On the other hand, we now have judges telling doctors how they must practice medicine.
In THIS case, I like the direction, but it’s a slippery slope with a whole lot of room for that to go horribly wrong.
On the one hand, I am pleased to hear this.
On the other hand, we now have judges telling doctors how they must practice medicine.
In THIS case, I like the direction, but it’s a slippery slope with a whole lot of room for that to go horribly wrong.
Not having any way to push back against rule by experts can make the slope even more slippery.
In THIS case, I like the direction, but it’s a slippery slope with a whole lot of room for that to go horribly wrong.
He backed up a patient's medical decision. Yeah, there's some risk even in that, but so long as they don't go beyond that, then I think the benefit outweighs the risk. Now when they start overriding physicians AND patients in the same case to be collectivist and/or PC, then it's Katy bar the door.
No. Here we have a judge ordering a hospital to follow a doctor's treatment plan for his patient.
Good point, but if the patient requests to try it and will sign off I’m good with it.
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.
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.
“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.
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.
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.
Judge rules in favor of individual fighting FDA mandate.
You’re aware that FReeper, terart, was denied therapeutics because of FDA mandates — you know about her story? She’s dead.
This ruling is far from the canonical slippery slope.
Seems right now we have Washington DC and/or unelected bureaucrats telling docs how to practice medicine.
At least a County Judge is elected...
Why not? The giverment does.
“On the one hand, I am pleased to hear this.
On the other hand, we now have judges telling doctors how they must practice medicine.
In THIS case, I like the direction, but it’s a slippery slope with a whole lot of room for that to go horribly wrong.”
______________________________________
That’s funny. You side with politicized CDC and FDA telling doctors and hospitals how to practice medicine and treat patients, but when a judge intervenes on behalf of the patient, it’s slippery slope.
Just how much more slippery can this slope get?
Obviously you can no longer trust all doctors and hospitals anymore. The medical community is taking a big hit on this one. I feel being admitted in to the hospital is a death warrant now.
This is not new. Terry Schaivo comes to mind.
This is clearly legal - The patient is requesting treatment under the ‘Right to Try’ act.
Shocked this hasn’t happened sooner. And the FDA is flat out lying. They even lied in the approval letter for Pfizer. Claimed 91% efficacy in the letter when by August it was below 70% by their own data.
“ The Aug. 23 decision requires the hospital to allow Dr. Fred Wagshul to administer 30mg of Ivermectin daily for three weeks to Smith.” - article
Seems the judge merely told the hospital to allow the doctor to administer the drug that the doctor wanted to administer, ivermectin.
Perfectly fine ruling, and the judge is not practicing medicine. He is allowing doctors to practice medicine with interference from hospital administrators.
“ The Aug. 23 decision requires the hospital to allow Dr. Fred Wagshul to administer 30mg of Ivermectin daily for three weeks to Smith.” - article
Seems the judge merely told the hospital to allow the doctor to administer the drug that the doctor wanted to administer, ivermectin.
Perfectly fine ruling, and the judge is not practicing medicine. He is allowing doctors to practice medicine with interference from hospital administrators.
