4
   

CONRAD MURRAY, M.D. DEFENDANT: WHATAYATHINK???

 
 
maxdancona
 
  0  
Reply Sat 5 Nov, 2011 08:48 pm
@Ragman,
He certainly won't be sleeping with children any more.
hawkeye10
 
  2  
Reply Sat 5 Nov, 2011 09:01 pm
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:

He certainly won't be sleeping with children any more.

Are you aware of any children being harmed? Given the absence of claims of abuse even now it seems unlikely that Jackson ever did harm kids...he just liked kids in a way that is now socially not acceptable. Jackson was pretty well abused as a kid though, that much is clear. I am not a fan of the victim culture, but I can muster some sympathy for MJ , which is saying something.

EDIT: MJ's greatness as an artist is certainly connected to the abuse he suffered as a kid, so I am not weepy about his abuse either.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Nov, 2011 10:17 pm
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:
That's an assumption on your part. What makes you think that this doctor took the Hippocratic oath?
RIGHT!!! U beat me to it.
I was going to point that out. We have no reason to believe that he took any oath.

If he did, that still does not make him guilty of any homicide.





David
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Nov, 2011 10:35 pm
@Ragman,
Ragman wrote:
Hedonism implies some joy might have been a goal. I seriously doubt that.
As I understand it, hedonists believe that "pleasure is the only intrinsic good.
U left out that hedonist seek to avoid discomfort.


Ragman wrote:
In very simple terms, a hedonist strives to maximize net pleasure."
Net pleasure is calculated by subtracting pain from pleasure of a situation;
e.g., subtracting the agony of his sleeplessness. He took that seriously.




Ragman wrote:
It appears that he sought the meds for sleep-rest so that he could be productive on his tour.
This is not about hedonism..so why jump on that bandwagon?
See above.



Ragman wrote:
This is not about granting some euthanistic desire.
No one says that it IS.




Ragman wrote:
He may have been tortured and damned but that is hardly relevant.
It was relevant to MJ and to his choice of medical staff.




Ragman wrote:
He wanted sleep. As for his mental state, that is territory perhaps of a psychiatrist treatment.

This Doctor, by his training, knew the SERIOUS risk of that drug..
That is undisputed.



Ragman wrote:
and his job was to ... at the risk of repetition, once again, I point back to the Hippocratic oath...First..do no HARM!
That is DISPUTED. We know not whether he took such an oath. He did not swear that to MJ,
who paid him for relief from insomnia, NOT for being loyal to any government.

If I were on that jury, I 'd remember that if I were ever in that situation,
I 'd want an M.D. who was loyal to ME, not to any damned government, which is not paying him a nickel.
Screw the government. Glory to supremacy of the Individual.

In a free country, u have the right to take your chances; MJ did.





David

0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Nov, 2011 10:53 pm
@Mame,
Mame wrote:
What exactly are you disagreeing ]with?
I disagree with convicting Dr. Murray of anything.


Mame wrote:
This is not about Michael Jackson.
Agreed, except insofar as MJ contributed to getting Dr. M into this mess.




Mame wrote:
It's about the behaviour, professional and otherwise, of the DOCTOR. MJ's wants and needs are not part of this debate.
I argue that defendant's loyalty shoud have been to MJ,
his patient and his employer, not to any government
that usurped any fony jurisdiction to tell free American citizens
what we can ingest if we wanna. MJ assumed the risk of taking those drugs, in his desperation to sleep.
If I were on that jury, I 'd use my power to LIBERATE this M.D. from government oppression.




Mame wrote:
The debate is whether he is guilty of involuntary manslaughter by virtue of his PERFORMANCE.
Agreed. It is.



Mame wrote:
Remove MJ from the picture altogether and what do you have?
U can 't do that insofar as MJ's deeds got defendant into this mess.



Mame wrote:
A greedy, unethical doctor, that's what.
Doesn't matter who the patient was, as long as it paid enough, that guy would have done what he did.
I agree that the doctor shoud treat any of his patients the same way,
respecting their freedom of choice, regardless of any USURPED
jurisdiction of any government.

That 's what I 'd want in a good doctor, not refusal to co-operate, to please a government.
MJ wanted to SLEEP, not to please a government.





