Dr. Conrad Murray Found Guilty

@spendius,

Really. Well, I found this:

1. cow 1448 up, 195 down
Someone who blocks the aisles in a grocery store with their massive girth.

and this:

2. A term for a nasty, stupid, and/or promiscuous person (usually female), despite that cows are cute and relatively intelligent animals.

and this:

cow 413 up, 127 down
3. Some girl who is being a total bitch, particularyly offensive as it is basically calling them fat, and we know they dont like that.
"You ******* cow"
"**** off you cow"
"You cow!"

and this:

4. cow 204 up, 65 down
The word 'cow' is also a moderately offensive insult in the United Kingdom towards a woman who is supremely unpleasant.
"You fat cow!"

Nothing about endearments anywhere there.

1 Reply

I wish people cared for me enough to write me scrips for whatever I wanted in whoever's name I happened to choose. No one loves me that much Crying or Very sad

1 Reply

@spendius,

Quote:

First Dr Murray is "average" and then "posh" clients, as MJ was, "seek out and want the most highly qualified doctors".

Dr Murray was not a "posh" doctor by anyone's standards--he wasn't even board certified in his areas of practice. He did not treat a "posh" patient clientale--his patients were average, or even indigent--and the defense presented patient witnesses at the trial to attest to that.

Most very wealthy clients do seek out the best, most highly qualified and highly professionally regarded doctors they can find, because they want to receive the best possible medical care for themselves, and they can afford to pay for it. That does not apply to someone, like MJ, who used doctors mainly to supply drugs, rather than to actually address and treat medical conditions. You don't hire a cardiologist to treat insomnia, let alone to treat it with anesthesia. MJ had no cardiac problems--his heart was found to be in very good shape at autopsy.

If MJ had sought out only the most highly qualified doctors, he wouldn't have wanted Murray. He might have more logically sought out a board certified anesthesiologist to administer Propofol, if he could have found one willing to do that in his bedroom, which is extremely unlikely.

MJ had money and he found a greedy, and basically unethical, physician who thought he could make a lot of easy money by practicing way outside of his area of medical competence, and by providing treatment he was not qualified to provide, and who wound up delivering such reckless and grossly negligent care to his patient that it killed him. And, for that, Conrad Murray is criminally responsible.

0 Replies

@firefly,

Firefly,
If u feel like it, u might address my jurisdictional challenge
to California 's drug control law, to wit:

Just speaking as an American citizen,
I wanna offer the opinion, that I consider it very unlikely
that the State had any authority to enact that "law";
i.e., when the government of California was created
by the citizens, (in my opinion) it is very unlikely
that those citizens, in effect, said to their baby
(the newly created government, in its constitution)
anything like:
" if we are too stupid in our personal choices,
then we want u, the State, to watch us and to break in on us
and make us do what YOU want us to do
because, being a government, you are smarter
than we are and we respect your judgment better than our own,
because we (your creators) are stupider than you, our creation."
I doubt that that happened. Accordingly, if such jurisdiction
was not granted to the State, then its jurisdiction to control
what the citizens ingest was STOLEN (usurped) and fraudulent jurisdiction.
If that is so, then it shoud be deemed void.
That 's how it seems to me.

Admittedly: I don 't know the law of California,
nor do I know California 's constitutional history.

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

The drug control laws apply to the physicians, and they help track the number of prescriptions for controlled substances that a physician writes in the course of each month.

It could be argued that such constraints on a physician are designed to protect the public from those doctors who might recklessly dispense such potentially addictive drugs.

What gives any patient the right to have unlimited access to any prescription drug, whether it's controlled or not?

I think the state does have the right to regulate medical practice, to insure the general welfare, and to protect consumers of medical services.

1 Reply

@firefly,

I 'm not sure whether I have expressed my argument with sufficient clarity.

I expressed doubt that the citizens who created the government
of California gave government that jurisdiction
to control them in so personal and private a manner;
i.e., protecting them from their own poor judgement,
as distinct from protecting them from the abuses of OTHERs.

David

2 Replies

@Mame,

But a moocow is not like that at all Mame.

The first sentence of Portrait of an Artist as a Young Man by James Joyce reads--

Quote:

Once upon a time and a very good time it was there was a moocow coming down along the road and this moocow that was coming down along the road met a nicens little boy named baby tuckoo.

Okay?

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

I roughly agree with you Dave.

0 Replies

@spendius,

wow - you must really be so smart - to know the law even these tiny remote countries - I'm damn impressed.

