Doctors face ethical decisions in Haiti

Play
Download

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Download MP3

Nathalie Lebrun, in cot with cousin Natalienne Anestal. Photo copyright: Sheri Fink

Nathalie LeBrun, in cot with niece Metalienne Anestal. She was a patient at HHS-Gheskio field hospital in Port-au-Prince. Photo copyright: Sheri Fink

The medical needs in Haiti are so great, and the resources often so limited, that doctors and nurses working there since the earthquake have had to make some wrenching decisions. They’ve had to choose not only who they could save, but who they could not or would not save. Reporter Sheri Fink brings us a rare behind-the-scenes look at an American field hospital in Port-au-Prince in the early weeks of the disaster.

Doctors and nurses who volunteered in Haiti right after the earthquake faced extreme challenges. Working in the heat, with few of their usual tools and the constant fear of aftershocks, they doubtless saved thousands of lives and limbs.

But something else took place in the field hospitals in those early days of the disaster… something that medical personnel rarely face or discuss. Decisions were made to deny or even take away life-prolonging resources from some patients – ostensibly to save others.

This is the story of one such decision.

It took place at a field hospital housed in tents on a college campus courtyard in Port-au-Prince. It was operated by the U.S. government’s National Disaster Medical System. One patient who arrived at the field hospital the week after the earthquake was identified in medical records merely as Jane Doe 326. But her real name:

“Nathalie LeBrun.”

Nathalie LeBrun. She was 38 years old… dressed in a white nightgown with lacy trim. Through a translator, she explained that she had trouble breathing.

“She can’t breathe right, and her body’s swollen. She’s been like that for a while, but ever since the earthquake, it’s added onto it.”

Nathalie LeBrun early one morning after her oxygen ran out. Photo copyright Sheri Fink

Nathalie LeBrun early one morning after her oxygen ran out. Shorty afterwards a tank of oxygen was found for her. Photo copyright Sheri Fink

The U.S. medical team found a tank of oxygen and ran a tube to her nose to help her breathe. But overnight the tank ran out. The oxygen level in LeBrun’s blood plunged dangerously low.

“…but she diuresed, didn’t she?…”

In the early morning, a nurse sat with her in tears. She believed she was watching LeBrun die. The nurse had been told there was no more oxygen. Doctors called for help. And the staff found another tank.

“…Oh my God, I just got really happy.”

Again, they hooked up Nathalie LeBrun to oxygen, and her breathing eased. She described later what it had felt like to go without oxygen.

“I felt terrible,” she said. “Terrible. My chest hurt. I couldn’t breathe at all.”

Nathalie LeBrun

Nathalie LeBrun on a stretcher awaiting transport to University Hospital. She is too short of breath to lie flat. Photo copyright: Sheri Fink

Still, oxygen was running low. The medical team had another idea for how to help LeBrun. They put her on a portable oxygen concentrator. The machine extracts oxygen from the air. But the machine kept overheating and shutting down.

And the device runs on electricity and the fuel needed to run the electric generators was in short supply.

Logistician Matt Hickey passed that news to his medical colleagues at a morning meeting under a mango tree.

“We’re at a critical level with our diesel supply. We have one can per generator left. After that everything shuts down. So I’m freaking today. I mean, I am freaking.”

The team found more fuel, but 24 hours later, bottled oxygen remained scarce. The field hospital’s liaison officer was a nurse named Patrick Kadilak. His job was to manage the flow of patients through the hospital, and he said he faced a quandary – what to do about Nathalie LeBrun.

Patrick Kadilak

Patrick Kadilak, a nurse practitioner. Photo copyright: Sheri Fink

Her breathing difficulties were likely caused by a chronic heart problem… and her need for oxygen might continue indefinitely.

“We’re running out of oxygen. We don’t have any logistics support to be able to provide us oxygen. I only have so many people that I can treat, and I have to make a decision about what this resource is going to be used and how it’s going to be used.”

Kadilak reasoned that the limited supply of oxygen would be better used if it were given to those who needed it only temporarily for instance, people who’d been injured in the quake and needed oxygen during surgery.

So he made what he described as a difficult decision: to withdraw the oxygen from Nathalie LeBrun.

