Trial of a well known pop-star's physician.

I will start out by saying that I didn't follow the trial faithfully, the only updates I had were those my mom told me after reading the occasional news article and what I read on the Lawyers.com blogs that were shared on FB.

I am a bit confused (and honestly, plain disgusted) at the outcome of the trial. Since the majority seemed to convict the doctor before the trial started, that was the only side I seemed to hear (blogs excluded), I guess what I am not understanding is why was the physician convicted for a death that wasn't by his doing?

From what I have gathered, his main crimes were that 1) he prescribed the medication and 2) he didn't call 911 immediately. Were those two things really enough to convict him of involuntary manslaughter? If so, does that mean if I was addicted to sleeping pills, and my physician prescribed a stronger dose so I could sleep, and I decided to take more than I should, could my family (mom and brother) sue the physician because I took more pills than would have been prudent?

I do have my personal view on the whole outcome, but before I become completely blinded by what I don't know, and assuming things that haven't been verified, I would like to try and understand the whole picture. I tried to google it, but I am not sure I want to dig through a whole bunch of articles, and I don't know if there are any that aren't biased towards his guilt.

Thank you in advance for any feedback, and I will check in again when I am at a computer and can respond. :)

Miss Magoo. :)

Miss Magoo:

From what I have gathered, his main crimes were that 1) he prescribed the medication and 2) he didn't call 911 immediately. Were those two things really enough to convict him of involuntary manslaughter? If so, does that mean if I was addicted to sleeping pills, and my physician prescribed a stronger dose so I could sleep, and I decided to take more than I should,

That's not exactly what happened.

As far as I've been able to tell, the Dr actually administered a dose of propofol, which is an extremely potent anesthetic normally used during surgery, in the patient's bedroom without adequate safeguards and botched his care when things went wrong. That's a far cry from your scenario. Worse, the pop-star sought this drug from other Drs who refused him, apparently knowing how dangerous it was.

Miss Magoo:

could my family (mom and brother) sue the physician because I took more pills than would have been prudent?

Now you are mixing up a criminal charge with a civil lawsuit.

In your case your Dr might not be criminally culpable but could be negligent in his treatment of you.

In the case of the pop-star, it's likely that a medical malpractice lawsuit by the estate and family would ensue.

Miss Magoo:

I guess what I am not understanding is why was the physician convicted for a death that wasn't by his doing?

This death VERY much was at this doctor's hands and this punishment is not enough.  The gross negligence and indifference he showed to human life in administering a powerful anesthetic without proper safety equipment and then NOT calling 911 until he hid the evidence while the patient lay dying is enormous.

Propofol is a powerful anesthetic that is administered via intravenous line only.  It is NOT intended as a sleep aid and any licensed physician knows that.  No responsible physician would administer conscious sedation or anesthesia without the proper life sustaining equipment immediately on hand.  Even if all the appropriate protocols are followed if a problem develops you render CPR and aid to the patient immediately and notify 911 to send rescue personnel.  You do NOT ignore the patient's distress in order to hide the evidence of what you were doing.

Records show that this doctor ordered 4 gallons, yes GALLONS of the drug.  I know hospital operating rooms that do not use that much in an entire month.  A single patient would NEVER have needed that much.  

In addition to working with this drug in the OR, I have had it when I had my own surgery.  There is absolutely NO WAY the patient injected themself with the drug.  The doctor claims that after he gave a single dose he left the room and the patient injected themself.  NO WAY.  Physically impossible.  When injected it works almost immediately and renders the patient unconscious. 

The sad fact is that insomnia did kill MJ.  His desperate quest for sleep led him to exploit a physician in financial distress who would do what he wanted.  Unfortunately for him, he chose a doctor who was completely irresponsible and it cost him his life.

Miss Magoo:

From what I have gathered, his main crimes were that 1) he prescribed the medication and 2) he didn't call 911 immediately.

It's sad to think this is the impression the public has gotten from a trial that was so full of extreme negligence!  Aj and CM covered it pretty well.  You might want to google the judge's sentencing speech...he was so shocked by the events that he really gave it to the defendant....who deserved it.  Too bad the max is only 4 years and he won't serve that much, due to the over-crowding in CA jails.

Even with his negligence and bad judgement, he STILL could have saved the patient's life easily had he been monitoring the situation, instead of cooing on the phone privately to one of his many gf's...for over 20 minutes.  Anesthesia can depress the respiratory system in an instant.

