|
Cathy Ramey
Associate Editor
A prescription for death
The medical model and murder
by Cathy Ramey
Part Two
Interweaving medical practice into the killing routine
An important aspect of murder on a massive scale in yesterday's war-torn Europe and today's peace-time America is the role of interweaving historical medical routine into the killing process. Records left behind after the liberation of the various "processing centers" (Read: facilities established for the purpose of killing) involved in "exterminations" (Read: murder) during the Hitler era show a strong reliance upon the act of recording data. Though often skewed and routinely fabricated, the magnitude of "medical" charting that documented arrivals, research, and deaths within Nazi concentration camps is anthropologically significant.
Such charting exploited a practice which medical providers are universally and consistently trained to participate in. It provided a commonly accepted routine which could be used to effectively link traditional "healing" with killing. Completing conventional tasks worked then, as well as now, to seduce willing participants into the idea that a "healing" rationale could be assigned the work which resulted in individual and mass murder.
This process of engaging traditional medical routine alongside mechanisms meant to kill was not haphazard. The decision to link ordering "treatment" or "prescriptions," "charting observations," and data "research collection" with the executions actually began before Hitler's "Final Solution" brought about mass murders within internment camps. The killing of millions of innocent people started with those least capable of defending their own claim to life; it began with the aborting of babies whose mothers or fathers were handicapped, and "putting to sleep" of mentally retarded infants, children, and finally adults in hospitals throughout Germany in 1938 and 1939.
While abortion had been illegal in Germany, Reich physician Gerhard Wagner advised his colleagues that Adolph Hitler would grant amnesty to any physician who performed an abortion "to prevent the births of children with hereditary taints." The so-called "taint" might include mental retardation, physical anomoly, or even epilepsy on the maternal or paternal side of the family.
For the born, there were other ways in which their deaths could be accomplished. One doctor involved with the early German euthanasia project, summarized the feeling among medical personnel who gave increasingly large doses of drugs to patients in order to bring about their deaths.
"If I get the order to kill . . . I don't know but I [think I] would refuse . . . but certainly there was no such order for us."
He goes on to say, "I mean if you had directed a nurse to go from bed to bed shooting these children . . . that would not have worked. . . . [T]here was no killing, strictly speaking. . . . People felt this is not murder, it is a putting-to-sleep."
Helping patients to sleep better is an element of normal medical routine. Drugs were ordered; forms were filled out; nurses charted the patient's response; and finally, death certificates were issued in the standard fashion. This type of medical routine supplied a variety of needs including a sense of following orders from a more responsible authority. It also allowed participants to see their own involvement and responsibility for the outcome as minimal.
This step in the broader sense too must embrace a methodology which allows for the more uneasy members of the team to offer their services at a level which does not automatically violate subjective standards that they have created for themselves.
Again, consistent with Nazi Germany's own extermination experience, using it as a model, we see that some medical work, whether in a Nazi extermination camp in 1943 or in an abortion facility today, will go on in the office (crafting policy); some will occur at various points in the actual killing process (on the ramp, in the gas chamber, in the exam room); some will occur in the laboratory or morgue (pathology); and some will occur at a point either before or after the killing is accomplished (reception, counseling, research).
For example, at Auschwitz there were those who, using an ambulance or car with a red cross painted on the side, transported prisoners to the crematoria; another maintained the medical charade by directing patients going into the deadly shower room, "Would diabetics who are not allowed sugar report to staff on duty after their baths." And of course, all inmates were told that the shower was simply for the purpose of delousing the new arrivals to maintain a healthy camp population. Finally, another staff person poured deadly Zyklon-B crystals into a vent, while a physician looked on through a small window.
In abortion facilities today there are those designated as "counselors," most of whom have no academic preparation. Still the title acts as an assurance to willing clients that the murder of the unborn infant is part of normal medical routine. Carol Everett, in her expose' of the abortion business, claimed that the hiring goal in her own facility and others was to select as employees those deemed to be the best salespersons.
Other personnel, often with no medical training, are hired for more front and back-office positions. Each is instructed to perform in ways calculated to assure clients that the process is medically sound. All of this allows for a distraction away from the reality of murder.
The planning of the procedures are crafted so that concepts like "blame" and "guilt" are diffused among many people.
