of continuous gunfire, Larson said. He said nights were filled with screams, shooting and Molotov cocktails, as roving hoodlums tried to burn down the refuge.

... Larson, a Tulane University graduate student, ... had volunteered to stay in New Orleans to watch over the university's gene therapy center. The center is connected to the school's hospital, where Larson began volunteering when things got bad.

A former paramedic, Larson said floodwaters and "armed weirdos" forced the hospital staff, volunteers and about 150 patients to leave the hospital for a nearby parking garage roof. The hospital staff tried to get patients onto helicopters, which could only take two or three people at a time, Larson said. One helicopter came each hour.

... The situation — bad to begin with since the remaining patients were those who were too sick to leave before the storm — steadily got worse.

There were no supplies on the rooftop, Larson said. People used the stairwell as a bathroom. Hours turned into days and then "just hell," he said. People with guns took positions in high-rise buildings around the parking garage and began shooting at the group.

Hmmmmm. A "former medic" (oh dear, not an M.D., so what would he know about what he saw?), so must've been in the armed forces (hah, probably a Republican), working in extreme conditions to save people (obviously suffering from exhaustion and delusional) ... I dunno; what nits shall we pick this time?

Then, of course, there was Charmaine Neville, the well-known African-American musician, and her tale of gangs and rapes in the flooded streets of the city ... which she even reported to the first police she encountered in the French Quarter (or, well, so she says) after rescuing dozens of people by boat, and also to Archbishop Hughes on videotape ... I gather there are many reasons to disbelieve her. Haven't heard any good ones yet, but whatever.

People in danger, in danger because of high water and filthy water and lack of water, existing illness and recent injury and potential infection, old age and young age and sex, abandoned to water and thirst and exposure and lack of medical attention and violence -- and the lack of medical attention and access to other safety measures that resulted from the violence and the failure to prevent it. Other people, like doctors caring for the terminally ill, forced to do what their consciences told them would have been wrong in any other circumstances.

I just don't find any of that the least bit unbelievable, and just have to believe that there are people who will claim to disbelieve anything if there's a good enough incentive.

[dogday]

28. If it had been my ass laying up there, give

me the morphine and let me die flying. To just let people lay somewhere and suffer and die is ridiculous and inhuman. Give me the morphine and let me die in peace thank you very much....

[blondeatlast]

31. That's what triage is all about--and if that didn't approxiamte the field

after a battle, I can't imagine what would.

God bless those doctors.

[FreedomAngel82]

32. How sad

:(

[RevCheesehead]

37. Bullshit.

I don't believe this for a second.

[cynatnite]

39. William Forest McQueen a groundskeeper

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=4736809&mesg_id=4737685

Maybe BBC has a little more credibility than Daily Mail.

[iverglas]

42. keep on saying it, loudly and often

Keep on pretending that it hasn't been refuted over and over and over. From thread to thread to thread ...

From your link, re McQueen:

He has been working in his home country since 1997, and lives and works with his brother in the Abita Springs area, north of Lake Pontchartrain, which is north of New Orleans.

... "I phoned the morning the hurricane hit, and his brother said Forest hadn't been home for the last 24 hours because he'd been on shift clearing up trees and lines from all the wind damage that came before the hurricane. I haven't heard anything since.

See that there? He is a Town of Abita Springs employee. The day BEFORE the hurricane, he was working to clear wind damage.

But read on ... as I'm sure somebody has, since I've posted it enough times in this thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=1772316&mesg_id=1772316

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=361980&in_page_id=1770&in_a_source=&ct=5

Her <the doctor's> heart-rending account has been corroborated by a hospital orderly and by local government officials. One emergency official, William 'Forest' McQueen, said: ...

... Mr McQueen, a utility manager for the town of Abita Springs, half an hour north of New Orleans, told relatives that ...

Mr McQueen has been working closely with emergency teams ...

When did people become non-credible witnesses because their job involves manual labour, or anything else? or because a foreign journalist described an employee of a municipality aiding emergency workers in an emergency as an "emergency official"? Would a groundskeeper (or an orderly, who has also been unpleasantly characterized behind his back here) not be acceptable as a witness to the car crash that killed a family member of all these supposed doubters? Would you be impressed if the groundskeeper told the court that he saw the drunk driver run over your mother, and defence counsel then produced an old family photograph of the groundskeeper mugging for the camera to discredit him in the jury's eyes?

