The article broke down one of the most horrific natural disasters of the century. For many, the wounds have yet to heal and with this article, those individuals and their families are forced to show us their scars again. This was equally hard for Fink to report after talking to survivors from Katrina. She unbiasedly informed her audience who may have been oblivious to what the conditions were for just this hospital alone. The help in the recovery of these sick and injured souls was not treated as a life or death emergency like it should have been. This is the subtext I understood. The old, elderly life support patients, "let 's not worry with them." This article I believe is highly controversial because Fink breaks down what us (the reader) were unaware of as a society. The doctors were playing God with morphine. It has been ten years and the victims of Katrina …show more content…
This seemed a bit obvious or maybe she saw she could have and would do more for the victims she let die. I also understood that in most cases when the morphine was injected, no one stayed with the patient until they passed. They died scared and painfully alone. She changed the ways we will handle a tragic day that was Katrina. LifeCare was irresponsible. The community such as the peers on the jury and the countless interviews created a civic engagement. They wanted to improve the conditions and volunteered their time for those who did not have a voice. The power vested in the people, secured by the people. Fink also keep the testimonies, confidential. The unsettling truth is that I believe and know there were "mercy killings." In that type of situation the staff wanted to eliminate more of the problem. If only the disaster plan had been calculated correctly, less lives would have been lost or should I say taken. I appreciate this story. As hard as it is to read and digest, I know malpractice knows no bounds. Patients deserve to have faith and trust their caregivers, if they can 't where is this world