4
   

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

 
 
Mame
 
  2  
Reply Sun 6 Nov, 2011 05:13 pm
@maxdancona,
I have already said he was responsible as well. But he didn't kill himself and he obviously didn't want to die (then or that way) - he was excited about the This Is It tour. Lots of people take drugs, legal and illegal, but when they're being administered by a professional, you tend to trust them (more than you would a dealer). His fate was in the doctor's hands.
0 Replies
 
Mame
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Nov, 2011 05:20 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
I believe in euthanasia and I wish it were legal. However, it's not worth the penalty to assist in an illegal endeavour.

If I had a friend such as you described, I'd beg the doctor for morphine to keep the pain at bay. But I am definitely NOT going to jail for helping them kill themselves while it's still illegal.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Nov, 2011 06:17 pm
@maxdancona,

Max,
Shoud I infer from your silence
toward my observations of your fundamental unfairness of mind (First page hereof, Post: # 4,783,555)
and your unfairness of public denunciation, that u CONFESS to them regarding the twice exonerated & vindicated late MJ ?
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Nov, 2011 06:28 pm
@maxdancona,
ERRATUM:
I said that MJ was exonerated of child abuse "twice".

That shoud be 3 times, counting the testimony in exculpation
from Macaulay Culkin. We don 't know how many times
he must be found innocent b4 u stop defaming MJ's memory.





David
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Nov, 2011 07:17 pm
@ehBeth,
It is obvious that Conrad Murray, not Michael Jackson, is on trial.

It is also obvious that the circumstance and actions of the alleged victim are important. An innocent victim who wasn't seeking drugs that any reasonable adult would understand are dangerous would completely change the nature of this crime.
Mame
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Nov, 2011 07:20 pm
@maxdancona,
You're so ready to convict MJ. We don't know what he was told by the doc about Propofal or any of the other things he was taking. It's the doctor's (and pharmacist's) responsibility to tell him. The fact that this idiot ordered 4 gallons of Propofal tells me he abrobated all of his responsibilities in favour of the almighty dollar.

MJ was sick, in many ways. An ethical caregiver would have tried to look after him instead of feeding into his issues.
0 Replies
 
firefly
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Nov, 2011 07:30 pm
@maxdancona,
Quote:
Don't try to make Michael Jackson's actions in this case anything other than extremely self-destructive.

According to a nurse, who had worked for Jackson, and who testified at the trial, MJ believed that Propofol was safe when administered by a doctor or medical professional.
I think Jackson apparently had been administered Propofol by a European doctor, an anesthesiologist, when he did a previous tour in Europe, and it seems that his concerns about getting enough sleep mainly surfaced when he did a tour and was worried about having the necessary energy to perform.
There is no indication that MJ was regularly receiving Propofol from any doctor before Dr. Murray came on the scene in May, 2009, about six weeks before MJ's death. It was Dr. Murray who regularly began giving him Propofol to help him get enough sleep so he could properly rehearse for his tour.

So, if Jackson believed Propofol was safe when administered by a physician I can't see where his desire for this particular drug was an indication he was self destructive. Propofol is not a drug of abuse--it's anesthesia, generally used for surgery, administered by IV--it's a hypnotic drug which puts one to sleep. And it is a very widely used anesthesia which is considered safe when administered under the proper conditions--i.e. administered by an anesthesiologist, in a medical setting with all necessary monitoring and resuscitation equipment, and where both the patient and monitoring equipment are constantly observed.
Quote:
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.

In the case of Propofol, I do believe it was all about "wanting sleep"--the drug really produces no other effects, it rapidly induces sleep, and rapidly wears off as soon as the IV drip is stopped.

I agree that most reasonable adults aren't going to demand anesthesia to treat their insomnia, but most reasonable doctors wouldn't suggest or administer it for insomnia either--but MJ found doctors who would do that, and he trusted those doctors to administer it safely.

Jackson had dependency problems with other prescription drugs, particularly benzodiazepines, and he took very high doses of those drugs because his tolerance for them had become so high, and he seems to have had no problems getting physicians to supply those for him. But those weren't the drugs that killed him. The cause of death was acute Propofol intoxication--the Propofol caused him to stop breathing, and, if you don't breath for several minutes, the heart stops beating. And Murray wasn't properly monitoring or observing Jackson so he couldn't immediately intervene and reverse the respiratory arrest.

Patients often stop breathing when they are given Propofol for surgery, this is not unexpected--that's why anesthesiologists must carefully monitor and observe the patient at all times, and they intervene immediately, correct the situation, and the patient generally suffers no ill effects. Sometimes all they have to is something as simple as lifting the patient's chin and normal breathing resumes--but that must be done immediately. Murray wasn't even in the room with Jackson when he stopped breathing.