There seems to be no limit to what will be done in the desperation to discredit reports of people suffering because of the callous disregard of governments in the US for their welfare. Where's that scratch-my-head smileyface thingie ...

When did it become necessary to disbelieve news reports filed by NAMED JOURNALISTS whose by-line appears on the article, and who clearly stated that they had INTERVIEWED an individual being quoted but CHOSE NOT TO PRINT HER NAME because she could suffer criminal repercussions for the acts she admitted to them?

Anybody remember Woodward, Bernstein and "Deep Throat"? Not a word of THAT should have been believed by any decent right-thinking person, obviously.

When did we decide that it was necessary to rely ONLY on the reputation of the publisher -- there being NO OTHER REASON to disbelieve the report it published -- as sufficient grounds for saying really quite vile things about people quoted in the published report, who had no control over what was said about them in it?

So many questions.

So NO ANSWERS.

[cynatnite]

43. Sucks when the truth doesn't line up to your way of thinking

IF this did happen then they should come forward to face the family members of these people they killed. That's IF.

The story is vague at best and since I choose not to buy into everything I read reserving judgment is my right.

By what you brought up in your rebuttal, just because Mr. McQueen worked closely with emergency teams does NOT in any way make him an official. That's stretching it a bit, don't you think?

What I'd like to know is when did so many believe a story just because it's printed? Could it be because you WANT to believe the worst since it enables your hatred of those in power even more?

It's too easy to fall into that trap and also keep in mind about all the numerous article from certain papers and websites that get dismissed out of hand because so many believe they lean to the right or aren't biased enough for their tastes.

The other thing which leads me to doubt this story is that it starts out with the roving gangs all over the city. I have yet to see any proof whatsoever there were gangs such has been described. It's all talk, but nothing to indicate there was even a bit of truth to it. Sure, crimes were committed, but there has been nothing even close to what's been described in the media unless you count the Superdome and the Convention Center.

Yes, I dismiss this article because I doubt the truth behind it. Perhaps the writers believe the person who told this story is credible.

Don't expect everyone to blindly jump when a story is printed or reported.

[iverglas]

45. read much?

IF this did happen then they should come forward to face the family members of these people they killed. That's IF.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=361980&in_page_id=1770&in_a_source=&ct=5

Mr McQueen, a utility manager for the town of Abita Springs, half an hour north of New Orleans, told relatives that patients had been 'put down' <the doctor disagreed with that characterization in her interview>, saying: "They injected them, but nurses stayed with them until they died."

Might it just be CREDIBLE that the doctor herself did not tell families directly for the SAME REASON that the journalists did not use her name -- because she could be CRIMINALLY LIABLE for her actions even though her ONLY CONCERN was her patients' well-being? -- a concern NOT SHARED by authorities?

Euthanasia is illegal in Louisiana, and The Mail on Sunday is protecting the identities of the medical staff concerned to prevent them being made scapegoats for the events of last week.

Their families believe their confessions are an indictment of the appalling failure of American authorities to help those in desperate need after Hurricane Katrina flooded the city, claiming thousands of lives and making 500,000 homeless.

How in the bleeding hell would the families have ANY opinion about their confessions IF THEY HAD NOT BEEN TOLD ABOUT THEM?


By what you brought up in your rebuttal, just because Mr. McQueen worked closely with emergency teams does NOT in any way make him an official. That's stretching it a bit, don't you think?

Yeah, gee, possibly, why not?

WHO THE FUCK CARES? In what way does HIS credibility, and the believability of what he SAID, depend on how two journalists described his capacity for a foreign audience?

In what way does HIS CREDIBILITY AS A WITNESS, which is what has been repeatedly challenged here, depend in any way on WHAT HIS JOB IS?

Why would anyone say that HE was responsible for the way his job was characterized by the journalists, when that characterization was not in quotation marks?

When his actual job was stated (whether accurately or not) -- a utility manager for the town of Abita Springs -- what earthly matter is it how his duties were characterized by the journalists?

I was once described in a newspaper article as the "chairman" of the board of a community agency. The title of the position, under the agency's constitution, was "chairperson". I was not the "chairman" of anything. So ... should everything I was quoted in the article as saying have been disbelieved?

