The English baby that the British health plan want to kill should tell everyone a lot

Calling someone a quack is an expression of opinion. Opinion is not libel.

 

Anyone who has ever had a family member who needed hospice care is very glad that it was available.

 

Blame them for what? What on Earth are you on about? Palliative care is the final option, and that amount of opioids for someone that ill only speeds death along. That's a simple fact, its not my fault that makes you so uncomfortable.
You again act as if assisted suicide or a dnr is somehow a bad thing when there is no other option.

 

In fact, calling a physician a quack is actionable defamation. It is not protected speech. Do it and you are at the mercy of the physician a tort lawyer. Hit the books.

 

I haven't said any different. That doesn't change what it is. Why is this so difficult to grasp for you people? You ease them into the grave by depressing their respiratory system with drugs that also prevent them being in terrible pain because there is no other option. That's hospice care. It's a necessary, if dark, part of end of life care.

 

I got an a in torts actually which is why I know matters of opinion are not able to be considered false because they are not presented as matters if objective fact. Opinions are by their nature subjective.

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/defamation-law-made-simple-29718.html

See number 3, ok champ?

 

If they alleged he committed malpractice that would be different.

 

Opioids for someone that ill only speeds death along? That is not a simple fact and you can not find any science to back it up. Used properly opiods are used to control pain and in the case of hospice they are self administered as long as the patient is capable of doing so. After that point the caregiver is responsible as you should know if you were actually involved. And hospice does not do assisted suicide and if you actually had anything to do with the care of your grandmother or great grandmother you would know that. I think your supposed involvement is only imaginary or at best was just a few visits to a hospice facility.

And assisted suicide and dnr are entirely separate issues as you should also know if you had even the slightest involvement with a dying person.

 

LOL! I was agreeing with you! Try to unwind.

 

In fact, calling a doctor a quack is slander or libel "per se".
If you got an "a" in torts and do not know that you need to ask for a refund of your tuition.

 

It would not be libel or slander per se.

 

You do realize opioids at the sort of therapeutic dosage someone in life ending levels of pain requires severely slows respiration etc and that many people dying in hospice have also developed pnumeonia? Those are the effects of opioids, did no one tell you?
Hospice doesn't do assisted suicide as in they won't give you a lethal injection, it doesn't mean the process isn't easing the person into the grave. There's nothing wrong with that, and frankly I don't give a **** if you're touchy about that. Frankly both my great grandmother and my grandmother would have preferred the outright process instead of the roundabout way but laws are laws.

Yes they are separate things, hence why I mentioned them separated by an or, you idiot.

As to my involvement: i sat there with them and watched them go, day by day, until they passed. You don't know a *******ned thing about me.

 

Cite your source then lol

 

It would be and would require a showing of truth to avoid a judgment.

 

Yes, there's a court order barring them from leaving the country with their baby.

 

http://injury.findlaw.com/torts-and-personal-injuries/what-is-defamation-per-se-.html

I'm right, you're wrong. Use terms right or shut up.

 

Malpractice= per se. Calling him a mean name as a matter of opinion: not.

 

Calling a doctor a Quack is slander per se. No further proof is needed.
Accusing a doctor of malpractice in court is not defamation. It is a malpractice lawsuit. You have to prove the malpractice.

 

You should have google it.

 

LOL! This is basic stuff. Call a doctor a quack and the doc can cook your goose.

“Introduction to Slander

Slander, in the law of torts, oral defamation or use of the spoken word to injure another's reputation, as distinguished from libel or written defamation. To be the basis of a legal action, a publication of the words complained of, that is, their utterances in the hearing of third persons, must demonstrably have taken place. Among statements considered slanderous per se are those that impute the commission of a felony, as by calling an individual a forger or murderer; that impute an individual to be suffering from an offensive disease, such as leprosy or syphilis; or that are injurious to an individual in his or her trade or profession, as by calling a doctor a quack.”

http://lawin.org/slander/

 

No, "per se" does not mean "Malpractice"

 

Injurious to the practice of his trade dumbass

 

Get a grip. Ad hominem personal attacks are not persuasive and they are against the rules here.
Publishing libel per se on a public forum is also not very smart.

 

You're quoting a source from 1909 for clergymen.
It's an expression of opinion, not objective fact. Quote a case

 

An accusation of malpractice, is per se defamation and actionable if false.