On 8/31/2021 4:46 PM, Bernie Cosell wrote:
I've been pondering this decision [this from the guardian, but it's been reported elsewhere]:
People are not just flocking to agricultural outlets to buy the drugs –
they’re waging legal battles in order to have the privilege of
ingesting ivermectin. A judge in Ohio recently overruled hospital
officials’ advice and ordered that a desperately ill Covid patient be
treated with the drug after his wife brought a case arguing that he
should have the right to give it a go.
Now, I'm not arguing the patient's wish to use it. What I'm wondering is
how this kind of court order aligns with malpractice. If they guy gets
very very sick [perhaps dies] by screwing around with Ivermectic that the hospital tried to dissuade him from taking that, does he [or his heirs]
have any recourse? I'm hoping the answer is "no" - that the "right to give it a go" means that *he* is now responsible for it.
/Bernie\
I am not sure then news got it all straight. As I understand it,
another doctor ordered the drug but the hospital refused to administer it.
The doctor is Dr. Fred Wagshul, an Ohio physician who the lawsuit
identifies as “one of the foremost experts on using Ivermectin in
treating COVID-19.”
So any malpractice goes to Wagshul.
The problem really unapproved usage. Unapproved use of an approved drug
is often called “off-label” use. This term can mean that the drug is:
Used for a disease or medical condition that it is not approved to
treat, such as when a chemotherapy is approved to treat one type of
cancer, but healthcare providers use it to treat a different type of cancer.
Hydroxychloroquine for COVID falls into the same boat. The media was
telling everyone it a dangerous drug. My wife has been on it for six
years for rheumatoid arthritis. It has been prescribed for RA for year
and years.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)