Posted on 08/30/2021 9:09:30 AM PDT by chuck allen
“You are not an epidemiologist,” kiryandil posted on Monday. “You are not even good enough at your own language to get an English professorship. Seriously, y’all. Stop it.”
Excellent point. At this point there are no “official” treatments for Covid just a vaccine that doesn’t stop you from getting sick or transmitting it. It would seem if you were in the hospital for it and other places such as Mexico, Japan and I believe a few others have all began using that treatment with some reported success, you should be allowed that treatment as well.
Not at all. He told the f-ing hospital to take a man's wife as the competent authority over her husband's care, rather than Their Highhandednesses. I'm sure they had the option of releasing him instead, if they were getting the vapors from the thought of touching the alarmingly harmless and effective Ivermectin.
I agree with you. It is disturbing that a court is getting involved in patient care.
Although I’m glad she won on behalf of her husband.
Let the judge write the RX and assume their care.
Bookmark
They kill the. By Remdesivir poisonong
We can worry about the slippery slope later, right now we’re being pushed off a cliff by the totalitarian leftists and their vaccine-only totalitarianism.
“The Aug. 23 decision requires the hospital to allow Dr. Fred Wagshul to administer 30mg of Ivermectin daily for three weeks to Smith.”
That’s a SERIOUS dose. Depending on the guy’s weight, it could be twice the concentration usually used (which is 200 micrograms per kilogram of body weight) and three weeks of it. As it is, double dosage is generally fine (its been tested much higher), but man, three weeks of it!
“Right to try” does not equal “duty to provide”.
No one can consent to substandard care or unprofessional conduct. A bad outcome after inpatient ivermectin treatment (probable) would expose the prescriber to enormous liability which cannot be guarded against by consent.
Order was issued Aug. 23.
We’re hearing about it today, Aug. 30.
Wonder how he’s doing, since he should have received a week’s worth of treatment by now.
it’s a slippery slope with a whole lot of room for that to go horribly wrong.
Xxxxxxxx
Unless the decision is based on patient’s rights and patient autonomy. Then it may be a turning point in hospital and hospitalist tyranny.
Here is the “Right to Try” info from FDA.
https://www.fda.gov/patients/learn-about-expanded-access-and-other-treatment-options/right-try
These stories are just ‘anecdotal’. Like the man in Australia who was in a hospital and the doctors asked the family if the would permit ventilating him. At the time, not a single person in that hospital who was put on a ventilator had survived. The family asked the doctor “if this was your father, would you ventilate him or try ivermectin first?” The doctor conceded he would try ivermectin so that is what they did. The ailing man snapped out of his stupor in hours. After checking his viral load, 3 days later they gave him another tablet. 2 days after that he was back at home.
They wait until he is deathly ill, fight tooth and nail in court, and then give it and trumpet it’s failure.
Anything to avoid giving it early like India does when it could do some good.
“The Aug. 23 decision requires the hospital to allow Dr. Fred Wagshul to administer 30mg of Ivermectin daily for three weeks to Smith.”
Am I missing something here? The man’s doctor wants to treat him in a specific way, but the hospital objects. Who should have priority, the doctor or the hospital? My wife had her life saved by antibiotics prescribed by the doctor, glad the hospital didn’t prevent that treatment!
New info.
I hear what you’re saying, but we’ve been on that slippery slope for so long we’re about to fall off the cliff. This may be the opposite - a step towards climbing away from the precipice. A small step, and now there is at least some precedent out there for others to cite. I know this ruling is limited in scope and jurisdiction but it is something.
Why is it disturbing that a patient or his representative has the final say on his treatment? Especially when that treatment is very benign otherwise?
I will never let a judge, or anyone who is not a medical doctor, determine my treatment, ever.
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.