Judging life and death in times of disaster

There was a lot wrong with the rescue and relief efforts in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. I've talked with some of the people caught up in them, either as victims or as deliverers of aid, and I fully understand the outrage which fuels calls for legal actions. Of course, I acknowledge, every failing must be forensically examined.

I also live in the UK, where the memory of Dr Harold Shipman (arguably the world's most prolific individual peacetime serial murderer) is still chillingly fresh. Of course, I acknowledge, no case of killing outside the law should be overlooked.

And yet ... my heart and feelings instinctively go out, admittedly without any supporting evidence, to Lori Budo, Cheri Landry and Anna Pou (two nurses and a doctor, respectively) accused of giving lethal injections in New Orleans' Memorial Medical Center.

Life and death in times of disaster are beyond the guidelines of civil norms; and people who face decisions at such times fall into three types: those who face the responsibilities, those who turn away from them, and those who abuse the situation.

It has to be investigated, of course. And if Pou, or Budo or Landry, turns out to be another Shipman, then OK – they abused the situation, and must be held to account. If they turn out just to have been making the best decisions they could, according to their own professional and moral judgment in extremis, not turning away, then they have my sympathy and I hope someone like them is on hand if I ever need them. And if, as is likely, a court cannot decide which of those two is the truth, then I hope they are given the benefit of the doubt.