What I'd like to know is when did so many believe a story just because it's printed?

Maybe if you could find anyone HERE who was guilty of this sin, you'd have a reason for asking that question HERE. So far, the only reason I can imagine for asking that question HERE is to insinuate that someone HERE is believing this report just because it was printed, when the reasons for CONSIDERING THE REPORT TO BE CREDIBLE (and for considering a variety of other reports that have been dismissed here by vilifying the persons making them and attributing evil motives to the people posting them) have been stated over and over and over:

- the journalists' names are attached to the report -- it's a fool journalist who puts his/her name on false reports; NYT intern, anyone?

- the journalists claim to have interviewed the doctor and the other people quoted in the report -- it's a fool newspaper that prints alleged quotations without reviewing the journalists' tapes and notes -- NYT intern?

- we know that the journalists would have had access to those people because of the contact between the UK press and the family of one of them -- this fact makes the report MORE credible, since the journalists have obvious reason for being the ones who got the story

- we know that the journalists had good reason for concealing the identity of the medical personnel interviewed -- this was *ethical* behaviour by the journalists

- we already know that doctors and patients and staff in hospitals were abandoned by the authorities without food, water, medicines and any other assistance -- what makes Sanjay Gupta more credible than these journalists ... the fact that he's USAmerican?

- we know that doctors are commonly faced with situations in which they have dilemmas of conscience, in attempting to decide what is best for their patients, and even with situations in which what they decide to do could result in criminal liability

- we have NO REASON for regarding any of the individuals involved in the story as non-credible -- a family photograph of an individual mugging for the camera is not evidence of non-credibility, for instance

These are all relevant to CLASSIC tests of credibility.

NO ONE HERE has even attempted to respond to them.

So ... Sucks when the truth doesn't line up to your way of thinking ... apparently it does ... and I still don't have a clue why anyone would want to engage in a line of thinking that denied reality.

Could it be because you WANT to believe the worst since it enables your hatred of those in power even more?

ME? You're going to name ME now, and make insinuations about ME, are you?

'Bout damned time, I guess.

I'll just suggest that before you go offering unpleasant theories about what motivates me and sticking conveeenient question marks on them, you know something of what you're talking about. And you could always do that by asking genuine questions.

Yes, I dismiss this article because I doubt the truth behind it.

And there's no reason for anybody else to give a shit what you doubt or don't doubt UNLESS YOU OFFER REASONS that are capable of public testing ... kind of like the ones I've offered are. So there's really no reason for you to offer up your doubts in public, if you aren't engaging in a persuasive exercise.

And if anybody who does engage in a persuasive exercise -- by offering REASONS for doubting this or anything else -- then in democratic discourse, s/he has a responsibility to state the truth and address the issues, and not to misstate facts (McQueen was NOWHERE reported to have been in Abita Springs in the period AFTER the hurricane) and engage in fallacious skirmishes (characterizing people negatively based on irrelevant factors, engaging in negative speculation about the character of individuals where the speculation is entirely baseless, etc. etc. etc.).

Don't expect everyone to blindly jump when a story is printed or reported.

Don't tell me not to do something I have never done, my friend.

When you do that, I just get the feeling that you're trying to make someone believe I have done something I have never done, without offering up a shred of fact or evidence to support the allegation.

Look up "demagoguery" in your Funk & Wagnalls.

[cynatnite]

46. Rather than stoop to your level to trade insults....

I'll just speak to the points about this story. I don't see the sense in attacking someone personally over a difference of opinion.

1)IF this story is true, these people should face the families and tell them they killed their loved one for their own good. IF it is true, I can't see many giving them a pat on the back for being so thoughtful. IF this story is true, then I'll call the people who did the KILLING murderers rather than hold them up as wonderful human beings who were only trying to lesson someone's suffering. Sorry, don't buy it...that's IF the story is true.

2)The writers of this story has an obligation to tell an accurate and complete story. Period. By your standards, they shouldn't have to. But if anyone is going to take this story seriously, the writers HAVE to be completely truthful and not fudge around with important issues such as the position of someone they used as a witness. Playing around with words and stretching the definition is what this administration does. We don't allow for them to do it, and we sure as hell shouldn't allow journalists to do it.