David
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Nov, 2011 10:56 pm
@Mame,
OmSigDAVID wrote:
Morally, everyone has the right to end his life when he chooses
and he has the right to indulge in risky behavior.
Each man is the captain of his own ship.
Mame wrote:

Morally maybe he is, but again, this isn't about him. Morally, the doctor was wrong.
I disagree; morally his loyalty was to the wishes of his patient FIRST, and to any government 2nd or 3rd.
This is AMERICA. I hope that the jurors will remember that.





David
firefly
 
  2  
Reply Sun 6 Nov, 2011 09:12 am
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:
MJ wanted to SLEEP,

For a few hours, not eternally.
Quote:
MJ assumed the risk of taking those drugs

We have no evidence of that.

As was pointed out at trial, Dr. Murray had not obtained any signed consent forms from MJ that indicated he understood and accepted the risks of a drug such as Propofol. So, we have no evidence of informed consent.
Quote:
I argue that defendant's loyalty should have been to MJ,
his patient and his employer, not to any government

The issue is not loyalty, it is the legal, and ethical, obligations of a physician who is is licensed to practice medicine by the state. Dr. Murray is answerable to the state for his actions, particularly since they substantially contributed to the death of his patient. His right to practice medicine is granted by the state and it can be revoked by the state.

Dr. Murray violated the ethics and standards of care of the medical profession by administering a potentially lethal drug in an inappropriate setting, without the necessary safeguards of proper monitoring and resuscitation equipment, thereby needlessly and recklessly exposing his patient to the risk of death. He then left his patient unattended, and, when he returned to find his patient in respiratory arrest, he failed to call 911 in a timely manner. And, most tellingly, in terms of his consciousness of guilt, he failed to inform either the EMT workers or the ER doctors that he had given Jackson propofol, which hampered their appraisal of the causes of MJ's condition and appropriate methods of addressing it.

This case is not about Michael Jackson, it is about the reckless and negligent actions of a licensed physician who violated his legal and ethical obligations to his patient.

The question in this case is when medical malpractice rises to the level of a criminal act.

There is no question that Dr. Murray's actions constituted medical malpractice, and not a single doctor who testified at trial, including the defense experts, could justify or excuse his negligence or his extreme errors of judgment as a physician, all of which placed his patient at significant risk of death.
Generally, malpractice is handled by civil actions for malpractice/ethical violations, or civil suits regarding wrongful death, both of which can lead to license forfeiture or monetary awards.
As they say, "Doctors bury their mistakes," and we often fail to examine whether a physician's extremely negligent or reckless actions should be considered criminal. If this were done more often, the actual rate of serious medical malpractice might decrease. Medicine is a profession which does not always police itself well, and doctors will often turn a blind eye to colleagues who are impaired by drugs or alcohol, reckless or negligent in their practice, or downright incompetent. That leaves medical consumers with the resort of malpractice or civil suits, or the state with the option of pursuing egregious behaviors as criminal.

In this case, the extreme negligence and reckless behavior of a physician does justify the criminal charges.

Just as we hold someone criminally responsible for driving a car in a reckless manner and thereby causing the death of someone, there is no reason not to hold physicians criminally liable for their reckless and extremely negligent actions that result in a patient's death.

As the prosecution revealed at trial, Dr. Murray's behavior as a physician deviated significantly from accepted and acceptable standards of medical care and thereby substantially contributed to Michael Jackson's needless and untimely death and Dr. Murray violated his legal and ethical obligations to his patient. That is what, under California law, makes him guilty of involuntary manslaughter.

0 Replies
 
Mame
 
  2  
Reply Sun 6 Nov, 2011 09:21 am
@OmSigDAVID,
MJ did not want to die. He wanted some sleep. However, this is not so much a moral issue as it clearly is a negligence issue. He LEFT HIS PATIENT, whom he'd provided with a DRUG THAT IS LEGAL ONLY IN HOSPITALS, which should only be administered by professionals (one of which he was NOT), and which should have been constantly monitored - he left his patient for 45 unmonitored minutes! In addition to that, it took him quite some time to call 911 after he discovered MJ was dead and he could do nothing for him. NEGLIGENT!!!
Mame
 
  2  
Reply Sun 6 Nov, 2011 09:24 am
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:

I disagree; morally his loyalty was to the wishes of his patient FIRST, and to any government 2nd or 3rd.
This is AMERICA. I hope that the jurors will remember that.

