(TeaParty.org Exclusive) – We are on the verge of full-blown socialized medicine here in America and it’s being accomplished while millions of Americans still have private insurance. Our rights and freedoms are eroding faster than anyone could have ever imagined.
If you think that you have the right to a say in your medical treatment, think again. A judge in Ohio has just ruled that hospitals cannot be forced to treat patients the way in which the patients or the patients’ family request them to be treated.
Specifically, the case is in regards to the drug Ivermectin which has been used by many doctors outside of the mainstream to treat COVID-19 positive patients.
The order comes as a reversal of a previous order which sought to force West Chester Hospital to treat 51-year-old Jeffery Smith with Ivermectin after he was prescribed it by a doctor, Dr. Fred Wagshul.
Smith’s wife, Julie, sued the hospital last month, arguing that they should administer Ivermectin to her husband since it was prescribed and has “minimal downside and side effects.”
The judge, however, ruled that Julie Smith did not provide “clear and convincing evidence” to support her lawsuit against West Chester Hospital.
Jeffrey Smith: Ohio judge denies woman’s request for West Chester Hospital to treat COVID-19 patient with Ivermectin https://t.co/f9WKR5KSKG
— SWCC Vet CJ (@SWCC5) September 6, 2021
Jeffery Smith was on a ventilator after testing positive for COVID-19. The hospital refused to honor his wife’s request that he be treated with Ivermectin even despite Smith having a prescription for it and Julie Smith offering to sign a release that would have absolved the hospital of any liability in administering the drug.
Butler County Common Pleas Judge Gregory Howard had previously ruled that the hospital must give 30 milligrams a day to Jeffery Smith but the order was only temporary lasting for 14 days.
Judge Michael Oster Jr. was subsequently presented with a motion for a more permanent ruling but he determined that Julie Smith did not meet her burden of proof in the matter.
“The medical and scientific communities don’t support treating COVID-19 with ivermectin, an antiparasitic drug,” the judge wrote, citing statements from, among others, the Food and Drug Administration and the American Pharmacists Association.
“Some doctors do support using the drug against COVID-19 and studies that appear to show its efficacy were limited and inconsistent,” he added, writing that “based upon the evidence, it has not been shown to be effective at this juncture.”
“In addition, the plaintiff hasn’t shown that irreparable injury will occur without another order forcing the hospital to administer ivermectin,” the judge said.
“If it is not an effective treatment, then this court cannot find by clear and convincing evidence that an irreparable injury will occur without the injunction,” he wrote.
Dr. Wagshul, who prescribed Ivermectin to Smith, told the court that Smith “seems to be” getting better after receiving the drug but also adding, “I honestly don’t know” if continued use would benefit the patient.
Judge Oster also indicated that he did not think it was in the best interests of the public to set a precedent in which judges dictate medical treatment.
“As a citizen, it would be easy to think about wanting to help someone in Jeff Smith’s condition, no matter the law. As a judge, the present case invites allowing emotions to steer one towards judicial activism. However, our legal system must stay firmly rooted in proper legal interpretation of the law, not what individual judges think the law should be. This Court is called upon to make its ruling irrespective of all sympathy, passion, or prejudice,” Oster wrote.
The judge also pointed out that Julie Smith is free to have her husband admitted to a different hospital where Dr. Wagshul has privileges which would thus enable the continued use of Ivermectin.
Copyright 2021. TeaParty.org