So there are a lot of interesting issues here — and I am presenting the factors, not commenting on the use of Ivermectin. My position on ivermectin is that it is inferior to monoclonals, and doesnt work in late phase disease. However, I support the autonomy of physicians to prescribe as they see fit and there is significant amount of literature both ways that there is no clear ability to definitely say one way or another what to do.
But here are the issues the court must resolve.
1. Mayo Clinic operate hospitals in three states — Minnesota, Arizona, and Florida. My guess (although the article does not say) is the this is a Minnesota cause of action. It fits with the paradigm of a very liberal state. I think in Florida, there would be a more receptive judiciary, and Arizona, who the hell knows — it is the Wild West.
2. We know how different rulings in different states. One one hand this is regulated by the STATE board of medicine, but I suspect that an enterprising attorney COULD get this removed to federal court, and then it will wind its way to the Supreme Court.
3. The other issue is that you have to be credentialed at a hospital to practice medicine at that hospital. (Privileges). Can the court insert someone onto a medical staff against the private companies will? It is a dangerous precedent and may yield litigation for staff privileges where a hospital might otherwise decline a physician to join staff. Private company versus federal government issue.
4. The duty to treat does not equal the duty to respond to demands for a therapy. While I admit this it reductio a absurdum, what if I had a patient say they wanted hemlock to cure a disease because some internet sensation said it could help? Can a court force another physician on staff to do something that is dangerous? Could a court compel me to do this? I would refuse an obviously dangerous treatment, but this is what is at the end of the skippers slope.
There are an awful lot of very intriguing and difficult issues to consider. I am NOT looking to have arguments, I am just looking to discuss the very broad issues that exist here.
The man is inevitably going to die because of the hospital and the judge, but your ok ith it because of technicalities and fine points.
“Can the court insert someone onto a medical staff against the private companies will?”
A Court did it here in Illinois. It saved a man’s life.
L