1 Reply

@blueveinedthrobber,

they would if you had millions

1 Reply

@firefly,

Quote:

The defense had originally wanted to blame MJ's dermatologist as well, for giving MJ high doses of Demerol by injection which might have contributed to his insomnia, but, since MJ had no Demerol in his system at the time of his death, the judge would not allow that sort of evidence to be presented because it was irrelevant to the issue of Murray's guilt or innocence in causing MJ's death.

I don't think the judge should have done that. The defence might have been allowed to pursue the point for a while. The judge could have stopped it if it was leading nowhere later.

And then he allows Mr White to spout drivel such as this-

Quote:

“I wouldn’t even consider it,” he added. "It's something no amount of money could convince me to take on."

which is meaningless. Pure self-regarding speculation. White has no idea what he would have done in Dr Murray's position.

1 Reply

@Linkat,

Quote:

wow - you must really be so smart - to know the law even these tiny remote countries - I'm damn impressed.

Yeah--it's in Rabelais. All lawyers are shysters. Right around the globe. You need not be smart to know that. Just not being stupid is sufficient.

1 Reply

@Linkat,

Quote:

they would if you had millions

In which case Dr Murray is only guilty of working for MJ.

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

I 'm not sure whether I have expressed my argument with sufficient clarity.

I expressed doubt that the citizens who created the government
of California gave government that jurisdiction
to control them in so personal and private a manner;
i.e., protecting them from their own poor judgement,
as distinct from protecting them from the abuses of OTHERs.

But the state doesn't protect people from their own poor judgment. It certainly didn't protect MJ from his own poor judgment in wanting general anesthesia to help him sleep. It didn't stop him from finding a physician and asking him to administer Propofol for that reason.

And the state didn't prevent Conrad Murray from administering Propofol to MJ. As a licensed physician, Murray legally administered a legal drug to him.

But Murray so recklessly disregarded the medical standard of care that should accompany administration of this drug that it was an abuse of his patient--how much more abusive can you get when your extreme negligence winds up killing the patient?

It's not a private matter when you have flagrant medical malpractice and violations of medical ethics--it's a matter for the medical profession itself, and a matter for the state in it's licensing and disciplinary capacity, and it's a matter for medical consumers who have a right to be aware of, and protected from, such abusive practices and practitioners.

So, I think we view these things quite differently.

I'm delighted that I can now look up physicians on my state Web site to see if disciplinary actions or malpractice actions were taken against them. I want to have confidence im my medical practitioners. As a consumer, I don't want this info kept private. And I don't want the state, or the medical profession, to turn a bind eye toward malpractice. I can still choose to consult a doctor with a lousy track record, but I'd prefer not to if I can avoid it.

1 Reply

@spendius,

Quote:

All lawyers are shysters

I wonder if David agrees with you about that.

1 Reply

@firefly,

Or Joefromchicago...

1 Reply

@Mame,

Oh--they will both know deep down in their heart of hearts. I wouldn't insult their intelligence by suggesting otherwise.

0 Replies

@firefly,

Quote:

But the state doesn't protect people from their own poor judgment. It certainly didn't protect MJ from his own poor judgment in wanting general anesthesia to help him sleep. It didn't stop him from finding a physician and asking him to administer Propofol for that reason.

That seems to me to be saying that the state has been reckless, negligent and irresponsible.

A drug with the dangers you are saying Probofol carries would, here, be subject to stringent controls. Every drop would have to be signed for, accounted for and the use justified. It seems to be swilling around in your state controlled situation to the extent that people, even off duty anesthetists, are shooting it up for fun.

The state seems to me to have so recklessly disregarded the medical standard of care that should accompany administration of this drug that it was an abuse of its subjects.

I think I prefer being the subject of Her Majesty, enthroned, than the subject of a state.

1 Reply

@spendius,

Quote:

The defense had originally wanted to blame MJ's dermatologist as well, for giving MJ high doses of Demerol by injection which might have contributed to his insomnia, but, since MJ had no Demerol in his system at the time of his death, the judge would not allow that sort of evidence to be presented because it was irrelevant to the issue of Murray's guilt or innocence in causing MJ's death.

Quote:

“I wouldn’t even consider it,” he added. "It's something no amount of money could convince me to take on."

If that juxtaposition of what this judge allows is not evidence of a show trial I don't know what is.

1 Reply

@spendius,

It is a professional opinion, perfectly relevant within the context of expert testimony.

1 Reply

Dr. Conrad Murray Found Guilty

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know