Dealing with guilt
This step of minimizing blame in the murder-methodology requires one other important introductory element. The various techniques that bring about death must include variety which offers at least some measure of insulation to the team providers most directly involved in the killing. Again, Nazi concentration camp practices give us a graphic picture of the need to insulate the practitioner-executioner.
Initially, after prisoners were selected to die within the Auschwitz complex, the role of executioner was delegated to guards within the system. Prisoners were walked to a stone wall between blocks 10 and 11. A gun was put to the prisoner's head, and he was shot.
Over time Nazi supervisors within the system became increasingly plagued with the problem of the executioner's own guilt. This was expressed in anxiety, nightmarish dreams, bizarre behavior, and even suicide.
"Look at the eyes of the men in this kommando, how deeply shaken they are!" one of Hitler's generals remarked after watching the killing of over 100 prisoners by guards. General Bach-Zelewski was eventually himself treated for "hallucinations connected with the shooting of Jews."
To contend with this "problem" more efficient methods of murder were devised; methods which put distance between the executioner and his victim; methods which allowed the "blame" to extend over a greater number of camp personnel, each doing what he rationalized was only a small part to bring about the victim's death.
Problems of "guilt" frequently arise in pre-natal killing too when the abortionist or nurse is directly confronted with evidence of the child's humanity. Saline births, for example, though rarely done now, are known for the "dreaded complication"a live birth. Other methods which eliminated this complication (and the medical participant's legal and moral conflict) are now used far more routinely than saline.
Early diagnosis of the "disease" of pregnancy makes involvement in killing palatable for some, in that, they find it less repugnant to destroy life that is primitive in appearance. The child in an embryonic or fetal stage of development does not quite look like the born that we are accustomed to seeing. They must not be quite human then, is the rationale.
For others the normal revulsion over death is held in check because, by the time the child's soft developing tissues are pulled through thin tubing by a powerful vacuum in the suction aspiration method, the identifiable elements of the child's anatomy and humanity are further reduced. It is not unusual to see only a fragment of a human person, a foot or arm, sticking out of bloody pulp which is caught by the sock (gauze bag) of the machine. Abortion providers redefine reality and refer to the now dead baby as "a teaspoon of bloody pus-like matter" (meant to conjure up images of a disease or infection brought under the medical providers control).
Others moderate guilt feelings by insisting that eventually research will discover remedies from the dead which will benefit the living.
Redefining reality
The medical-killing model is built on an existential philosophy which holds that "the meaning of reality must be created by one's own free choice." Under this paradigm the individual is not only free to create his own reality; his own world; his own choices, but to respond to pressure to do other than whatever is licensed as freedom is to fail in one's responsibility. One has abdicated freedom if one does not exercise it. Now the responsible act is to assist in the killing of Jews or to demand and claim the right to kill the unborn child.
In this climate of relativism, in addition to speaking of victims in ways meant to suggest that they are less than human, the medical-murder model requires that its proponents alter other aspects of reality as well. This includes redefining definitions like "murder." While it once referred to any intentional act aimed at destroying a morally and judicially innocent person's life, issues other than innocence are given prominence when mass extermination is the goal.
A search for "genetic purity" drove the Third Reich murder machine. To "purify the race" was seen as an effort to perfectly wed the social and biological sciences for a more "fit" ("healthy") society. And safeguarding personal autonomy ("a woman's right to choose") is just one issue which has taken the guilt out of murder today. The point is no longer, what do you believe, and is it moral or good? The question now becomes, based upon what you believe, did you act consistently and with integrity toward those beliefs?
The result is that requirements for having a "good" conscience are therefore altered. Now, what was inconceivable before is virtuous.
The reality of the medical "remedy" is not avoided. Nazis knew they were killing Jews, and abortionists know they are killing babies. But the meaning of that reality is what is repudiated. Yes, babies are being killed, but the meaning that murder is taking place is changed. "That may be your reality," the abortionist might say to an anti-abortionist, "but it's not my reality."
The focus now is on preventing child abuse, elevating women, and maintaining a balance between the earth and its resources. These ideals, rather than innocence, dominate the issue. By virtue of the fact that these are the dominating concerns, the abortion worker alters his or her definition of murder.
Innocence is secondary in the hierarchy of concerns. And just as traditionally we have abused or expended resources in order to safeguard innocent life, so now, under this redefinement of reality, the executioner may abuse or expend with life in order to safeguard resources. Now, ludicrous as it may seem, personhood is demanded for trees, rivers, and rocks, and what William Brennan calls a "sanctity of environmental life ethic" replaces the historic sanctity of human life ethic.