3)I can't count how many times I've seen articles taken as gospel only to see it shot down by other DUer's as questionable. This article is a load of shit. The vagueness and the issue with this person who the article calls 'an emergancy official' is why. Let me ask you this. Why hasn't any other media picked up on this? Doctors killing patients, then telling about it would have gotten some serious attention by at least a some of the world's media.

I post opinions just like most others do. I don't always follow along in the same line of thinking as everyone else and I will not jump along with the rest of the crowd because a single story is one more sign of proof about this corrupt regime we're living under.

I am not distorting any facts. I have no idea where you got that from. I'm going by the vagueness of an article that no one else in the media has picked up on. Questions should be raised. We have an obligation to do this in order to make sure our media does their job.

'Engaging in negative speculation'? Well, I'll be damned. Now that much of DU has done that about a regime we despise and those who support it, you're going to throw that at me now? :rofl: I just can't contain myself.

You're ready and willing to believe this bullshit story without a thread of evidence. That's your choice.

I won't for the reasons I've stated. Any more comments I have to make would only be repetitive. Respond, bitch, make fun or whatever to your heart's content.

[iverglas]

47. hahahahaha

Rather than stoop to your level to trade insults....

hahahahaha.

You're ready and willing to believe this bullshit story without a thread of evidence. That's your choice.

Actually, I FIND THE STORY CREDIBLE, and if you don't know the difference between that and "being ready and willing to believe" it, you should learn it before you fling around allegations.

'Engaging in negative speculation'? Well, I'll be damned. Now that much of DU has done that about a regime we despise and those who support it, you're going to throw that at me now?

Funny thing ... how what I actually said was engaging in negative speculation about the character of individuals where the speculation is entirely baseless. Looked up "demagoguery" yet? How 'bout "disingenuous"?


We still know what all the squawking is all about.

The doctor in New Orleans said that she had insufficient morphine to relieve her patients' pain for an extended period, and no access to the hospital's stock of morphine because it had been locked down because looters were in the hospital.

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N0646406.htm
Hmm, Reuters.

On offer now are morphine tablets for $40, sleeping pills for a few dollars each to sleep off a bout of "fiending" and, for $20, Oxycontin -- the prescription painkiller known as "hillbilly heroin."

Morphine tablets ... materialized out of thin air ...

No no no no no. No one was looting for anything other than food and water, right? And no one was hurting anybody else, no no no no no.

[cynatnite]

48. I don't get the point of the article you posted

It has no connection to the one we've been discussing at all. It's about junkies.

As I said before. The one we are talking about is vague...a fact you keep ignoring.

And since you obviously couldn't answer the points I brought up in my previous post about questioning the legitimacy of the sources and the accuracy of the reporting, you didn't bother responding to those.

If you had read my other posts on this subject, including the link to the thread which was locked because of the questionable article, you'll see that I stated we all know there was looting and going after supplies, wherever they may be, in order to survive.

Why don't you go look for articles to back up this one from more legitimate resources? You find them and I'll state you were right and I was wrong. I'm sure you'd love that. LOL

[dogday]

49. Even Oprah covered this. The Dr. on her show

talked about taking people who had no chance of making it and putting them in the morgue, so they would have a quiet place to die. Whether he used Morphine to make the process easier, I am not sure.

Where did you get this Junkie theory at? This article talks about how Doctors were making easier for the people who were going to die....

[cynatnite]

54. The Oprah story is not the same as the one we're discussing

This is the junkie story I was referring to:

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N0646406.htm

[dogday]

62. I thought we were discussing the actions

of Dr.'s who where euthanizing their patients. Oprah also showed what the Dr.'s did with their dying. I found the two similar except I did not know if the Dr. from Oprah euthanized his patients or not.

[iverglas]

68. just fyi

The doctor in the report under discussion:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=361980&in_page_id=1770&in_a_source=&ct=5

explained how she made the decision to administer certainly lethal doses of morphine to some terminally ill and dying patients, with the intention of killing them, rather than following the usual practice of administering potentially lethal doses of morphine with the intention of relieving pain and the knowledge that the possible "side-effect" was death.

