5
   

I FEEL A LITTLE SORRY FOR MJ's M.D.

 
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sun 2 Aug, 2009 11:54 am
@aidan,
I said:
Quote:
Why? Are you in receipt of facts that others of us aren't?

Did Michael Jackson tell the doctor -
'I don't care how dangerous this is to me - and I don't care how much you have to give me-
just give me enough to put me to sleep- even if it might mean forever'?
Is there a letter of some sort that Michael Jackson left?
(I have to admit I've stopped following the case, so I'm sincerely asking- I don't know).


To which David answered:
Quote:
Yeah, he called me the nite b4 and told me that.
Laughing Laughing
aidan wrote:
Quote:
Who called you the night b4 - MJ or the doctor?

Well, MJ put MD on to confirm.



Quote:
His nurse said that he told her that his veins were too small n hard to find,
while she was looking for one.

aidan wrote:
Quote:
Oh, so keeping him drugged up and addicted was a group effort...

Yes.
Apparently, MJ was uncomfortable.




Quote:
Yes, we DON 'T. We have a natural, inalienable right
to become drug addicts, or to commit suicide, tho I don 't recommend either.
We have the natural right to engage in self-destructive behavior.

aidan wrote:
Quote:
Granted - but isn't there some law against other people participating actively
in the destruction of another person?

MJ waived his rights under that doctrine.
Such a law is an unconstitutional invasion of individual freedom.
As the USSC put it:
"Our law affords constitutional protection to PERSONAL DECISIONS....
Our cases recognize 'the right of the individual ... to be free from
unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters ... fundamentally
affecting a person'
... These matters involving the most intimate and
PERSONAL CHOICES a person may make in a lifetime, choices central
to PERSONAL DIGNITY and AUTONOMY, are central to the liberty protected
by the 14th Amendment." [emphasis added by David]
PLANNED PARENTHOOD v. CASEY 112 S.Ct. 2791 (1992)

We might also invoke the Constitutional prohibition against impairment of contract.
Article I Section 10
US Constitution



aidan wrote:
Quote:
And if that someone is a doctor and is helping out by providing
and administering the drugs...I don't know David-
I can't go along with the fact that that's okay.
Think about it from this perspective. What if Michael Jackson
was having an operation in the hospital and yes, of course he
wanted and asked for the anaesthetic to be administered as a
matter of course - but the anesthesiologist flubs the dose and
kills him on the table. Even in a situation like that - the doctor
will be held civilly, if not criminally responsible- believe you me.

M.D.s can be held liable for their professional negligence.
I dispute that government has any authority to interfere
if the informed and consensual patient intentionally chooses
to take his chances and assume the risks; its like sky diving
with a parachute. He 's within his natural rights.


Quote:
That 's what it means to live in a free country.
(I, for one, will have nothing to do with those drugs,
which I consider poison.)

aidan wrote:
Quote:
Yeah, me neither/ or me too.

0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sun 2 Aug, 2009 12:04 pm
David: I despise the nanny state, but I am in full agreement with the traditional belief that doctors are not free to sell to people what ever they want. Doctors are quasi agents for the collective, their first priority is to promote health in the collective and with individuals. If individuals want something that is clearly not good for them doctors must say no. If as the result of the actions of a doctor someone is dead who would not otherwise be dead then the doctor must face the criminal justice system. And also maybe lose his MD shingle.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sun 2 Aug, 2009 12:45 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:
Quote:
David: I despise the nanny state,

The subsequent part of your post DISPROVES that allegation.



hawkeye10 wrote:
Quote:
but I am in full agreement with the traditional belief that doctors
are not free to sell to people what ever they want.

Thay r unless someone rats them out.
I favor and respect libertarian M.D.s !
Let laissez faire free enterprize prevail !



hawkeye10 wrote:
Quote:
Doctors are quasi agents for the collective,

Let the collective be damned!
Where the hell did it get the authority to control ingestion ??
The Interstate Commerce Clause was not supposed to be
a vehicle for tyranny. If we wanted tyrrany, then we did not need the American Revolution.

