Posted on 11/11/2005 6:43:26 AM PST by Cindy_Cin
Not hate. Disgust is more like it, at the level of hypocracy surrounding this whole ordeal. You are probably the same folk in favor of the "war on drugs", and "click it or ticket laws".
You're right about one thing though. I won't change my mind. Rush did it for me... I'll stick with Tony Snow, and his ilk!
The law specifically says that it must be for the same theraputic use. So are different pain killers for different ailments for the same theraputic use? Perhaps or perhaps not. It is both a legal and medical question. But that is why the prosecutor is insisting on interviewing the doctors to find out. It ain't going to happen. Rush is walking.
What hypocrisy? Who is pushing for the cops to pursue people who get addicted to painkillers? The only hypocrisy is by people who want the law enforced differently on different people.
"So are different pain killers ..... "
BZzzzt ....
Norco and Lorcet are different names for the SAME drug made by different manufacturers.
Were the doctors unaware of what the other doctor was doing? If these two doctors were in the same office with access to the same file, it would seem the doctors were overpresribing. If this prosecutor had any kind of case at all, he would have filed charges a long time ago.
"Were the doctors unaware of what the other doctor was doing? If these two doctors were in the same office...."
Just how much of your homework do you want me to do ?
Deziel and Murray were not in the same office -
( but coincidentally Deziel was involved in the other doctor-shopping case where the guy died )
So perhaps Dezeil sounds like the guy they should be investigating? Perhaps Rush informed Dezeil and he still presribed the drugs? With all the 'facts' you seem to know, you still have no rationale explaination to why no charges have been filed. Perhaps you don't know quite as much as you think?
Fact: You don't read well and you have poor reasoning skills.
Fact: The prescriptions you reference were for different strength tabs, one being half the strength of the other. A reasoning person might speculate that that asking for a half strength tab the day after trying the full strength one might be because someone wanted to maintain their faculties. Or that one was for night time use and the other for daytime use.
Fact: The total number of pills prescribed for the time period in question represent an normal and legal usage level.
Fact: 90% of the pills prescribed came from two doctors from the same office working from the same medical file. They most obviously knew what the other had prescribed as it would be in the file. That is not Dr. shopping.
You are hopelessly blinded by your envy.
"With all the 'facts' you seem to know, you still have no rationale explaination to why no charges have been filed. "
LOL - Didn't know I was tasked to supply an explanation, rational or otherwise.
... but I am curious - which of the facts do you feel is suspect ?
Just the small fact that whether anything Rush did was illegal? You don't seem know if the Doctors knew of the other prescriptions or if the levels prescribed were really too much. Maybe the other doctor just thought Rush needed stronger medicine so he prescribed a stronger dosage. You assume way too much. If all the facts were as clean as you think, there would have been charges. End of discussion.
"You don't seem know if the Doctors knew of the other prescriptions or if the levels prescribed were really too much. "
More homework - Is it too hard for you to find the reccomended daily maximum dosage ?
( you might check also the maximum dosage of the Acetaminophen componant of the pills )
If you find these yourself you might trust the "facts" more ...
Unless you know how strong the pills were, you can't determine the maximum dosage by just a pill count. The same medicine comes in different strengths.
"Unless you know how strong the pills were, you can't determine the maximum dosage by just a pill count."
More homework - 10/325 tells you the strength
"There's nothing good about drug use. We know it. It destroys individuals. It destroys families. Drug use destroys societies. Drug use, some might say, is destroying this country. And we have laws against selling drugs, pushing drugs, using drugs, importing drugs. And the laws are good because we know what happens to people in societies and neighborhoods, which become consumed by them. And so if people are violating the law by doing drugs, they ought to be accused and they ought to be convicted and they ought to be sent up."
"What this says to me is that too many whites are getting away with drug use. Too many whites are getting away with drug sales. Too many whites are getting away with trafficking in this stuff. The answer to this disparity is not to start letting people out of jail because we're not putting others in jail who are breaking the law. The answer is to go out and find the ones who are getting away with it, convict them and send them up the river, too."..
"...We are becoming too tolerant as a society, folks, especially of crime, in too many parts of the country.... This country certainly appears to be tolerant, forgive and forget. I mean, you know as well as I do, you go out and commit the worst murder in the world and you just say you're sorry, people go, "Oh, OK. A little contrition."... People say, "I feel better. He said he's sorry for it." We're becoming too tolerant, folks." --Rush Limbaugh TV show (10/5/95)
" When you strip it all away, Jerry Garcia destroyed his life on drugs. And yet he's being honored, like some godlike figure. Our priorities are out of whack, folks." --Rush Limbaugh (quoted in the L.A. Times, 8/20/95)
Situational ethics:
"To be correct or right a thing - a thought or an action - must work. Yes. But to what end, for what purpose, to satisfy what standard or ideal?"