You wouldn't want THIS guy in charge of your health.

I'm sorry for the length of time, I didn't anticipate going this long without replying. :(

Okay, back to topic. :)

adjuster jack:

Now you are mixing up a criminal charge with a civil lawsuit.

In your case your Dr might not be criminally culpable but could be negligent in his treatment of you.

Ok, thank you for pointing that out Jack, I didn't realize I had mixed the two up... In the case that the doctor wasn't criminally culpable, but negligent, would he just get a 'slap on the wrist' or a more intense consequence?

adjuster jack:

In the case of the pop-star, it's likely that a medical malpractice lawsuit by the estate and family would ensue.

Seeing that the doctor was already in financial trouble when this fiasco started, wouldn't that be attempting to get blood from a turnip?

ClydesMom:

This death VERY much was at this doctor's hands and this punishment is not enough.  The gross negligence and indifference he showed to human life in administering a powerful anesthetic without proper safety equipment and then NOT calling 911 until he hid the evidence while the patient lay dying is enormous.

I am not trying to be the devil's advocate, but from what I have gathered, (yes, I did start researching so I could try and understand/gain more information), no one knows what exactly happened in those immediate minutes leading up to MJ's death or in the minutes following. What I am looking at is that I haven't found anything to indicate that the doctor neglected MJ so he could hide evidence, if MJ was gone at that point, there is no negligence, correct?

ClydesMom:

Records show that this doctor ordered 4 gallons, yes GALLONS of the drug.  I know hospital operating rooms that do not use that much in an entire month.  A single patient would NEVER have needed that much.  

ClydesMom:

 There is absolutely NO WAY the patient injected themself with the drug.  The doctor claims that after he gave a single dose he left the room and the patient injected themself.  NO WAY.  Physically impossible.  When injected it works almost immediately and renders the patient unconscious. 

That is a lot. I'll take your word about the hospital not using that much, but if a person was addicted to this drug, and as a result, had built a resistance to the effects, and was going on a huge comeback tour to boot, could it not be possible that the amount would properly reflect what MJ's tolerance was, and the fact he had to have it daily so he could sleep? And if for the sake of discussion, it was true that the doctor gave a single dose, and left, if there had been an incredible resistance, is it not a possibility that MJ could have injected more?

ClydesMom:

The sad fact is that insomnia did kill MJ.  His desperate quest for sleep led him to exploit a physician in financial distress who would do what he wanted.

That is where I am coming from, and also the main reason I am confused. I found an article on CNN that shed more light on the situation. Here is the link to it: Exclusive: Doctor says MJ was addicted to propofol.

In this article, it quotes from another doctor who treated MJ for some facial issues, and he said something that I found to be very interesting.

CNN Article:

 

Klein described three instances in which he said he was involved as interventions to prevent Jackson from getting propofol, although Klein gave no indication of when the incidents occurred.

In the first instance, Klein said he chartered a plane to Las Vegas when he heard Jackson was getting propofol at a hotel where the singer was staying. Klein claimed he threw out the doctor involved to prevent him from giving Jackson the drug.

In another encounter in Hawaii, Klein said he and his nurse slept on the floor of Jackson's room to prevent him from getting propofol from a plastic surgeon.

Klein claimed he once "saved" Jackson in New York when another doctor administered propofol, combined with another drug. It made Jackson go "running down the street," Klein said.

The fact that this doctor took on the role of MJ's babysitter says a lot about MJ's determination to get his hands on the drug, it also tells me that he was going to do it one way or another.

ClydesMom:

Unfortunately for him, he chose a doctor who was completely irresponsible and it cost him his life.

I do agree that the doctor didn't make a good choice at all, but I can't pave the way to see why the charge for involuntary manslaughter. As I have often read on these forums, unethical isn't always illegal, and when you have a boss, you do what the boss says. MJ wanted propofol, after a lot of searching, he found a doctor who needed the money and was willing to do as MJ asked, (since I haven't read otherwise, I'm assuming that it wasn't illegal to buy four gallons of said drug). How is that enough to convict someone of manslaughter? Pulling his medical license, I can totally understand and would support, simply because it wasn't smart, but I am shaking my head at the other.

kath21:

Even with his negligence and bad judgement, he STILL could have saved the patient's life easily had he been monitoring the situation, instead of cooing on the phone privately to one of his many gf's...for over 20 minutes.  Anesthesia can depress the respiratory system in an instant.

