Latest on MJJC

"Michael", a biopic about Michael Jackson, is officially happening.

someplace_else said:
Ich hoffe irgendwie, dass sie nichts zeigen, was mit seinen letzten Tagen/Wochen, seiner Situation usw. zu tun hat. … Ich stimme zu, dass es ein großartiges Ende sein könnte und die Leute über die ganze Situation nachdenken lassen würde, aber gleichzeitig will ich das wirklich nicht sehen, vor allem nicht auf der großen Kinoleinwand.😶‍🌫️
Click to expand...
I feel exactly the same way as you. Michael Mania starts in April. We should be excited and enjoy it (Google Translate:))
 
No its starts in Feb in full swing with that 1st full trailor! Plus i expect promo to start firing on all cylinders from then on.
I dont expect too much from bbc uk but they have a 3 parter on Michael this must be part of the promo.
 
Mariab said:
3. Obstacles to Recanting
  • Emancipation and Agency: Chandler was legally emancipated from his parents in 1994 at age 14 and independently filed additional complaints against Jackson in 1998. A retraction now would require him to argue that he was coerced into lying not just once as a child, but repeatedly as an adult, which would be difficult to prove legally.
Click to expand...
It might actually be easy for him to claim his father threatened him with violence even as an adult, given the fact that there are court documents where he says his father pepper-sprayed him, choked him and hit his head with a 12-pound weight.

someplace_else said:
I kinda hope they don't show anything related to his last days/weeks, the situation he was in etc. ...I agree it could be a great ending and would make people think about the whole situation but at the same time I really don't want to see that, especially not an a big movie screen 😶‍🌫️
Click to expand...
I think from seeing all those graphic, disrespectful documentaries about his last days, we are imagining the scene worse than it would actually be. They wouldn't need to show needles and catheters, and they could easily hide the arm that has the IV by filming from the right angle. All they would have to show is Michael falling asleep while Murray is sitting next to an IV. That's it really, he just fell asleep. (And then Murray left the room instead of monitoring him as he should have...)

Same thing for the recording while he was drugged, they obviously would not make his voice as slurred as it was on the recording, because they need the viewers to be able to understand the words he's saying, so he would just sound a little bit groggy / sleepy, not to the point that it would be humiliating or dehumanizing. I don't think a scene showing Michael slowly drifting off to sleep while talking about how much he cares about children would be too graphic, at least not for me. I understand however that some fans find it hard to even think about his death, because it is so sad...

People keep saying that they don't want the biopic to be a whitewash or a paint-by-numbers biopic, but seeing here that some people are uncomfortable with seeing Michael drugged, I am wondering, which moments did you want to see included that would make the biopic more than a whitewash / paint-by-numbers? Like for example, is it just during his final days that you don't want to see him drugged? Or do you want the movie not to show him in a drugged state during his 1993 painkiller addiction too? What about him being given propofol during the History tour, do you want them to show that? One thing I would really want to see is the first doctor who suggested to give him propofol to sleep. Michael was not a doctor, he did not come up with that idea on his own. I want them to show that doctor who assured him it was safe when it was not and how he caused Michael's death as much as Murray did, because Michael would never have asked Murray to use propofol on him if he had never been told by that first doctor that it was okay to use it to sleep.

As for the 1993 painkiller addiction, I feel that the way it connects to the settlement is too often ignored. The media loves to mention the settlement and they love to call him a drug addict, but they never talk about the fact that the two happened in the same time period. We saw how the 2005 trial nearly killed him (he couldn't eat because he was throwing up, by the end Michael weighed only 94 pounds and he was so dehydrated that the doctor who treated him said that if he had waited 12 more hours, he would have been dead). But in 1993, he was in no better shape to survive a trial, and people often forget how bad he was before he agreed to the settlement. Showing how severely his health was deteriorating would certainly help people understand why he ended up agreeing to a settlement to put an end to it. His lawyers told him that if he didn't settle, it could go on for 7 years, and Michael would not have survived 7 years of that... But how would people here feel about the biopic showing what state Michael was in during that period of time? How would you feel about this kind of scenes being included (from Karen Faye's testimony in the AEG trial):

Q: There was a time on the tour you discovered Michael had been given too many drugs and couldn’t perform. What did you learn?

