Justthefacts
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2011
- Messages
- 4,072
- Points
- 0
And Murray was not even trained in using the stuff
There was a New york Post article from February 2000 mentioning Dr. Ratner giving propofol during his previous tour. I'm pretty sure Michael was given propofol during the History Tour.
Now, this is not to say the doctor used his best judgement or followed the routine protocols for the drug, but it is NOT against the law to use this drug, or any drug in a manner for something it is not specifically labeled for. In other words, though he used Propofol for sleep, it is not against the law and he was within his rights to do so.
The problem with what he did was not using the drug, but NOT having proper equipment to monitor the patient and equipment to provide emergency rescue care in case of an emergency. Folks, it doesn't even matter if he overdosed him or not. It matters that he didn't use the knowledge he was given as a professional to keep the patient (Michael) safe from harm from the drug.
Yes we know he didn't break any laws but what he did was unethical. you don't give anesthesia to someone for sleep. Any self respecting doctor would agree. If you are going to do something so stupid at least have all the proper equipment and monitor your patient.
It is for a hospital setting so basically it's for hospital use. Other than surgery why would someone need anesthesia?From reading many of the posts here I don't think many understand that Murray did not break the law, and they don't understand WHY because the news stories keep saying it was for hospital use only and that is not true.
I think it is good to know all sides of the issue to completely understand what is happening here and what may come out if there ever is a trial.
It is for a hospital setting so basically it's for hospital use. Other than surgery why would someone need anesthesia?
I understand but this is irrelevant to michael.Let me explain further. People receive this drug in dentists offices, when they receive procedures like a colonoscopy and they can receive them when they have plastic surgery and these are not all done in a hospital. There are people who are at home on Hospice and there are all sorts of things done outside hospitals. This was why I explained "OFF LABEL" use of the drug.
I understand but this is irrelevant to michael.
I didn't say the propofol was irrelevant, the who case revolves around it because that's what killed michael. You are posting information on how it's not illegal and can be used outside of a hospital. There is no way to justify murray's actions so what exactly is your point?No it is not. He used it for sleeping so it is entirely relevant.
I didn't say the propofol was irrelevant, the who case revolves around it because that's what killed michael. You are posting information on how it's not illegal and can be used outside of a hospital. There is no way to justify murray's actions so what exactly is your point?
I said hospital setting so basically a hospital, that's where this is used a majority of the time. I read your whole post and we agreed that it's not illegal but then you keep carrying on about other uses which i said are irrelevant to michael because murray wasn't using it for those purposes.You keep saying it is for hospital use only.
I never said it justifies Murrays actions. You didn't read my whole post.
I said hospital setting so basically a hospital, that's where this is used a majority of the time. I read your whole post and we agreed that it's not illegal but then you keep carrying on about other uses which i said are irrelevant to michael because murray wasn't using it for those purposes.
Where did you read propofol can be used off label for sleep?YES HE WAS. He used it OFF LABEL and thats what the whole post was about.
Where did you read propofol can be used off label for sleep?
If this story of Nurse Lee, telling Michael of the dangers of using propofol is true, then yes, Michael should have known that the drugs Murray gave him were fatal.
But in terms of who deserves the blame, that would depend on who came up with the brilliant idea that propofol was safe as long as Michael was monitored. If it was the anesthesiologist who supposedly accompanied him during the HIStory tour, then it means that Michael was going by past experience in choosing propofol as a solution now, and not a doctor's advice. In other words, he just went along with it because he didn't die before. What doesn't kill you, makes you stronger, yes? In my opinion, that definitely puts Michael at fault because he went with his own head, rather than a proper doctor's advice for treating insomnia.
I mean, just imagine a scenario. You are walking home from your friend's house and there are two paths, one is through the woods, and the other is your usual route. The former is a 10 minute walk back home, and the latter is a half an hour walk. You ask a nearby officer to escort you home, and he says, "Let's take the path through the woods, it's faster and it'll be safe as long as I am around". In the end, you make it through unscathed! Congratulations, you've just had one hell of an experience with the new route!
