Posted on 01/26/2004 4:48:57 PM PST by AlwaysLurking
Although I'm not sure of the details behind what Martha Stewart did, I do seem to recall that she deleted files and doctored records after-the-fact to make it appear that she had intended to sell her Imclone shares.
If so, she was greedily trying to defraud fellow investors by using a tip that, as a former stockbroker herself, she certainly knew was illegal.
I view her "crime" as committed against other investors (the market) while I view Limbaugh as simply having a relationship with his doctors regarding his own treatment, something that should (and usually is) by law confidential.
Good summary of the issues. My brief is with the prosecutors in both cases, however. I'm on the warpath against political and revenue-enhancement "crimes". I'm pretty sure that the Founding Fathers didn't intend for the legal dogs of war to have an unlimited budget (bilked from the taxpayers) to go after every target of opportunity, for cash, prizes & fame.
As a matter of fact, I seem to recall that the colonials were known for keeping their judicial types on a real short cash leash.
"Lumbergh" Krischner should be audited, and his priority list should be compared with a local crime list (are you listening out in EIB land?).
...I view Limbaugh as simply having a relationship with his doctors regarding his own treatment, something that should (and usually is) by law confidential.
As the Democrats showed during the impeachment wars, it's "Politics, Politics - über alles", and we're seeing it clearly here in the Limbaugh matter.
If that National Enquire story had never appeared where the maid accused Limbaugh of being part of a drug ring, I am rather certain that you would feel much different (more sympathetic) about Limbaugh's situation.
As it turned out, that Enquire piece was used to soften up the public, turning many against Limbaught and causing them to call him hypocrite for supposedly looking like a criminal.
There is apparently nothing to the maid's allegations, or THIS prosecutor would have gone after Limbaugh with all four feet.
Think about it. If out of the blue, you heard a story about prosecutors across this land suddenly raiding doctor offices in search of medical records for everyone suspected of being addicted, I am certain that YOU would be having a full-blown coniption, and rightly so.
Invasion of private medical records in the absence of probably cause is a total invasion of privacy, and if I'm not mistaken, against the privacy clause in the US Constitution.
There is Simply NO REWARD (even Patient Adulation) worth the Risk (Malpractise) or the Potential "Benefits" worth the Humiliation & Damage of a Liability Suit.
NO ONE (Physician or Client) "Escapes From" a "Liability Lawsuit" without Tremendous Personal ( PRofessional & Psychological) Permadent Damage!!
NO Physician EVER ESCAPES a "Liability Suit" WITHOUT PERMANENT Psychological Damage!!
Doc
Scripts I totally disagree with, the simple idea that patients feel Canada can offer them more with generics is no different than arguing their care is equivalent. Someone's pill is going to be off by enough to create immutable affects.
People didn't spend the time necessary, give up the nights/weekends, and live in a world of infirmity and death to earn the right to treat ill patients for the monetary rewards. There are obvious sentiments behind this and a hate for everything but better life. To bitch and whine about "opportunity benefits of liability" and/or "total care benefits" does nothing more but in the end enhance an abrogating purpose.
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.