Add to this the false claim that unborn babies are "not quite human," and the result is that their being purposefully killed is "not quite murder."
Theologian Fisher Humphreys, writing in the fall of 1995, illustrates how some in the Church have fallen into the trap of redefining reality and the definition of murder. He says about abortion:
"Legally it is not murder to kill a human being if you do not realize it is a human being. . . . Abortion providers do not think they are killing human beings. They think that fetuses are not human beings. . . . therefore, what they are doing is not murder in the technical, legal sense."
The esteemed Professor of Divinity at the Beeson Divinity School in Birmingham, Alabama goes on to say, "Furthermore, in the United States today, not all killing is legally murder. Killing soldiers during a war is not, and executing criminals is not. Similarly, American laws do not categorize abortion as murder."
His apologetic, which sadly represents the view of many, ends by stating, "Let us stop calling abortion 'murder.' Instead, let us call it cruel and sinful; let us call it an immoral act and a national tragedy. Then we will be legally (though not biblically) accurate, morally just and strategically wise. And we will be speaking the truth in love."
Even anti-abortion activists will buy into this concept by adopting the notion that it is "a special kind of murder," requiring a special response and mandating against the kinds of aggressive defenses given concentration camp inmates and other innocent victims of unjust aggression and murder.
The degree to which abortion-murder is redefined and tolerated, even by the most vigorous of opponents, has greatly helped to maintain the practice of exterminating unborn infants.
In the face of such extraordinary pressure to redefine reality, it is amazing that there are those examples in history of people who, as a result of having participated in the murder of the inconvenient, have been willing to address what they have done as a wrong. Their examples serve as an encouragement of sorts though their actions remain contemptable.
As soon as a woman gave birth to a living child at the Auschwitz concentration camp, both mother and child were to be sent directly to the gas chamber. In order to spare the women, a nurse at the facility, Olga Lengyel, routinely killed babies and reported that they had been stillborn. Years later she wrote, "The only meager consolation is that by these murders we saved the mothers . . . Yet I try in vain to make my conscience acquit me. I still see the infants issuing from their mothers. I can feel their warm little bodies as I held them. I marvel to what depths those Germans made us descend!"
More recently there are former abortionists like Bernard Nathanson, and Anthony Levitino who speak against abortion and state quite plainly that they, by killing unborn infants, even though the law has allowed it, are murderers.
When abortion does become murder
What constitutes legitimate murder to the executioner may sometimes seem confusing to the rest of society. Take for example the case of a Clearwater Florida woman who, on March 27, 1994, discharged a bullet into her pregnant abdomen in order to kill her "unwanted" child. Brittany, the baby girl, survived only days after being delivered by cesarean section under emergency conditions. Her mother was charged by the State with murder.
Like babies killed by abortionists every day, this was an "unwanted" child, and Kawana M. Ashley, her mother, it could be argued, was merely exercising her "right to choose" to not be pregnant. Still, abortion advocates did not rush to the Florida woman's defense. Why?
The woman's act to self-abort violated the medical-murder model. Under this model there must be medical oversight. The action to end the child's life is then considered to be "treatment" (for the mother, even if not for the child), and its benefits are rationalized as in keeping with the desire to maintain a "healthy" society. Killing then becomes a pre-requisite to "health." And, since medical practitioners have historically supervised "health" (throughout the individual's life and death process), the act of ending her child's life with a bullet through the abdomen is an encroachment on the medical practitioner's domain.
The fact that her "right" to be unpregnant, even if by her own hand, was not aggressively argued serves to highlight that the medical-murder model is the sustaining force behind abortion, over and above the individual's right to choose not to be pregnant. Physicians now, according to theologian Harold O.J. Brown, "think of themselves as having a kind of priestly responsibility for society as a whole," and, as with the priests of ancient Israel, there are some services which only they may control.
Guarding the "right to choose"
This principle, that there are socio-medical forces at work to ultimately decide if/when a child may die, can be seen most clearly today in China's national one-child policy. China has merely reversed the priority so that they are giving permission for life to continue (death is automatically assumed unless they make an exception), rather than giving permission for death, as is done in America.