During your second visit, your friend warns you about the dangers of the woods, saying that it's full of wild animals. And you tell your friend, "Don't worry, I'll be safe as long as I have a police officer to escort me". As you are returning home, you walk up to the nearest police officer and you say, "I just need you to follow me home through the woods. I've been through there before anyway, so we'll definitely be safe." The officer seems hesitant, and so you offer him an extra bonus of $5 (god knows why, I'm just imagining here) to take you home, and he agrees.
As both of you are walking through the woods, a wolf jumps out and eats you, while the officer manages to flee. Who is at fault in this scenario, for the brilliant idea of walking through the woods because it was "safe" the first time round (a.k.a propofol as a cure for insomnia)?
This is just going by the favoured story of the media, that Michael went doctor-shopping for someone who would give him propofol.
However, if there was no such anesthesiologist during the HIStory tour, and Michael had never experienced propofol before, this would mean that Murray was the one to recommend propofol, and the one who reassured of its safety. In this case, coming back to my imaginary scenario. The first time you actually cross through the woods, you end up being eaten by a tiger (god knows what that's doing there, still imagination). You put your trust in the police officer's words, and you end up dead. Such a pity, do you deserve to be blamed if you had no idea of the dangers of the woods (until your friend told you on your second visit)?
I'm sure we can all agree that Murray himself should have known about the dangers of propofol, so he is not excused from the blame at all. It doesn't matter if he was desperate, of if he was starstruck by Michael. He took the risk upon himself by going beyond what a doctor should be doing. Just as in my imaginary scenario, the second police officer knew the woods was dangerous, that's why he hesitated. But he went with it because you waved a piece of paper in his face. He knew and yet, he didn't try his best to talk you out of it, the same as Murray probably didn't even try to talk Michael out of propofol. Nope, he tried to wean Michael off with even more drugs, and ended up killing him.
Nonetheless, if the first scenario is true, Michael, whether we like it or not, does deserve some blame. And indeed, he payed handsomely for it, he's dead isn't he? If Michael has to face the highest charge for his side of the blame, I don't want this doctor walking after a mere slap to the hand.
I said hospital setting and used in an actual hospital a majority of the time. Off label won't help murray's case because propofol is NEVER intended to be used for sleep so once again I don't see you point.This is what I am explaining to you. This is why I posted the whole thing about the FDA and how it works. You keep saying hospital only and I keep saying that its not that simple and people do things all the time that are not 'advertised' that way.
There are a lot of drugs that are used OFF LABEL which means they use them for other purposes than intended on the bottle. No one that works for the company or anyone from the FDA is going to say, it is ok. But it happens more often with many drugs than you realize.
Now, again, I will say that what was wrong here is that he didn't monitor properly, he didn't have the right equipment handy and thats where the manslaughter comes in.
I said hospital setting and used in an actual hospital a majority of the time. Off label won't help murray's case because propofol is NEVER intended to be used for sleep so once again I don't see you point.
He was wrong because he was inducing a coma in replace of sleep AND he didn't have the right equipment AND he failed to monitor him properly. Murray knew what he was doing was wrong. This wasn't just a one time thing, he claimed to have been giving michael this for weeks. He disregarded his oath and he failed to call for help immediately whenhe found michael is distress. Michael was dead long before the ambulance arrived, he just wanted to save his own behind. This is second degree murder.
Same goes for you because you don't seem to understand that anything murray tries to say won't justify his actions.Ok. I guess when and if they have a trial you will understand what I said better.
Are you a MJ fan? Because reading all of your 10 posts reflect different.
If this story of Nurse Lee, telling Michael of the dangers of using propofol is true, then yes, Michael should have known that the drugs Murray gave him were fatal.
But in terms of who deserves the blame, that would depend on who came up with the brilliant idea that propofol was safe as long as Michael was monitored. If it was the anesthesiologist who supposedly accompanied him during the HIStory tour, then it means that Michael was going by past experience in choosing propofol as a solution now, and not a doctor's advice. In other words, he just went along with it because he didn't die before. What doesn't kill you, makes you stronger, yes? In my opinion, that definitely puts Michael at fault because he went with his own head, rather than a proper doctor's advice for treating insomnia.
