Posted on 09/06/2021 11:46:20 AM PDT by NoLibZone
Judge Michael Oster knows better than everyone else what is good for you.
gas_dr wrote:
“This particular article states that the physician never saw the patient. My guess is that in other situations the rx was filled by a pharmacy then brought in by the family. A hospital can deny this. It sounds as if the family is expecting the rx to act as an order in the hospital.”
OK, so to get the hospital to give the rx to the patient, the dr who wrote the rx has to have hospital privileges.
“do hospitals allow meds to be prescribed by doctors who don’t have privileges at that particular hospital?”
see gas_dr’s post above my question
https://freerepublic.com/focus/news/3992411/posts?page=59#59
if the dr doesn’t have hospital privileges, then the hospital can deny the meds.
This is factually wrong. There are some types of treatment public policy permits physicians to try. Specifically Remdesivir is permitted because the very politically connected pharmaceutical company Gilead charges 3000 bucks a pop. Remdesivir doesn't have any demonstrated tendency to save the lives of those who use it though, so that can't be the reason for the policy. Ivermeticin on the other had is dirt cheap. Sure it has a tendency to save the life of those who need it, but when it does the well connected pharmaceutical company does not get a big pay off because the patient does not get sick enough to be prescribed Remdesivir.
Public health policy is about making money for the friends of those in power. It is so outrageous that this woman would try to selfishly steal from the revenue of big pharma and secondarily the bribes of the our political overlords....all because she wants her husband to live. Look everybody wants their spouse to live and all that, but that is no damn excuse to go cheating politicians and big pharma. For shame! For shame!
LilFarmer wrote:
So, it was so important to the hospital to withhold this inexpensive treatment, that they fought the original order in court to overturn it.
Unbelievable
I hope that hospital has MASSIVE backlash from the community.”
OK, question for gas_dr, how did the family get the rx order done and being given in the first place?
Via a different judge, or the same one?
If the same one, why did he change his mind; because of massive pressure from the hospital?
Did they go to one doctor at the initial rx, and a different doctor at the second rx?
many questions !
patient must have a tube feeding....slip him some....just disconnect at the stopcock site, using a syringe, usually won in the room, and give it to him...flush with water afterwards.
That is really horrible advice as it would land the person in jail.
Is it possible there is confusion between cases. I think this is the university of California. It is a judge who denied a TRO motion. The other case I don’t believe was in California. Wasn’t it a different state and diddeeent judge?
It looks like the wife procured the ivermectin by a physician who read the chart whatever that means and prescribed the therapy. It is unclear to me whether that prescription was filled snd the wife is asking for a TRO against the hospital to block it from denying the medication or if the wife is alleging that the written prescription in and of itself is sufficient for the hospital yo administer from its inpatient pharmacy.
If the former wife would have slightly better argument on a right to try basis. If the latter I don’t think she has anything to stand on as the prescription is an invalid order at the hospital
In a broader discussion when a patient is hospitalized there is a process called med reconciliation. The patients home meds are evaluated and either held or continued in the context of what being the patient to inpatient status. So as an example if I have a shocked patient transferred to admitted to my ICU and he or she is on antihypertensives I obviously will hold the blood pressure medications. So the outside orders become invalid.
Like I said given my reading of this I don’t think she has much of a leg to stand on. It is entirely possible the physician who wrote the rx isn’t even licensed in the state which can be a further issue.
There are a lot blanks that should be filled in here.
I delved a little deeper. It looks like same institution but different judge
ok that explains it, different judge.
So how was the patient given the ivermectin in the first place?
https://bigleaguepolitics.com/ohio-judge-orders-hospital-to-provide-ivermectin-to-covid-19-patient/
Wasn’t he improving after having been given the medication?
At some initial point there had to be a dr that said OK give the meds, here’s the rx, and the hospital went along with it because the dr had hospital privileges.
Maybe somebody (who?) said no more meds, and the family got the other doctor who didn’t have hospital privileges?
Why did the other judge get involved and deny it?
Or the patient that had shown improvement was another guy that they got medicated successfully?
aggh, more questions.
they —did— give the meds, for a couple weeks:
https://freerepublic.com/focus/news/3992411/posts?page=30#30
There was a report of improvement that was unverified. Specifically 50% less ventilation. It is unclear what that means.
