Another moronic jury demonstrates its stupidity I'd love to hear them try to explain how this doctor was guilty of second degree murder.
If a doctor provided you with too much of any medication would you take it all at once? Or take more than the instructions on the bottle told you to take? And if you did either of those things would the doctor be responsible?
This doctor couldn't possibly be guilty of second degree murder and yet a dumbass jury still found her guilty of that crime.
Re: Another moronic jury demonstrates its stupidity
quote:
mais oui wrote:
I see that you elected to omit certain elements of the story (why am I not surprised?)
Bottom line, she prescribed highly addictive medications unnecessarily - making a great deal of money in the process.
supply an addict with an over abundance of the drug he is addicted to and it should come as no surprise that the addict over indulges!
Still doesn't qualify as murder. An addict is responsible for what he does just like people who aren't addicts. His doctor isn't responsible for his behaviour. His doctor can't be responsible for it.
Addicts can read instructions just like non-addicts. They know about the dangers of the drugs they are using just like non-addicts and if they don't know, it's easy for them to find out before they take too much of any drug.
A lot of the people who have allegedly overdosed on opioids have done so with a combination of drugs including non-narcotic and less addictive drugs, sometimes including alcohol which isn't even prescribed! It's perfectly legal to adults who can just walk in and buy as much as they want. That legal substance can easily result in people being killed from too much of it mixed with a narcotic. And then of course the narcotic gets blamed.
No matter how much money this doctor took in and no matter how many narcotics she prescribed she doesn't qualify as a murderer under the law. It's just that simple. To find her guilty of murder is a travesty and shows just how ridiculous and unjust our judicial system can be.
As well as how stupid and biased a panel of 12 jurors can be.
Re: Another moronic jury demonstrates its stupidity
quote:
Still doesn't qualify as murder. An addict is responsible for what he does just like people who aren't addicts. His doctor isn't responsible for his behaviour. His doctor can't be responsible for it.
When a doctor makes her living out of supplying drugs to addicts for no medical reason she assumes a level of responsibility.
This 'doctor' (I use the term loosely as in reality she is no more than a drug dealer)passed out 27000 prescriptions mainly for drugs of abuse (alprazolam (Xanax), oxycodone (Oxycontin), hydrocodone/acetaminophen (Vicodin), and amphetamine/dextroamphetamine (Adderall))
She rarely performed a physical examination or documented a genuine need for opioid analgesics or other drugs.
Im not sure that murder was the correct charge as a charge of murder requires 'malice' and Im not sure malice was present - certainly there was a total disregard for the safety and welfare of her 'patients' but the sentence was certainly the correct one
--- HAPPINESS, THE IGNOBLE LIFE GOAL OF THE ILLITERATE
Re: Another moronic jury demonstrates its stupidity Naturally I like spoofs of the jury system. This is a funny episode of the classic Dick Van Dyke Show that does that very well. It's my favorite episode of the series.
It's a very funny take off of the film, "Twelve Angry Men." It shows what can happen when a juror cares a little too much about a defendant but in this case it works out well for justice. She turns out to be innocent.
It features actress Sue Ane Langdon as the defendant in one of her funniest performances.
Re: Another moronic jury demonstrates its stupidity
quote:
mais oui wrote:
quote:
Still doesn't qualify as murder. An addict is responsible for what he does just like people who aren't addicts. His doctor isn't responsible for his behaviour. His doctor can't be responsible for it.
When a doctor makes her living out of supplying drugs to addicts for no medical reason she assumes a level of responsibility.
This 'doctor' (I use the term loosely as in reality she is no more than a drug dealer)passed out 27000 prescriptions mainly for drugs of abuse (alprazolam (Xanax), oxycodone (Oxycontin), hydrocodone/acetaminophen (Vicodin), and amphetamine/dextroamphetamine (Adderall))
She rarely performed a physical examination or documented a genuine need for opioid analgesics or other drugs.
Im not sure that murder was the correct charge as a charge of murder requires 'malice' and Im not sure malice was present - certainly there was a total disregard for the safety and welfare of her 'patients' but the sentence was certainly the correct one
Even if the doctor was simply supplying drugs to people who wanted them for no medical purpose she was no different than a bartender who sells alcohol to people who want to get loaded up on booze. If some drunk driver gets killed is the bartender who supplied the booze to him guilty of second degree murder?
There was no malice nor was there any intention for people to overdose on the drugs she prescribed. You can bet that patients were provided with instructions on how to use them safely. That is standard with prescriptions in this country.
