They are required to give potentially toxic, unapproved treatment and either way if he dies the wife will probably sue.
Hopefully if he does die, the legal liability passes to the court and judge, not the doctor, since the doctor was being forced.
Just when you think you’ve heard ALL the insanity…
Boy, talk about your judicial activism. What next, judges engineering bridges?
Move the guy out of ER and deliver him to this Dr. Wagshull’s clinic.
If I read the article right the wife, acting as her husband’s guardian, received a prescription for dewormer from a doctor. The hospital refused to implement the treatment and she’s now got a judicial decision making them do so.
I keep hoping American medical boards and bar association start smacking down the idiots and cons amongst themselves but it seems unlikely.
My god, these people make up some stupid fucking reasons to justify their means (and I don’t even think they know what their ends are).
They don’t want to take the vaccine because it’s not (or it wasn’t) approved. But they’ll take Ivermectin even those same exact people that haven’t (or hadn’t) approved it, have also not approved Ivermectin (for this virus or in humans).
Then, they’ll go on and on and on about how all the evidence showing this or that about covid or it’s vaccine is bullshit, but at the same time state “the science behind Ivermectin’s use in COVID-19 patients is “irrefutable.”” The only evidence I know of, beyond anecdotal evidence is what’s linked in the article, which I have no interest in reading (though it’s just a PDF if someone else wants to), but a doctor had this to say about it " there are some serious problems with its cited studies: many of them don’t show positive results, and those that do bear design flaws like small control groups, unaccounted for variables, nonblinded studies, not accounting for mitigations like vaccines and masking practices, and others."
Also, the article says that the person has no financial interest in Ivermectin, and I’m sure he doesn’t, however, I think it should noted that founder of a group that’s pushing Ivermectin. Maybe he’ll get it and maybe he’ll die and maybe that will change a few people’s minds.
One last thing, I find it amusing that there’s a picture of a protester holding a sign saying “Ivermectin cured me of Covid”, clearly not understanding that correlation does not equal causation and that “Ivermectin cured me of the common cold” would be just as true if I had a cold, took Ivermectin and then didn’t have a cold a few days later.
This whole thing seems odd. I know there are cases where the courts have to step in to medical cases, but I feel like this one should be classified as a ‘right to die’ case. That is, format it as the family requesting the courts step in and order the doctors to stop life safing measures and give him this experimental drug, understanding that he will likely die due to their choices here and the doctors will not be responsible for it.
I could see boards revoking medical licenses, but I don’t think judges will be removed or layers disbarred. If he really has a prescription for it, then at least there’s a “legitimate” case to be made. The prescribing doctor may be wrong, but that should, maybe, remove the judge from getting in trouble. Plus, as I was saying earlier, there are medical cases which require intervention from the courts and I don’t think you’d want to start removing judges for making the ‘wrong’ decisions.
A similar case:
We don’t know if the inmates can ask for a second opinion, can say no, have been told this is utterly insane, etc.
Well, my I give it to my dog every month for heartworm prevention, and SHE hasn’t gotten heartworms OR COVID.
Ivermectin has been approved for use in humans. It hasn’t been approved for treating this, or any, virus - it’s an anti-parasite drug. It’s more commonly used in animals, and using veterinary doses of ivermectin to treat COVID-19 in humans is very dangerous. I Am Not A Doctor, so I don’t know how risky the dosages prescribed in this case are, but this isn’t necessarily a particularly dangerous treatment. But since it has no possible benefit, any risk is medically unjustified.
That’s my fault, I knew I shouldn’t have made that statement without looking it up first.
I think a big part of the problem is, like hydroxychloroquine, that you’re taking it away from the people (or animals) that actually do need it while simultaneously delaying your own treatment. And that’s not counting how many people die as a result of believing the news or their president or their friends and taking these meds (or not taking the vaccine).
Having had cancer, I assure you that there are canceridiots as well who swear by nonsense cures and dangerous interventions while railing against available medical treatments. It’s not just COVID that brings out the odd treatment logic (sic).
I do understand that desperate people will want to try anything. That said, I don’t think a hospital should be required to follow the prescription of any random doctor. There is a reason that it takes screwing to get hospital privileges. I would say that if the wife wants him to prescribe for the patient, she should transfer him to a hospital where he has privileges and can be the accepting MD.