If Dr. Murray had at least purchased all the necessary monitoring and resuscitation equipment needed to prevent and treat respiratory and cardiac arrest, it would have considerably increased the safe administration of the Propofol in Jackson's bedroom, and it would also have impressed MJ with the potential life-threatening risks of this drug. But, Dr. Murray didn't do those things. It still would have been inappropriate to treat insomnia with Propofol, or any anesthesia, but if Murray had bothered to get the proper equipment, he would have at least shown some concern for his patient's welfare and life.
Quote:
I accept the point that this doesn't lessen the irresponsibility of the doctor. But Michael Jackson was not an innocent victim.

Jackson was an innocent victim because he trusted this physician to safely administer that anesthesia to him. With regard to the Propofol, the responsibility was solely on the doctor, not Jackson, to make sure it was safely administered. Jackson's mistake was trusting this doctor.
0 Replies
 
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Nov, 2011 07:38 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:
ERRATUM:
I said that MJ was exonerated of child abuse "twice".

That shoud be 3 times, counting the testimony in exculpation
from Macaulay Culkin. We don 't know how many times
he must be found innocent b4 u stop defaming MJ's memory.


Erratum.

Michael Jackson was not found innocent. He was found not guilty. As someone with legal training you should understand the important difference between the two.

This will become relevant to this thread if Dr. Murray is found not guilty.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Nov, 2011 12:54 am
@maxdancona,
Quote:
ERRATUM:
I said that MJ was exonerated of child abuse "twice".

That shoud be 3 times, counting the testimony in exculpation
from Macaulay Culkin. We don 't know how many times
he must be found innocent b4 u stop defaming MJ's memory.
maxdancona wrote:
Erratum.

Michael Jackson was not found innocent. He was found not guilty.
As someone with legal training you should understand the
important difference between the two. [I guess u don 't approve of presumptions of innocence until conviction. David]

This will become relevant to this thread if Dr. Murray is found not guilty.
No, Max. I demand a re-count:
1. The boy who ripped MJ off for $20,000,000
now, in his 3Os publically says that MJ was innocent
of any misconduct with him. He & his dad just wanted the money.

2. MJ was accused of sexually abusing Macaulay Culkin,
who refuted that allegation, again declaring MJ's innocence.

3. The criminal trial jury declared him not guilty.

That makes 2 findings of innocence and 1 finding of no guilt,
yet u continue to drag his name thru the mud anyway. Shameful.

Note, incidentally, that many of his juvenile guests
have attested to his being very kind to them.

In my mind, that counts for something.





David
maxdancona
 
  2  
Reply Mon 7 Nov, 2011 08:14 am
@OmSigDAVID,
You should check your facts.

I assume you are talking about Jordan Chandler. This claim is untrue. He has not said publicly that Michael Jackson is innocent. This is a rumor that is part of the Michael Jackson fan cult. http://www.snopes.com/politics/sexuality/chandler.asp

Yes you are correct that Macaulay Culkin denied the charges. But this does not refute evidence in any other case.

Multimillionaires with cult followings can explain away almost anything.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Nov, 2011 11:48 am
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:
You should check your facts.

I assume you are talking about Jordan Chandler.
This claim is untrue.
He has not said publicly that Michael Jackson is innocent.
This is a rumor that is part of the Michael Jackson fan cult.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/sexuality/chandler.asp

Yes you are correct that Macaulay Culkin denied the charges.
But this does not refute evidence in any other case.
MJ never meant much to me because I have no interest in dancing
and his music is not to my taste; too noisy.
I never bought any of his art,
but your passion against him is driving u to being ILLOGICAL just to blacken his name.
(I tried to copy n paste the Snopes article, but that did not work out well; I can 't hi lite it.)

Snopes reflects discredit upon itself by reaching its conclusion of falsity
upon the basis of there having been only 1 statement from
the Mr. Chandler and that it was "poorly worded"
in addition to there not having been more publicity for it in the media.
THOSE r the criteria of Snopes's decision,
which u gleefully accept. I do not believe that u r REALLY that dum, nor gullible.
If Snopes had done the same to one of your heros, maybe Stalin or one of the Kennedys,
u 'd not likely have accepted that so quickly & uncritically.



Note also that it conveniently leaves out any mention of the tape of his father's
angry denunciation of MJ's recalcitrance in paying up
that was taped from the telefone (authenticity never denied).
I cannot remember his words well enuf to quote them,
but thay indicated a desire to rip him off (as his son later admitted to doing).

If anything, the ensuing silence from Mr. Chandler,
his NOT denying that he did admit to participation in the fraud,
shoud be deemed inculpatory.
It was an admission against interest.

