who's to blame?

[horsepwr]

TweetSo Mike likes drugs. Mike can't control his addiction to drugs. Now they'll probably charge Mike's doctor with murder or manslaughter. When does the addict take responsibility?
Why is the addict not responsible for his actions?

[mtnmedic]

TweetThe doctor being the professional im sure recognized the problem but michael more than likely told him he'll find another doctor anywhere who'll like his money and write him scripts.

[Gonzomedic]

TweetThe MD is to blame,he should have walked without writing the script's. Part of the oath I believe is "to do no harm." An addict will get what he/she wishes, that's true,the doc screwed up. If he broke the law, losing his license is the least of his worries.

[skinnyman]

TweetAlso, from the news this morning, there was a very short timeline in which that doc was feeding him drugs. like every hour or so with something different.

[Klash]

TweetI agree horsepwr. It's the addict's responsibility.
Of course to me it all comes down to does an individual own his own body or not and I believe he does and unless the doc had him tied down and administering the medication - he didn't murder Jackson.
Where the doc messed up is (from what I've heard) and was negligent is he administered the medication and then left the room for 40 minutes.

[horsepwr]

Tweetgood point Klash. As I understand it, my body does belong to me. No one else owns, or makes decisions for, my body. Even with doctors. A doctor can suggest/recommend and prescribe solutions for bodily ailments, but ultimately, I'm in control. I make the decisions on what will be healthy for my body and life, and what might be unhealthy.

Yes, the medical professional might have neglected the patient in leaving him alone after administration of a drug that Michael demanded, but the ultimate decisions were Michael's.

What an idea though. All the irresponsible drug addicts that make terrible decisions everyday...putting their children in bad situations, putting themselves at risk. With this habit of passing the blame, all these wrongs could really go directly to the drug maker. In fact. You could put it all on the drug itself. It's so amazing the damage an inanimate object can cause.

[jipped genes]

Tweetthe doc will be the scape goat

[angryoldman]

TweetThe MD is purely to blame, because he was the enabler. He supplied the drugs to the druggie. And he totally disregarded his oath as a Doctor. He put money before his job and oath.
If I supply a gun used to murder someone, am I not the enabler? Had I not supplied the gun, that person would still be alive.

[daved150]

Tweet

The MD is purely to blame, because he was the enabler. He supplied the drugs to the druggie. And he totally disregarded his oath as a Doctor. He put money before his job and oath.
If I supply a gun used to murder someone, am I not the enabler? Had I not supplied the gun, that person would still be alive.

i get your point but i dont agree with your annology...you didnt pull the trigger...you didnt commit the murder. the doctor not only knew he was a user, but i'm sure he knew that dangerous amounts was being used...thats a little different than a doctor just subscribing and an addict o.d'ing. i think you and horse are wrong klash. fukin doctor has a responcibility do his patiant....it's his responcibility to protect his patiant from od'ing. the doc should be charged.

[horsepwr]

Tweet

The MD is purely to blame, because he was the enabler. He supplied the drugs to the druggie. And he totally disregarded his oath as a Doctor. He put money before his job and oath.
If I supply a gun used to murder someone, am I not the enabler? Had I not supplied the gun, that person would still be alive.

It's not your fault. It's not the gun's fault. The fault lies entirely on the man that pulled the trigger. If you didn't provide the gun, someone else would.

[horsepwr]

TweetMichael Jackson's scenario is unique in a couple of ways. He's MJ. That, in itself, seems to make many people's mind begin to think unreasonably. Even this educated doctor, obviously. He had a nurse from FL that kept her sensibility.

So the doctor is to blame? and it's because he has a M.D., correct?

[daved150]

Tweetobviously i think MJ was fuked up...i believe he was a pediphile and appearently a drug addict. but, with a doctor on staff, with you 24/7, how the fuk do you O.D? how did this doctor not think..."wow...the levels of drugs hes taking is getting very dangerous....". this doctor was on site, so i assume, he dosed MJ. would'nt you think? he's there 24/7....dosnt that mean, when MJ is feeling pain his doc doses him out the meds? i dont think mike walked around with a couple hundred pills in his fanny pac!!! the doctor spooned him out, gave a little too much and the child molester died...too bad. what a shame. but i believe it's the doctors responcibility to make sure that shyt dont happen. pretty sure thats part of the reason he was being paid.

[FUZO]

Tweetthe doc by far is to blame. You dont give a person that kind of drug to sleep that just ignorant.

[angryoldman]

Tweet

i get your point but i dont agree with your annology...you didnt pull the trigger...you didnt commit the murder. the doctor not only knew he was a user, but i'm sure he knew that dangerous amounts was being used...thats a little different than a doctor just subscribing and an addict o.d'ing. i think you and horse are wrong klash. fukin doctor has a responcibility do his patiant....it's his responcibility to protect his patiant from od'ing. the doc should be charged.

And I get your point as well. But do a google search on a "Straw Purchase". Then, sit in a court room, and tell the DA and judge that, "It doesn't matter if I bought the gun. I didn't pull the trigger, so I'm innocent." See what they tell you.

[horsepwr]

Tweet

And I get your point as well. But do a google search on a "Straw Purchase". Then, sit in a court room, and tell the DA and judge that, "It doesn't matter if I bought the gun. I didn't pull the trigger, so I'm innocent." See what they tell you.

The straw purchase. I'm glad I read up on that little term. I better watch out next time I purchase a round of drinks. or host a party, for that matter because in the terms you've put it aom, I, just for purchasing a drink for someone, could get charged with the DUI if said person got pulled over for swerving.
So how I understand it, the straw purchase went into effect with the Gun Control Act of 1968, and the only way to end up in a courtroom over a Straw Purchase is if you knowingly bought the gun for someone that otherwise could not make the purchase. When skimming over the "straw purchase", it kind of leads you to think you can be in big trouble for buying a gun for your own teenage child, but after digging more, the DA would only have something with a "Straw Purchase" if you knowingly bought a gun for someone that no longer has the right to purchase a firearm.