I’m wondering what impact this has on a doctor’s Hippocratic oath. I realize it’s largely ceremonial now, but how can a judge force a doctor to do something the doctor believes to be harmful to the patient?
Yeah, this. He’s the quack recommending it, he should be the quack that administers it and can be held completely responsible for it.
What happens if the doctors relieve themselves from his case? I’m guessing the hospital (or the group) has some type of contingency plan in place for what happens when no one is willing to work with a patient for one reason or another.
Plus, presumably the wife picked up the meds on her own. If they’re in pill form she can give them to him (if he’s awake/alert enough to take pills). I’m guessing no one will physically stop her from doing so and just make a note in his chart that she gave him these meds AMA.
That’s not a bad idea. I don’t know how privileges work beyond the very basics. Could any hospitals where he has privileges revoke them if they felt this was about to happen?
I wonder if it would make things better or worse if they [whomever makes these decisions] temporarily made Ivermectin prescription only and had all non pharmacy locations pull it from their shelves. We could find a way so animal owners can still easily obtain a prescription for it and I’m sure some will still be diverted, most non-animal owners won’t be able to get it while people that actually need it can.
OTOH, if someone really thinks they know some secret information about Ivermectin that the government is hiding, well, maybe they should be given the chance to prove it. Like the anti-vaxxers, they’re mostly going to be thinning their own crowd. There’s going to be some unintended fallout, but short of physically forcing everyone to get vaccinated, we’re running out of options. How much time and money do you spend on people that aren’t going to change their minds?
Normal-ish. 30mg is about right for a ~300lb human. For parasite treatment, anyway, which is ~0.15 -0.2mg per kg. Seems risky at any level for a treatment that has yet to be shown to act as an anti-viral
I was going to post this in the Pit, but I see someone beat me to the story first.
Even if the lawyer isn’t disbarred, they’re probably going to get into some trouble for practicing medicine without a license. The doctor themselves may too, for writing outside their scope of practice (i.e. ordering a veterinary medication). I know ivermectin is available for human use, but I suspect that wasn’t what the doctor was doing.
BTW, ivermectin was believed to relieve some of the symptoms, not kill the virus; same with hydroxychloroquine.
It’s probably too much to hope that the doctor being sued here told the judge that he doesn’t come down to where he works and slap dicks out of his mouth.
Just to be clear, I’m very much on the hospital’s side here. But I can’t see how the lawyer would be subject to disbarment, or to being charged with practicing medicine without a license. The wife, who definitely has legal standing to sue over her husband’s treatment, apparently had a valid prescription. Her lawyer is just presenting her case to the court. I can’t see how the lawyer is doing anything unethical much less illegal, unless it’s somehow proven they knew for a fact that ivermectin was a useless and dangerous treatment, and were intentionally trying to poison the husband, or something.
Again, ivermectin is actually approved for use in humans, albeit as an anti-parasite medication, not an anti-viral. But doctors can prescribe approved medications for “off-label” use. Unless he’s specifically prescribing veterinary ivermectin, and all indications are that he prescribed appropriated dosages, he’s not doing anything illegal, either. He might be doing something unethical, in prescribing a fundamentally useless medication, but state medical boards are usually pretty loathe to go after quacks in situations like this. Stanislaw Burzynski has been peddling quack cancer treatments for decades, and he’s been fined and suffered some other penalties, but he still has his license, and is still conducting his “clinical trials”.
The next step should be for the hospital to ask an appeals court for an emergency stay of the order to administer ivermectin.
The physician prescribing the ivermectin in the Ohio case is a real piece of work. From USA Today:
“In an interview with the Ohio Capital Journal, (Fred) Wagshul said the science behind Ivermectin’s use in COVID-19 patients is “irrefutable.” The CDC and FDA engaged in a “conspiracy,” he said, to block its use to protect the FDA’s emergency use authorization for COVID-19 vaccines. He said the mainstream media and social media companies have been engaging in “censorship” on Ivermectin’s merits, and that the U.S. government’s refusal to acknowledge its benefits amounts to genocide.”
“Ivermectin is so safe,” said Dr. Fred Wagshul, medical director at Lung Center of America in Centerville. “It essentially has no drug interactions and no side effects."
Apparently Wagshul is ignorant of or overlooking the side effects, which include headache, dizziness and nausea, with confusion, balance problems, tachycardia and visual disturbance/eye pain in some cases. It’s considered relatively non-toxic, but the bar should be set very high for a drug without proven benefit.