A: Yes. Michael came into the dressing room. He was stumbling. He had a hard time walking. He actually fell over a potted plant/tree. Dr. Forcast was there. I told him: Michael can’t go on. He has to enter on a toaster. Toasters are very small. You have to curl up and be shot out of it. He could lose an arm. I’m seeing Michael in this state and I said you can’t put him in this position. I feared for his safety. I feared for his life. I told Dr. Forcast: You can’t. You can’t make him go out there like this. I put my arms around Michael and said: You can’t take him. And he said: Yes I can. He put his hands around my neck, backed me against the wall and said: You don’t know what you're doing. I couldn’t breathe. I almost fainted. I fell to the floor. He grabbed Michael and took him off to the stage.

Q: Did that show eventually get cancelled?

A: Yes sir.

Q: Were there other shows in that tour that were cancelled because Michael Jackson was unable to perform?

A: Yes.

Q: Did there come a time in that tour when you felt Michael was getting worse?

A: Yes. Michael was under a lot of stress at that time because that’s when the first child allegations were made public. (becoming emotional) And Michael had to go on stage every night, literally with the whole world thinking he was a pedophile. He had to stand up through all of that slander and all of those things. The visible pain this had — He had to perform and be up there. To this day, I don’t know how he did that.
 
Blues_Away2023 said:
Off topic but here in the UK , currently showing on channel 5 - the trial of Michael Jackson . **** off with this garbage. They’re showing some real dodgy trial reenactments etc.
Click to expand...
I literally just came across the free version of this program , it pissed me off just seeing the screenshots and reading what it was about

Really cash cowing off the upcoming movie grrrr
 
etoile 37 said:
It might actually be easy for him to claim his father threatened him with violence even as an adult, given the fact that there are court documents where he says his father pepper-sprayed him, choked him and hit his head with a 12-pound weight.


I think from seeing all those graphic, disrespectful documentaries about his last days, we are imagining the scene worse than it would actually be. They wouldn't need to show needles and catheters, and they could easily hide the arm that has the IV by filming from the right angle. All they would have to show is Michael falling asleep while Murray is sitting next to an IV. That's it really, he just fell asleep. (And then Murray left the room instead of monitoring him as he should have...)

Same thing for the recording while he was drugged, they obviously would not make his voice as slurred as it was on the recording, because they need the viewers to be able to understand the words he's saying, so he would just sound a little bit groggy / sleepy, not to the point that it would be humiliating or dehumanizing. I don't think a scene showing Michael slowly drifting off to sleep while talking about how much he cares about children would be too graphic, at least not for me. I understand however that some fans find it hard to even think about his death, because it is so sad...

People keep saying that they don't want the biopic to be a whitewash or a paint-by-numbers biopic, but seeing here that some people are uncomfortable with seeing Michael drugged, I am wondering, which moments did you want to see included that would make the biopic more than a whitewash / paint-by-numbers? Like for example, is it just during his final days that you don't want to see him drugged? Or do you want the movie not to show him in a drugged state during his 1993 painkiller addiction too? What about him being given propofol during the History tour, do you want them to show that? One thing I would really want to see is the first doctor who suggested to give him propofol to sleep. Michael was not a doctor, he did not come up with that idea on his own. I want them to show that doctor who assured him it was safe when it was not and how he caused Michael's death as much as Murray did, because Michael would never have asked Murray to use propofol on him if he had never been told by that first doctor that it was okay to use it to sleep.

As for the 1993 painkiller addiction, I feel that the way it connects to the settlement is too often ignored. The media loves to mention the settlement and they love to call him a drug addict, but they never talk about the fact that the two happened in the same time period. We saw how the 2005 trial nearly killed him (he couldn't eat because he was throwing up, by the end Michael weighed only 94 pounds and he was so dehydrated that the doctor who treated him said that if he had waited 12 more hours, he would have been dead). But in 1993, he was in no better shape to survive a trial, and people often forget how bad he was before he agreed to the settlement. Showing how severely his health was deteriorating would certainly help people understand why he ended up agreeing to a settlement to put an end to it. His lawyers told him that if he didn't settle, it could go on for 7 years, and Michael would not have survived 7 years of that... But how would people here feel about the biopic showing what state Michael was in during that period of time? How would you feel about this kind of scenes being included (from Karen Faye's testimony in the AEG trial):

Q: There was a time on the tour you discovered Michael had been given too many drugs and couldn’t perform. What did you learn?