It was not completely obvious on a quick reading of the article, but what she was saying was that she expected her morphine to run out before her patients were rescued. The reason she did not have access to more morphine was that the hospital pharmacy was under lockdown. The reason that the hospital pharmacy was under lockdown was that there were people breaking into pharmacies and stealing narcotics.

(That's the reason I posted the Reuters article: to provide credible evidence that people had in fact been breaking into pharmacies and stealing narcotics, and to suggest that if they were breaking into private pharmacies, there'd be no reason to think they weren't trying to break into hospital pharmacies, which would have far more of what they wanted.)

Because she expected to run out of morphine, and to be faced with terminally ill (e.g. cancer) patients in agonizing pain with no way to relieve their pain, before they were rescued, she made a choice.

She chose to use the morphine that she did have to end the lives of dying patients immediately, rather than use it to relieve their pain and then run out of morphine before they died or were rescued.

That's it in a nutshell, stripped of all the irrelevancies about what the ordinary occupations of the witnesses who spoke to reporters were and all the rest of it, and it's really pretty straightforward, and not something I find hard to believe or find any reason to disbelieve, or that would cause me to criticize the doctor.

[iverglas]

52. oh, don't let's be naive

We all know perfectly well that the "reason" why no one "believes" this "story" is that there is a fundamental premise that no one will "believe".

The REASON why the doctor could not access morphine, according to the words attributed to her in the article I cited, is that there were looters in the hospital and the pharmacy had been locked down to prevent them from getting access to the narcotics and other drugs there.

"The pharmacy was under lockdown because gangs of armed looters were roaming around looking for their fix. ..."

My own speculation would be that the staff at the hospital believed they had a duty not to let the potentially harmful drugs in question, of which a hospital could be expected to have rather a large stock, fall into the hands of people would abuse or sell them.

The REASON why the doctor was faced with the choice between:

(a) giving her patients only enough morphine to ease their pain

and

(b) giving her patients enough morphine to kill them immediately

was that if she had given them only enough morphine to ease their pain, she would have left them -- if they weren't rescued first, which she had reason to believe they would *not* be -- in agonizing pain, still terminal, with nothing to relieve it, when she shortly ran out.

It is absolutely beyond me why anyone would claim to find this description of the situation not to be credible -- and to claim to find it not to be credible that a compassionate, conscientious doctor would have chosen (b) -- and probably will be forever.


Why don't you go look for articles to back up this one from more legitimate resources? You find them and I'll state you were right and I was wrong. I'm sure you'd love that. LOL

Ah, LOL indeed.

Perhaps you could offer your response to the following two reports, if you haven't already:

http://desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050911/NEWS08/509110346/1010
(The portions in quotation marks, reporting the words of Benjamin Larson, about whom it has already been speculated at DU that he might be something of a glory seeker, in the midst of a dissertation about how and why people tell lies.)

http://www.wafb.com/
(Video -- click on "Charmaine Neville, New Orleans evacuee" -- of which I have yet to see a rational refutation, although I've seen loads of insinuation and attempted character assassination)

I'm afraid that I've rather lost any expectation of anyone acknowledging mistake in these regards, although I am heartened when I do see some whose agenda don't lead them into making the, er, mistakes in the first place.

All because of that agenda -- the refusal to acknowledge that criminal victimization occurred among the disaster victims, at least some of which could have been prevented if aid and protection had been provided -- and now that criminal acts (i.e. looting), or at least attempts to prevent them in the public interest, prevented terminally ill patients from being kept pain-free while they died more or less natural deaths -- decent people have had their characters impugned all over DU (and elsewhere).

[cynatnite]

57. The original article is bogus

The looters was discussed in the vague article. It mentioned gangs of looters and rapists. While I don't doubt the crimes committed, I have yet to see anything about 'gangs' of rapists and other rumors that were floating around. During the height of the aftermath of Katrina, the fear was contagious and it spread.

Just last week on Bill Maher one of the panelists challenged Glassman on this assertion. I can't remember her name, but he did back down since there was no evidence of these gangs that were touted so much in the media. I credit those to the panic and to the Superdome and Convention Center.

I'm not sure where you get the idea I have some sort of agenda because I don't agree with you. I don't know where you get the idea that I'm not acknowledging the crimes which were committed in the aftermath of Katrina. I've stated more than once that I know there was including the rape and murder of a little girl at the Superdome...I think it was there, but it could have been the Convention Center.