“Which essentially is a death sentence for this woman.”

Kadilak checked his decision with the head doctor. The doctor agreed it was right. A plan was developed. LeBrun’s oxygen would be turned down slowly. And she would be driven to a partially destroyed Haitian hospital where she’d been treated before, but which was known to lack oxygen.

LeBrun was not consulted or informed. She was only told that she would be transferred to the Haitian hospital. That afternoon, she gave me a huge smile and spoke hopefully about her future.

“She’s saying hopefully when she gets well, she pray to God she will have an opportunity to learn something, that she will be able to earn a living for herself then she don’t have to depend on nobody to really help her because that’s why she’s really hoping for.”

By late afternoon, nobody had started to wean LeBrun from her oxygen. Staff had been busy caring for patients with broken bones, complex wounds, and two women giving birth simultaneously.

Then, shortly after 5pm, a hospital staff member abruptly unplugged LeBrun’s oxygen concentrator. Medics from the 82nd Airborne had come to transport her. Not knowing the plan, they tried to reassure her.

“…Just tell her she’ll be taken care of, and she’s going to be going to another place…”

“…Hey, I need a fourth. Get up here!…”

Then they hoisted her into the back of a humvee ambulance. Before the ambulance even started rolling, a military doctor noticed LeBrun was beginning to have trouble breathing.

Medics from the 82nd Airborne transfer Natalie LeBrun

Paratroopers from the 82nd Airborne carry Nathalie LeBrun to a military ambulance. Photo copyright: Sheri Fink

“…How you doing sweetheart?”

The ambulance had an oxygen tank available, but a nurse from the field hospital’s command staff assured the doctor that LeBrun’s problem was chronic, and no oxygen was provided for her.

With the doors shut, the back of the ambulance was hot and dark. The ride was rough.

LeBrun began struggling to breathe. She leaned toward the metal side of the humvee and coughed again and again. She was going into acute respiratory distress – a severe breathing crisis. And LeBrun knew exactly what she needed.

“Oxygene! Oxygene!”

Medical staff who later found her gasping for breath in the back of the ambulance were deeply disturbed. They questioned the decision to remove her oxygen. The person who made that decision – Patrick Kadilak – said he understood their feelings.

He had not met LeBrun, and as a member of the command staff, he said he could step back and make a decision based on what seemed rational.

Still, it wasn’t easy.

“You feel very God-like or, in that sort of decision making, ‘You can have, and you can have not.’ And you have to put it in context of the larger perspective of the disaster, as well as the country’s ability to be able to support that patient. And it’s not an easy decision for anyone to make, but it was the right decision then.”

Dr. Ara Feinstein (right) performing trauma surgery on a gunshot wound victim. Photo copyright: Sheri Fink

I wanted to know more about the rationale behind these types of decisions. I asked the chief medical officer who oversaw U.S. government field hospitals in Haiti. Commander Timothy Davis of the U.S. Public Health Service was not involved in LeBrun’s case. But he says, in a disaster, it’s sometimes appropriate for the medical personnel in charge to withhold resources, because providing care for one patient may deny it to others.

“If you succeed for the individual patient but that patient blocks beds for people that could come in and be turned around and be saved or receive better care, you still have success for that one patient, but you don’t know about the others that never made it in there. Not just the patients that are now, but the patients that are yet to come there.”

But is this choice between serving the individual patient and the broader community of patients really so stark?

In the aftermath of the quake, Haiti benefited from an outpouring of charity that provided new options for helping the sick and injured. In fact, a few days after Nathalie LeBrun was taken off her oxygen, a new patient arrived at the field hospital suffering from a similar rheumatic heart condition.

In this case, the patient was a 15-year-old boy. He was in critical need of oxygen. And supplies were still touch and go. A new medical team was now in charge, and whereas the first team had seen no good option for treating Nathalie LeBrun, this new team imagined a different possibility. Doctor Ara Feinstein was on the team.

“Really, the discussion never centered on should we cut back. It just always focused on how can we get more resources?”