I am not sure I agree with that, my mom used to work in the hospital, ER, etc, and she told  me that people have died in the OR from a depressed respiratory system because they cannot be woke up after the surgery, also, some bodies cannot handle these intense drugs, and sometimes the body will only put up with so much before quitting. Also, why did his personal life come into the trial? It isn't uncommon for a guy to have multiple girlfriends, and personally, I think whoever he was talking too is irrelevant to the outcome.

kath21:

You wouldn't want THIS guy in charge of your health.

I  mean no offense, but with all due respect to ClydesMom, (who I highly respect) I don't trust any medical professional with my health. :)

Miss Magoo. :)

While I did not watch the entire trial I did see key parts.  There was clear cut evidence via witness testimony and physical evidence that this doctor did not immediately render aid to MJ when it was clearly apparent he was in physical distress and needed resuscitating.  He did not have the proper equipment to safely administer this drug to anyone, he did not immediately summon first responders when trouble started, he declined to disclose to the ER what drugs he had given the patient until after the patient died and he realized there would be an autopsy.  Prior to calling first responders he attempted to hide and/or destroy the evidence of what he was doing.

ALL of that equates to an indifference to human life and a manslaughter charge because he did not intend to kill anyone.

What you need to understand is the first and most important rule in medicine is FIRST DO NO HARM.  He ignored that.  Second:  medical personnel legally are "bound by their training and expertise" in treating anyone.  He failed to adhere to both rules.  MJ had attempted to get other medical personnel to presribe and administer the propofol and ALL up until this doctor REFUSED due to the danger in providing it.  This doctor had a DUTY to refuse to render a treatment that he knew was dangerous without proper training and safety equipment.  Then when he did get into trouble he failed in his duty to protect his patient before his own interests.  That calls for criminal charges AND losing your license. 

Had MJ died in the hospital post surgical procedure it likely would have been an adverse outcome.  NO ONE should die because their physician cares more about their reputation and not getting caught than their well being.

It's possible that you are not aware how dangerous anesthesia is; it is the generally the most dangerous part of a surgery.  Anesthesiologists are among the highest paid doctors (usually higher than the surgeon) for one reason alone - the inherent danger of the drugs used.  Your life is literally in his hands.

Miss Magoo:

As I have often read on these forums, unethical isn't always illegal, and when you have a boss, you do what the boss says. MJ wanted propofol, after a lot of searching, he found a doctor who needed the money and was willing to do as MJ asked, (since I haven't read otherwise, I'm assuming that it wasn't illegal to buy four gallons of said drug). How is that enough to convict someone of manslaughter?

Seriously?  It became ilegal when his negligence KILLED somebody.  MJ was never ANY doctor's BOSS, including Dr Murrray; doctor's have an ethical AND legal obligation NOT TO DO THE PATIENT HARM.   If MJ "wanted" heroin, should a doctor give it to him?  Would you expect your doctor to give you controlled substances simply because you asked for them?  Obviously not.  Being a doctor makes him more responsible for his actions, not less.

Miss Magoo:

kath21:

Even with his negligence and bad judgement, he STILL could have saved the patient's life easily had he been monitoring the situation, instead of cooing on the phone privately to one of his many gf's...for over 20 minutes.  Anesthesia can depress the respiratory system in an instant.

I am not sure I agree with that, my mom used to work in the hospital, ER, etc, and she told  me that people have died in the OR from a depressed respiratory system because they cannot be woke up after the surgery

And why couldn't they be "woken up"? Why did they have a "depressed respiratory system", as I said?   Because they were under the influence of anesthesia.  Any other reason wouldn't be relevant to this case.

And, indeed, there was expert testimony in the case to this effect which was NOT refuted by the defense.  Another reason it helps to know all the facts before forming an opinion.

Miss Magoo:

Also, why did his personal life come into the trial?

His personal life would NEVER have come into it...IF he hadn't neglected his patient during an incredibly dangerous procedure. 

 Here is the equipment required when putting a patient under:

Physiologic monitoring

Monitoring involves the use of several technologies to allow for a controlled induction of, maintenance of and emergence from general anaesthesia.

