PDF Summary:Five Days at Memorial, by

Book Summary: Learn the key points in minutes.

Below is a preview of the Shortform book summary of Five Days at Memorial by Sheri Fink. Read the full comprehensive summary at Shortform.

1-Page PDF Summary of Five Days at Memorial

When Hurricane Katrina struck New Orleans in 2005, Memorial Medical Center struggled to manage the crisis and make difficult ethical choices involving patient triage, end-of-life care, and evacuation priorities. Sheri Fink's riveting account, Five Days at Memorial, examines the hospital's inadequate emergency preparation and the effects of systemic inequalities that compounded the disaster's impact on underprivileged communities.

The book delves into the moral and legal ramifications surrounding the controversial decision to administer lethal doses of medication to some patients. Fink objectively explores this ethical minefield, reflecting on questions of consent, institutional culpability, and the challenges healthcare workers face during catastrophes.

(continued)...

However, Fink proposes that these measures could be interpreted as either administering medication to alleviate distress until death occurs or as an intentional effort to hasten an individual's end to mitigate their suffering. The practice of providing palliative sedation and ceasing life support, while permissible under U.S. law, was mired in moral debates, and usually, sedating a patient to alleviate their distress required explicit permission, careful documentation of the reasons, and careful calibration of sedation levels to avoid hastening death unnecessarily. In the United States, where euthanasia is not legally recognized, determining the intent behind taking a life is crucial for securing a conviction for murder.

Sheri Fink highlights the ethical lapses evident in the exclusion of patients and their families from deliberations concerning the prioritization of medical attention and the sequence of evacuations from Memorial. The lack of transparent dialogue deprived individuals, particularly those without Do Not Resuscitate orders, of the opportunity to understand the rationale for the evacuation sequence, seek clarifications, communicate their preferences, and perhaps choose an option other than remaining in the medical facility. The collapse in dialogue breached a fundamental principle of healthcare morality, which is the obligation to obtain explicit permission.

Decisions regarding evacuation prioritized those who had not expressed a desire for resuscitation at the end of the list, and this was done without obtaining approval from the individuals or their families, nor was there significant effort to justify these actions to those affected.

Fink explores a deep ethical quandary, scrutinizing the decision to evacuate patients who lacked Do Not Resuscitate orders before those who had such directives in place at the hospital. A decision was made by a small number of doctors on the 30th of August, which was not disclosed to either the patients or their family members. Despite possessing a bioethics committee and extensive experience in managing end-of-life care decisions, the extraordinary circumstances precipitated by Katrina seemed to create a moral void in which the protection of patient rights was inadequate.

The decision to evacuate patients who had not indicated a preference for delayed resuscitation first, under the belief that they had less at stake, was at best questionable and could have been more indicative of the latent biases of the decision-makers rather than the true wishes of the patients involved. The choice appeared to stem from an assumption that the patients' lives were nearing their conclusion, an opinion that did not have unanimous agreement among the attendees. The conviction of the nurse manager and pulmonologist John Thiele was that administering potentially lethal medication dosages was merely a way to maintain patient comfort, though this conviction seemed to affect their sense of entitlement to make these decisions. Many family members, separated from their loved ones before the drugs were given, challenged the claim that the patients' conditions were too severe to allow for their evacuation.

Other Perspectives

  • The administration of lethal doses of medication may not have been the only option; alternative methods of pain management could have been considered.
  • The characterization of the injections as "appropriate end-of-life care" is subjective and could be contested based on different ethical frameworks or professional guidelines.
  • The distinction between palliative sedation and euthanasia is significant, and the actions taken may not align with accepted medical practices for end-of-life care.
  • The lack of informed consent may reflect a failure to uphold medical ethics, but it could also be argued that the extreme emergency situation necessitated rapid decision-making that precluded normal consent procedures.
  • Prioritizing patients without DNR orders for evacuation could be seen as a utilitarian approach to save the most lives, but it raises questions about the value placed on the lives of those with DNR orders.
  • The decisions made by the medical staff could be viewed as pragmatic responses to an unprecedented crisis, rather than ethical lapses.

