Judge orders hospital to treat COVID-19 patient with ivermectin, despite warnings

[diehardblue]

CINCINNATI (WXIX/Gray News) – A judge in Ohio has ordered a hospital to use ivermectin to treat a man for COVID-19, despite warnings from federal regulators.

WXIX reports Judge Gregory Howard ordered West Chester Hospital to treat Jeffrey Smith, 51, with the anti-parasitic drug after his wife sued to force the hospital to use the treatment.

The judge’s ruling requires the hospital to allow Dr. Fred Wagshul to administer 30 mg of ivermectin to Smith every day for three weeks. But the two-page order does not explain the reasoning behind his decision.

“I can’t comment on litigation or answer questions, and HIPAA patient privacy laws prevent me from commenting on any specifics of patient care,” said UC Health spokesperson Amanda Nageleisen of the ruling.

https://www.abc12.com/2021/08/30/judge-orders-hospital-treat-covid-19-patient-with-ivermectin-despite-warnings/

[dewsgirl]

1. Didn't someone just die the other day, from ivermectin?

[FBaggins]

9. Likely from an overdose

It’s a relatively safe over the counter medication…

… there just isn’t any reason to think that it helps with Covid

[Hortensis]

10. This. It's approved by the FDA for some uses,

but not as treatment for Covid. Dosages have long been established, though. Patients may be hurt by this, but not likely from ivermectin itself.

[Laurelin]

15. Is it over the counter?

If it were, nobody would need a prescription, I think? I think it is pretty safe when it's a prescribed human drug and the dosage is correct.

[FBaggins]

16. Yep... and cheap

If it were, nobody would need a prescription, I think?

Correct. But when you're in a hospital, they like to control everything that you put into your body. Sometimes including the amount of water that you drink. They really don't want you consuming medications that might interact with other things that they're giving you.

[no_hypocrisy]

2. Does this allow the doctor, the hospital, and the staff to be immune from

future malpractice actions by this patient and family?

[FBaggins]

6. Over that medication, yes - nt

[Ms. Toad]

19. No. The hospital may be,

But the doctor will not be. The doctor is independently exercising his own medical judgement (what little any doctor who joins the demon sperm cult actually has). The court took the hospitals right to do the same away.

[FBaggins]

22. The doctor too

The patient (or, in this case, someone who can speak for the patient on medical treatment) is insisting on it in court. They would have a tough time later arguing that the doctor should be held responsible.

[Ms. Toad]

26. Nope.

The doctor prescribed it.

The hospital was preventing the doctor from administering it. The suit was about forcing the hospital to permit the doctor to administer a drug prescribed by the doctor that the hospital thought was unwise. The court didn't just randomly decide to practce medicine and order the treatment the patient requested. It chose betweeen two disparte medical postions: The treatment ordered by the patient's personal physician, and the hospital that was standing it its way.

ETA - the suit was solely against the hospital, not the doctor, seeking a court order to force the hospital to administer the medication prescribed by the patient's doctor. Nothing in the complaint, or the decision, impairs the doctor's independent medical judgment.

[FBaggins]

37. Not relevant to the current conversation

The lawsuit isn't between a doctor who wants one treatment and a hospital that doesn't want to allow it.

The lawsuit was filed by the wife... and it clearly says that she went looking for other treatments and decided on the doctor after that point. She can't then sue the doctor that allowed her to get it for her husband - particularly when the lawsuit explicitly says that she's willing to waive any such liability.

[Ms. Toad]

40. res judicata

Since the doctor is not in the suit, nothing that happens in the suit binds or protects the doctor.

You are also mischaracterizing the suit.

The treatment was prescribed by her husband's doctor, Dr. Wagshul. The hospital refuses to admininster it. So yes, the doctor does want one treatment and the hospital is refusing to allow it.

The Defendant refuses comply with Dr. Wagshul's medical order and prescription to administer Ivermectin to Jel.

Further, the waiver of liablity only pertains to the defendant.

