Sfdebris.net

Judge’s order requiring hospital to give COVID patient ivermectin called “unethical”

A county judge in Ohio has ordered a hospital in Cincinnati to administer ivermectin to an intensive care patient, a move raises questions about the role of the courts in the medical system.

“It is absurd that this order was issued,” Arthur Caplan, professor of bioethics at New York University’s Langone Medical Center, told Ars. “If I were these doctors, I simply wouldn’t do it.”

The order was spurred by a lawsuit filed by Julie Smith, whose 51-year-old husband, Jeffrey, is being treated in West Chester Hospital for COVID-19. The lawsuit was first reported by the Ohio Capital Journal. Jeffrey has been in the hospital since July 15, and as his condition declined, his wife Julie began investigating alternative treatments.

[...]

Source:Judge’s order requiring hospital to give COVID patient ivermectin called “unethical” @ arstechnica.com

To add some basic info: Ivermectin was reported to disrupt CoViD's ability to infect cells. The study isn't peer-reviewed yet, but a few details are pretty much certain to hint at this not being anything we can use. These details are, that this effect was only observed when Ivermectin was administered to cells in a petri dish and there was no further testing done and the other tiny little and totally unimportant detail is that for this "protective" effect to happen, Ivermectin would need to be dosed so high, that it would have a near perfect probability of killing the patient.

Can we please go straight to the next step and not bother courts or society at large with this nonsense and administer bullets to the head as a treatment for CoViD? It has all the same effects as drinking bleech and whatever other bullshit morons come up with, but would be much cheaper and faster.

The headline is misleading, the judge is not forcing patient to accept an unwanted treatment.

The legal question here is does the patient or the patient's medical proxy have the right to direct the patient's treatment, even if the treatment is controversial and unproven. What you are suggesting is that the patient should have no such right.

I do not endorse ivermectin as a treatment, I do not have the knowledge to make a judgment on it. The question here is, does the patient have the right to direct their own treatment, even against the advice of the attending medical professionals.

It's poisoning them whether they ask or not. The issue here is "Should malpractice be legal?"

Honestly I'm not even surprised, since it's fully legal to starve prisoners and pocket the lunch money.