I mean, just imagine a scenario. You are walking home from your friend's house and there are two paths, one is through the woods, and the other is your usual route. The former is a 10 minute walk back home, and the latter is a half an hour walk. You ask a nearby officer to escort you home, and he says, "Let's take the path through the woods, it's faster and it'll be safe as long as I am around". In the end, you make it through unscathed! Congratulations, you've just had one hell of an experience with the new route!
During your second visit, your friend warns you about the dangers of the woods, saying that it's full of wild animals. And you tell your friend, "Don't worry, I'll be safe as long as I have a police officer to escort me". As you are returning home, you walk up to the nearest police officer and you say, "I just need you to follow me home through the woods. I've been through there before anyway, so we'll definitely be safe." The officer seems hesitant, and so you offer him an extra bonus of $5 (god knows why, I'm just imagining here) to take you home, and he agrees.
As both of you are walking through the woods, a wolf jumps out and eats you, while the officer manages to flee. Who is at fault in this scenario, for the brilliant idea of walking through the woods because it was "safe" the first time round (a.k.a propofol as a cure for insomnia)?
This is just going by the favoured story of the media, that Michael went doctor-shopping for someone who would give him propofol.
However, if there was no such anesthesiologist during the HIStory tour, and Michael had never experienced propofol before, this would mean that Murray was the one to recommend propofol, and the one who reassured of its safety. In this case, coming back to my imaginary scenario. The first time you actually cross through the woods, you end up being eaten by a tiger (god knows what that's doing there, still imagination). You put your trust in the police officer's words, and you end up dead. Such a pity, do you deserve to be blamed if you had no idea of the dangers of the woods (until your friend told you on your second visit)?
I'm sure we can all agree that Murray himself should have known about the dangers of propofol, so he is not excused from the blame at all. It doesn't matter if he was desperate, of if he was starstruck by Michael. He took the risk upon himself by going beyond what a doctor should be doing. Just as in my imaginary scenario, the second police officer knew the woods was dangerous, that's why he hesitated. But he went with it because you waved a piece of paper in his face. He knew and yet, he didn't try his best to talk you out of it, the same as Murray probably didn't even try to talk Michael out of propofol. Nope, he tried to wean Michael off with even more drugs, and ended up killing him.
Nonetheless, if the first scenario is true, Michael, whether we like it or not, does deserve some blame. And indeed, he payed handsomely for it, he's dead isn't he? If Michael has to face the highest charge for his side of the blame, I don't want this doctor walking after a mere slap to the hand.
Exactly! :clapping:Well, that's a nice little story, however, there is one major flaw in it. You walk through the woods with a policeman because you trust him to do his job: to protect you. That's why you ask a cop to accompany you and not some random stranger who doesn't have a clue about protection. A policeman just like a doctor shouldn't be swayed by money at all! They are supposed to do what is right! And the cop from your example should have known the dangers and he should have been prepared with weapons, just like Murray should have had monitors in the room. When you are an experienced cop (or doctor in this case), you don't behave amateurish, you are prepared! You also don't go to war without preparation. It's not up to the client to tell you want to do, it's up to the cop/doctor to tell their client what to do! HE is the expert. They are there to protect us, not the other way round. And when you have a job with a lot of responsibility like a policeman or a doctor and you mess up because of your negligence, you should be severely punished, because unlike the layman, you knew exactly what you were doing! You don't need the layman to tell you what or how to do things, because you are the expert.
Well, that's a nice little story, however, there is one major flaw in it. You walk through the woods with a policeman because you trust him to do his job: to protect you. That's why you ask a cop to accompany you and not some random stranger who doesn't have a clue about protection. A policeman just like a doctor shouldn't be swayed by money at all! They are supposed to do what is right! And the cop from your example should have known the dangers and he should have been prepared with weapons, just like Murray should have had monitors in the room. When you are an experienced cop (or doctor in this case), you don't behave amateurish, you are prepared! You also don't go to war without preparation. It's not up to the client to tell you want to do, it's up to the cop/doctor to tell their client what to do! HE is the expert. They are there to protect us, not the other way round. And when you have a job with a lot of responsibility like a policeman or a doctor and you mess up because of your negligence, you should be severely punished, because unlike the layman, you knew exactly what you were doing! You don't need the layman to tell you what or how to do things, because you are the expert.