A: Yes. Michael came into the dressing room. He was stumbling. He had a hard time walking. He actually fell over a potted plant/tree. Dr. Forcast was there. I told him: Michael can’t go on. He has to enter on a toaster. Toasters are very small. You have to curl up and be shot out of it. He could lose an arm. I’m seeing Michael in this state and I said you can’t put him in this position. I feared for his safety. I feared for his life. I told Dr. Forcast: You can’t. You can’t make him go out there like this. I put my arms around Michael and said: You can’t take him. And he said: Yes I can. He put his hands around my neck, backed me against the wall and said: You don’t know what you're doing. I couldn’t breathe. I almost fainted. I fell to the floor. He grabbed Michael and took him off to the stage.

Q: Did that show eventually get cancelled?

A: Yes sir.

Q: Were there other shows in that tour that were cancelled because Michael Jackson was unable to perform?

A: Yes.

Q: Did there come a time in that tour when you felt Michael was getting worse?

A: Yes. Michael was under a lot of stress at that time because that’s when the first child allegations were made public. (becoming emotional) And Michael had to go on stage every night, literally with the whole world thinking he was a pedophile. He had to stand up through all of that slander and all of those things. The visible pain this had — He had to perform and be up there. To this day, I don’t know how he did that.
Click to expand...
Good question...I can only speak for myself and I can say it's okay to see or read something about these things, when it's more "documentary style", so not too many emotions connected. So in case they display it as facts without showing "Michael" suffer, that would be ok, I guess?

What's too much for me is when it's his real voice or when I see the "real Michael" in a bad way....so don't know how immersed I will be into the movie, because it's Jaafar and not Michael and no idea how my brain will wire these things 💁.

Rosa57 said:
I feel exactly the same way as you. Michael Mania starts in April. We should be excited and enjoy it (Google Translate:))
Click to expand...
It was so weird to read my comment in German, in a completely different writing style that I would use - confused me for a second 😅
 
Mariab said:
Oh, I definitely get that. I wish there was a way for this to have been produced without the estate's involvement. That way, they wouldn't have been contractually obligated to cut out and reshoot so many scenes. I *still* think they can *touch* on the subject without going into great detail. I read the contract provided by another kind user (Thank you so much!), and I believe that they can sort of say "accusations of abuse". The term "abuse" is broad and can refer to various things, not just child m*lestati0n. We'll see. I am saddened that the reshoots happened and will forever wonder why Jordan doesn't come clean about what happened. He's an adult now, and as traumatic as the experience was for him, he can still do the right thing and clear this mess up.

EDIT:
It's improbable that Jordan will ever do the right thing because of the reasons listed below.
Legally, Jordan Chandler could attempt to retract his 1993 abuse claims (and wouldn't that be nice, that would ensure we got to see the initial shootings for the biopic in the future), but doing so would carry significant legal and financial risks due to the terms of his 1994 settlement and California law.

1. The Confidentiality Agreement
The 1994 civil settlement, valued at approximately $23 million, included a strict confidentiality agreement.
  • Binding Nature: This agreement binds Chandler and his heirs indefinitely, meaning Michael Jackson's death in 2009 did not release him from its terms.
  • Consequences of Breach: If Chandler were to publicly retract his claims (or even discuss them), Jackson’s estate could sue him for breach of contract. This could lead to a court ordering him to return some or all of the original settlement money plus legal fees.

2. Risk of Perjury Charges
If Chandler were to admit under oath that he lied in 1993, he could theoretically face perjury charges.
  • The Statute of Limitations: In California, the statute of limitations for perjury is three years from the date the lie is discovered. A formal retraction today would likely be considered "discovery," potentially resetting that clock.
  • Penalties: Perjury is a felony in California, punishable by up to four years in state prison.

3. Obstacles to Recanting
  • Emancipation and Agency: Chandler was legally emancipated from his parents in 1994 at age 14 and independently filed additional complaints against Jackson in 1998. A retraction now would require him to argue that he was coerced into lying not just once as a child, but repeatedly as an adult, which would be difficult to prove legally.
  • Refusal to Cooperate: Throughout his adult life, Chandler has actively avoided the legal system. In 2017, he successfully fought off subpoenas from lawyers of other accusers (Wade Robson and James Safechuck) who wanted him to testify, signaling his desire to remain silent.
Click to expand...
Wait he filed against Mike in 1998????...never knew this why has this came out now?!
 
etoile 37 said:
I just remembered Prince revealing this touching little moment between him and his sister (from the AEG trial transcripts), it would be a perfect closing right after "Remember What I Told You":

Q: "And when you got to the hospital, did you do anything to try to comfort your brother and your sister?"

