Latest on MJJC

Comment on news about the trial

nena said:
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.
Click to expand...

I watched some reporter asking Ratner whether he did, or he did not.

He didn't give an answer but just said not to want to talk about it.

Ratner is shady.
 
Hi. I just want to explain the use of Propofol for sleep for those of you who are still thinking it has to be in a hospital or that Murray was not trained to use this drug. First of all, Murray is a cardiologist who performed cardiac catheterizations and other procedures that would require sedation. It is possible/probable that he had experience with Propofol.

There is also something called OFF LABEL use of a drug.

The FDA approves a drug for prescription use, and will continue to regulate the pharmaceutical industry through the work of the Division for Drug Marketing, Advertisement and Communication (DDMAC).[3] The FDA does not have the legal authority to regulate the practice of the medicine, and the physician may prescribe a drug off label. Contrary to popular notion, it is legal in the United States and in many other countries to use drugs off label, including controlled substances such as opiates. Actiq, for example, is commonly prescribed off label even though it is a Schedule II controlled substance. While it would be legal for a physician to independently decide to prescribe a drug such as Actiq off-label, it is illegal for the company to promote off-label uses to prescribers. In fact, Cephalon, the maker of Actiq, was fined for illegal promotion of the drug in September 2008.[4] Under the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDAC) at U.S.C. 21 §§301-97, manufacturers are prohibited from directly marketing a drug for a use other than the FDA approved indication. The Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997 created an exception to the prohibition of off-label marketing. Manufacturers are now able to provide medical practitioners with off-label information in response to an unsolicited request. 21 U.S.C. §360aaa-6.

Off-label use of medications is very common. Up to one-fifth of all drugs are prescribed off label and amongst psychiatric drugs, off-label use rises to 31% (Radley, et al. 2006).[5] New drugs are often not tested for safety and efficacy specifically in children. Therefore, it is believed that 50-75% of all medications prescribed by pediatricians in the U.S. are for off-label indications.[6]

A study published in 2006 found that off-label use was the most common in cardiac medications and anticonvulsants. This study also found that 73% of off-label use had little or no scientific support [7]

Some drugs are used more frequently off label than for their original, FDA-approved indications. A 1991 study by the U.S. General Accounting Office found that one-third of all drug administrations to cancer patients were off label, and more than half of cancer patients received at least one drug for an off-label indication. A 1997 survey of 200 cancer doctors by the American Enterprise Institute and the American Cancer Society found that 60% of them prescribed drugs off label.[8]. Frequently, the standard of care for a particular type or stage of cancer involves the off-label use of one or more drugs. An example is the use of tricyclic antidepressants to treat neuropathic pain. This old class of antidepressants is now rarely used for clinical depression due to side effects, but the tricyclics are often effective for treating pain

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.
 
What I do not understand is that it seems to me that people put the "drug addict" label on Michael without even knowing what his problems were. Just the fact that he was given (allegedly after his request) Propfol to SLEEP, shows that this was not the usual case of someone wanting to get "high".If you do not get to sleep, your whole system will be in trouble. People get desperate if sleep deprived for a long time. There are numerous clinical trials showing the effects of lack of sleep. And there are well known side effects to most sleep medication. Lack of sleep cloud peoples judgment, and leave them vulnerable to options that are dangerous. The point is the reasons why Michael took the medication; and in my opinion it was largely due to the situation he had lived with for so many years. The never ending attacks by media and others and by a lack of understanding who this man realy was. A human being who was kind, generous, trying to do something good, trying to uphold his ideals and beliefs- and being attacked for it from every angle. Sorry for being "off topic"- and angry. I just get tired by the fact that people continue to be blind to their own contribution- the journalists should ask WHY Michael was in this position.But that would have led them to look at what their part in this is.
 
Beachlover said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
nena said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Beachlover said:
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.
Click to expand...
It is for a hospital setting so basically it's for hospital use. Other than surgery why would someone need anesthesia?
 
nena said:
It is for a hospital setting so basically it's for hospital use. Other than surgery why would someone need anesthesia?
Click to expand...

Ok. Obviously you didn't read my post or you didn't understand what it says.
 
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.
 
Beachlover said:
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.
Click to expand...
I understand but this is irrelevant to michael.
 
Beachlover said:
No it is not. He used it for sleeping so it is entirely relevant.
Click to expand...
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?
 
nena said:
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?
Click to expand...

You keep saying it is for hospital use only.

I never said it justifies Murrays actions. You didn't read my whole post.
 
Beachlover said:
You keep saying it is for hospital use only.

I never said it justifies Murrays actions. You didn't read my whole post.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Its really painfully sad when celebs died from prescription drugs the media screams drug overdose or they kill themselves what kills me about all these news reports they act like these professional so called doctors to the stars etc are angles they can careless about if they live or not as long as they get paid. dr.Killarad has a history of fraud Dateline even did a special on Michael and a lot of people who had problems with dr.killarad spoke on dude and how he a fraud. now i see why so many celebs case's go unsolved thanks to the haters and their wrongful judgment
 
nena said:
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.
Click to expand...