The sentence was not the correct one. She wasn't guilty of any serious crime and certainly not guilty of second degree murder.
Re: Another moronic jury demonstrates its stupidity
quote:
gopqed wrote:
How ugh of the trial did you actually see, Philer?
How much of it did I need to see to know that a doctor prescribing drugs to patients can't be guilty of second degree murder for doing so? That's true even if she was prescribing the drugs to people who didn't need them to fight pain. It's also true if she prescribed many more pills than people needed.
I couldn't care less how much this jury hated the woman who prescribed the drugs to the three young men who overdosed. Those men were responsible for what happened to them, not the doctor. The dumb, biased jury should not have found her guilty of a crime that she couldn't possibly have committed.
This sort of idiocy in court needs to be stopped. We need to get rid of the system that enables groups of 12 extremely stupid and biased people to wreck peoples' lives.
Re: Another moronic jury demonstrates its stupidity
quote:
Even if the doctor was simply supplying drugs to people who wanted them for no medical purpose she was no different than a bartender who sells alcohol to people who want to get loaded up on booze
Not sure of the law in the US but in the UK it is illegal to serve alcohol to a drunk person and if a bartender DID serve a drunk person and that person came to harm as a result the bartender is liable.
quote:
There was no malice nor was there any intention for people to overdose on the drugs she prescribed
That is the hurdle for me too the lack of malice but in the US you have a 'depraved indifference' statute which would cover it
quote:
you can bet that patients were provided with instructions on how to use them safely.
Actually I disagree I dont think that she gave a moments thought as to whether or not the drugs would be used safely - you dont prescribe medically unnecessary drugs which are highly addictive if you are in the least concerned about your 'patient's' welfare.
The sentence was not the correct one. She wasn't guilty of any serious crime and certainly not guilty of second degree murder.
Yes Philer we all know that you think that drugs are harmless and should be legal but the reality is that they are still illegal and this 'doctor' was handing them out like candy.
No addict if given a weeks (or more) supply of drugs is going to sit a portion them out they will take them as quickly as they are able - particularly if they know that there is an endless supply
--- HAPPINESS, THE IGNOBLE LIFE GOAL OF THE ILLITERATE
Re: Another moronic jury demonstrates its stupidity
quote:
Not sure of the law in the US but in the UK it is illegal to serve alcohol to a drunk person and if a bartender DID serve a drunk person and that person came to harm as a result the bartender is liable.-mais
Yes, and doing that is very different from issuing prescriptions for medications to patients. The doctor was not present and giving pill after pill to a patient who obviously didn't need any more pills. She wasn't even close to being the kind of irresponsible person that a bartender is who keeps serving booze to an obviously intoxicated person who will be driving a car upon leaving his establishment.
And even in the case of a bartender who continues to serve drinks to a drunk customer that bartender would not be guilty of second degree murder if the boozer has a wreck in a car and is killed.
quote:
That is the hurdle for me too the lack of malice but in the US you have a 'depraved indifference' statute which would cover it
If you're a doctor who prescribes pain medication and you believe that a patient is responsible for how much of that medication they take is that "depraved indifference?" That seems to be as close to it as this doctor got. Of course a dumbass jury can imagine all sorts of depravity in a woman whom they hate. That's apparently what this jury did.
quote:
Actually I disagree I dont think that she gave a moments thought as to whether or not the drugs would be used safely - you dont prescribe medically unnecessary drugs which are highly addictive if you are in the least concerned about your 'patient's' welfare.
Just because she prescribed addictive medications to people and made sure they would get plenty of pain medication that they may have needed I highly doubt that she didn't care at all about her patients or their welfare. She simply believed that they were responsible for how much of the medications they took. And she was right about that.
quote:
Yes Philer we all know that you think that drugs are harmless and should be legal but the reality is that they are still illegal and this 'doctor' was handing them out like candy.
The drugs she was prescribing were not illegal. And even if she was handing them out like candy those who received them were still responsible for how they used them. Not her.
quote:
No addict if given a weeks (or more) supply of drugs is going to sit a portion them out they will take them as quickly as they are able - particularly if they know that there is an endless supply.
Addicts do that all the time. There is nothing about addiction that precludes an addict controlling their intake of a drug. In fact, having an endless supply makes it much more easy to regulate that intake and not fool around on the street with dangerous black market concoctions.
If they instead choose to take far more of a prescription drug than they need or mix it with other drugs which will lead to problems that is their fault. Not the fault of the prescribing doctor.