A: "I told my sister something that my dad always told us that angels are still watching over him, and there have to be angels all over."
Click to expand...
😭😭😭😭
 
In 1996, Evan Chandler sued Jackson for around $60 million, claiming Jackson had breached an agreement never to discuss the case "in his interview with Diane Sawyer and in the lyrics of a song from the HIStory album". In 1998, at age 18, Jordan filed a complaint against Jackson for the same reason using the same legal team as Evan’s.
 
etoile 37 said:
Same thing for the recording while he was drugged, they obviously would not make his voice as slurred as it was on the recording, because they need the viewers to be able to understand the words he's saying, so he would just sound a little bit groggy / sleepy, not to the point that it would be humiliating or dehumanizing. I don't think a scene showing Michael slowly drifting off to sleep while talking about how much he cares about children would be too graphic, at least not for me. I understand however that some fans find it hard to even think about his death, because it is so sad...
Click to expand...
I say it would add enormously to the the dramatic side of his story if they included real audio footage, if necessary with subtitles.
 
t1mber said:
In 1996, Evan Chandler sued Jackson for around $60 million, claiming Jackson had breached an agreement never to discuss the case "in his interview with Diane Sawyer and in the lyrics of a song from the HIStory album". In 1998, at age 18, Jordan filed a complaint against Jackson for the same reason using the same legal team as Evan’s.
Click to expand...
How much money is the greedy c*nt Chandler wanting . What a total 🔔end
 
Billie Jean 78 said:
I say it would add enormously to the the dramatic side of his story if they included real audio footage, if necessary with subtitles.
Click to expand...
I remember that when the judge gave his sentence, he mentioned that recording as one of the reasons when he justified why he gave him the maximum penalty. He said the only thing he could see Murray using that recording for is to later use it against Michael to blackmail him. So if they show that scene, I hope they'll make sure Murray's face looks as suspicious as it should when he presses that record button behind Michael's back.

There's no point showing his death unless they show how it truly happened: Murray calling his mistress while he should have been monitoring his patient, Murray - a cardiologist - doing CPR incorrectly on a soft mattress using only one hand, Murray calling everyone except 911 (Kai, Prince, Alvarez), Murray telling Alvarez to help him gather and hide evidence, the look of shock on Alvarez's face when he realized that Murray still had not called 911 (had to hide the evidence first!) There was a trial that proved Michael's death was directly caused by all of Murray's actions, so people should not leave that movie theater thinking that Michael's death was just an accidental overdose and Murray just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. That man did not even have the decency to show remorse after killing him, instead he sold disgusting tabloid stories and further victimized the person he killed, so they better not show him as a good guy.
 
Euan said:
Don’t think I’ll be going to see this film. Looks really poorly done and the wardrobe is awful. Looks like a cheap clone especially the thriller jacket. No attention to detail (the white socks for Motown 25). Just lacking where Michael was perfectionist. It will just make me sad they still can’t do him justice.
Click to expand...
for a bit i was considering going to see it this week but i didn't realise what Paris had said, how anyone can support this is now beyond me...
“I read one of the first drafts of the script and gave my notes about what was dishonest / didn’t sit right with me, and when they didn’t address it, I moved on with my life.

“Not my monkeys, not my circus. God bless and God speed.”

She later expanded on her comments in follow-up Instagram stories, saying she had been explicitly told the production would not address her notes.

“So I just butted out and left it alone because it’s not my project,” she said. “They’re going to make whatever they’re going to make. A big reason why I haven’t said anything up until this point is because I know a lot of you guys are gonna be happy with it.

“A big section of the film panders to a very specific section of my dad’s fandom that still lives in the fantasy, and they’re gonna be happy with it.”

Paris continued to critique the “sugar-coated” Hollywood biopic model generally: “The narrative is being controlled and there’s a lot of inaccuracy and there’s a lot of just full-blown lies. At the end of the day, that doesn’t really fly with me. Go enjoy it. Do whatever. Leave me out of it.”
Click to expand...
www.theguardian.com

Michael Jackson’s daughter Paris criticises ‘sugar-coated’ biopic about her father

2026 film Michael ‘panders to a very specific section of my dad’s fandom that still lives in the fantasy’, 27-year-old says, denying any involvement
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
 
Euan said:
for a bit i was considering going to see it this week but i didn't realise what Paris had said, how anyone can support this is now beyond me...

www.theguardian.com

Michael Jackson’s daughter Paris criticises ‘sugar-coated’ biopic about her father

2026 film Michael ‘panders to a very specific section of my dad’s fandom that still lives in the fantasy’, 27-year-old says, denying any involvement
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
Click to expand...
Should we just ignore what Prince said? His opinion is as valid as Paris's, perhaps even more since he saw more of it, being much more involved.