It is important to understand that both China and America function under the same medical-killing model, that the difference is in the State's practical preference for life in allowing more births (America) or their preference for death by mandating a legal limit to survivors (China). In either case, the State protects a medical model which allows for maximum involvement by the State in whether-or-not innocent people live or die. This judicial involvement, essentially serving up a death penalty, exceeds the sphere of authority which God has given to the State, and necessitates that the State "deal" with religion, and as we will later see, this means eradicating traditional Christian norms in society.
This guarding of the medical practitioner's right to determine who lives and who dies parallels the German experience. Lifton records how vigorously medical personnel at Auschwitz guarded their perceived right to select some for life and others for death. For example, suicide among the prisoners was strictly guarded against (though many did kill themselves in despair) precisely because it too violated the medical-murder model where the physician was deemed to be "the one" qualified to order an end to innocent human life.
Testimony from survivors indicate that, indeed, there were times in the "selection" process when the physician at the ramp made a decision for or against an individual's survival outside the normal parameters for selections, apparently because there was the perception that the practitioner's "right to choose" was being challenged in some way.
An older man who insisted upon going with the group headed for the crematoria was ordered into the camp instead. And women, assigned to the group entering the camp, who pled for the lives of younger siblings might be ordered to the ovens.
Lifton writes, "But prisoners could not be allowed to kill themselves . . . More gradual submission to death . . . could be tolerated or even encouraged because it did not seem to challenge Nazi life-death control" as exercised through the medical model.
The Jew at Auschwitz is analogous to the unborn infant at an abortuary. While Auschwitz made no pretext of giving the individual prisoner a right to decide his own fate, and it might be argued that abortion facilities cater to the "right of a woman to choose," therefore dissimilarity, the comparison is between victims, the Jew and the unborn, not between the Jew and another individual consenting to the unborn's death. Abortion facilities too operate on the assumption that the "medical" vision for "health" ought to supersede the individual's claim to life. And at times, even women electing to have a child killed will feel as though they were given "no choices."
This conclusion is easily drawn from testimony given by women who have aborted. There is the temptation to disregard the woman's claim that she had no foreseeable alternative as merely an exaggerated means of defending her actions. However, in light of the extreme manipulation that has occurred and sold entire societies on abortion, it is not unbelievable to accept that at some level, overt or covert, some women do find their so-called "right to choose" in favor of life for their children somehow subordinated to the State's medical "health" model which would find greater satisfaction in the death of their offspring.
As example of the kinds of pressure that women are exposed to under the medical-killing model we can point to counseling information and direction routinely given women who are pregnant. Various types of "screening" tests; chorionic villa sampling, amniocentesis, ultrasound, and pre-natal blood sampling are strongly encouraged to the degree that many women feel obligated to participate in assessments which may even carry with them potential harm to the baby.
Often, in refusing such testing, women come into conflict with their medical care providers who almost insist that such evaluations must occur in order to gain their support in the continuation of the pregnancy.
D. W., a seminary professor in Portland, Oregon related to his class one day the story of his wife's third pregnancy.
At thirty-three years of age her obstetrician insisted that pre-natal testing was necessary because of "advanced age."
Mrs. W. thoughtfully considered, then refused testing which she felt was unnecessary and perhaps risky for her child. Ultimately her refusal was unacceptable to the physician, their working relationship was strained, and D. W. and his wife eventually sought out the assistance of a midwife for the baby's delivery.
According to D. W., if his wife had not been unusually well informed about the tests and able to assert her strong desire not to undergo certain procedures outlined by the physician, the degree of coercive influence might have led her to accept unnecessary and invasive testing. By extension we can say that, for a less assured woman, had the test report suggested the possibility of an abnormality, the next counseling interview would surely have included information about the merits of aborting the baby and hoping for another, healthier child later.
Medical missionary, Dr. Timothy Herrick argues that this pressure is not always consciously aimed at encouraging the woman to abort. Rather, he says that such emphasis may be "the care-giver's responding to a woman's perceived choice for an abortion . . . almost seeking to protect the choice, that is, doing everything to facilitate that choice, and nothing to discourage it in terms of counseling, [pointing out] adoption availability, [and] discussing negative side-effects."
The medical care-provider may not perceive themselves to be engaged in the abortion process, and, according to Herrick, "are not necessarily people who stand to profit materially from the choice, and who are not driven by eugenic or population control reasons."
