‘Five Days at Memorial’ Finale Recap and Ending Explained

Five Days at Memorial Finale Recap and Ending Explained

‘Five Days at Memorial’ Finale Recap and Ending Explained – As a grand jury is sworn in to consider the case against Dr. Anna Pou, the eighth episode of Apple TV+’s medical drama “Five Days at Memorial,” titled “The Reckoning,” begins.

This Episode 8 follows Assistant Attorney General Arthur “Butch” Schafer and Special Agent Virginia Rider as they work to advance the Memorial case. To defend his client, lawyer Richard T. Simmons, Jr. even sets up an interview for Pou on live television so that she can tell her side of the story.

The case’s unexpected developments unnerve Rider, who makes a crucial decision that will affect her future. The series’ eighth episode concludes with critical choices and events that impact Pou’s life while delving into the murky waters of the Memorial Case. Let us be your ally if you’re game to jump into the same!

Must Read: Where is Ex-Memorial Doctor Anna Pou Today?

Five Days at Memorial Finale Recap

Five Days at Memorial Finale Recap [Episode 8]

Dr. Horace Baltz speaks to the investigators at the start of “The Reckoning” regarding improper judgments made at Memorial Medical Center and LifeCare Hospitals. He admits that he feels terrible about leaving so soon. In a press conference, Attorney General Charles Foti, Jr. claims that the killings that occurred in Memorial qualify as homicides. Pou’s coworker, Dan Nuss, establishes a defense fund to assist her financially because she must pay a hefty sum as a bail bond. To categorize several deaths that occurred in Memorial as homicides, Dr. Frank Minyard, the coroner for the parish of New Orleans, sought the advice of many outside experts.

Schafer and Rider want DA Eddie Jordan wants to get involved in the case, but ADA, Much to the dismay of the two investigators, Michael Morales is appointed as the lead prosecutor. Morales explains that the fatalities might not be homicides as they initially believed. When the DA’s office determines that Schafer and Rider’s inquiry is not helpful, they are requested to halt it. Pou’s interview with “60 Minutes” was set up by Simmons so that she could share her perspective. She makes an appearance on national television where she underlines that she didn’t put any of her patients to sleep and that their comfort is always her top priority.

Cyril Wecht’s finding that there were numerous homicides in Memorial gives Rider encouragement. Still, Schafer makes it apparent that the case won’t be won based on the evidence by itself. When Minyard and Pou first meet, they talk about the difficulties they experienced after Hurricane Katrina and the accompanying flood. Then he declares that he hasn’t discovered any proof that the Memorial fatalities were homicides. After growing weary of the politics surrounding the case, Rider decides she can’t make it in the field. She informs her partner of her resignation from the Attorney General’s office, who is left speechless when he hears the news.

Five Days at Memorial Finale Ending Explained

Five Days at Memorial Finale Ending Explained

Following Schafer and Rider’s investigation, the district attorney’s office takes on the matter, and a grand jury is sworn in to consider charging Dr. Anna Pou. The views of numerous famous forensic pathologists, who unanimously characterize several killings that took place in Memorial as homicides, are included in the findings of the two investigators but are not shown to the jury. Furthermore, Minyard’s declaration that he hasn’t found any proof of homicide in connection with the deaths must have further persuaded the jury that Pou is innocent. In actuality, Minyard ultimately labeled the death’s cause as “undetermined,” maybe to avoid setting a precedent of crucifying medical professionals.

In that case, Minyard might have been confused about ruling the deaths homicides and opening the door for Pou’s indictment, which would have prevented every healthcare provider from performing their duties amid a natural disaster, as the television program suggests. Then, Dr. Steven Karch, a different pathologist Minyard had contacted before labeling the deaths as unexplained, suggested the coroner do the same because the remains had been left unattended for 10 days in a 100-degree environment. He might have given Pou the benefit of the doubt and testified as such in front of the jury had he been able to provide conclusive evidence that the deaths were homicides.

According to Sheri Fink’s source text for the show, Kristy Johnson had also seen Pou injecting several LifeCare patients, but she chose not to testify in front of the grand jury. Additionally, Rider, who compiled 50,000 pages of evidence, was silent before the jury. Pou’s reputation as a hero who bravely overcame adversity may have also persuaded the jury not to convict her.

Why Did Anna Pou Administer Morphine and Versed

Why Did Anna Pou Give Versed and Morphine?

In contrast to what the show suggests, Anna Pou consistently stated that she had not killed or put any of her patients to sleep. She didn’t, however, deny giving them morphine injections. In a Newsweek interview, she even admitted to giving morphine to nine people while being aware that the drug might speed up their demise.

Pou’s motivation for the conduct is what distinguishes it from a homicide. Even though Pou claimed she hadn’t killed any patients, she valued their comfort and thought it was her duty to ease their suffering, especially when the essential supplies weren’t available. She seemed to believe that the only way to achieve it was with morphine.

I do not believe in euthanasia. I don’t think that it’s anyone’s decision to make when a patient dies. However, what I do believe in is comfort care. And that means that we ensure that they do not suffer pain, She told Morley Safer for “60 Minutes.” Pou claims that she never intended to kill and that the victims’ deaths were the regrettable results of a doctor’s duty to care for her patients. She also added, “The intention was to help the patients that were having pain and sedate the patients who were anxious. That was it.”

Pou and other healthcare professionals had to choose regarding the patients’ suffering because the federal, state, and local governments had failed to put an action plan in place in the wake of the flood in New Orleans. They chose to relieve the pain rather than watch the patients experience it without thinking about the potentially fatal repercussions of their actions. Depending on how one views and comprehends the situation, one might determine whether one made the proper choice.

Were the Dead LifeCare Patients Rescuable

Was it Possible to Save the Dead LifeCare Patients?

When Pou isn’t charged, Baltz runs into her and tells her that the patients could have left if Pou hadn’t chosen to give them “fatal comfort.” In a sense, Emmett Everett and the other LifeCare patients could have been saved. The rescue of Rodney Scott demonstrates that people may have been saved despite their ailments and weight. It is questionable whether there were adequate resources to carry out such an evacuation on the fifth day. The healthcare professionals, including Pou, would have been required to move mountains to make it happen, given the lack of suitable evacuation procedures, facilities, and human and non-human resources.

Despite this, Pou and other staff members hurriedly administered the “lethal cocktail” of medications to the LifeCare patients without attempting to evacuate Emmett. It is impossible to determine whether Emmett and the other patients could have been saved if they hadn’t died beyond a doubt, and it is equally difficult to decide whether or not they were.