David


In America, his loyalty is to his profession and to uphold professional conduct. He is answerable to the State first. Doctors swear to maintain life, not take it. That's why euthanasia is such a hotly debated topic. It is currently not legal to assist someone's death. This is not what this case is about but I wanted to counter your position.
Ragman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Nov, 2011 09:43 am
@Mame,
We agree. In fact, if you scroll back I said those same things before. I swear I must be talking to myself here.
0 Replies
 
firefly
 
  2  
Reply Sun 6 Nov, 2011 10:07 am
@Mame,
Quote:
whom he'd provided with a DRUG THAT IS LEGAL ONLY IN HOSPITALS,

No, the drug in question, Propofol, can be used outside of a hospital--in ambulatory surgery clinics, for instance. But it is unheard of for the drug to be used in a home setting, particularly for the treatment of insomnia.
Quote:
which should only be administered by professionals (one of which he was NOT)

No, as a licensed physician, he legally could administer this drug. However, his area of medicine is not anesthesiology, so there is a medical ethical issue of whether he was practicing outside his area of medical competence.
Quote:
However, this is not so much a moral issue as it clearly is a negligence issue

I think it is a moral issue because it involves medical ethics and what is considered acceptable professional and legal behavior by a physician.

I agree, it is clearly a negligence issue--a very serious criminal negligence issue.

Personally I think the most egregious violation was leaving his patient unattended for 45 minutes (and it was established at trial that Murray was on his cell phone for 45 minutes attending to his own personal matters). Murray clearly had lied when he told the police he left the room for only 2 minutes to go the bathroom, and he seems to have lied to them about the timeline for his administration of the drugs (the trial evidence demonstrated that Murray's original timeline was not possible), and he may well have lied about the amount of Propofol he administered, since he lied about so many other things.

Dr. Murray was occupied with other matters during those 45 minutes (talking on the phone, checking e-mails, texting) and, by the time he noticed Jackson wasn't breathing, MJ may well have been dead--in full respiratory and cardiac arrest. That would be why he knew there was no hurry to call 911--it was already too late to resuscitate Jackson. That makes the most sense to me in terms of his delay in calling 911, as well as his somewhat half-hearted one-arm attempt to perform CPR--his patient was already clearly dead, and he knew that. When the EMT workers showed up, Murray told them he had felt a pulse when he discovered MJ not breathing, and he told them he could still feel a thready femoral pulse. But, no EMT worker could feel a pulse, and they felt MJ was already dead, and, when they conveyed that info to the ER doctor by phone, that doctor was willing to pronounce MJ dead, with the place of death being his bedroom. Only Murray kept insisting that MJ should be taken to the ER, and once there, he was the only one insisting that further resuscitation efforts continue--the other doctors all felt MJ had been DOA. All of that was Murray's frantic attempt to save himself from criminal liability and exposure for causing Jackson's death in his own bedroom--at the very least, Murray wanted the place of death to be seen as the ER, when, in fact, MJ had more likely died in his own bed--while his doctor, who should have been monitoring him, was out of the room.

Mame
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Nov, 2011 11:00 am
@firefly,
Thanks for clearing those points up - I knew they weren't quite right, but fairly close.

And yes, it is a moral issue, but to me, his negligence is paramount. Whatever his morals might be, his job is to save lives.

Anyway, David's off in the boondocks on this one.
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Reply Sun 6 Nov, 2011 11:09 am
@Mame,
Let us not lose sight of the fact that
the relationship between government
and the citizen is one of adversity;
control & adversity.
I root for our side.


OmSigDAVID wrote:
I disagree; morally his loyalty was to the wishes of his patient FIRST, and to any government 2nd or 3rd.
This is AMERICA. I hope that the jurors will remember that.

David
Mame wrote:
In America, his loyalty is to his profession and to uphold professional conduct.
Jurors can defend him from the attacks of our lowly employee: government.
It behooves every citizen to look down, scornfully upon his or her
employee: government (an employee who has stolen false authority).
Jurors shoud not let the crook (government) get away with that usurpation.
We shoud be loyal to OURSELVES, not to it.
By every act that we degrade the power of government,
we enhance, magnify, elevate and improve our own personal freedom
because government jurisdiction and personal liberty are INVERSELY PROPORTIONAL.


Mame wrote:
He is answerable to the State first.
Jurors can defeat this usurpatory self-aggrandizement of the State
by aggrandizing personal freedom instead, in this case by acquittal.
That nullifies the State's usurpation of power.
Most respectfully, Firefly, u show too much respect for the State.
Our benefit, our liberty is better served by an attitude of ill will
and skepticism toward our disloyal employee who steals extra power from us
like a perfidious bank clerk pilfers from the vault.