Prince: "He (Graham) does all this information gathering and research to put together the most authentic story and the character of who my father was. [...] After I read the first draft of the script, I called him cause I was crying. I told him that he had the most authentic picture of my father."


Prince was asked to describe the biopic in three words and these are the words he chose: "Epic, authentic and filled with love / lovely"

https://twitter.com/x/status/1850607573311086914
 
etoile 37 said:
Should we just ignore what Prince said? His opinion is as valid as Paris's, perhaps even more since he saw more of it, being much more involved.

Prince: "He (Graham) does all this information gathering and research to put together the most authentic story and the character of who my father was. [...] After I read the first draft of the script, I called him cause I was crying. I told him that he had the most authentic picture of my father."


Prince was asked to describe the biopic in three words and these are the words he chose: "Epic, authentic and filled with love / lovely"

https://twitter.com/x/status/1850607573311086914
Click to expand...
Prince's emotional connection is his, but Paris' experience within the movie is more revealing. She tried to fix factual errors and was told no. That tells me all I need to know about the film's priorities. It may feel 'authentic' to some, but it's knowingly chosen not to be fully truthful…

I love Michael but some people are truly lost in it cause why are they defending a biopic over Paris' lived experience? Since when did MJ fans defend a corporation 😵‍💫🙏
 
Last edited:
Euan said:
Prince's emotional connection is his, but Paris' experience within the movie is more revealing. She tried to fix factual errors and was told no. That tells me all I need to know about the film's priorities. It may feel 'authentic' to some, but it's knowingly chosen not to be fully truthful…
Click to expand...
I think the complaint Paris filed against the Estate makes it clear that one of the issues she has with the movie is one we all already had: John Branca gives himself a more important role than he should. But we were all already expecting that, weren't we? Looks like Prince decided that he can live with that as long as we get to see Michael as the wonderful person that he was.

Maybe the reason Paris didn't like the script is because instead of showing Michael's death, John Branca barges in and saves Michael's life. THE END 😭
 
etoile 37 said:
I think the complaint Paris filed against the Estate makes it clear that one of the issues she has with the movie is one we all already had: John Branca gives himself a more important role than he should. But we were all already expecting that, weren't we? Looks like Prince decided that he can live with that as long as we get to see Michael as the wonderful person that he was.

Maybe the reason Paris didn't like the script is because instead of showing Michael's death, John Branca barges in and saves Michael's life. THE END 😭
Click to expand...
Let's be clear about what's happening here. You're making a joke that mocks Paris Jackson, Michael's own daughter, to dismiss her firsthand account. That says more about the argument than anything else…

The core of her criticism isn't about any single person's role. It's about a script! She identified factual issues in it, and the production chose to ignore them. Prince's emotional reaction to the final product doesn't change that fact.

Trying to undermine her by linking this to her separate legal battle, or worse, by making light of her position as a child who lost her father, doesn't address her point. It just avoids it. It confirms the very 'controlled narrative' she warned about, where anyone questioning the approved story gets personally attacked.

And you are MJ fan?
 
Euan said:
Let's be clear about what's happening here. You're making a joke that mocks Paris Jackson, Michael's own daughter, to dismiss her firsthand account.
Click to expand...
No, I'm making a joke about John Branca, cause we all expect him to give himself a more important role than he should.

Euan said:
The core of her criticism isn't about any single person's role. It's about a script! She identified factual issues in it, and the production chose to ignore them. Prince's emotional reaction to the final product doesn't change that fact.
Click to expand...
I'm sure she's right about some things being inaccurate, but again we all already expected this. Biopics always need to change some facts in order to make someone's whole life fit into a 2 or 3-hour movie. Now will those changes distort important information about Michael and ruin the movie or simply make the story flow better? That's a question we will only be able to answer after seeing the movie. Hence why I will go and watch the movie and decide for myself whether I like it or not. Prince felt it was very authentic, Paris felt it was not accurate enough, I very well might agree with Paris, who knows? I'm not taking sides, I'm just not dismissing Prince's opinion.

Euan said:
Trying to undermine her by linking this to her separate legal battle
Click to expand...
Did you read her complaint? She gave important information about the movie in it, and it's all about Branca's role in it:

“It appears that Mr Branca used his position as an Executive Producer, a role he has never before performed in connection with any dramatic feature film, to cast the sole A-list actor in the production, Miles Teller, to play himself in the upcoming feature production Michael,” reads the filing.
The filing goes on to state that Branca “chose to use (or at least risk) Estate assets to fund rather than license the rights to a studio or production company. Undoubtedly, Mr Branca considers his story to be central to the Michael Jackson story. Nonetheless, it is unclear how this peculiar and presumably costly casting decision will result in commensurate box office receipts.”
 
