Category Archives: Deadly Choices at Memorial (Fink)

In the article, “Deadly Choices at Memorial,” writer, Sheri Fink unveils the events behind the tragedy of Hurricane Katrina that led to the neglect of many hospital patients, which are namely the old, the declining and the most vulnerable. Despite the blame on Anna Pou and the hospital’s decisions, Fink revealed the topic to be a lot more complicated than expected. In details, Fink describes the lack of preparation the hospital had during the tragedy that led to Pou’s controversial decisions. However, despite not clearly placing the blame on Pou, Fink implies that she disagree with the decisions made. Fink had given Pou enough voice in the article to support her argument, but she did not whitewash the horrific results of the dead, helpless corpses that did not deserve to die with neglect. This especially hits hard in the following sentence uttered by one of the doctors:

‘”‘We spend too much on these turkeys,’’ he said some would say. ‘We ought to let them go.’’’

This casual conversation that refers to the patients as “turkeys” waiting to be let go is a harsh portrait of how the decision came to be. It wasn’t a decision that arrived in their minds during the hurricane, but a decision that was looming over their heads.

The eighth paragraph describes Fink’s motivation behind writing the article and the importance of discussing Pou’s decisions despite not fully knowing the full details behind it. And Fink’s motivation is that Pou’s controversial and “agonizing decisions” would arise again. This paragraph immediately shows Fink’s intentions of not simply writing an article that points finger at those she believes were to blame. Instead, Fink wanted to focus the discussion on the events that led to Pou’s decisions so that if ever it arises again, Pou’s argument of lack of preparation would not be tolerated.

Fink does not organize her story chronologically. Instead, she breaks it down by topic that helps the reader analyze the details. By not arranging the story chronologically, Pou is given the chance to voice out her argument without any clear bias against her. Fink finalizes the article with the trial and a profound quote from one of the panelist in the jury:

“‘As bad as disasters are,’’ he said, ‘even worse is survivors who don’t trust each other.'”

By using this quote, Fink shows that the effects of Pou’s decisions goes beyond the death tolls and the families of the patients who were neglected. Her decision led to breaking the crucial bond between survivors, patients and doctors.

Sheri Fink does a great job of not showing whether or not she takes a side in the story, however in my opinion she took to the defense of the lifecare patients, basically saying that the decision to sacrifice the sicker patients was wrong without really saying it, but by how she inserted quotes in specific places, such as the end of the first part when she includes a quote from Mark Leblanc, who asked: ” do you just flip a switch and you’re not a hospital anymore?”, she’s trying to lean the reader to see how wrong the way the hospital managed the whole situation was. She gives us an image of a calamity waiting to happen from the moment you start reading.

The paragraph beginning with the full details… is important because it opens the forum to a very important and most likely controversial topic on what paramedics should and should not be able to do in states of emergency, obviously it lets us know that she (FInk) believes this particular part of the story is key, and whether she agrees with it or not, deserves more attention from the public, it is a key aspect of the story, and it is important because she wants the reader to lean in that direction.

The story is organized with the intent to arouse the curiosity of the reader, the beginning of the story is descriptive, but not telling us any real details, after arousing the reader’s attention with descriptive imagery of the bodies, she goes into a sort of narrative story on what exactly happened to lead to the events that caused such controversy into hurricane Katrina, but its also important to note that before she goes into the narrrative, she explains who Ms. Pou is and makes it a case to not portray her as some heartless women, which kind of helps her look as neutral as possible throughout the story.

Sheri Fink does not reveal a biased story to her readers in “Deadly choice at Memorial”. Fink includes herself in the story based on how she obtained her interviewees but not on how she feels towards each of them. She allows the story to tell itself and for each person she interviews to tell their own story through her. She remains neutral throughout this piece to have a story based of facts which is more valid that a story based in someone’s opinion.

The role that ““The full details of what Pou did, and why, may never be known… arise again.” Is important because it leads way into what the story is about. Thus can be seen as a nut Graf. From this Fink, builds on Pou’s character as an individual being under pressure during an unfortunate disaster.

Fink organizes her story as a timeline narrative way. It’s readable and she focuses on Anna Pou, to be portrayed as a character in a novel. This helps to contribute to a much more interesting story. It is very detailed and helps give the reader a sense of what order the disaster occurred.