Rather than muddy the issue of the validity of this particular article which claims hospital patients were killed in order to 'ease their suffering or the suffering to come', you bring up what we already know. Horrific crimes were committed in the aftermath of Katrina. No one can deny that. But I don't believe it was as bad as the media portrayed.

The video you mentioned was a heartbreaking account of one woman's struggle to survive. I have no doubt that her and others suffered in the aftermath, but given a few statements, I do think she is exaggerating. She said millions of people were clamoring to get on the bus she was driving. I'm sure many were, but millions? No, I don't believe so.

Why not search for something else that backs up the article we are arguing over? Why not find another one or two to corroborate this one story?

[iverglas]

63. keep saying it

The looters was discussed in the vague article. It mentioned gangs of looters and rapists.

That's nice. The article I'm quoting -- the original source of the report -- QUOTES THE DOCTOR INTERVIEWED who says that the hospital pharmacy had been locked down because of looters.

What, exactly, is non-credible about that?

I offered the Reuters report about morphine tablets being sold on the street in New Orleans this week. Reuters, one of those respectible, credible news sources. I'm still waiting to know -- did those morphine tablets drop from the sky during the hurricane?

If they were looted from pharmacies, why would anyone think that hospital pharmacies would not be the target of looters? If no one would ever steal drugs from pharmacies, why do pharmacies bother locking their doors every other day of the year?

The only issue relevant to the particular report that you reject is whether there was a danger of looting of the hospital pharmacy. If you choose to believe there were no sexual assaults happening on the streets of the disaster zone, that's entirely up to you, and has no bearing on anything here. If you choose to find that a "vague" reference to such things happening makes everything else in a report about a very specific case, about which specific and credible facts are provided, not worthy of belief, that too is up to you. It simply doesn't pass real-world muster as a real reason for challenging the credibility of the journalists who wrote that report or of anyone whom they quoted in it.

Rather than muddy the issue of the validity of this particular article which claims hospital patients were killed in order to 'ease their suffering or the suffering to come', you bring up what we already know. Horrific crimes were committed in the aftermath of Katrina. No one can deny that. But I don't believe it was as bad as the media portrayed.

No, that isn't what I did at all. I brought up statements of disbelief of specific reports of those things, which in my submission were made without any persuasive fact or argument to support them.

The video you mentioned was a heartbreaking account of one woman's struggle to survive. I have no doubt that her and others suffered in the aftermath, but given a few statements, I do think she is exaggerating. She said millions of people were clamoring to get on the bus she was driving. I'm sure many were, but millions? No, I don't believe so.

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. Hyperbole used by a distraught victim of many horrific acts and circumstances to describe an incident that is not in any dispute is good enough reason to call her a ... oops, I'll be accurate here ... an exaggerator when it comes to the very specific thing that she says happened to her personally.

I can only hope that you are never a crucial witness in any situation in which anything depends on your credibility, or that you, unlike the entire rest of the world (oops, that might be hyperbole), have never used a fucking figure of speech to explain something.

But whatever; WHAT do you "think" she was exaggerating ABOUT? Being raped? What, in actual fact someone just wolf-whistled at her? (And in her exhausted and delusional ... and female ... state, her brain turned this into a false memory of sexual assault ...)

Why not search for something else that backs up the article we are arguing over? Why not find another one or two to corroborate this one story?

Why not explain to me why you are insisting that if something does not appear in a newspaper that you happen to like, it can't be believed to have happened? Or even why *you* would refuse to believe it?

If your best friend, or even a total stranger, told you that a bird pooped on her head yesterday, would you refuse to believe her unless she had videotape of it happening ... or the NYT had published the accounts given by four eyewitnesses who had never made faces for a camera or got a parking ticket?

[cynatnite]

69. hmm...so nothing other than this one article n/t

[etherealtruth]

55. There are an incredible amount of verified horrors ...

... associated with the aftermath of Katrina. Unimaginable horrors, documented in painful detail by a multitude of sources.

This story, while plausible, is not backed up by details that I find credible ... from the disjointed (non-narrative or in any context) quotes by the unidentified physician, the verification by the Mc Queen fellow, without any explanation of how he would have become privy to the facts ...