Despite Ms. Smith's offer to sign a full release, releasing and relieving the Defendant from any and all lability concerning the administration of Ivermectin to her husband, the Defendant has refused and is unwilling to do so.

The defendant is the hospital

WEST CHESTER HOSPITAL, LLC DBA WEST CHESTER HOSPITAL CIO GH&R Business Services, Inc. 312 Walnut Street, Suite 1800 Cincinnati, OH 45202

not the doctor.

Dr. Wagshul, with no legal restraint or coercion on his choice to prescribe Ivermectin to the woman's husband, will have no protection from liablity for malpractice, as I've said all along.

All excerpts are from the complaint.

[joetheman]

3. Remember "death panels?" Now we have death courts.

There are studies involving ivermectin going on right now. Let's see what the outcome will be. I'll wait for the evidence. If it helps, then great!

[mucifer]

4. So now can any family sue a hospital because they want a certain treatment? Why have

doctors and research? I'm confused.

[Hortensis]

11. Always could. We can also sue insurance companies

in hopes of forcing coverage of treatments for insufficient proven efficacy. That's when the data and research are introduced and ruled on.

[Rorey]

5. Well, at least he won't have worms when he dies

[Hortensis]

12. Or scabies.

[JHB]

7. Two can play at that game...

Cartoonist: Kevin Necessary of the Cincinnati Enquirer

[2naSalit]

23. +1

I was going to post that, too!

[Buckeye_Democrat]

8. It's not an order for the hospital staff to administer it, but...

.. that Dr. Fred Wagshul guy who's been promoting that BS "treatment" for awhile.

Dr. Tenpenny was bad enough, the idiot who claimed the vaccines were magnetizing people, but Ohio apparently has plenty of other quacks too.

That judge is clearly a fool too.

[Hortensis]

13. Okay. It'd be horrifying if the order was to use ivermectin instead of vaccination.

That would be insane, harmful and unconscionable. But a lot of people are refusing vaccination and buying ivermectin to fend off Covid.

As it is, this guy's been in the hospital with Covid for weeks, his wife's desperate for a treatment that'll work, and the physician who'll administer it claims (statement at link) there is reason to believe from cases and studies around the world that ivermectin may be an effective treatment for Covid.

https://covid19criticalcare.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/FLCCC-Alliance-Statement-on-Misleading-FDA-Guidance-on-Ivermectin-March7-2021.pdf

Sounds like the judge did right as far as this case alone is concerned. Even if it doesn't help, it's a standard FDA-approved treatment for other uses that shouldn't harm the patient either.

[mnhtnbb]

27. Here's an article on the group--FLCCC Alliance--that is promoting Ivermectin

https://www.medpagetoday.com/infectiousdisease/covid19/90552


And here's the statement from the FDA about not using Ivermectin to treat COVID

https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/why-you-should-not-use-ivermectin-treat-or-prevent-covid-19

[Hortensis]

32. Good article, thanks, Mn. FLCCC certainly wouldn't be our choice --

unless maybe my husband was dying and I felt there was nothing to lose.

And after all, sketchy as the data for are so far, it has not been established that invermectin has no value in treatment of Covid. I guess we actually should wish it did, considering.

[Irish_Dem]

14. I would refuse to follow the court order, refuse to give a patient bad treatment.

I would sit in jail I guess.

[sir pball]

25. The patients doctor is part of the suit

The doctor wants to administer ivermectin, the hospital administrators we're overruling him. In that case I actually don't have a problem with this outcome, so long as the sperm-demon doctor gets full responsibility for the outcome and the hospital is immune to any resultant lawsuits or fallout.

[Irish_Dem]

29. So the doc wanted cover. Make no mistake, these kind of patients will sue in a heartbeat.

The doc didn't want to lose his license for giving a treatment that is not standard of care.
The hospital is trying to avoid liability for failure to follow standard of care.

And these are always the kind of patients who sue at the drop of the hat.

The doc is being very foolish.