Dtwmjj said:
Really cash cowing off the upcoming movie grrrr
Click to expand...
And because people will be expecting info about the trials, but the movie won't show any, all those people will go straight to Netflix and search out something like LN.

Because of the information vacuum, all those dodgy allegation interviews are gonna get massive viewership after this biopic!
 
etoile 37 said:
I remember that when the judge gave his sentence, he mentioned that recording as one of the reasons when he justified why he gave him the maximum penalty. He said the only thing he could see Murray using that recording for is to later use it against Michael to blackmail him. So if they show that scene, I hope they'll make sure Murray's face looks as suspicious as it should when he presses that record button behind Michael's back.

There's no point showing his death unless they show how it truly happened: Murray calling his mistress while he should have been monitoring his patient, Murray - a cardiologist - doing CPR incorrectly on a soft mattress using only one hand, Murray calling everyone except 911 (Kai, Prince, Alvarez), Murray telling Alvarez to help him gather and hide evidence, the look of shock on Alvarez's face when he realized that Murray still had not called 911 (had to hide the evidence first!) There was a trial that proved Michael's death was directly caused by all of Murray's actions, so people should not leave that movie theater thinking that Michael's death was just an accidental overdose and Murray just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. That man did not even have the decency to show remorse after killing him, instead he sold disgusting tabloid stories and further victimized the person he killed, so they better not show him as a good guy.
Click to expand...
That is such a powerful tape... ugly and dishonest as I perceived it when it first heard it, it now is an important trace of what caused Michael's premature passing. It would contribute enormously to the drama... much more than seeing real Elvis on his last performance at the end of his biopic.

I do hope they will be doing part two and include this.
 
Since when was it considered acceptable to be taking propofol at home each night to sleep? How are so many fans ok with this situation?

Murray deservedly got jailed for manslaughter due to stupidity and neglect. I wished he served more time in jail but if it wasn’t Murray, Michael would have sought out another Doctor who was willing to give him what he wanted.

Michael knew the risks, he knew it was wrong but wanted it anyway due to desperation and the fact he’d had it previously.

I quote Robin Williams joke once more and comparing it to doing chemotherapy because you were tired of shaving your head. Utter madness that he was ever in this position in the first place.
 
Blues_Away2023 said:
Since when was it considered acceptable to be taking propofol at home each night to sleep? How are so many fans ok with this situation?
Click to expand...
I don't think I have ever seen a fan who was ok with that...?

Blues_Away2023 said:
but if it wasn’t Murray, Michael would have sought out another Doctor who was willing to give him what he wanted.
Click to expand...
Yes, he would have. But hopefully, that other doctor would have been monitoring him instead of talking on the phone with his mistress in another room. He would then have been able to tilt Michael's head as soon as his airways got blocked, as the expert testified in the trial, and Michael would have started breathing again, as the expert testified. Anesthesia is dangerous and can't provide true sleep, so no doctor should have ever given Michael propofol to sleep, but Murray did so much worse than that...

And I still want that first doctor who gave propofol to Michael on the History tour to be called out for setting Michael on that path and assuring him it was okay.

Blues_Away2023 said:
Michael knew the risks, he knew it was wrong but wanted it anyway due to desperation and the fact he’d had it previously.
Click to expand...
Exactly this. It's hard to take good decisions when you are sleep-deprived. There's a reason why it's a doctor's responsibility to prescribe the appropriate medication, and there's a reason why doctors are not allowed to prescribe medication for themselves. Michael tried the other, safer medication that were suggested to him, but none of it worked and he was exhausted and desperate to sleep at that point. No doctor should ever take advantage of the desperation of their patient by giving them whatever inappropriate medication they want just for money.

Blues_Away2023 said:
I quote Robin Williams joke once more and comparing it to doing chemotherapy because you were tired of shaving your head.
Click to expand...
I feel this is a bad comparison. Michael didn't choose to use propofol because he was tired of sleeping the normal way, he used propofol because his insomnia was so bad that no other medication worked on him and he was desperate for sleep, as anyone would be. Try not to sleep for 4 days and see how you feel afterwards, and whether you're still capable to think clearly.

Note-to-Lisa-Marie.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top