1. Continuous Electrocardiography (ECG): The placement of electrodes that monitor heart rate and rhythm. This may also help the anaesthetist to identify early signs of heart ischaemia.
2. Continuous pulse oximetry (SpO2): The placement of this device (usually on one of the fingers) allows for early detection of a fall in a patient's haemoglobin saturation with oxygen (hypoxaemia).
3. Blood Pressure Monitoring (NIBP or IBP): There are two methods of measuring the patient's blood pressure. The first, and most common, is called non-invasive blood pressure (NIBP) monitoring. This involves placing a blood pressure cuff around the patient's arm, forearm or leg. A blood pressure machine takes blood pressure readings at regular, preset intervals throughout the surgery. The second method is called invasive blood pressure (IBP) monitoring. This method is reserved for patients with significant heart or lung disease, the critically ill, major surgery such as cardiac or transplant surgery, or when large blood losses are expected. The invasive blood pressure monitoring technique involves placing a special type of plastic cannula in the patient's artery - usually at the wrist or in the groin.
4. Agent concentration measurement - Common anaesthetic machines have monitors to measure the per cent of inhalational anaesthetic agent used (e.g. sevoflurane, isoflurane, desflurane, halothane etc.). The monitors also usually measure nitrous oxide and oxygen percentages and could give a MAC level.
5. Low oxygen alarm - Almost all circuits have a backup alarm in case the oxygen delivery to the patient becomes compromised. This warns if the fraction of inspired oxygen drops lower than minimum alarm setting and allows the anaesthetist to take immediate remedial action.
6. Circuit disconnect alarm or low pressure alarm indicates failure of circuit to achieve a given pressure during mechanical ventilation.
7. Carbon dioxide measurement (capnography)- measures the amount of carbon dioxide expired by the patient's lungs in per cent or mmHg, mmHg is usually used to allow the anaesthesia provider to see more subtle changes in CO2. It allows the anaesthetist to assess the adequacy of ventilation
8. Temperature measurement to discern hypothermia or fever, and to aid early detection of malignant hyperthermia.
9. EEG or other system to verify depth of anaesthesia may also be used. This reduces the likelihood that a patient will be mentally awake, although unable to move because of the paralytic agents. It also reduces the likelihood of a patient receiving significantly more amnesic drugs than actually necessary to do the job.

With the loss of consciousness caused by general anaesthesia, there is loss of protective airway reflexes (such as coughing), loss of airway patency and sometimes loss of a regular breathing pattern due to the effect of anaesthetics, opioids, or muscle relaxants. To maintain an open airway and regulate breathing within acceptable parameters, some form of "breathing tube" is inserted in the airway after the patient is unconscious. To enable mechanical ventilation, an endotracheal tube is often used (intubation), although there are alternative devices such as face masks or laryngeal mask airways

That's how dangerous it is.  The doctor had NONE of this equipment.

Miss Magoo:

I  mean no offense, but with all due respect to ClydesMom, (who I highly respect) I don't trust any medical professional with my health. :)

Interesting that you would have such a low opinion of the medical field (while mom works therein), yet defend the negligent doctor in this case!  What's up with that?  Doesn't seem logical.

If you would really like to read the details of the case, try reading his trial details at  Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_of_Conrad_Murray

Miss Magoo:

In the case that the doctor wasn't criminally culpable, but negligent, would he just get a 'slap on the wrist' or a more intense consequence?

adjuster jack:

In the case of the pop-star, it's likely that a medical malpractice lawsuit by the estate and family would ensue.

Seeing that the doctor was already in financial trouble when this fiasco started, wouldn't that be attempting to get blood from a turnip?

Possibly. But if the doctor had malpractice insurance (typically written with a minimum of a million, often much higher) the wrongful death due to negligence could end up maxing out the policy limits.

And if a jury found willful negligence it could award punitive damages that might not be covered by insurance.

adjuster jack:

Miss Magoo:

In the case that the doctor wasn't criminally culpable, but negligent, would he just get a 'slap on the wrist' or a more intense consequence?

adjuster jack:

In the case of the pop-star, it's likely that a medical malpractice lawsuit by the estate and family would ensue.

Seeing that the doctor was already in financial trouble when this fiasco started, wouldn't that be attempting to get blood from a turnip?

Not necessarily; doctors who lose their licenses often continue to get high paying medical jobs here or in another country with lesser standards.  Or he could win the lottery.  No one can predict the future....except to predict the family WILL sue, just to be sure. 

That's one more thing the Jackson estate needs; more money. 

I"ll start off by saying a big Thank You for all the replies, all the information has been a great help. I am not trying to be argumentative, but there are some things that aren't ringing true for me.