Thank u for the Snopes article; it has educated me qua
the merit of Snopes, its poor credibility.

maxdancona wrote:
Multimillionaires with cult followings can explain away almost anything.
Maybe that is because thay r telling the truth.

On the other hand,
I must admit your point, insofar as Teddy Kennedy
never spent a minute in jail (let alone prison)
for the criminally negligent homicide (manslaughter??) of Mary Jo Kopechne,
wherein he intentionally withheld rescue efforts while she was
running out of oxygen in the cold water in his car,
while he was on the fone to his attorneys and his political advisors.
By the time that he eventually admitted the accident
any alcohol in his system had been metabolised and his friend,
his campaign worker, Mary Jo had run out of oxygen in her air pocket.
That was a cruel way to die, from that multimillionaire with a cult following.





David
0 Replies
 
firefly
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Nov, 2011 06:42 pm
Dr Conrad Murray was found GUILTY of involuntary manslaughter.

He was immediately remanded into custody, and he will be sentenced later this month.

In addition to facing up to 4 years in prison, it is also certain that his medical licenses will be revoked.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Nov, 2011 06:49 pm
@firefly,
Its a good day for government, its aggrandizement.

Its a bad day for personal freedom, its subjection.

Sad.

Its getting closer n closer:
its the destiny of our grandchildren to become the Borg.
Their only refuge, their only freedom will lie in eventual death.

The will of the Leader will be the only existing will; pure 1OO% collectivism, under ONE authority.
Marx 'd be proud; thrilled n proud.
firefly
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Nov, 2011 06:59 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:
Its a bad day for personal freedom,

Neither Dr. Murray, nor anyone else, has the right to kill another human being through reckless criminal negligence.

Doctors do not have a license to kill.

It's a good day for the justice system. The charges were appropriate given Dr. Murray's actions, and their effect in causing the death of another human being, and this was absolutely the correct verdict given the evidence presented at trial.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Nov, 2011 07:07 pm
@firefly,
Quote:
It's a good day for the justice system. The charges were appropriate
Which is so very rare these days.....
0 Replies
 
firefly
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Nov, 2011 07:23 pm
Quote:
Murray trial as allegory
November 03, 2011
Stephanie Bouchard, Associate Editor

Trial of King of Pop’s doc has lessons for the profession

LOS ANGELES – Watching Conrad Murray on trial for allegedly unintentionally killing pop star Michael Jackson allows us to indulge in voyeurism, but some also regard the trial as presenting an allegory of sorts, that has particular significance for doctors.

The trial offers different meanings depending on perspective but all have one thing in common: Doctors no longer can count on being considered inviolable

“Doctors used to be considered sacrosanct,” said William Kickham, a Boston-based attorney. “Let’s face it. Anyone who could see inside your body was considered almost priestly and the idea of holding someone legally accountable for a mistake was considered almost unthinkable, perhaps 40 or 50 years ago. But in the past 30 to 25 years, that has changed.”

The social compact between doctors and patients and doctors and the media that shielded them to some extent, is gone, said Kickham. That means doctors, whether they’re treating high-profile patients or not, are under increased scrutiny.

That erosion of the social compact coupled with struggling to handle reduced reimbursements and more regulations leads to disillusionment, which poses dangers in itself, said Carole Lieberman, MD, a Beverly Hills-based media psychiatrist.

“These conditions that doctors are facing are causing them consciously or unconsciously to cut corners and that’s where mistakes happen,” she said. “As soon as you let the patient be the boss, be the doctor, then that’s when things fall apart. It is a conflict but you have to decide where your ethical boundaries are.”

“Doctors must remember that there are very strict standards that guide their profession both ethically and under the law,” said Christopher Brown, an associate attorney at Florida-based, the Health Law Firm. “It would be prudent for physicians to use Dr. Murray's story as a lesson for what can happen when you operate outside your training and when you place your patient's requests over what may be medically appropriate or necessary.”

“While it is the physician’s job to be a confidant and an advisor to his or her patients, it is also that physician’s duty to be the patient’s caretaker, and to place that individual’s health and safety above all else,” Brown continued. “A physician who forgets this duty, and allows a patient to adversely control his or her own healthcare, can face discipline from his or her respective state’s licensing board, a potential malpractice action, or as in Dr. Murray's case, even criminal charges.”

If doctors take away anything from Murray’s trial it should be that the increased scrutiny coupled with the eroded social compact means doctors may find themselves in criminal courts rather than in civil ones.

“… with the reduction in the availability of civil remedies in malpractice cases, tort reform, lower required medical malpractice insurance limits and greater statutory bars to bringing civil suits against physicians, I have observed an increase in criminal prosecutions of physicians as well as increased disciplinary actions brought by state and federal regulators,” said George Indest III, founder of the Health Law Firm. “In the past, physicians were given a great deal of deference and were usually afforded the benefit of the doubt when their medical judgment was involved. This is not so prevalent today.”