Those who have criticised Situation Ethics for being relativistic do so because they believe the ethical 'good' requires some Ultimate standard in order to secure a fixed boundary around what is right or wrong behaviour. They do this because they, like Fletcher, believe Antinomianism is an unhelpful (and some may say unhealthy) position for ethics to be left in. However, Fletcher would have to reject this concern about relativism as he believes to attempt to 'pin-down' ethics would lead to a form of Legalism, his rejection of which we have discussed earlier (see Situation Ethics - Introduction). In the end, the fact that Fletcher speaks of 'good' as something which works means he must have in mind some 'standard' by which to judge one's actions and thus Situationism cannot be caught in the net of relativism that easily
Examples Of Application Of This Rule
1. Altruistic or sacrificial adultery: a German mother was committed to a Russian concentration camp. Pregnant women were considered a liability and were released. This mother found a friendly guard who sympathized with her situation and willingly impregnated her. She was released and returned to her home and raised the child as part of her reunited family. Her adultery was justified since it served to reunite her with her children and family who needed her.
2. Patriotic prostitution: a young mother working as a spy for the US was asked to use her sexuality to ensnare a rival spy. When she protested that she could not put her personal integrity on the line by offering sex for hire, she was told: "It’s like your brother risking his life and limb in the war to serve his country. There is no other way." For the greater good of her country, it was the loving thing to do.
3. Sacrificial suicide: Taking one’s own life is not morally wrong if it is done in love for others. If a man has only two choices of taking an expensive medication which will deplete his family’s finances and cause his insurance to lapse, or else refusing the medicine and living only 3 months, it is the loving thing to do to refuse the medicine and spare his family. And, non-theoretically, a German nun taking the place of a Jew in the gas chambers; or a soldier taking his own life to avoid being tortured into betraying his comrades to the enemy.
4. Acceptable abortion: an unmarried schizophrenic patient become pregnant after being raped. Her father petitioned for abortion but the hospital refused because they said it was "non-therapeutic" and therefore illegal. The father maintained that it was the loving thing to do to prevent this child’s birth. In another real situation, a Romanian Jewish doctor aborted 3000 babies of Jewish mothers in concentration camps because, if pregnant, the mothers were to be incinerated. This means that the doctor actually saved 3000 and prevented the murder of 6000. This was the loving thing to do.
5. Merciful murder: a mother smothers her own crying baby to prevent her group from being discovered and killed by a band of hostile Indians. A ship’s captain orders some men thrown from an overloaded lifeboat to prevent it from sinking and killing everyone on board , thus killing a "few" for the "greater good" of the majority. Not resuscitating a monstrously deformed baby when it is birthed is the loving thing to do both for the child, for the parents, and family.
How do you apply situational ethics in your own life? Does God allow the distinction? Is Rush applying it to this situation, in your opinion? Is he justified?
Yep, that's what it is... /s
Rushbot! Ignorance is bliss! Read my post on situational ethics. Google it for more info...
Fact. Rush was/is an addict.
McCain... is that you?!
You assume that a crime was committed. I do not as there is no evidence of any crime.
You further seem to think being addicted to painkillers is a crime or a vice. It is neither, although it can lead to both.
It is stupid to believe that persons with chronic dibilitating pain should not take pain medication because it is addictive or should quit taking them because they are addicted to the medication that makes their life bearable.
Do people abuse them? Yes, but that is no reason to deprive those who do not abuse them in spite of being technically addicted and use them for their pain releiving purposes.
If Rush was an addict that acted like Robert Downey Jr. I'd have no respect for him, but the fact is, he maintained his professional life and public persona admirably and the quality of his work or reasoning ability on air was not affected. I have to ask myself, was he truly addicted or merely physically dependent?
If you cannot tell the difference between a person who uses pain medication for pain and one who uses it to get high and stay high then you are either ignorant or have an agenda.
"If you cannot tell the difference between a person who uses pain medication for pain and one who uses it to get high..."
It appears that at one point Rush told the truth ...
"I took the drugs because I liked them and I found excuses to take them, so I'm not weaseling. "
Still not a crime to take the medications legally prescribed for you.
What is it about this political fishing expedition you like so much. Is it prosecutors destroying Dr/patient priviledge or the leaking of salacious information to the media.
The list of medications on the net btw is an illegally leaked document, not part of the public search warrant.
The fact that this is being done publicly to a high profile personality means it can be done in the dark without so much as a squeak to nobodies like you and me.
So a couple of nobodies like to get attention by bashing Rush. You're just a parasite, like the worms in my dog's shit.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.