ClydesMom:

MJ had attempted to get other medical personnel to presribe and administer the propofol and ALL up until this doctor REFUSED due to the danger in providing it.

adjuster jack:

Worse, the pop-star sought this drug from other Drs who refused him, apparently knowing how dangerous it was.

According to the article I linked earlier, this is what a physician who had treated MJ said:

Dr. Klein's Interview:

 

Klein described three instances in which he said he was involved as interventions to prevent Jackson from getting propofol, although Klein gave no indication of when the incidents occurred.

In the first instance, Klein said he chartered a plane to Las Vegas when he heard Jackson was getting propofol at a hotel where the singer was staying. Klein claimed he threw out the doctor involved to prevent him from giving Jackson the drug.

In another encounter in Hawaii, Klein said he and his nurse slept on the floor of Jackson's room to prevent him from getting propofol from a plastic surgeon.

Klein claimed he once "saved" Jackson in New York when another doctor administered propofol, combined with another drug. It made Jackson go "running down the street," Klein said.

According to this, MJ was addicted to propofol before Murray even had him as a patient, and that there were indeed other doctor's who were not opposed to giving MJ propofol. The reason I say that is because if no other doctor's were willing to do it, Klein would not have needed to play the role of 'babysitter'.

However, with that said, thank you ClydesMom and Kath21 for the information about anesthetics. Learning about them has solidified my belief that the doctor did make a terrible decision. Although, I doubt that the other physicians who were willing to give the drug had the safety equipment on hand.

ClydesMom:

Had MJ died in the hospital post surgical procedure it likely would have been an adverse outcome.

I see.

ClydesMom:

What you need to understand is the first and most important rule in medicine is FIRST DO NO HARM.  He ignored that.  Second:  medical personnel legally are "bound by their training and expertise" in treating anyone.  He failed to adhere to both rules.

I would like to understand this more clearly. First do no harm, meaning that because he didn't have the equipment on hand, that is why he is guilty of ignoring it, correct?

Also, what does it mean "bound by their training and expertise"? How did he break that in this situation?

adjuster jack:

Possibly. But if the doctor had malpractice insurance (typically written with a minimum of a million, often much higher) the wrongful death due to negligence could end up maxing out the policy limits.

And if a jury found willful negligence it could award punitive damages that might not be covered by insurance.

Okay. Thank you for explaining this Jack. :) It is very nice to be getting information and answers to questions I've had since the whole trial started.

Sorry for doing two post's, but wanted to break it up so there wasn't a long one like last time. :)

kath21:

Seriously?  It became ilegal when his negligence KILLED somebody.  MJ was never ANY doctor's BOSS, including Dr Murrray; doctor's have an ethical AND legal obligation NOT TO DO THE PATIENT HARM.   If MJ "wanted" heroin, should a doctor give it to him?  Would you expect your doctor to give you controlled substances simply because you asked for them?  Obviously not.  Being a doctor makes him more responsible for his actions, not less.

Yes, I was being serious. I see what you are saying about the negligence, although I am sure it wasn't the first time it had been done this way, but I do agree it wasn't a smart choice. As for the heroin, of course not! There is a big difference between a legal anesthetic and an illegal drug.

As for the other, since MJ hired Murray, that creates an employer/employee relationship. For example, if I was hired at a private company when I am a paralegal, there is an employer/employee relationship. I am bound by the state laws on what a paralegal can and cannot do, but I am still an employee.

kath21:

Another reason it helps to know all the facts before forming an opinion.

Precisely why this thread was started, all I have heard is that the doctor was guilty, and I wasn't going to just jump on the bandwagon because everyone else said so. I wanted to find out the facts for myself.

kath21:

Interesting that you would have such a low opinion of the medical field (while mom works therein), yet defend the negligent doctor in this case!  What's up with that?

:-) First, I don't have a low opinion of them, after all, I come from a family who was in the medical, my aunt (retired) my brother (current) and my mom (changed careers in the early 1990's).

The reason I am 'defending' the doctor is because what I see is that he made a crummy choice, I won't deny that; but, if he'd had the safety equipment, and MJ still died, what then? Wouldn't we have an even better reason to put him down and say how terrible he was? If someone is going to die, they will, whether you have state-of-the art equipment, or nothing at all. Bottom line: I have sympathy for him because I see him as the scapegoat. MJ had a wacked out life and he was addicted to drugs, but because Murray blew it, it was easy to pin the rap on him. Personally, I think he would have been convicted just because he was the primary physician when MJ died.

kath21:

Doesn't seem logical.

