Of Arms and the Law

Navigation
About Me
Contact Me
Archives
XML Feed
Home


Law Review Articles
Firearm Owner's Protection Act
Armed Citizens, Citizen Armies
2nd Amendment & Historiography
The Lecture Notes of St. George Tucker
Original Popular Understanding of the 14th Amendment
Originalism and its Tools


2nd Amendment Discussions

1982 Senate Judiciary Comm. Report
2004 Dept of Justice Report
US v. Emerson (5th Cir. 2001)

Click here to join the NRA (or renew your membership) online! Special discount: annual membership $25 (reg. $35) for a great magazine and benefits.

Recommended Websites
Ammo.com, deals on ammunition
Scopesfield: rifle scope guide
Ohioans for Concealed Carry
Clean Up ATF (heartburn for headquarters)
Concealed Carry Today
Knives Infinity, blades of all types
Buckeye Firearms Association
NFA Owners' Association
Leatherman Multi-tools And Knives
The Nuge Board
Dave Kopel
Steve Halbrook
Gunblog community
Dave Hardy
Bardwell's NFA Page
2nd Amendment Documentary
Clayton Cramer
Constitutional Classics
Law Reviews
NRA news online
Sporting Outdoors blog
Blogroll
Instapundit
Upland Feathers
Instapunk
Volokh Conspiracy
Alphecca
Gun Rights
Gun Trust Lawyer NFA blog
The Big Bore Chronicles
Good for the Country
Knife Rights.org
Geeks with Guns
Hugh Hewitt
How Appealing
Moorewatch
Moorelies
The Price of Liberty
Search
Email Subscription
Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

 

Credits
Powered by Movable Type 6.6.2
Site Design by Sekimori

« Is this a trend? | Main | Article on NJ gun laws »

New Orleans -- citizens were deputized to defend hospital

Posted by David Hardy · 22 July 2006 10:47 PM

Can't help but wonder why this didn't get media coverage:

"Hundreds of people were stranded in the hospital with no power to run lights or elevators and no running water. Anyone willing to carry a gun was deputized to watch the entrances as people broke into nearby buildings."

As far as the main story (doctor and two nurses arrested for allegedly killing patients with overdoses) goes ... it's pretty hard to picture the three just deciding, on a lark, to whack some patients during the story. It might be possible that they had some dying patients, not a snowball's chance in the infernal regions, and under those hellish conditions decided to let them go with no pain. When my ex was dying, if that'd been available, I'd have done it. Sometimes it's all over, and the only question is when and how painfully. In her case, cancer tumors were squeezing the breathing passages shut. No cure and no hope. An OD of painkillers isn't going to make any difference in the end. You can figure that anoxia will make them comatose, and it appeared to, but why not be sure?).

· media

2 Comments | Leave a comment

dad29 | July 24, 2006 7:24 AM | Reply

My sympathy on the loss of your wife. Cancer is a very nasty way to go.

At the same time, there's a significant body of moral discussion on euthanasia--which apparently occured in NO--and the discussion over Terri Schiavo was thorough.

The moral principle is simple: one may relieve discomfort, but one may NOT deprive another of life, by any direct action.

bud | July 24, 2006 11:09 AM | Reply
The moral principle is simple: one may relieve discomfort, but one may NOT deprive another of life, by any direct action.

So, it's much better to let them suffer, so that... what?

This is another example of what is, in essence, a religious decree translated into secular law. From a traditional Christian view, the terminal patient is suffering for his sins, or for some deep, mystical purpose that only God knows about, and the person who euthanizes them is contravening God's wishes.

If it were truly a secular, ethical issue, shades of gray could be acknowledged, and whether it was right or not could be judged on a case by case basis.

"Your honor, he was suffering terribly from a really, really bad case of athelete's foot, so I felt obligated to hold a pillow over his face."

"Your honor, every single breath was agony, and there was absolutely no cure or hope for one, so I cut off the oxygen and substituted pure nitrogen."

Our laws today make it impossible to distiguish between murder and mercy.

If the NO case turns out to be on the "mercy" side, I hope that a jury has sense enough to let them go; in this case there would be a good reason to let them face whatever punishment God wishes them to have, instead of injecting Man's interpretation of it.

Leave a comment