He and others came up with a plan. They got the National Air Ambulance company to fly the boy to Florida. He underwent heart surgery at Joe DiMaggio Children’s Hospital in Fort Lauderdale on February ninth. His surgeon believes he has a chance to recover fully and live a normal life when he goes back to Haiti. He won’t continue to need oxygen.

As for Nathalie LeBrun, whose oxygen was switched off…

When she arrived at Haiti’s University Hospital, she was in severe distress and might die, according to one doctor. He said there was no oxygen. But then someone found an oxygen tank.


Natalie LeBrun at the field hospital being prepared for transport to University Hospital.

As Natalie LeBrun waited she began to have difficulty breathing.

Hospital workers rolled it up to her cot and Dr. Bob Norris — who was volunteering with International Medical Corps from Stanford — ran the tube of oxygen under LeBrun’s nose.

“Okay, mama, here we go. This’ll make you breathe better. Okay?”

There was a little bit left. Enough, at least, to last the night.

For The World, I’m Sheri Fink in Port-au-Prince, Haiti.


Update: On February 23, Sheri Fink returned to University Hospital and found Nathalie LeBrun alive and somewhat better. She’s still suffering from a severe heart condition and a doctor says she needs surgery that is not available now in Haiti. But she’s now stable… even without oxygen.

Visit this page to donate to Haiti earthquake relief

Write to Sheri Fink
sherifink@gmail.com
Photos: © copyright Sheri Fink

Discussion

11 comments for “Doctors face ethical decisions in Haiti”

  • bwebb

    So a chronic heart patient (15 year old) that would never have had heart surgery except that he was ‘lucky’ enough to have an earth quake destroy his country and have massive numbers of doctors and resources sent in to help – gets medivac to Florida for an operation. And this is heroic, but thousands of people in the US go without health care due to lack of insurance and severe administrative roadblocks (lack of facilities and access) every day due to a disorganized, two tiered US health system and these stories are rarely news. And health care in Haiti is chronically far worse than the US. Too many of us care only in a crisis. Both the main people in the story could have been helped years before the earthquake but were not. Then they never would have needed oxygen when the electricity shut off (and there was no diesel to run the generator for the oxygen concentrator). And in the US we seem to be letting half or more of our population go to the Haiti health care paradigm.

  • Patachou

    A driveway moment for sure! I’m very glad to hear that Nathalie LeBrun is doing so much better. The photo of her smiling and sitting erect is pure gold. Thank you for the story, and for the photos.

  • Mark Thackeray

    I enjoyed the article quite a bit and appreciate all the hard work that goes into stories such as this. However, I find it hard to digest that some people, in this case the author, can be so hypercritical of the decisions made by the medical staff during such a traumatic emergency situation. When faced with the decision to try and save the life of several over the life of one, I think that most people would have chosen to sacrifice the life of one over many. I can’t imagine what a difficult and emotionally taxing decision that must have been and feel fortunate that I don’t have to make decisions like that. I applaud all those who work so tirelessly to try and save and bless as many lives as possible and hope they know that we are praying for them.

  • Jane

    Ms. Fink, thank you very much for your reporting. This is a haunting story. I truly wish Ms. LeBrun better health in the near future.

  • John Munson MD

    Ms. Fink; good story. I was with you and Dr. Feinstein for the second IMSuRT deployment. The decision for Ms. LeBlun unfortunately happens often in disasters when due to lack of resources we help the greatest number of patients with what we have. When equipment, personnel, oxygen, transport become available, those paradigms can chage. In the US we do not have those decisions normally; people get emergency treatment (not elective) whether they have insurance or not. John M. MD

  • Joseph Roche, RN

    Ms. Fink: I too was with you at the Gheskio clinic and was intimately involved with this case. I am so very grateful that you were there and able to share the plight of Ms LeBrun and her fellow countrymen who sufffered so greatly.
    However, your article contains both a factual innacuracy and implied criticism which is unfair.
    You report that a different set of doctors were able to effect a different solution for their patient ‘a few days later’. The truth is that the circumstances had changed considerably in the week between the two events – such as expanded treatment options, improved supply chain (oxygen) and opportunities for patient evacuation.
    Second, and more troubling, is your erroneously reporting that the patient was not informed of the plan to transfer her. The attending physician had provided the absolute best of care that circumstances could allow. It was only following consultation with the nurses caring for the patient, the disaster medical team’s chief medical officer, the patient and her family that the physican allowed for the transfer to occur. Further details of this discussion are limited based on our usual and customary understanding of patient privacy. But your characterization of our actions absent the patient’s knowledge and consent is absolutely untrue.

