Not Dead Yet

Not Dead Yet is an anti-euthanasia group whose response to a story about deaths at Memorial framed the controversy as a question of whether patients had been sacrificed to enable evacuation. Its statement made the group a visible participant in the public dispute, but the account presents its central allegation as speculation rather than as a verified finding.

Identity and Position

The account identifies Not Dead Yet by its opposition to euthanasia. It supplies no further organizational history, membership details, or description of the group’s structure, so its documented role here is specifically its intervention after the Memorial story appeared.

Response to the Memorial Story

The reaction was swift. Not Dead Yet issued a statement arguing that staff could evacuate only if they could report that no living patients remained in their care. It rejected compassion or mercy as an explanation and instead suggested that patients had been abandoned so staff could save themselves. The statement thus advanced a severe interpretation of the deaths and the evacuation, presenting the patients’ continued presence as an obstacle to staff departure.

Claim and Evidentiary Limits

The statement is evidence of how Not Dead Yet interpreted the story, not proof that its account of the staff’s purpose was correct. Elsewhere, the investigation records competing accounts of medication and comfort care: Susan Mulderick said the idea of medicating patients that Thursday came from her and described comfort as her intention, while prescriptions seized from the pharmacy showed that Ativan and other ordinary comfort drugs had already been prescribed during the disaster. Those details complicate any single explanation of events; the group’s statement remains a forceful public accusation, distinct from what the available evidence independently establishes.