Butler County judge orders West Chester Hospital to treat COVID-19 patient with ivermectin, despite

You didn't post a link to yours.

 

Nit picking. Even if he was off the ventillator, it's likely his ox level would still be on the low side. The article did say he was still "wrestling" with upper respiratory issues.

 

So you believe that a judge should force a hospital to allow a doctor that is not credentialed with that hospital to administer a treatment also not approved by the hospital?

Will you feel the same when a judge does the same with a patient looking for an abortion at a religious hospital? What about transgender affirming surgery?

 

More likely that the virus had run its course by that 10th day and wpuld have tapered off on symptoms regardless of vitamin intake or HDQ.

I do agree you should be allowed to take whatever treatments you want. See #24.

 

Is it "partisan BS" if virtually all of the misinformation about the virus, the possible cures, and the vaccines comes from the right?

 

I don’t agree with this. I wouldn’t trust my wife over my doctor on medical knowledge. I do think we need to find better treatments for this disease but a non FDA approved method of treatment shouldn’t be endorsed.

 

I love all your hypothetical that I never said.... Leftists just can't help themselves on decided what others think or should. The Authoritarian / Orwellian in them just doesn't let up.

 

Who knows. I have a friend that was sick for nearly 3 weeks. Your guess is as good as mine.

 

That's not what's happening here... this discussion already happened in the COVID forum.

The wife has a prescription for Ivermectin (in human form) from a doctor and the hospital the husband is in is refused to administer it.

This judge has said that prescription must be administered, which assuming the doctor is not a total quack (he probably is), the doctor is the one on the hook.

If I were the hospital, I would ensure the doctor who prescribed it is given temporary hospital privileges to personally administer the daily shot, so my staff is not on the hook here.

Actually, if I were the hospital, I would probably discharge the patient immediately, so the doctor can treat the man as he sees fit.

But the judge is not telling a doctor how to treat a patient... he chose one doctor over a building full of them...

 

Actually if you read the article you would see that a doctor did issue the prescription. The hospital just refused to administer it. That is what the lawsuit dealt with.

 

I think patients should be able to decide for themselves, but when they go against doctors orders... they can't sue

maybe the doctor has them sign a waiver that he recommends against it

 

This whole debacle will end when there are novel drugs to treat the novel virus. When that happens, the privacy of the doctor-patient relationship will return as this will be non-politicized forever. So root for the first new commercial drug to come out.

 

But the doctor should not be forced to go along with their wishes.

 

That does not really change the dynamic, you still have a judge dictating medical procedures, but to a hospital and not a doctor.

Does Wagshul even have privileges at the hospital?

 

The judge ordered the hospital to administer the prescription a DOCTOR wrote and that his guardian wanted given. Dr. Fred Wagshul is a lung specialist, not some internet teledoctor from India. https://www.healthgrades.com/physician/dr-fred-wagshul-yxhnf

The judge is not "dictating" medical procedures.

 

The judge is dictating what medical procedures the hospital must follow.

 

I think we are in general agreement here that the medicine can be administered, but I'm not a huge fan of the hospital being ordered to give a prescription ordered by a doctor not on staff..

I'm fine with that doctor coming in to the hospital to personally administer the medicine and I'm better with the hospital discharging the patient to a location the doctor does have privileges at.

Maybe I'm splitting hairs with that, but I don't think so...

 

Ivermectin is not solely used for livestock. Good grief.

 

nobody said it was.

What is your view of a judge telling a hospital what procedures and medicine it must use?

 

Who didn’t want to use the medicine, the doctor or the hospital?

Sone doctors want to use it but are prohibited from doing so by hospital administrations.

 

So you agree the statement in the article you posted is asinine and unnecessary?

 

The hospital. I do not know if the doctor that prescribed it has privileges at the hospital or not

 

It is an accurate statement if unnecessary.

So, again....What is your view of a judge telling a hospital what procedures and medicine it must use?

 

This is so ethically fraught

Can you imagine the doors this opens where the staff can be forced to administer treatments they know are not in the best interest of the patient?

 

Errr - no it is not. I checked out this rumour earlier because the site that it came from was a notorious conspiracy site

https://www.theguardian.com/science...vid-treatment-withdrawn-over-ethical-concerns