    • Karen Mulvaney RN

      Well put Joe. I also was disturbed by some of the inaccuracies and felt that the medical teams were made out as compassionless. There was nothing written about the tireless efforts to help so many critical patients and the emotional effects to the personnel caring for these patients. In our world we are fortunate enough not to have to make such difficult and heart wrenching decisions. This was by far the most formidable deployment I have ever experienced and also very proud to have part of such a great team of dedicated professionals.

    • http://www.theworld.org The World

      It was an honor to observe the work of Mr. Roche’s team, Dr. Munson’s team and the other DMAT and IMSuRT teams that served at Gheskio. Their members were tireless, devoted, highly competent, and showed great kindness to their patients and each other during the disaster. The fact that they serve in situations where wrenching decisions like this could arise speaks to their dedication.

      As the story says and as Mr. Roche writes, Nathalie LeBrun was told that she would be transferred to another hospital. However, her doctor told me LeBrun was told “just that we’ll be sending her back with new recommendations on medicines.” LeBrun confirmed she was not aware of the more consequential decision to discontinue her oxygen until it was switched off.

      No adult family members were involved in discussions about her care because they were not present at the hospital. As far as LeBrun was aware, her extended family died when their house collapsed in the earthquake. (Ironically she and her niece–a minor and orphan whom LeBrun supports–survived because LeBrun had left the house to seek medical care just prior to the quake.)

      As difficult as making a decision to withdraw needed care from a patient is, it may be easier than delivering the news to the patient, carrying out the decision, and observing its consequences.

      Mr. Roche and Dr. Munson make a very important point that resources change during a disaster, sometimes allowing medical teams to do more for certain patients as the situation evolves. Any decision to limit care needs to be revisited often.

      Still, the 15 year old’s evacuation to the US was a result of outside of the box thinking and the generosity of private companies more than of expanded treatment options. Because the boy was not injured in the earthquake, he would not have met the strict criteria established for flying to the US through the official NDMS medical evacuation program. His transfer was arranged privately, with an air ambulance company and a hospital agreeing to care for him.

      – Sheri Fink

  • William H. Browning, M.D.

    Perhaps the worst piece I have ever heard on this program.
    If this reporter were to be triaged on the basis of logical thought or balanced reporting, her prognosis would be guarded indeed.
    In times of catastophe, wrenching decisions must be made on relative benefit, and military surgeons are taught to deal with thos difficult issues.
    For a non-professional bystander to criticize this correct allocation of resources is unfortunate indeed.

    • Sheri Fink

      In the story, Commander Davis and Mr. Kadilak describe the concept of relative benefit that Dr. Browning raises here. What doctors and other health professionals are taught in terms of how to deal with this difficult issue is not uniform.

      There is an ongoing debate in the medical community about how to accomplish the “greatest good for the greatest number” and exactly what that concept means. For example, at least nine different well-recognized triage systems exist for providing care when the number of injured and ill exceeds available resources.

      Unfortunately, relatively little research has been done on the effectiveness of various triage and resource allocation protocols. And once a difficult decision like this one is made, there is even less guidance on how best to carry it out and deal with the impact on both patients and health professionals.

      LeBrun’s story offers a rare look at the complexities of these decisions. I believe the listeners of “The World” are capable of grasping those complexities.

      As Dr. Browning’s comment shows, laying bare these decisions can touch a nerve. But arguably members of the general public, including non-professionals, should be invited into the conversation, not least because they have the potential to be affected by resource allocation decisions in future disasters, and their tax dollars fund governmental preparedness and response efforts.

  • Raymond Russell

    It is with presentation like this why have gotten so closely connected to this medium. The substance presented wants you to be sympathetic of the individual involved. This is journalism at its best and thank you very much for the presentation.