[hhw3h]

If someone is on downward trajectory towards death, why not give them cheap generics at human safe doses? Aren't physicians supposed to do risk benefit analyses? Sure they can feel the odds of benefit are slim to none but if the risk is slim to none as well, why not let them have what they ask for?

Also the doctor made no mention of other therapeutics that do have more expert consensus of helping like monoclonal antibodies or fluvoxamine. I'm sorry to hear that they have decide to leave medicine and that they were assaulted. Violence is never called for. That said, it's unclear if all tools in the current tool belt were used in this patient's case.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/dying-covid-19-patient-recover...

edited to reference another site: https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/breaking/ct-ivermectin-e...

i totally get that it's anecdotal. my point is more about just allowing people the opportunity to try therapeutics especially ones that have been proven to help in many cases like monoclonal antibodies or have little to no risk of harm.

[gizmo385]

I'd recommend citing a source that isn't the Epoch Times. And we shouldn't have our medical staff wasting their time on things that we know don't work just because folks who trust Facebook memes more than trained professionals think that some essential oil cures COVID-19.

[masonic]

You're suggesting that the linked judicial order[1] is faked, then?

[1] https://www.scribd.com/document/538389544/Action-Order-Man-K...

[gizmo385]

No, merely that the epoch times is a rag not worthy of citing. If you want to cite the primary source, then just do that.

[masonic]

>epoch times is a rag

Then certainly you can cite, say, one factual error they have published this week. Or month?

Or does "rag" simply mean "doesn't parrot the narrative I prefer"?

[falcolas]

I said this elsewhere, but you’re still culpable for murder if you kill someone in the process of killing themselves.

> If someone is on downward trajectory towards death, why not give them cheap generics at human safe doses?

What is a human safe dose for someone whose body is so compromised that they’re close to death? If the doctor prescribes a medication that doesn’t have, at a minimum, peer reviewed research showing its effectiveness in these situations, they are going to be liable for negligent manslaughter, if not murder.

And rightly so, when you think of the broader implications of allowing doctors to do whatever they want to the dying.

[hhw3h]

> they are going to be liable for negligent manslaughter, if not murder.

hmm could they then not simply allow patients to sign liability waivers?

[falcolas]

IANAL, but it’s my understanding that you can’t waive your rights to life (no matter how much amusement parks insist that you can).

It’s probably more accurate to say that when you do sign such a waiver, it’s going to be an exceptionally involved process that includes a lot of time providing information to provide for genuinely informed consent (2nd, 3rd, 10th opinions, counselors, hospital lawyers, your lawyers, etc) when you’re in your right mind.

Experimental medicines for terminal patients are hard to get, for a good reason.