No, it doesn't. :-) I'll just put it this way, medical personnel are just people, and they make mistakes like any other person. I have nothing against them, but they don't always see what is wrong with a person, and yes, I am speaking from experience. I was dying of blood loss at the young age of 13, and the physician sent me home with a clean bill of health.

kath21:

If you would really like to read the details of the case, try reading his trial details at  Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_of_Conrad_Murray

Thank you so much Kath for the information and the link, I am anticipating reading it. :)

Miss Magoo:

As for the other, since MJ hired Murray, that creates an employer/employee relationship.

No.  That's doctor-patient.  Jackson's house was not a hospital; Jackson was not the CEO or Chief Medical Officer; and he had nothing to do with the AMA.

Doctor and patient are two complete parallels with neither holding power over the other.

Cica is right; no doctor's patient is his boss.  You or your insurance on your behalf pays your doctor; does that make you his boss, along with all his other patients?  And he does your bidding?

Patient "bossing" the doctor makes for a conflict of interest and sets up the fiasco seen here.  The Anna Nicole Smith case is another example of a doctor neglecting his/her duty when confronted with big money and fame and givng the patient dangerous drugs on demand for no good medical reason (anesthesia does NOT make one "sleep")...until -whoops- she died of an overdose.  

Miss Magoo:

As for the heroin, of course not! There is a big difference between a legal anesthetic and an illegal drug.

I think you're missing the point;  substitute the word "codeine" or "morphine" to help stick on message there.

Miss Magoo:

if he'd had the safety equipment, and MJ still died, what then?

If he died, it would be due to something; people don't die for no reason.  If he had all the equipment but still left the room to conduct personal business, leaving his patient un-monitored during a dangerous procedure, he would still be responsible.

Miss Magoo:

If someone is going to die, they will, whether you have state-of-the art equipment, or nothing at all.

So you believe our lives are pre-ordained?  Maybe.  We have no way of actually knowing.  But we wouldn't be able to prosecute anybody for negligent manslaughter or murder if we took the position that the victim was meant to do so anyway.  Many have been saved by this equipment...and conscientious doctors. 

As dangerous as anesthesia is, the US has one of the best records of safety BECAUSE of all this equipment and an understanding of the danger.

Miss Magoo:

Bottom line: I have sympathy for him because I see him as the scapegoat. MJ had a wacked out life and he was addicted to drugs, but because Murray blew it, it was easy to pin the rap on him. Personally, I think he would have been convicted just because he was the primary physician when MJ died

HIS actions are the CAUSE of the death; HE gave anesthesia without the training of an anesthesiologist or the proper equipment.  HE left the patient during a VERY dangerous procedure.  He had a VERY active part.  MJ would ber alive today if he hadn't been so negligent.

You may respond that MJ would have found someone else to anestheize him; maybe so but each person is responsible for his OWN actions.

Miss Magoo:

I see what you are saying about the negligence, although I am sure it wasn't the first time it had been done this way

Not the "everybody does it " excuse?  That and "MJ would have gotten it anyway" and "some other doctor got him addcited first" does not negate a person's responsibility of their own actions!    Those are playground excuses and not defenses in law...or ethics.

Miss Magoo:

kath21:

Another reason it helps to know all the facts before forming an opinion.

Precisely why this thread was started, all I have heard is that the doctor was guilty, and I wasn't going to just jump on the bandwagon because everyone else said so. I wanted to find out the facts for myself.

I meant that we just can't give the WHOLE trial in a thread.  But it does rather appear you DO have an opinion without the full facts.  I gather you are disgusted with the wreck of the man, MJ, with his drug addiction and many other issues and blame him....I'm not thrilled with him as a person, either.  

 Clearly, his addiction was the cause of not sleeping; he withdrew from drugs every night from those he took every day for years and withdrawal made sleep impossible.  No decent, ethical  doctor would keep encouraging his addiction by continuing to give him drugs....ANOTHER black spot for the doctor and indications of his lack of morality.

Miss Magoo:

As for the other, since MJ hired Murray, that creates an employer/employee relationship.

First, simply being "hired" to do something does not make one an employee. That's an unwarranted assumption. The details of the relationship between the two persons matter.  In the case of most attorney-client and doctor-patient relationships, the attorney or doctor is NOT an employee/ For example,  myy clients hire me to represent them and give them advice, but in no way am I the employee of my clients. I am an independent contractor.