The usurpers of false authority over ingestion justly deserved very severe punishment.
Sadly, thay have already died of old age, thereby escaping just retribution.



hawkeye10 wrote:
Quote:
their first priority is to promote health in the collective and with individuals.
If individuals want something that is clearly not good for them
doctors must say no.

Then the patient needs to find a better doctor or raise the inducement.
Your concept violates the intendment of the 9th and 10th Amendments.
See my cite to the philosophy of USSC in PLANNED PARENTHOOD, cited above.
It is logically applicable here, tho I do not expect the USSC
necessarily to be consistent in its application.





hawkeye10 wrote:
Quote:
If as the result of the actions of a doctor someone is dead who
would not otherwise be dead then the doctor must face the criminal justice system.
And also maybe lose his MD shingle.

For what its worth,
it is possible that lovers of personal freedom
on their juries, will protect and defend them.
If that ever comes before me (I certainly don 't expect it to)
I will defend them from conviction.

U can vote for despotism in the nanny state, Hawkeye.




David
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Aug, 2009 03:52 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
This post of yours again reinforces my opinion that, to most attorneys, ethics are negotiable. Its either that or your Libertarian views go counter to ethical behavior.

Keeping a physician steadfast to his canon of ethics (which, btw, is incorporated into the medical license within the states that the physician practices) is paramount.

Doc Murray is, what I think we would call, and enabler at least, and an accesory to homicide at worst.

OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Aug, 2009 01:58 pm
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:
Quote:
This post of yours again reinforces my opinion that,
to most attorneys, ethics are negotiable.

This post of yours again reinforces my opinion that
u have TOO MUCH RESPECT for my employee, my child, "government".
Thou shoud not bow down thyself to it, nor serve it.
It was created to serve U.

The Founders of this Republic did not reason among themselves
saying:
" here 's a swell idea: let 's make ourselves SLAVES!
We 'll create a master, from our imagination,
and then get into grovelling obedience to it. "

Shoud Uncle Sam wear black leather n lace, hi heels, a mask and carry a whip ?

That 's not America to me.







farmerman wrote:
Quote:

Its either that or your Libertarian views go counter to ethical behavior.

Not exactly; its more that ethics must be understood in a libertarian context,
because freedom is the basic foundation upon which this Republic is established.
A real American is always quick to challenge jurisdiction.

This is the Home of the Brave and the Land of the Free.






farmerman wrote:
Quote:

Keeping a physician steadfast to his canon of ethics
(which, btw, is incorporated into the medical license
within the states that the physician practices) is paramount.

I look askance upon the allegation that an American citizen
cannot, by waiving his applicable statutory rights,
absolve a physician whose ministrations he seeks, from both tortious and criminal liability.
That is none of government 's damned business.

I am much slower than u r to accept the belief
that government has been granted jurisdiction
to give anyone licensure to practice medicine
and to jiggle such licenses around, to extort compliance
with its wishes by the licensees, regardless of the citizens'
choices to whom he renders his services.
If MJ was a dope addict,
there 's little justification for skepticism that he 'd grant his informed consent,
in order to get the medication of his desires.

It was HIS life; he had the natural right to take his chances.
Government can intrude upon his private right only by USURPATION.



farmerman wrote:
Quote:
Doc Murray is, what I think we would call,
and enabler at least, and an accesory to homicide at worst.

I 'll be glad to AGREE with u,
in the absence of MJ 's informed consent.

" Consensus facit legum. "





David
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Aug, 2009 02:39 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Thats merely a bit of a weak diversion on your behalf. My beef is wih lawyers and arbitrariness of ethics (as (I stated). My feelings about govt merit no inclusion in this. Do you believe that MDs should not require licenses and periodic skills updates?
Libertarianism sure is a wacky worldview.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Aug, 2009 02:50 pm
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:
Quote:
Thats merely a bit of a weak diversion on your behalf.
My beef is wih lawyers and arbitrariness of ethics (as (I stated).
My feelings about govt merit no inclusion in this.