The disaster was influenced by societal and infrastructural factors, encompassing the dynamics of racial interactions, the structure of social hierarchy, and the accessibility of medical resources.

This segment explores the intricate social and structural obstacles intertwined with disparities in race, class, and access to healthcare, which shaped the strategies employed to handle the emergency when Hurricane Katrina wrought havoc on New Orleans. Fink highlights the challenges linked to racial prejudice in times of emergency, particularly the tension between Memorial and LifeCare, which was exacerbated by the unequal allocation of resources and the differences in the demographics of their patients, as well as the deep-rooted disparities in healthcare that laid the groundwork for the adversity experienced by those trapped in the hospital during the hurricane.

As the hospital began evacuating, worries intensified regarding potential racial bias, given that a large number of self-mobile patients were white, in contrast to the predominantly African American patients who were severely ill and classified as "2"s and "3"s.

The investigation by the author uncovered that the planning of evacuations at Memorial Medical Center was shaped by underlying racial prejudices, reflecting broader societal issues that intensified Katrina's disproportionate effects on New Orleans' African American community. During the evacuation, individuals who could walk unaided were typically given precedence for leaving, mainly through the use of fan-powered flat-bottomed boats and various land-based vehicles. Many of the people were in a relatively stable state of health and were of Caucasian descent. Patients labeled as "2"s and "3"s, remaining within the hospital's boundaries, were generally in a more severe state of health and frequently belonged to minority groups.

The triage system at Memorial deeply disturbed Dr. Bryant King, as it appeared to disproportionately disadvantage less affluent patients who lacked personal means of transportation for evacuation, while animals were given refuge within the facility.

Dr. Bryant King, who practiced medicine at the facility and was also African American, perceived a deep-seated unfairness in the method of prioritizing patients, which seemed to adversely impact the hospital's primarily African American and economically disadvantaged patients. As Fink recounts, he was in conflict with CEO René Goux about the choice to refuse entry to a minority family seeking shelter from the storm in a small boat, while the facility was providing shelter to animals and relatively healthy white employees and their families. The community of the Lower Ninth Ward experienced a disproportionately severe tragedy, exacerbated by the fact that numerous residents lacked personal transportation, which hindered their ability to evacuate. The city of New Orleans particularly showcased the deep-rooted and systemic inequalities that became apparent through the uneven distribution of healthcare access and resources.

The administrators of the long-term care facility chose to prioritize the evacuation of their staff, resulting in the abandonment of the patients under their care, a decision influenced by the perception that these patients were not adequately valued.

Fink's account reveals the tense relationship between the hospital known as Memorial and the company LifeCare, which leased space on three different floors within the facility. Some Memorial staff members objected to the use of limited resources for LifeCare's primarily elderly and infirm patients. The personnel at LifeCare were under the impression that their patients were deemed less important by the Memorial staff, particularly in the development of evacuation plans. The decision by LifeCare's management to withdraw their staff, even though nine patients remained, was influenced by the growing imbalance.

Jannie Burgess, who had experienced rejection from hospitals as a patient due to her race, encountered an ironic twist at Memorial, where she was among those given the lowest priority for evacuation in the crisis.

Jannie Burgess's story highlights the enduring inequalities in health care that African Americans encounter in New Orleans, shaping individual life stories within the walls of Memorial Medical Center. Burgess, who had a background in nursing during the period of segregation, was allowed to care for white patients but could not receive medical attention at the same facilities. Fink recounts how Jannie Burgess, now elderly and suffering from advanced uterine cancer, was designated last for rescue along with other DNR patients. Her account highlighted the profound impact of racial prejudice in the healthcare sector and the continuous struggle for equity.

