II. �ON THE SAYING �NECESSITY HAS NO LAW�.
There is no casus necessitatis except in the case where an unconditional duty conflicts with a duty which, though perhaps great, is yet conditional; e. g. if the question is about preserving the State from disaster by betraying a person who stands towards another in a relation such as, for example, that of father and son. To save the State from harm is an unconditional duty; to save an individual is only a conditional duty, namely, provided he has not been guilty of a crime against the State. The information given to the authorities may be given with the greatest reluctance, but it is given under pressure, namely, moral necessity. But if a shipwrecked man thrusts another from his plank in order to save his own life, and it is said that he had the right of necessity (i. e. physical necessity) to do so, this is wholly false. For to maintain my own life is only a conditional duty (viz. if it can be done without crime), but it is an unconditional duty not to take the life of another who does not injure me, nay, does not even bring me into peril of losing it. However, the teachers of general civil right proceed quite consistently in admitting this right of necessity. For the sovereign power could not connect any punishment with the prohibition; for this punishment would necessarily be death, but it would be an absurd law that would threaten death to a man if when in danger he did not voluntarily submit to death.�From �Das mag in der Theorie richtig seyn, u. s. w.� (Rosenkr., vii., p. 211.)

We may never know how many, if any, were euthanized in the Crescent City. We may never know how many asked to be.

There are so many stories about that week that should be, in my opinion, just left alone.

When laws do not hold sway, moral imperatives and our immediate needs take over. People acted the way they did because they didn't have their basic needs met.

So please don't indict the Doctors who made hard decisions for their terminally ill patients, or the dumbasses stealing a 57" TV, or people looting grocery stores to get Groceries and milk to survive.

Instead, why don't we use this experience as an example? Because wasn't Katrina's impact in New Orleans, a bit like America running at high speed? Effects that take months or years for people who lose their jobs and can't get benefits in the rest of America took just days in NOLA.

When people have nothing, they have nothing to lose and will fight for what they can get, or crawl into a hole and despair, or sell their body and soul to buy food or something to take away the pain.

Instead of building a society that breeds an environment where those at the bottom have a life so horrible that they will turn against their neighbor to survive, why don't we build a society where the least of our citizens has their basic needs taken care of?

Look around the world. Violent Crime in a country is inversely proportional to the quality of it's Social Services.

Less crime means less money spent on locking people up, enforcing laws, etc., and more money to spend on Social Services.

Don't indict the Doctors. Indict the right wing extremists that sadly pervade our society - and government - right now...