The only thing I can be sure of is that "we" require more info ... I would think that at minimum all the major media outlets have had time to track Mr. Mc Queen down and report on his comments if they found him to be credible ... The media has had time to interview a multitude of workers from the various NOLA hospitals and they have shared their tales of horror ... I'll continue to "watch" for details related to this story.

[iverglas]

58. how can you KEEP saying such things?

without any explanation of how he would have become privy to the facts

How can you just keep on saying things like this when you have no basis for doing it, and when you know that there is an absolutely rational explanation available?

McQueen was last heard from by his family the day BEFORE the hurricane, when he had been clearing pre-hurricane damage.

McQueen was not heard from by his family for several days after that, and their concern was reported in the UK press. If he had still been in Abita Springs, which was NOT part of the disaster zone, why would he not have contacted them??

Maybe because he was doing his bloody civic duty and helping victims in the disaster zone? If we don't ASSUME without any basis whatsoever that he is an evil buffoon, that's a pretty rational and plausible explanation.

Every single one of the objections to every single aspect of the report objected to has been answered as I have done above, and every single one of those answers has been distorted, disregarded or met with irrelevancies or unfounded allegations of one sort or another.

The only thing I can be sure of is that "we" require more info

"YOU" can require all the info you might like before YOU believe something. As I've pointed out before, the issue in a discussion of anything is really just never whether YOU or anyone else BELIEVES anything.

What YOU or anyone else chooses to believe is entirely YOUR prerogative.

Whether you or anyone else is willing or able to offer anyone else any reason to believe or disbelieve anything is an entirely different matter.

I would think that at minimum all the major media outlets have had time to track Mr. Mc Queen down and report on his comments if they found him to be credible

I'm wondering whether the media are feeling under as much pressure not to discuss these matters as I have certainly felt here at DU.

I'm also wondering whether the media in the US just plain don't regard this as the most newsworthy story among the thousands of stories that people obviously have to tell (and might actually have some concern for the feelings of the patients' families, who are closer to home for the US media), while it was OBVIOUSLY more newsworthy to a UK audience because of the involvement of an individual in it with whom that audience had become acquainted through the reports about his family's distress at not being able to contact him.

Lordy lordy lordy. When did it happen that because something is not reported in the NYT it did not happen, or even that there is any good reason for asserting that it did not happen?

I ask these things rhetorically ...

The media has had time to interview a multitude of workers from the various NOLA hospitals and they have shared their tales of horror

How're ya doing on the report by that Larson fellow who was working at the university hospital?

[cynatnite]

60. It's easy to say

Article is vague and legitimate questions have been raised.

How's that search for corroborating articles backing up the claims made in this particular piece?

[iverglas]

65. ah yes

Article is vague and legitimate questions have been raised.

Moon is green cheese and faeries dance at the bottom of my garden.

You're right -- it IS easy to say!


edit ... but apparently not so easy to spell correctly ...

[etherealtruth]

64. How are you iverglas?

I'm well today.

Conversations on this topic, with you, have not been productive.

I appreciate the differences of opinion expressed here on the DU. I have learned a tremendous amount from those that disagree with me on some subjects; others have helped me solidify my position or opinion. For that, I am grateful. I have found nothing of value in my conversations with you, r/t this matter. I am surprised that you have.

Perhaps, in the future we can have other discussions that have some value to the general discourse or to each of us individually.

The weather here is a little warm, but the bright sun makes it very pleasant. Hope all is well where you are.

[iverglas]

66. oh

ditto, absolutely.

[zanne]

50. There IS racism here on DU...

We don't like to admit it, and we'll follow every racist statement with "But I'm not a racist", but it does exist here, as we can see from this thread and some of the bigoted comments we've been reading. If we're truly a liberal site, we have to admit to any regressive tendencies we may have and try to correct them. I don't care if someone has 10,000 posts or two posts; expressing your opinion does not mean you can be a racist on this board.
There ARE other places to go for that.

[iverglas]

53. I'm fascinated

I'm just not sure what you're addressing here, and in particular what those bigoted comments we've been reading might be.

Care to clarify?

I don't care if someone has 10,000 posts or two posts; expressing your opinion does not mean you can be a racist on this board.