YES HE WAS. He used it OFF LABEL and thats what the whole post was about.
 
nena said:
Where did you read propofol can be used off label for sleep?
Click to expand...

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.
 
wolfrevenant said:
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.
Click to expand...

Are you a MJ fan? Because reading all of your 10 posts reflect different.
 
Beachlover said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Last edited:
nena said:
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.
Click to expand...

Ok. I guess when and if they have a trial you will understand what I said better.
 
Beachlover said:
Ok. I guess when and if they have a trial you will understand what I said better.
Click to expand...
Same goes for you because you don't seem to understand that anything murray tries to say won't justify his actions.
 
Last edited:
mjalwaysonmymind said:
Are you a MJ fan? Because reading all of your 10 posts reflect different.
Click to expand...

Yes I am, but I try my best not to become biased, I try to look from a reasonable person's perspective. Rather than, "OMG, he killed Michael! He's definitely part of a conspiracy to murder and destroy Michael!" Because the fact is, the jury won't compose of any MJ fans, so any argument of "What if it was your loved one?" doesn't apply to them. I have to reason and see from the jury's perspective, assuming they are reasonable.
 
When Beachlover says "off-label" he/she means that it is used for something other than what the FDA approved it for. I even think some of the anti-depressants he was getting to help him sleep were also off-label for sleep. The difference is, it may be quite more common for physician's to prescribe their patient's anti-depressants for sleep than a physician prescribing a patient propofol to sleep. But therein lies the problem. Propofol is not a prescription drug..it is for a physician's application. This physician was extremely negligent in the application of this product for quite a number of reasons; he was not an anesthesiologist, he was not monitoring the way he should, he had incorrect equipment, and he was solo (risky business).

I mean, if MJ was receiving this anesthetic in the hospital and/or was properly monitored using the right equipment, and an actual anesthesiologist, then this whole situation would have looked a lot different, and I don't know that it would be entirely improper. Extreme yes, but done under proper and safe supervision.
 
Yes, thats what I meant and I still agree that he did not do it properly. Also, whether he was an anesthesiologist doesn't really matter either, since nurses often give this drug under a doctors supervision in out patient settings.

I think what I was trying to say is that the actual use of Propofol will be more of a non issue in the grand scheme of things than his covering things up and not being ready in case of emergency.
 
wolfrevenant said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Remember the oath. Do know harm you can help your patience but do no harm
 
Snow White 1937 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Exactly! :clapping:
 
Snow White 1937 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Even though it may be the duty of a policeman to protect, by paying him to escort you through the woods, that could be considered as paying him to do more than his legal duty requires. Or as in the case of Murray, paying him to do more than his contractual duty requires. This would be true, assuming Michael went asking around for propofol and wouldn't take in any doctor that refused.

Once again, I'm not excusing Murray from blame. What I'm wondering is whether or not Michael deserves some of the blame, and to what extent. Because if Michael gets some or most of the blame, the court is probably going to be less harsh on Murray.

Speaking of legal or contractual duties, I'm not talking about a matter of ethics, of what a police officer or a doctor should or should not be doing. I'm actually going by the rules of the law of contract, when they briefly explained of what it meant, to be going beyond one's legal or contractual duties, and the consequences of doing so. Unfortunately or thankfully, nothing ever went "wrong" in these cases, it was just a matter of party A refusing to pay party B, even though party B did more than what was required legally or contractually.

And also, I'm well aware that the law of contract has probably nada to do with criminal law. What I'm trying to understand from these cases is how the courts decide, and who the court chooses to favour with, based on the facts. The conclusion is that matters are very much different when the person is being paid to do something that is more than what is usually required in their field.

For example, take the case of Glassbrook Brovs v Glamorgan County Council, in which the pit owner was sued successfully for refusing to pay the police for the extra protection requested. The court held that because of the request, the police had provided more protection than they normally would have done, which was consideration for the promise of payment.

Applying this to Murray's case, administering propofol was doing more than what he was contractually required to do. One could then make the argument that since Murray was working beyond his contractual duties, he cannot be put fully to blame since Michael payed him to go beyond his contractual duties. Thus, the conclusion that Michael brought all these troubles upon himself. Once again, this is assuming Michael went doctor-shopping, and Murray himself didn't come up with the solution of propofol. The end result is nothing but finger-pointing, "oh, but he made me do it, and he made me do it because he's a drug addict..."

However, if we go by this point, this would mean that Murray's lawyer's past experience with another propofol case is somewhat irrelevant. Because the nurse in that case was working within her contractual duties, and thus, she was found not guilty of involuntary manslaughter charges. Whereas in Murray's case here, he could be said to be working outside of his contractual duties, and in that aspect, can be found guilty of involuntary manslaughter since he didn't follow the regular code of conduct.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top