“It’s always a fine line to draw what’s negligent,” said Larry Feldman, special counsel, litigation, Kaye Sholer, a global legal services company. (In 1993, Feldman represented a boy who accused Michael Jackson of child molestation.)

“What we’ve seen now in this case, what we’ve seen in the Anna Nicole Smith case, is a criminal system getting involved in the issues that I would think 10 years ago were just civil issues,” Feldman said.

“There’s no insurance coverage that’s going to protect doctors from these criminal charges."
http://www.healthcarefinancenews.com/news/murray-trial-allegory


0 Replies
 
firefly
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Nov, 2011 07:30 pm
Quote:
Dr. Conrad Murray Is Not a Lone Wolf Among Physicians
By Dr. Marc Siegel
October 31, 2011 | FoxNews.com

As justice closes in on Dr. Conrad Murray, and the final determinations are made about which drugs were administered to pop star Michael Jackson, when, and by whom and with what intent, a larger social question emerges. Was Jackson’s problem isolated? Is the excess prescribing of various narcotics and sedatives a pervasive one among doctors and their patients, or is Dr. Murray a lone wolf? Is there a culture of misuse and enabling which enriches corrupt physicians even as it addicts patients?

The answer is an unfortunate...yes.

At a time of terrible drug shortages of lifesaving medication in the U.S., on the other side of the equation prescription drug abuse is a growing problem with doctors as willing participants or even users themselves.

Propofol overdose, the likely cause of death in Jackson’s case, is a commonly abused drug. There are five times as many cases of propofol abuse than there were ten years ago. In fact, studies show that one in five anesthesiology programs reported a case of propofol abuse by medical professionals.

But the problem is hardly limited to the drug known as “the milk of anesthesia” for its effectiveness. The National Survey on Drug Use and Health reports that more than 7 million people in the U.S. abuse prescription drugs.

The largest problem of all is painkiller addiction. Jackson appears to have been in that group with his alleged dependence on the popular narcotic Demerol.

Unfortunately, these pain medications are often prescribed by doctors without expertise in pain management, as was allegedly the case with Jackson’s dermatologist, Dr. Klein. The doctors who most often prescribe narcotics for supposed pain are family practitioners, followed by internists and dentists.

A survey from IMs Health, a health consulting firm, reveals that Americans take 80 percent of the painkillers in the world, a shocking percentage. But painkillers are overused and abused in part because doctors like Murray and KIein overprescribe them, making large quantities readily available. Though more than half a million doctors prescribe narcotic painkillers in the U.S., it is a small number who prescribe the largest amounts.

The numbers here are getting worse. IMS Health has determined that there are 50 percent more narcotics prescribed in the U.S. than a decade ago. Vicodin (which is less restricted) use alone has grown from 116 million prescriptions in 2006 to 131 million prescriptions this past year.

Perhaps most concerning of all are the number of accidental overdoses resulting from this overuse. According to the Centers of Disease Control and Prevention, 17 states report that accidental overdose kills more people than motor vehicle accidents.

What is to be done?

In Florida, which leads the country in prescription drug misuse, where buses of patients arrive from neighboring states seeking painkillers (known as the "Oxycontin Express"), attempts are being made to clamp down on doctors who sell painkillers for profit. The Florida Board of Medicine is partnering with the US Drug Enforcement Agency to close illegitimate “pain clinics,” to track bulk purchases of narcotics, and to identify and punish bad doctors who write prescriptions without even examining the patient.

It remains to be seen whether such actions in Florida and other states will be sufficient or will just lead to more demand for grey and black market alternative sources. One thing’s for certain; this problem of over-prescribing prescription drugs, especially painkillers, won’t be solved overnight.

The place to start is with the worst enablers, but for every one who is sent to prison, there are hundreds more for hire with prescription and pen in hand.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/10/31/dr-conrad-murray-is-not-lone-wolf-among-physicians/
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Nov, 2011 05:54 am
@firefly,
firefly wrote:

Quote:
Its a bad day for personal freedom,

Neither Dr. Murray, nor anyone else, has the right to kill another human being through reckless criminal negligence.

Doctors do not have a license to kill.
It is more likely than not
that decedent secretly poisoned himself
with an accidental overdose, in defendant's absence.

There shoud have been an acquital.





David
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Nov, 2011 09:44 am
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:
It is more likely than not
that decedent secretly poisoned himself
and you could have proven this how?
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Nov, 2011 10:07 am
@OmSigDAVID,
When I started my thread I didn't see this one. I am sorry for butting in with another thread. I'm reading this one! It's much more interesting!
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 12/07/2022 at 07:33:04