What did the lawyers do that was rong ?
(other than perpetuating and perpetrating bad spelling on a non-fonetic basis)





farmerman wrote:
Quote:
Do you believe that MDs should not require licenses
and periodic skills updates?

I was questioning the existence of jurisdiction
to stop someone from offering his efforts
to help someone else, if the helpeee desires that.



farmerman wrote:
Quote:
Libertarianism sure is a wacky worldview.

My reflexive reaction is to approve of your throwing your liberty
in the garbage, but I don 't want u to throw mine in along with it.





David
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Tue 4 Aug, 2009 05:03 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:
What did the lawyers do that was rong ?
(other than perpetuating and perpetrating bad spelling on a non-fonetic basis)
This was a passing comment on you inparticlulqar, not lawyers in general. You seem to carry no concern about a dr doing harm to a patient when a drs very oath contains the words that forbid a dr from knowibgly doing harm to his patients. Im merely reminding you that Dr Murray must be held accountable.

Quote:
I was questioning the existence of jurisdiction
to stop someone from offering his efforts
to help someone else, if the helpeee desires that.
Its what we in civilization do. Prevention of anyone from hanging out a shingle without a license and training is at least a minimal "intervention". A step higher is auditing behavior and demanding strict adherence to a code of wethics (theres that nasty ethics again)


Quote:
My reflexive reaction is to approve of your throwing your liberty
in the garbage, but I don 't want u to throw mine in along with it.

Theres some of that wacky libertarian logic again. Im not going to let Dr Murray pump you full of dangerous drugs knowing that they can potentially interact causing a state of premanent torpor and declining core temperature. Nope, not me.


OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Aug, 2009 04:12 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:
What did the lawyers do that was rong ?
(other than perpetuating and perpetrating bad spelling on a non-fonetic basis)

farmerman wrote:
Quote:
This was a passing comment on you inparticlulqar, not lawyers in general.
You seem to carry no concern about a dr doing harm to a patient
when a drs very oath contains the words that forbid a dr from
knowibgly doing harm to his patients.

The oath was a product of duress n extortion inflicted by an interloper.
It shoud not be deemed binding, the same as a contract made at gunpoint.

However, he is still liable for professional negligence.
The elements of negligence r:
1. duty
2. violation thereof
3. proximity of causation, and
4. damages.
If MJ absolved him of that duty, opting instead to take his chances,
then the M.D.'s conduct was morally OK and free of negligence.
If he is prosecuted criminally or civilly,
I hope that good Americans on his jury will defend him.

In 2004, I was hospitized.
My physician ignored my multiple complaints of imminent danger,
as I grew progressively more alarmed. The problem was relieved
b4 it exploded. I resented his having ignored my complaints
for as long as he did. Accordingly, I do NOT assert that it is OK
for an M.D. to inflict harm upon his patients, unless this is
a course of action demanded by the patient involved.

As to MJ, I have heard it alleged that after injecting the
controversial substance into MJ, the M.D. was not as WATCHFUL
as he shoud have been. If that is true,
this matter shoud be litigated against the M.D., because
MJ presumably did not tell him to be inattentive.





farmerman wrote:
Quote:

Im merely reminding you that Dr Murray must be held accountable.

See above.



David wrote:
Quote:
I was questioning the existence of jurisdiction
to stop someone from offering his efforts
to help someone else, if the helpeee desires that.


farmerman wrote:
Quote:
Its what we in civilization do.

Then the victims of that interference owe it to themselves
to DEFEND their freedom of choice.

Such defenses were successfully brought into existence in the 1930s against
Prohibition of alcohol. Eventually, government recognized its futility; 21st Amendment.
The philosophy that u espouse and support was manifested
by the ladies who disfavored men drinking alcohol.
Thay adduced arguments qua the general well being.
At least the ladies had the intellectual honesty to employ
a constitutional amendment, not to just pretend n fake that
government had jd to ban alcohol and hope that no one noticed.






farmerman wrote:
Quote:
Prevention of anyone from hanging out a shingle
without a license and training is at least a minimal "intervention".
A step higher is auditing behavior and demanding strict adherence
to a code of wethics (theres that nasty ethics again)





David wrote:
Quote:
My reflexive reaction is to approve of your throwing your liberty
in the garbage, but I don 't want u to throw mine in along with it.

farmerman wrote:
Quote:
Theres some of that wacky libertarian logic again.