Context

  • The dynamics of racial interactions in the context of the disaster highlight how underlying prejudices influenced decisions during the crisis, impacting the allocation of resources and evacuation priorities. Racial disparities played a significant role in shaping the experiences of different groups during the emergency, revealing systemic inequalities in access to healthcare and resources. The unequal treatment based on race exacerbated the challenges faced by minority communities, particularly African Americans, in accessing timely and equitable assistance. The interactions between different racial groups underscored deep-rooted societal issues that were magnified by the disaster's impact on vulnerable populations.
  • The structure of social hierarchy played a role in the emergency response by influencing decisions on resource allocation, evacuation priorities, and patient treatment based on factors like race, class, and perceived value. This hierarchy affected how different groups were treated during the crisis, leading to disparities in access to healthcare and evacuation opportunities. Decisions made within this hierarchy reflected broader societal issues and historical inequalities, impacting the outcomes for vulnerable populations during the disaster. The dynamics of power and privilege within the social hierarchy shaped the responses of institutions and individuals, highlighting systemic challenges in emergency management and healthcare delivery.
  • The triage system at Memorial Medical Center during Hurricane Katrina prioritized evacuating self-mobile patients first, often those who were in a stable health condition and could walk without assistance. This system disadvantaged less affluent patients, particularly those who were unable to transport themselves for evacuation, leading to disparities in rescue priorities. Patients classified as "2"s and "3"s, typically in more critical health conditions, were left behind as the evacuation focused on those who could move independently. The system reflected underlying racial prejudices and socioeconomic disparities, impacting the evacuation process during the crisis.
  • The relationship between Memorial Medical Center and LifeCare was complex. LifeCare leased space within Memorial for their patients. Tensions arose over resource allocation and differing priorities during the evacuation process. This led to disagreements and ultimately impacted the care and evacuation of patients from both facilities.
  • During emergencies like natural disasters, medical facilities may prioritize patients for evacuation based on their medical condition and chances of survival. DNR (Do Not Resuscitate) patients have specified that they do not wish to receive certain life-saving measures like CPR in case of cardiac arrest. This preference can influence their priority for evacuation during crises, as medical resources may be allocated to patients who have a higher likelihood of benefiting from intervention. In the context of the evacuation discussed, DNR patients like Jannie Burgess were among those considered last for rescue due to their medical status and treatment preferences.

This section describes the events that followed Memorial's evacuation, focusing on the investigations and legal proceedings surrounding patient deaths, as well as broader societal responses. Fink explores the scrutiny or disregard by the legal system, medical professionals, and the broader community of the moral quandaries, as well as the lasting consequences of the occurrences at Memorial during that time.

The focus of public and media scrutiny centered on the possibility that the patients had been intentionally administered life-ending drugs.

The arrest of Anna Pou, Cheri Landry, and Lori Budo sparked intense public debate and led to a comprehensive scrutiny by the press of the ethical quandaries present. While some commended the medical staff for providing comfort-focused treatment amid an untenable scenario, others condemned them for allegedly adopting a god-like position and hastening the end of patients' lives without consent. Opinions on the motivations of the attorney general differed; some believed he was seeking attention and political advancement, while others saw him as an advocate for the underrepresented and neglected.

Advocates for Dr. Pou highlighted her benevolent and valiant efforts, minimizing the charges levied against her, along with the challenges faced by law enforcement and investigators in their quest for the truth.

Supporters of Dr. Pou initiated a robust campaign to highlight her compassion and bravery, depicting her as a casualty of widespread systemic failures. They depicted her detractors as disgruntled, lesser professionals seeking to deflect responsibility for their own failings, while championing legislation that would shield healthcare workers from judicial repercussions in future disasters.

However, as Fink recounts, the teams engaged in legal and investigative work faced significant challenges in crafting the narrative. The difficulty in understanding the events that occurred at Memorial Medical Center intensified due to Pou's choice to remain silent about her conduct and because of the tactics employed by Tenet Healthcare to hinder the gathering of evidence. The challenges faced by investigator Virginia Rider in reconstructing the sequence of events highlight the intricate task of reassembling the narrative after a disaster – it is an effort to comprehend a chaotic reality, where the testimonies of those involved may differ, whether unintentionally or intentionally.

Attempts to conceal what transpired added to the difficulties in securing justice within the medical facility. The narrative details how Tenet Healthcare strategically developed their communication tactics to protect their image while also preparing for possible legal repercussions. Initially, the company's representatives showed little willingness to work jointly with the investigators, delaying the handover of medical documents and being reticent about the findings from their own inquiries. The company also disseminated messages to its employees and the media, aiming to assign blame for the patient deaths to different government entities.