Mame wrote:
Doctors swear to maintain life, not take it.
IF he took that oath at all,
he swore it to his medical school, not to his hireling employee, the State.




Mame wrote:
That's why euthanasia is such a hotly debated topic.
It is currently not legal to assist someone's death.
That means that our employee does not like it.
It does not mean that we don 't have the right to do it,
no matter WHAT our employee does not like.
Its an issue of personal freedom: OURS.

Our hireling does not care how much pain we suffer
nor how long we endure it at the end of our lives. WE care.
As jurors, we need to see to it that what WE want to do
is vindicated, not what the damned servant desires.

Jurors have been and can be freedom fighters.




Mame wrote:
This is not what this case is about but I wanted to counter your position.
Your comments are very welcome.

I will address your other posted concerns later,
in fuller detail.





David
0 Replies
 
firefly
 
  2  
Reply Sun 6 Nov, 2011 11:50 am
@Mame,
Quote:
Anyway, David's off in the boondocks on this one.

Ain't that the truth. Laughing
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Reply Sun 6 Nov, 2011 12:09 pm
@firefly,
Quote:
Anyway, David's off in the boondocks on this one.
firefly wrote:
Ain't that the truth. Laughing
I guess u can support the State instead of us,
if u wanna.





David
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Reply Sun 6 Nov, 2011 12:12 pm
@Mame,
Mame wrote:
Thanks for clearing those points up - I knew they weren't quite right, but fairly close.

And yes, it is a moral issue, but to me, his negligence is paramount.
Whatever his morals might be, his job is to save lives.

Anyway, David's off in the boondocks on this one.
It seems to me
that "his job" is what he and the person with whom he contracts (MJ)
define it to be. (not what their common employee wants it to be)

Before the American Revolution, sovereignty was in the King.

Now, sovereignty is in the CITIZENS, not in government.





David
0 Replies
 
maxdancona
 
  0  
Reply Sun 6 Nov, 2011 12:23 pm
@Mame,
This is an awfully big stretch...

Quote:
. He wanted some sleep. However, this is not so much a moral issue as it clearly is a negligence issue. He LEFT HIS PATIENT, whom he'd provided with a DRUG THAT IS LEGAL ONLY IN HOSPITALS, which should only be administered by professionals (one of which he was NOT),


If I have insomnia, I read a book. If it is a persistent problem I talk to a therapist or a specialist. If I need to I get a prescription for Lunestra or any of the legitimately prescribed treatments for insomnia.

I don't pay large amounts of money to find a doctor that will give me powerful drugs. The argument about whether the doctor's actions rise to the level of manslaughter is an interesting one.

But the bottom line is that Michael Jackson's behavior was extremely self destructive. It wasn't about "wanting sleep". It was about wanting powerful drugs that no reasonable adult would demand and any reasonable adult would know weren't appropriate.

Don't try to make Michael Jackson's actions in this case anything other than extremely self-destructive. I accept the point that this doesn't lessen the irresponsibility of the doctor. But Michael Jackson was not an innocent victim.






ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Nov, 2011 12:27 pm
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:

Don't try to make Michael Jackson's actions in this case anything other than extremely self-destructive.


Conrad Murray is on trial. Michael Jackson is not on trial.

Conrad Murray's actions are in question in this trial.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Nov, 2011 02:44 pm
@ehBeth,
maxdancona wrote:
Don't try to make Michael Jackson's actions in this case anything other than extremely self-destructive.
ehBeth wrote:
Conrad Murray is on trial. Michael Jackson is not on trial.
Conrad Murray's actions are in question in this trial.
Among his defenses (hopefully, in the eyes of the jury, if not formally on the record)
that MJ assumed the risks of taking aggressive doses of sedative drugs, in his desperation to sleep. I think that is plausible.





David
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Reply Sun 6 Nov, 2011 02:51 pm

I hope that the jurors will bear in mind
that the public NEEDS doctors who will take a liberal (deviant)
and libertarian vu of the applicable rules.

Suppose that u knew someone whose prognosis
was death in 2 months, after progressively worsening pain.
Regardless of government desires to the contrary,
such a person might well choose to forego life in those circumstances.

In such a case, loyalty to the wishes of our hireling (government)
shoud be subordinated to mercy for the Individual.

Do u disagree, Beth?

Do u disagree, Mame ?

( I do not imply that MJ wanted to die; he did not. )
I just wanna make a point of principle.





David
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 12/07/2022 at 06:31:45