If you have something to say to someone, why not say it to him/her?

Heck, even by PM, if you don't feel you have sufficient basis for saying it in public.

[zanne]

56. It's curious that you replied to my post, iverglas.

I don't recall mentioning your name at all. Hmmm.

[iverglas]

59. isn't it just?

Perhaps there are some who actually do think I'm stupid.

I find it curious that what you said in your first post didn't actually address the subject of this thread, or anything in the opening post to which you replied, in any remote way.

Well, not really.

[in_cog_ni_to]

51. That's better than leaving them in the morgue to die.

:cry: Damn. How sad. :cry:

[dogindia]

67. I am weeping deeply.

[VOX]

70. Nothing says "Murdoch" like "gangs of rapists and looters rampaging"

"With gangs of rapists and looters rampaging through wards in the flooded city, senior doctors took the harrowing decision to give massive overdoses of morphine to those they believed could not make it out alive."

Who wrote this bilge -- Edgar Allan Poe on acid?????

The "base" reads this as, "those awful lawless blacks made doctors kill innocent life."

If this "journalism" got any more yellow, it'd have jaundice. :grr:

[iverglas]

71. that's one hell of a strange interpretation

The "base" reads this as, "those awful lawless blacks made doctors kill innocent life."

... when we consider what was ACTUALLY SAID and not what someone made up and put in quotation marks.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=361980&in_page_id=1770&in_a_source=&ct=5

(That's the original source of the report, in case you haven't read any of the various discussions about it. Do click the reader comments link, and see what the impression of any but the most rabid right-wing / fundamentalist readers was.)

What the report actually said:

Their families believe their confessions are an indictment of the appalling failure of American authorities to help those in desperate need after Hurricane Katrina flooded the city, claiming thousands of lives and making 500,000 homeless.

-- among other things. Like the QUOTED WORDS of a doctor:

"The pharmacy was under lockdown because gangs of armed looters were roaming around looking for their fix. ..."

Do you have some actual reason for not believing that a doctor was interviewed and spoke those words?

If there WERE looters, and if the fact that there were looters DID mean that these doctors didn't have access to adequate supplies of morphine to keep their patients pain-free until death, are you suggesting that the newspaper should have suppressed that information?

If the newspaper had not reported that information, how would readers have understood the doctors' decisions and actions? If you assert that the doctors did not engage in those actions, or that someone should not believe that they did, what is your basis?

If you are suggesting that there were NO looters, do you have some basis for making that suggestion?

Would your basis for making it be consistent with the information reported by no less an eminent source than Reuters --

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N0646406.htm

-- offering a reporter's account of seeing people selling morphine tablets on the streets of New Orleans? Can you suggest a way that those people would have got those tablets, other than the way suggested by the Reuters reporter -- by stealing them from pharmacies?

If you accept that there were looters taking narcotics from private pharmacies, would you have some reason to think there would have been no looters attempting to take narcotics from hospital pharmacies -- where the much bigger stocks of narcotics would be?

I'm curious how anyone might know that the doctor in question, or the orderly to whom the journalists also claim to have spoken, is not African-American. If they were or s/he was, what do we do now?

Tell him/her to sit down and shut up because reality isn't really reality, or even if it is, and you were a victim of it, it shouldn't be mentioned in polite company?

Why in the name of anything in the universe can we not just say what the families of these patients, and many other people, are reported to have said (like that guy on CNN who said something along the line of I voted for him -- how stupid am I?) --

This is an indictment of the appalling failure of American authorities to help those in desperate need.

The "base" is going to read whatever it sees however it likes. I have no clue why that would prevent anyone else from acknowledging what s/he sees to be credible information, and calling it whatever it appears to be.

But I'm still not sure I'm getting it. Do you believe that two journalists who signed their name to an article in a widely circulated publication invented a doctor and several other people and put words in their mouths ... all in order to make "the base" (remembering that the readership is mainly outside the US, and is interested in the specific events because they involved a member of a family in the UK who had been missing) think bad things about African-Americans? If I saw *that* allegation printed anywhere, I'd be peeing yellow myself, if you see what I mean.


I dunno. Maybe you just think that journalists should not report on events that they are given credible information about from credible people and that is of interest to their readers ...