Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Flip

1 2 3

Original poster

AIBU (Chernobyl) to wonder why they didn't euthanise those men dying from ARS

60 replies

DuploTower · 08/06/2019 11:59

Just that basically... has anyone wondered the same? That they couldn't even administer morphine to those in unimaginable pain. They seemed happy enough to put a bullet in everyone else.

Obviously I don't mean doing this if the men didn't want it, but I feel it ought to have been offered...

Am I being totally unreasonable? I'm more asking if anyone here has more background in soviet culture than me and can offer some insight or thoughts.

OP posts:

1happyhippie · 08/06/2019 12:01

Yes, I wondered this too while watching the new drama. Especially as they were trying to cover up how serious it was!
It would have been the kindest thing to do.

AngeloMysterioso · 08/06/2019 12:03

How do you euthanise them if you can’t administer drugs? Take them out the back and shoot them?

RagingWhoreBag · 08/06/2019 12:19

I thought the same and then they explained how they couldn’t even get to the veins to give them morphine and, like Angelo said, what do you do then?! I wouldn’t have put it past them to shoot them, as they would have shot anyone who didn’t behave, but I guess it doesn’t say the right things shooting the men who’ve selflessly sacrificed themselves to save others. I would have hoped they could gas them or something. Just horrific.

AlaskanOilBaron · 08/06/2019 12:20

Can’t believe they weren’t offered a bullet, surely it would have been the most human way.

Bloody haunting, we just finished the finale last night.

Whyrmengreattiltheygottabgreat · 08/06/2019 12:24

Maybe it was part of the denial of how serious it was? The Chernobyl Podcast is really good for info on how poorly understood ARS was in the area, were people telling themselves they might get better?

I also think there is an ideological difference between euthanasia and execution. In some people’s heads it’s ok to shoot a “traitor”, but the sick must be protected?
(Not pro execution, btw!)

Teddybear45 · 08/06/2019 12:25

It was most likely to so with insurance payouts. Many policies exclude suicide.

Tableclothing · 08/06/2019 12:26

The TV show recently broadcast is not 100% faithful in every aspect of what it shows. Google carefully before getting upset about anything in it.

Whyrmengreattiltheygottabgreat · 08/06/2019 12:28

Agree how well made the programme is.
A masterwork on every level. Programmes like this make me wish TV shows were eligible to win Oscars.
Funnily enough, the writer’s previous credits include Scary Movie 3 and 4 and The Hangover 2 and 3.

Brahumbug · 08/06/2019 12:57

Remember, this is a TV drama, not a documentary. Factually it is miles off what actually happened.

LoafofSellotape · 08/06/2019 13:00

How do you euthanise them if you can’t administer drugs?

Huge dose of oral morphine or whatever? No one would've had a clue, not like they'd have being doing a PM.

We thought same same OP when we saw it.

TheAverageJuror · 08/06/2019 13:02

Note that the "Will get a bullet for this" was exaggerated.

Plus this is really like asking why don't we euthanise people in pain now...

Amazing series though! Had a same ashtray as Legasov🙈

juneau · 08/06/2019 13:08

Factually it is miles off what actually happened.

Actually, the writer tried to make it as close as possible to the truth. There were things that had to be changed for dramatic purposes (the character of Ulyana Khomyuk was a composite for all the other scientists who assisted Legasov, for instance, and the trial at the end happened, but was very different to that portrayed, etc), but if you read the book 'Chernobyl Prayer', which is composed of interviews with survivors you see that Craig Mazin tried to keep the story as authentic as he could, while still contructing a comprehensible narrative to TV viewers.

Callistone · 08/06/2019 13:08

I thought the same thing. If that was me I think I would have welcomed a bullet

Piglet89 · 08/06/2019 13:10

God the HBO miniseries is absolutely outstanding.

ClairParavel · 08/06/2019 13:31

It’s a great drama series. This is an interesting article on how factually accurate it is.

www.google.com.au/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/06/06/why-hbos-chernobyl-gets-nuclear-so-wrong/amp/

BMW6 · 08/06/2019 13:42

It was most likely to so with insurance payouts. Many policies exclude suicide.

Um, did Life Insurance exist in the Soviet Union?

Backwoodsgirl · 08/06/2019 13:47

These were some on the first and only cases of ARS, the doctors didn’t really know what to do, and they wanted to learn more about it.

TheAverageJuror · 08/06/2019 14:11

Well, we all might soon learn how it "really" was since Russian TV is making their own version.
With CIA obviously 😁

IMHO that Forbes article is being oddly picky and argumentative. I mean Ignatenko herself described the surroundings of her baby Daughter's death. She also described what was happening to her husband towards the end. It wasn't just that she touched his hand and so on. She was helping him clear out his mouth so he could breath and essentially he was 1 giant open wound and she also describes how they were measuring her clothes when she was leaving hospital and it always pinged.
He may have some good points, but I think I will go with what the people who actually were there said🤷‍♀️
Obviously some things in that series won't be correct, it's a TV series, but he is basically denying what the real people said...

Lifecraft · 08/06/2019 14:27

It was most likely to so with insurance payouts. Many policies exclude suicide.

Um, did Life Insurance exist in the Soviet Union?

No, it didn't.

TheAverageJuror · 08/06/2019 14:39

It did exist. Provided by Gosstrakh (If that's correct spelling).

species5618 · 08/06/2019 15:39

Same happened in Japan after the 1999 Tokaimura Nuclear Accident.
Hisashi Ouchi was kept alive for 83 days after receiving a rad dose of between 16-25 Grays (Gy). As he was unable to give his consent Japanese doctors were not allowed to euthanise the poor soul.

silvercuckoo · 08/06/2019 18:09

It was most likely to so with insurance payouts.
There was no such thing as insurance, or any sort of personal financial services there and then.

silvercuckoo · 08/06/2019 18:23

It did exist. Provided by Gosstrakh (If that's correct spelling).
Not in the modern way (as a financial product). It was a state "company", providing "voluntary" insurance in absence of the welfare system. Optional NI, if you wish.

BollocksToBrexit · 08/06/2019 18:30

I've just asked DH this as he's a nuclear scientist. He says the harsh reality of why they weren't put out of their misery was that they became lab rats. They were the first group of people to be observed going through this type of exposure and the medical profession were learning a lot about how it progressed and how to treat it in future from them.

TheAverageJuror · 08/06/2019 18:39

@silvercuckoo Aah. I was going by the fact central Europe including part of Eastern Block already had it for in case of death. Though from what I read few years back it was quite an expensive thing so I would assume most normal people didn't have it.

Even if they had it, I wouldn't think that was a reason to not to kill the firemen.

Flip

1 2 3