Professor, its not wacky; its really very simple
and vitally important for our living in freedom.
Life is worthless, without freedom.

The logic begins with that of John Locke,
whose wisdom the Founders incorporated into the Supreme Law of the Land.
(See 9th n 10th Amendments.)
It was his position that human beings are older than government.
B4 government was brought into existence,
we were in the State of Nature.

At some point, it became clear to them that there was defensive
strength in numbers, to repel the raids of more distant men,
and to inflict vengeance upon the locals for their abuses (theft, rape, etc.)
so thay organized a government to accomplish those goals
of defense and vengeance. Locke argues that the resulting
government, a product of their imaginations, of their agreement,
like lines of longitude n latitude, consist only of what was granted
by the founders of that government; i.e., it had no authority
other than what thay granted to it.


It is the same way with our Republic; (see 9th and 10th Amendments, US Constitution).

The libertarian logic is just that we have the right to live in unlimited freedom,
except only for jurisdiction that has ACTUALLY been GRANTED to government
to interfere with that freedom. Except ONLY for that,
EVERYTHING is a universe of FREEDOM.





farmerman wrote:
Quote:
Im not going to let Dr Murray pump you full of dangerous drugs
knowing that they can potentially interact causing a state of premanent torpor
and declining core temperature. Nope, not me.

That statement implies that a 3rd person has the right
to subject to his will the conduct of other people,
if he does not like that conduct, or if he can get enuf folks
to agree with him. To that, I object.

EXHIBIT 1:
About 15 years ago, a woman shrieked when she saw me buy some cotton candy,
with evident intentions of ingestion. She was anti-sugar.
She tried to stop me from eating my property.
I am pro-sugar, as a good hedonist.

EXHIBIT 2:
About 25 years ago, one of my tenants told me that she looked
thru the window of a neighbor and saw a teenaged boy
in an act of massage, relieving his sexual tensions.
She expressed to me her disapproval of that and of the look on his face at that moment.
She told me that she ran around to the front of his house and began banging on his door,
to bring an end to his massage, and presumably to rectify the expression on his face.

According to the logic of your assertion in the last nested quote,
she was correct to do this; in other words, someone has the right
to interfere in what others r doing, if he (or she) disapproves.
From that, I must dissent.



aidan
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Aug, 2009 01:15 am
@OmSigDAVID,
David - you are a quasi or inconsistent libertarian.
I'm sorry, but there it is - you advocate freedom when it is toward a cause you champion - but you feel free to advocate inhibiting it when it offends one or more of your sensibilities:

Case in point- grammar....
Quote:
Let the collective be damned!
Where the hell did it get the authority to control ingestion ??

is what you say about consumption of substances.

But based on your conversations with JTT you certainly wouldn't say:
'Let the collective be damned!
Where the hell did it get the authority to control written and spoken expression?'

I don't get it. How can you switch it on and off like that?

And my question remains, because you've never answered it...if you truly think that it's okay for a doctor to disobey the laws of the land in distributing controlled substances, would you have felt as comfortable exonerating this same man if his wife had ended up overdosed by his hand because he said, or you assumed, that because she was his patient, she absolved him of his professional and ethical responsibilities?

And if not - do you think that a person's professional and ethical responsibilities change depending on who their patient is?

And if that's true - how do you envision that libertarian view of the practice of medicine manifesting itself in society at large?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Immortality and Doctor Volkov - Discussion by edgarblythe
Sleep Paralysis - Discussion by Nick Ashley
On the edge and toppling off.... - Discussion by Izzie
Surgery--Again - Discussion by Roberta
PTSD, is it caused by a blow to the head? - Question by Rickoshay75
THE GIRL IS ILL - Discussion by Setanta
 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 09/16/2019 at 09:07:30