The circumstances grew progressively intricate as legal maneuvers were employed to obscure evidence, as depicted by Fink. Rick Simmons, who represented Pou, took measures to keep her conversations with Tenet executives following the evacuation private and contested the admissibility of witness statements in the legal proceedings. The records from the attorney general's probe remained confidential after a closed-door grand jury inquiry concluded without any charges being brought against Pou. The decisions made to protect individual liberties ultimately resulted in the shielding of the full story from public examination.

The decision of the special grand jury not to indict Dr. Pou, the nurses, and others reinstated their professional credentials. The book's ending raises several questions about the correct moral and regulatory benchmarks for healthcare during catastrophic events.

After a year-long investigation, the dedicated investigative panel reached its conclusion without bringing formal charges against Dr. Pou, nurses Cheri Landry and Lori Budo, or any other persons involved. The decision allowed healthcare workers to continue their duties, but it left unresolved critical questions about the ethical and legal standards that should be applied during emergencies. While some viewed the trial's conclusion as just, acknowledging the critical choices faced by individuals during an unparalleled emergency, others strongly contested it, seeing it as a tacit approval of the actions that occurred inside the hospital.

The difficulties encountered by Memorial Medical Center during Hurricane Katrina's devastating impact highlight the urgent necessity for ethical and legal frameworks to guide decisions in disaster-related medical care. The moral quandaries associated with prioritizing patients, allocating scarce resources, and overseeing end-of-life care persist in times of crisis, even after legal actions have ended with no convictions. Fink's narrative reveals the complex difficulties associated with emergency readiness and action, as well as the remarkable resilience shown by people facing extreme hardship, all set within a critical period at Memorial Medical Center that lasted five days.

Other Perspectives

  • The investigations may have been influenced by public pressure and media narratives, which could have affected their objectivity.
  • Scrutiny on the administration of life-ending drugs may not fully account for the extreme conditions and lack of resources during the disaster.
  • Advocates for Dr. Pou may have had a vested interest in protecting her reputation and could have downplayed any potential wrongdoing.
  • The influence of organizations like Tenet Healthcare on public perception could be seen as a necessary defense against potentially unfounded accusations.
  • Efforts to conceal information could be interpreted as a legal strategy to protect patient confidentiality and the rights of the healthcare providers.
  • Legal maneuvers to obscure evidence might be standard legal practice to ensure a fair trial and protect the legal rights of the accused.
  • The decision not to indict by the grand jury could be viewed as a reflection of the complexity of the situation and the legal system's recognition of the unprecedented emergency context.
  • Raising questions about moral and regulatory benchmarks could overlook the fact that existing frameworks may not be applicable to extreme and unforeseen circumstances like natural disasters.

Additional Materials

Want to learn the rest of Five Days at Memorial in 21 minutes?

Unlock the full book summary of Five Days at Memorial by signing up for Shortform.

Shortform summaries help you learn 10x faster by:

  • Being 100% comprehensive: you learn the most important points in the book
  • Cutting out the fluff: you don't spend your time wondering what the author's point is.
  • Interactive exercises: apply the book's ideas to your own life with our educators' guidance.

Here's a preview of the rest of Shortform's Five Days at Memorial PDF summary:

What Our Readers Say

This is the best summary of Five Days at Memorial I've ever read. I learned all the main points in just 20 minutes.

Learn more about our summaries →

Why are Shortform Summaries the Best?

We're the most efficient way to learn the most useful ideas from a book.

Cuts Out the Fluff

Ever feel a book rambles on, giving anecdotes that aren't useful? Often get frustrated by an author who doesn't get to the point?

We cut out the fluff, keeping only the most useful examples and ideas. We also re-organize books for clarity, putting the most important principles first, so you can learn faster.

Always Comprehensive

Other summaries give you just a highlight of some of the ideas in a book. We find these too vague to be satisfying.

At Shortform, we want to cover every point worth knowing in the book. Learn nuances, key examples, and critical details on how to apply the ideas.

3 Different Levels of Detail

You want different levels of detail at different times. That's why every book is summarized in three lengths:

1) Paragraph to get the gist
2) 1-page summary, to get the main takeaways
3) Full comprehensive summary and analysis, containing every useful point and example