In the midst of the Katrina disaster, a New Orleans hospital was in dire cirumstances. The power was completely out, there were few supplies, the temperature exceeded 100 degrees, and flooding had cut the hospital off from any viable source of help. Even worse, the machines that kept people alive were failing and death seemed inevitable for many people in the 317-bed facility.

As a doctor, what do you do on this situation?

Many doctors and medical ethicists argue that the only humane thing to do is to put the terminally ill out of their misery through euthanasia, the act of killing or assisting the death of someone who is incurably ill. By euthanising patients, they claim, we allow them to approach their inevitable demise in a painless and dignified manner.

Apparently, Louisiana authorities don’t share this perspective.

Yesterday, a New Orleans doctor and two nurses were arrested on second degree murder charges for euthanasia. According to reports, the trio administered lethal drug doses to severely ill patients in the middle of the Katrina disaster. “We’re not calling this euthanasia. We’re not calling this mercy killings. This is second-degree murder,” said Kris Wartelle, a spokesperson for the State Attorney.

To many, however, it is not that simple. The idea of euthanisizing severely ill patients in the middle of an unavoidable disaster raises serious questions about the politics of dying. How much say should a patient have about when and how they die? How close to death does one have to be before “pulling the plug” is legal? Should doctors have the authority to sanction and facilitate death?

The New Orleans case is particularly complicated because death was both apparent and immediate for many of the hospital’s patients. Unlike the more typical Kevorkianesque circumstances, which always invoke conservative “slippery slope” arguments, these patients were going to die in hours or days, not months or years. If we can reasonably conclude that this is true, why not allay their suffering?

In an historical moment where weapons of mass destruction and chemical warfare are legitimate concerns, we must consider how we will handle mass injuries and imminent death in the midst of disaster. Otherwise, our current ethical codes may cause more harm than good.

“And after all my logic and my theories /  I add a motherfucker so you ignant niggas hear me” – Lauryn Hill “Zealots”

Tonight, I will be appearing on CN8’s “It’s Your Call with Lynn Doyle” to discuss and debate  the “Stop Snitching” movement. The Show airs through Comcast Cable on the East Coast. The show airs from 9-10PM EST and re-airs at midnight.

 Once again, Dallas Cowboys quarterback Terrell Owens has become the subject of negative media attention. This time, commentators have attacked Owens for comments that he made in his new autobiography, T.O. Apparently, people are upset that Owens described his rehabilitation and 2005 Superbowl comeback as “heroic.” In typical T.O. fashion, Owens stoked the controversy by saying that he was misquoted. Of course, the media, which was already chomping at the bit for a T.O. attack, scoffed at the absurdity of a person being misquoted in their own autobiography.Upon closer examination, however, Owens’ claim is not so ridiculous. The reality is that most famous people do not write their own autobiographies. Even the otherwise unknown J.L. King, who made big bank from his On The Down Low rag, didn’t actually write the book. (Note: As someone who writes for a living, I must confess that it drives me crazy that any idiot with a publicist, money, or a sexy story can get credit for a New York Times bestseller without writing a word.)The sad par t about Owens’ claim is that it actually could be true. Based on his comments and history, I have every reason to believe that Owens hasn’t even read his own autobiography. Again, this isn’t an uncommon occurrence for athletes. Only a few years ago, Charles Barkley made similar claims about his autobiography co-written with Michael Wilbon. I’m not saying, nor do I believe, that Barkley was as bad as T.O.. Still, the point is the same: too many athletes don’t read their own books. While this is sad, it’s hard to have sympathy for such willful ignorance.

A proposed law would prevent pregnant women from smoking. Could a law requiring women to breastfeed be far behind? 

Punishment For Pregnant Women

By Lynn Paltrow 

In a society that values children, it’s striking how frequently our public policy falls short of our rhetoric. Too often, the notion of collective responsibility for the nation’s children translates into collective demonization of pregnant women. Collective responsibility for our children should mean support for policies that help pregnant women get the care they need to have healthy babies. Instead, states and localities are increasingly blaming individual women, exaggerating the harms from individual behaviors.

In Arkansas’ recent special spring session, Hot Springs Rep. Bob Mathis followed up his successful proposal to make it illegal for someone to smoke in a car with children with a proposal to ban pregnant women from smoking. For those who subscribe to the view that pregnant women are vessels, treating them like cars makes perfect sense.

No one disputes that smoking, drinking and using drugs raise serious health issues for everyone, including pregnant women and their future children. Addressing these health matters, however, through punitive prohibition measures does not work to protect the health of women or the babies they’re carrying. Rather, focusing on pregnant women as dangerous people who require special control or punishment inevitably undermines maternal and fetal health. Such measures divert attention from pregnant women’s lack of access to health services, and deters them from seeking what little help is available. That is why medical groups including the American Medical Association, the March of Dimes and the American Academy of Pediatrics overwhelmingly oppose punitive measures targeting pregnant women.

Nevertheless, Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee supported Mathis’ proposal, saying, “A lawmaker’s suggestion to prohibit women from smoking during pregnancy makes sense from a health standpoint.”

It only makes sense if you haven’t bothered to think for a moment about the nature of addiction. Ask Rush Limbaugh, who has by word and deed made clear that addiction — even for the most popular and economically privileged people — can be very very difficult to overcome. According to press accounts, Huckabee added that “such a prohibition, if enacted, would probably have to cover other unhealthy activities such as drinking.” Perhaps the governor forgot about America’s experiment with alcohol prohibition in the 1920s. It failed miserably and there is nothing to suggest that resurrecting it for women only will work any better.

For the rest of the article, click here.