[sir pball]

33. The doc's foolishness has long been on very open display.

From the article, "Wagshul is a founding member of Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance." They're a raging quack group whose site is currently headlined 'It’s the Totality of Evidence that Counts! Click to see our latest “Summary of the Evidence for Ivermectin in COVID-19"'

He doesn't care about covering his ass, he's been hanging it out for all to see for a lot longer than this. Shit, he'd probably relish somebody trying to pull his license...he'd be a friggin' martyr. This is 100% the hospital covering their asses, quite wisely so IMO.

[Irish_Dem]

34. Yes that seems to be the case given the info you have.

And right, he doesn't seem to care if he loses his license. So he is being funded by someone with deep pockets.

[sir pball]

35. I doubt he'll lose his license over this, TBH

Last edited Tue Aug 31, 2021, 05:42 PM - Edit history (1)

Ultimately, ivermectin *is* FDA approved for humans, and off-label use (prescribing a drug for something other than its approved for) isn't usually a cause for discipline unless it's blatantly unethical or unsafe - which in this case, a patient who's beyond help from any known standard of care, would be a hard sell. It's not like administering it in the proper dose, NOT slurping down a tube of horse paste, is harmful...it's just useless.

I do suspect that he's going to have some trouble getting privileges at any (sane) hospital after this stunt, though, which isn't much better.

[Irish_Dem]

36. I cannot imagine any hospital wanting this idiot on staff or with privileges.

He is a big liability. Can you imagine getting a court order against a hospital or clinic where you are working?
This is costing the hospital time and money.

He might not lose his license now, but he is heading that way if he keeps playing these crap stunts.

[sir pball]

38. I suspect he'll end up in a shady telemedicine "clinic"

Dispensing no-questions-asked Viagra and hair pills alongside the HCQ/ivermectin/zinc "protocol" they love so well.

[Irish_Dem]

39. Right, something shady for sure.

[global1]

17. Isn't This Practicing Medicine Without A License To Practice?.....

The Judge is not a doctor. He can't and shouldn't make this call.

[2naSalit]

24. One would think.

[Zeitghost]

31. No

The Dr. that prescribed the Ivermectin is practicing with a license. The judge ordered the hospital to stand down and allow the Dr. to treat his patient.

[ForgedCrank]

18. Sounds to me like

the doc was wanting to prescribe it and the hospital was refusing to cooperate?
The article doesn't say that directly, but alludes to it in a roundabout way.
I don't see an issue with it as long as a doctor is involved. People are generally free to pick their own quack if they insist on other weird alternate treatments. Above all, I don't think we want hospital administration getting involved in an individual doctors treatment plans. I'm also not sure how the malpractice insurance deals with situations like this to protect the hospital. This is a potential issue. At least in this case, the hospital is immune due to the courts orders.
Of course, the entire thing could have been avoided had the guy just got vaccinated when he had the opportunity.

[mnhtnbb]

28. Hospitals have a legal obligation to monitor that all docs who are privileged to practice

at the hospital are qualified to do so and adhere to standard community practices.

My guess is that the Medical Staff at the hospital will invite this doc to take his quackery somewhere else the next time his privileges are up for renewal.

[Irish_Dem]

30. Any hospital that employs this doc is very foolish. He is a lawsuit waiting to happen.

[ForgedCrank]

41. I wonder if they would have to wait that long.

I can't imagine they don't have a policy that prohibits administering non-approved drugs.
Who knows, the story is pretty vague on details

[struggle4progress]

20. Next up! Judge orders hospital to drill holes in patient's head

to allow demons to escape

[Ms. Toad]

21. Poorly written article. This is the demon sperm cult against the hospital, regardless of whose name

Is on the court papers. Demon down cult doctor (AKA frontline) wanted to administer ivermectin. Hospital said no way, not here. Court ruled that hospital could not stand in doctors way.

(And palliative care is for all serious illness; it is not synonymous with hospice care - and any self-respecting news entity would not equate them. The"threat" of entering palliative care would play no role in the decision to allow the doctor to use ivermectin as a last ditch effort to save him.