Book - Doctors Who Killed
Wednesday, 19 December 2012 11:22
RJ Parker
Amazon Product Link
Book Description
This book captures the stories of five doctors who have killed their patients, including, Harold Shipman, Marcel Petiot, Michael Swango, H.H. Holmes, and John Bodkin Adams. It is amazing that these people chose a profession to help save lives, but preferred to kill.
Is it not their job to curtail suffering and death? We sometimes put our lives in the hands of doctors, trusting that our best interests are the most important to them. Thankfully, there are only a handful of doctors who have been inclined to murder their patients, and they do not represent the millions of doctors who genuinely care and uphold their oath.
= - = - = - = -= - = -= - = -= - = -= - = -= - = -= - = -= - = -= - = -
I figured I might as well finish the book since I had already bought it, despite my not liking another book by the same "Author" (WOMEN WHO KILL - Serial Killers).
There were only a few cases in there, say some 4 or 5, and similar to the other book I read - the author is either highly judgementally opinionated, or, he didn't really write the book.
The writing would seem very inconsistent. Some parts were facts, with intermittent comments here and here.
One particular thing that popped out to me was about some of the victims. So, here he was listing out examples of how a few victims died. It went like, "Victim A was 60 when he died," and explained the scenario. "Victim B was 64 when she died," and another explanation. And suddenly, oh so suddenly, "Victim E was only 68 when she died."
I may seem to be over-reacting, but that "only" there made me really annoyed. The whole piece of text didn't feel consistent.
The topic was interesting enough but the writing itself is what is making me hate the book so much....
There were only a few cases in there, say some 4 or 5, and similar to the other book I read - the author is either highly judgementally opinionated, or, he didn't really write the book.
The writing would seem very inconsistent. Some parts were facts, with intermittent comments here and here.
One particular thing that popped out to me was about some of the victims. So, here he was listing out examples of how a few victims died. It went like, "Victim A was 60 when he died," and explained the scenario. "Victim B was 64 when she died," and another explanation. And suddenly, oh so suddenly, "Victim E was only 68 when she died."
I may seem to be over-reacting, but that "only" there made me really annoyed. The whole piece of text didn't feel consistent.
The topic was interesting enough but the writing itself is what is making me hate the book so much....