None-the-less, wittingly or unwittingly, though they may only view themselves as healers, they do become active bit players in the medical killing paradigm.
Dr. William Toffler, an instructor at the Oregon Health Sciences University Medical School shares a compelling testimony about his own reluctant participation in abortion. In medical school he was given the opportunity to assist in a saline abortion. Handed the needle, he first withdrew fluid from the amniotic sac surrounding the baby. Then he injected toxic solution into the sac. The result, of course, was that the baby died. Though experiencing some sense of discomfiture, Toffler wanted to be a good doctor, and so he did not shirk this part of the "training." He did not consciously equate what he was doing with the intentional taking of innocent human life.
Later, after determining that he would never do another abortion, Dr. Toffler had occasion to speak with women who looked for that as an option to deal with an inconvenient pregnancy. On those occasions he counseled his patient for several minutes, but when it seemed clear that she had made up her mind to abort, he went about the process of assuring that a referral was made to a facility which could accomodate her. He still did not perceive himself to be part of the killing paradigm, though clearly he was.
After several years, Dr. Toffler was finally confronted with a nurse who would not make the referral that he asked for. The event became a turning point in his thinking as he suddenly comprehended that all the while he had assured himself that abortion would not be a part of his practice, he had made compromises which engaged him in the medical killing model of medicine.
Drawing benefit from the dead
Another aspect of the medical-killing model which compares well between Nazi Germany and America today, in that it is a function that enhances denial of guilt, has to do with experimentation and research. Throughout the process of "exterminations," whether of Jews or unborn infants, this work appears to gain increasingly greater importance.
As we have already discussed, by seeing victims as "already dead" it is possible to expand on the types of "research" which can be done upon the biologically living or dead bodies. In the camps this research included non-therapeutic surgical procedures, often with little or no anesthesia, injecting inmates with lethal viruses and bacteria (TB, spotted fever, and typhus were chief among them), and subjecting prisoners to cold water (ice) experiments in order to study hypothermia.
Intentional damage was inflicted upon limbs or organs in order to observe the body's healing processes, and pnuemo-thorax studies which involved collapsing and re-inflating the victim's lung were part of the "experimental" continuum. Methylene blue was injected into the eyes to "test" the possibility of enhancing Aryan physical characteristics, and sperm and ovary specimens were painfully obtained in order to study everything from twinning, dwarfism, and cancer development.
Other types of research which actually formed some of the basic knowledge for procedures like bone-marrow transplants and drug-therapy meant to induce abortion were first pioneered in places like Auschwitz with living human beings used as guinea pigs.
Under the guise of furthering research we see the same abuses re-enacted today as fallout from the abortion process. We have already mentioned some "research" misapplication to the unborn. Their "contributions" under the medical-killing paradigm are equally as extensive as those of the Nazi victims, and include an economic traffic in organs which are used by scientists both within and outside of the killing infrastructure.
Cell lines are marketed for the production of vaccines, pesticide research, and even chemical warfare. Organs are taken with the promise that born persons will eventually benefit. And eager researchers today are no less exploitive of the opportunity to study human development and the body's own mechanisms for healing by requisitioning aborted babies.
As with Auschwitz, some of the research is on the victim after death, but a great deal is also allowed to take place while the individual is still growing and differentiating. In 1970 a New York pediatrician, Dr. John Gaull participated in experiments in Finland, mentioned earlier. "He severed the nerve connections between brain and body," in live unborn infants delivered by hysterotomy, "then surgically removed the brain, lungs, liver and kidneys" in order to study biochemical development. He argued that this use of aborted babies was superior to simply disposing of them through an incinerator.
Other "research" has involved using tissue from the dead to develop cosmetics (1980 and 1981), exposing the still-alive to electric shock (1983), and using them for art by engraving upon a baby preserved in a bottle of formalin (1979). More recently we are familiar with selectively killing to reduce multiple-birth pregnancies, freezing embryos, harvesting eggs from aborted female babies, and inducing pregnancy with the sole purpose of aborting the developing child and harvesting (cannibalizing) body tissues for some posited health gain to a born individual.
In fact, under both the Nazi and American medical-killing model, victims are seen as nothing more than raw materials to be used in whatever way brings a perceived benefit. The humanity of the victims was and is further repudiated even as the victimizer seeks to extract benefit from their deaths. It is the logical conclusion to the adoption of a functioning political model that places a priority upon the survival of State over individuals. Just as water, air, and forests are there to be managed for the needs of the State, so too do people become something of a "natural resource."