Second, doctors, like lawyers, are required to in all instances of their professional work exercise their independent judgment and follow the rules of practice for their profession; even as an employee they cannot simply do whatever their employer tells them to do.

Miss Magoo:

If someone is going to die, they will, whether you have state-of-the art equipment, or nothing at all.

Surely you don't really believe that, do you? Do you really think that how a procedure is done, the equipment used, and the process the doctor follows really don't matter? If you have the need for surgery, are you telling me you'd truly be indifferent to a doctor who uses procedures from 50 or 100 years ago compared to one who uses the most up-to-date methods? Would you not care whether the procedure was done in the controlled, sterile envionment of a hospital rather than, say, a hut in a trash dump? Of course the details of how the procedure is done can make a huge difference. Sure, a patient might still die with state of the art equipment and procedures. But many more patients would die if a doctor ditches the proper equipment and safeguards and tries to wing it with something less simply to please a patient who pays him a lot of money to do what most doctors ethically would refuse to do.

Cica:

No.  That's doctor-patient.  Jackson's house was not a hospital; Jackson was not the CEO or Chief Medical Officer; and he had nothing to do with the AMA.

Doctor and patient are two complete parallels with neither holding power over the other.

Okay, thank you Cica!

kath21:

MJ would be alive today if he hadn't been so negligent.

There is absolutely no guarantee about that. No one can guarantee if they will be alive or not in a week, let alone the next hour. I say that because someone was recently murdered in a neighboring county, and I am sure if you had asked him if he was going to be alive in the next two weeks, he would have said yes, having no idea that he was about to be virtually decapitated on the bike path...

kath21:

but each person is responsible for his OWN actions.

Precisely what I am thinking. I see it as 50% MJ's responsibility, (after all, he was the one to initially seek out dangerous drugs, and was willing to sign a contract with a physician so he could have unlimited drug access). The other 50% is Dr. M's responsibility (for being willing to give a dangerous drug without the safety equipment that was needed, and for breaking ethics, legal or not).

kath21:

I meant that we just can't give the WHOLE trial in a thread.

Oh, okay. :) I wasn't asking for the whole trial, just about the things that didn't make sense.

kath21:

But it does rather appear you DO have an opinion without the full facts.

I did. But, I asked, which meant my opinion was open to change, and it has.

kath21:

I gather you are disgusted with the wreck of the man, MJ, with his drug addiction and many other issues and blame him.

No, not disgusted with the person, just the situation. I was (and am) disgusted with the fact that no one seems to be holding MJ responsible for what happened, it wasn't all the doctor's fault, and I am disgusted that it seems not many people can see that there were two sides to this, and only one is being held responsible.

kath21:

Not the "everybody does it " excuse?

(Sigh) Yes, that was a lame excuse... :-/ Maybe this teenage thinking will go away soon. :)

Taxagent:

First, simply being "hired" to do something does not make one an employee. That's an unwarranted assumption. The details of the relationship between the two persons matter.  In the case of most attorney-client and doctor-patient relationships, the attorney or doctor is NOT an employee/ For example,  myy clients hire me to represent them and give them advice, but in no way am I the employee of my clients. I am an independent contractor.

That was the next thing I was thinking, if the contract had ever been signed, would that have made the doctor an independant contractor? I am a bit confused, when does being hired engage the employer/employee relationship?

Taxagent:

Surely you don't really believe that, do you?

Yes, I do. I say that from experience, some people die when they should have lived, and others have lived when they should have died. I am one of the latter, but am alive in spite of the fact the physician sent me home with a clean bill of health. Honestly, I don't see why I shouldn't believe that, because there is no other way that makes sense.

Taxagent:

Do you really think that how a procedure is done, the equipment used, and the process the doctor follows really don't matter? If you have the need for surgery, are you telling me you'd truly be indifferent to a doctor who uses procedures from 50 or 100 years ago compared to one who uses the most up-to-date methods? Would you not care whether the procedure was done in the controlled, sterile envionment of a hospital rather than, say, a hut in a trash dump?

Yes, I do think it matters, and yes, I would care. My point in saying that was just because there is a doctor involved does not mean that everything will turn out. People die even though there is all the equipment needed, and the medical personnel do everything they can to keep the person alive; however, I do agree that more patients would probably die if a doctor ditched the proper equipment and safeguards.

Thank you all so, so much for the information! I am enjoying this discussion, and am learning so much. :)