Politicians will now decide what treatment should be given to patients.

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

alpha12

Membership Revoked
Removed
15+ Year Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2008
Messages
762
Reaction score
690
Doctors, hospitals and parents sometimes clash over the course of treatment for children with life-threatening illnesses, requiring the courts to decide. Courts often hear cases involving mental health and whether an evaluation and treatment should be ordered for someone who doesn't want it or isn’t able to get it. Hospitals and families sometimes disagree on terminating life support.

But even Smith’s attorney, Ralph Lorigo, called it very unusual for a judge to order a specific medicine to be given to a patient, according to the Buffalo News.
Who needs healthcare workers anyway?

Members don't see this ad.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Judges are politicians?
yes. what's worse is some of them are unelected. So unelected politicians might be deciding what treatment you can and can't get. Disgrace.
 
so a question I have - was this a case of
1. The pt insisting but no doctor would prescribe and the judge is making the dr prescribe?
2. There was a prescribing doctor but the pharmacy/nurse via administration refuses to dispense/administer?

IF it is #2 - I don't have a huge problem with it - even though I think it is a quack treatment and respect a pharmacists ability to not dispense something they feel (meaning have evidence to support - not just based on their beliefs) could harm a patient - provided the release from liability does so 100% and there is absolutely no legal recourse whatsoever.

We do something somewhat similiar when a pt insists on using their own medication that we have on formulary, or when they manage their own insulin pump. The pt has to sign a release of liability if absolutely anything goes wrong that could potentially be tracked back to the offending agent.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
so a question I have - was this a case of
1. The pt insisting but no doctor would prescribe and the judge is making the dr prescribe?
2. There was a prescribing doctor but the pharmacy/nurse via administration refuses to dispense/administer?

IF it is #2 - I don't have a huge problem with it - even though I think it is a quack treatment and respect a pharmacists ability to not dispense something they feel (meaning have evidence to support - not just based on their beliefs) could harm a patient - provided the release from liability does so 100% and there is absolutely no legal recourse whatsoever.

We do something somewhat similiar when a pt insists on using their own medication that we have on formulary, or when they manage their own insulin pump. The pt has to sign a release of liability if absolutely anything goes wrong that could potentially be tracked back to the offending agent.
it is number 2. I don't agree with it because the doctor is from outside the hospital. Anyone now can get any nutjob doctor to prescribe anything and hospitals will need to treat them even if they don't agree with it.
 
it is number 2. I don't agree with it because the doctor is from outside the hospital. Anyone now can get any nutjob doctor to prescribe anything and hospitals will need to treat them even if they don't agree with it.
does this doctor have privileges? If not - then I am on board with you- can a judge force a hospital to grant privileges? - if he does have privileges, I stand by earlier statement - If he does and the hospital has a problem with it (which they obviously do) there is a process to go about revoking them (I have seen it)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
does this doctor have privileges? If not - then I am on board with you- can a judge force a hospital to grant privileges? - if he does have privileges, I stand by earlier statement - If he does and the hospital has a problem with it (which they obviously do) there is a process to go about revoking them (I have seen it)
Sounds like they don't. The patient just found a random doctor to prescribe it and not affiliated with the hospital.
 
I don't agree with the precedent this ruling sets, but I'm surprised the hospital even let this go to trial. How many times have these providers refused to prescribe a zpak for a viral infection when the patient demanded it?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I don't agree with the precedent this ruling sets, but I'm surprised the hospital even let this go to trial. How many times have these providers refused to prescribe a zpak for a viral infection when the patient demanded it?
ICU docs are not the same as Urgent Care docs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I think we can all agree from how this pandemic has played out & continues that politicians, journalists, news/media/etc. are clearly unfit to have ANY meaningful authority or even say in matters of medicine & healthcare. The blatant lack of background education & experience is apparent & just leads to greater chaos/confusion/disorder/irrationality for the masses
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Heard on the radio the other day, the worst job during pandemic is restaurant worker and teacher. No mention of healthcare workers at all. How about ICU nurse?
Yes but at least nurses be getting paid.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
While I disagree with the ruling, as others have mentioned, this wasn't a case of the patient asking the doctor to prescribe/order the drug for him. There was an actual licensed doctor who was saying the patient needed the drug. I also agree with others that a doctor who doesn't have privilege's at the hospital, has no right to be demanding certain drugs for the patient. My thinking is, if the patient trust this doctor, more than the doctors treating him at the hospital, then he is free to check out AMA and then get treatment with that doctor.
But, in no way was the judge trying to practice medicine, he just sided with the non-affiliated doctor over the hospital-affiliated doctors, perhaps it was a bad ruling on the judges part, perhaps it was bad legal on the hospitals part--I don't know enough about how the case was presented to have an opinion on that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

Another judge reversed order

Ralph Lorigo, one of the attorneys representing Julie Smith, said they will not appeal Oster’s decision since Jeffery Smith already received 13 days of doses and the hospital said they are ready to take him off the ventilator soon.

“Julie has won this case; I don’t care what this judge says,” Lorigo told the outlet. “We are believers he’s going to survive because of ivermectin.”

You have to be ****ing kidding me.
 
How are politicians not going after the quacks who do stem cell, thermography, iv infusions, if they don't think people should be able to prescribe just anything?
 
Top