What we do know is that it did not get him separated from the ventilator which means that his prognosis is still quite bad
If someone I know is admitted to the hospital with Covid I will be sneaking some Ivermectin in to them asap. If I get caught what are they going to do - put me in jail? Even if they did that’s a small price to save a life.
gas_dr wrote:
“There was a report of improvement that was unverified. Specifically 50% less ventilation. It is unclear what that means.
What we do know is that it did not get him separated from the ventilator which means that his prognosis is still quite bad”
post #30 is a quote from the lady’s lawyer, so its verified:
“We are certainly disappointed with the court’s decision today,” wrote Jonathan Davidson, one of Julie Smith’s attorneys, in an email on Monday. “I know this was a decision that Judge Oster did not take lightly. Fortunately, Mr. Smith was able to receive 14 days of treatment of Ivermectin, during which time his condition did improve. While he has likely received his last dose at UC West Chester hospital, we can only hope his condition continues to trend positively.”
And about going to 50% and still not off the vent, all we can do is pray for him.
Indeed we are.
So why can’t this wife move her husband to a place that does use Ivermectin?
Did he ban the use of puberty blockers on children for the purpose of transitioning them to another gender? Hormone treatments have NEVER been approved for this purpose, yet it's done every day.
ivermectin, an anti-parasitic medication with no proven effectiveness against the novel coronavirus
..........................................
An easily provable falsehood since there are numerous medically confirmed cases and studies of the efficacy of Ivermectin all over the internet! More fake news from the fake news media! Those morons never give up spreading falsehoods!
Hospital follows CDC Protocol(failures for 19 months backing it), they are IMMUNE to lawsuits and your death has been incentivized for using a ventilator(95% death rates, known since Wuhan first tried them).
“Section VII. Limitations on Distribution
The Secretary may specify that liability protections are in effect only for Covered Countermeasures obtained through a particular means of distribution. The Declaration previously stated that liability immunity is afforded to Covered Persons only for Recommended Activities related to (a) present or future federal contracts, cooperative agreements, grants, other transactions, interagency agreements, or memoranda of understanding or other federal agreements; or (b) activities authorized in accordance with the public health and medical response of the Authority Having Jurisdiction to prescribe, administer, deliver, distribute, or dispense the Covered Countermeasures following a declaration of an emergency.
COVID-19 is an unprecedented global challenge that requires a whole-of-nation response that utilizes federal-, state-, and local- distribution channels as well as private-distribution channels. Given the broad scale of this pandemic, the Secretary amends the Declaration to extend PREP Act coverage to additional private-distribution channels, as set forth below.
The amended Section VII adds that PREP Act liability protections also extend to Covered Persons for Recommended Activities that are related to any Covered Countermeasure that is:
licensed, approved, cleared, or authorized by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) (or that is permitted to be used under an Investigational New Drug Application or an Investigational Device Exemption) under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic (FD&C) Act or Public Health Service (PHS) Act to treat, diagnose, cure, prevent, mitigate or limit the harm from COVID–19, or the transmission of SARS–CoV–2 or a virus mutating therefrom; or
a respiratory protective device approved by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) under 42 CFR part 84, or any successor regulations, that the Secretary determines to be a priority for use during a public health emergency declared under section 319 of the PHS Act to prevent, mitigate, or limit the harm from, COVID–19, or the transmission of SARS–CoV–2 or a virus mutating therefrom.”
https://www.phe.gov/Preparedness/legal/prepact/Pages/4-PREP-Act.aspx
More about the above assertions:
“You want to know why, if you get Covid-19, the doctor and hospital won’t prescribe and use anything until you’re choking — and then only Dexamethasone, Remdesivir (which has failed twice in random controlled trials, including a VERY LARGE one, and is dangerous enough, on the data, that I’d never take it personally), oxygen, and ultimately a ventilator?
Here’s the reason directly from the government itself on an official government web page:”
http://market-ticker.org/cgi-ticker/akcs-www?post=243448
Well here the deal with both Hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin
They are both safe approved drugs used all over the world for years.. so why not try them?..if they do not work so be it.....why the Propaganda campaign against them?...we are treating people that have covid
The vaccine is not a “treated” if you have Covid-19
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.