Lifton writes of "the notorious sequence of twenty Jewish children, ages five to twelve, transferred from Auschwitz to Neuengamme in Hamburg, where they were subjected to injections of virulent tubercular serum and to other experiments, until they were removed from Neuengamme and secretly murdered just before the arrival of allied troops. Auschwitz was not just a medicalized death factory but a source of 'raw materials' for everyone's deadly experiments."
Now that we have recognized that abuses in the guise of "research" are common to both eras functioning under the medical-killing paradigm, it is important to understand that this research component fulfills a simple but important function in the process of distancing and denial of guilt. For participants it is a means of justification. There is the sense that if something with a healing merit can be extracted from the process, then the end will certainly justify the means.
Again, the Nazis had what they earnestly held to be noble goals; "racial purity," a more biologically "fit" society, and the eradication of certain diseases which they believed were carried by people who they were convinced were subhuman, inferior in their humanity. Health . . . Health . . . Health, if not for the individual, for Society.
America espouses the same goals, merely fine-tuned to communicate to another audience, and the practitioners and researchers will go, it seems, to almost any length to bring perceived good out of an evil practice. And this deception serves more than to maintain the practitioner's illusion of meritorious motivation. For those who are spectators to the process, there is the confusing pull of corrupted science and compassion. There is reluctance to argue against finding cures or reducing the symptoms of wasting disease, even though these dark theoretical cures may come at the cost of many innocent lives.
Further corruption in the medical-killing paradigm
At the same time that frantic research is promoted, displaying an expansive and increased sophistication of science, there appears to be a concomitant decline in adherence to traditional medical roles. This may be due to the abatement of oversight. As a questionable and immoral practice obtains greater general acceptance, there is less emphasis placed upon monitoring. In addition, since preservation of life and health for the individual are not a priority, it may simply reflect a preference for allowing less skilled persons to complete tasks which over time are seen as mundane or routine by physicians.
Lifton records from an article out of England which points to political prisoners becoming involved in the research and killing process in Auschwitz. He says, "A polish prisoner orderly named Mieczyslaw Panszczyk, for instance, who 'bragged that he killed 12,000 people with his own hands,' not only injected but 'also liked to do smaller surgical operations although he had no medical training whatsoever. It didn't matter to him that he sometimes cut tendons and vessels when he cut open abscesses.'"
The most notorious prisoner-killer was a man named Klehr, from Upper Silesia. He identified himself to victims as "Professor Klehr" though his occupation was as a common laborer. Wearing a white lab coat, he would order "selections" and inject lethal phenol directly into the hearts of inmates picked to die. He was proud of the medical-scientific information and skills learned at the concentration camp.
Other prisoners without scientific or medical training were involved in research which involved injecting victims with viruses, procuring pathology samples, and doing crude surgery. The outcome, death of the "patient," was not important as long as specimens were obtained, classified, and preserved in a manner satisfactory to those in authority.
This same decline in traditional roles and adherence to a semblance of medical standards can be observed in the abortion-as-medical-cure paradigm.
An Alabama abortionist, Thomas Tucker, routinely ordered non-medical staff to take over trauma-care of women who experienced complications after having a baby aborted. On occasion he relied upon these same staff members to actually do the abortion procedure.
Joy Davis, former administrator for Tucker, became disillusioned with her employer after the dramatic death of a woman undergoing a routine abortion in June of 1991. In a deposition for a civil lawsuit filed against Tucker by the family of Angela Hall, Davis testified that Tucker, on at least ten occasions, talked her through abortion procedures over the telephone when he was "out of town or didn't want to get out of bed." This happened most often when women with laminaria inserted went into labor prematurely, before the scheduled second day appointment.
Medical Board inspectors who investigated complaints against Tucker were surprised to find pre-signed and undated prescription pads in an unlocked drawer. They were accessible to non-medical, non-physician staff who prescribed medications above his signature.
Employees with no technical or laboratory training evaluated urine and blood samples. They also performed ultrasound testing and assessed the results. And under some circumstances employees destroyed original medical records and, like their Nazi-era medical counterparts, fabricated a second accounting which placed Tucker and his staff in a more favorable light when emergencies did occur.
|
|
