U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > True Crime
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-07-2011, 04:55 PM
 
Location: OCEAN BREEZES AND VIEWS SAN CLEMENTE
19,899 posts, read 15,887,812 times
Reputation: 6453

Advertisements

This case was not about Michael's character once again. It was about a Doctor who did not take the proper precautions while aadministrating such a dangerous drug. What if you were the patient!
What he did was morally wrong no matter if you liked Michael or not.

Had to do with a Dr. that thought it was better to have that money, then give to Michael the proper care he so deserved, as with any other patient.

You have a responsibility to your patient, to give them the upmost professional care that you can.

A dangerous drug as he administered, with no proper knowledge of this dangerous drug, he was playing with fire, no monitoring he did nothing right.
This Doctor made such a huge error in judgement. You don't feed a addicts need, if you cannot say no to this patient, then give it up.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-07-2011, 05:00 PM
 
Location: OCEAN BREEZES AND VIEWS SAN CLEMENTE
19,899 posts, read 15,887,812 times
Reputation: 6453
Quote:
Originally Posted by vicket View Post
Wow people can be so cold...Jackson was an amazing, once-in-a-lifetime talent. Yes- he was also a drug abuser and responsible for his own death. To me that is SAD.
The Dr. allowed lethal doses of medicine to be available to Jackson without proper supervision. He is guilty of manslaughter, and got the proper verdict in my opinion.
The whole thing is needless and sad. Certainly nothing to rejoice about.

I agree with you, this was not about Michael lf you liked him or not. This was about receiving the highest professional care he could get. You do not give out a medicine you know nothing about. What he did was dangerous.

What are you kdding, no supervision, walks away, the Dr. did nothing right. He got what he deserved, but afraid, there are more out there who also are guility.
And to those i dislike, i would still not be rejoicing at the onset of their death.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-07-2011, 05:05 PM
 
Location: FL
15,739 posts, read 8,803,723 times
Reputation: 3815
Quote:
Originally Posted by calipoppy View Post
Dr Conrad Murray closed his practices in Houston and Las Vegas and took on the position of Michael Jackson's as a private physician for a sum of $150,000 per month....pure greed was the order of the day.
Exactly!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-07-2011, 05:09 PM
 
25,630 posts, read 30,413,262 times
Reputation: 23112
Quote:
Originally Posted by california-jewel View Post
This case was not about Michael's character once again. It was about a Doctor who did not take the proper precautions while aadministrating such a dangerous drug. What if you were the patient!
What he did was morally wrong no matter if you liked Michael or not.

Had to do with a Dr. that thought it was better to have that money, then give to Michael the proper care he so deserved, as with any other patient.

You have a responsibility to your patient, to give them the upmost professional care that you can.

A dangerous drug as he administered, with no proper knowledge of this dangerous drug, he was playing with fire, no monitoring he did nothing right.
This Doctor made such a huge error in judgement. You don't feed a addicts need, if you cannot say no to this patient, then give it up.
I disagree completely. Micheal got exactly what he paid for, his own personal on the staff drug dealer.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-07-2011, 09:22 PM
 
Location: American Expat
2,189 posts, read 4,713,431 times
Reputation: 1875
Quote:
Originally Posted by california-jewel View Post
I agree with you, this was not about Michael lf you liked him or not. This was about receiving the highest professional care he could get. You do not give out a medicine you know nothing about. What he did was dangerous.

What are you kdding, no supervision, walks away, the Dr. did nothing right. He got what he deserved, but afraid, there are more out there who also are guility.
And to those i dislike, i would still not be rejoicing at the onset of their death.
Like he would have hired a doctor who would have refused supplying with all the drugs he wanted. LOL As someone just said, he hired his own drug dealer. Of course he is still guilty, but when I see the so-called "family" celebrating over this verdict, I'm wondering why they tolerated his addiction. I guess as long as money was coming in and they could bum off of someone, nobody really gave a ****. I think he still had to be convicted, but should not get more than 2 years. Kind of sad hwo the judge immediately let his own bias out and denied bail because he is " a danger to society" or some crap. Sounds like he needs a dictionary to look up some words.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-07-2011, 11:12 PM
 
Location: OCEAN BREEZES AND VIEWS SAN CLEMENTE
19,899 posts, read 15,887,812 times
Reputation: 6453
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glucorious View Post
Like he would have hired a doctor who would have refused supplying with all the drugs he wanted. LOL As someone just said, he hired his own drug dealer. Of course he is still guilty, but when I see the so-called "family" celebrating over this verdict, I'm wondering why they tolerated his addiction. I guess as long as money was coming in and they could bum off of someone, nobody really gave a ****. I think he still had to be convicted, but should not get more than 2 years. Kind of sad hwo the judge immediately let his own bias out and denied bail because he is " a danger to society" or some crap. Sounds like he needs a dictionary to look up some words.
Sorry i still disagree and that is my right.

Your with a bunch of buddys, who are drinking very heavily. One is so drunk, and going to drive home, do you let him drive home in his condition.

You going to give your buddy more drinks, or condone his drinking, i think not!
Sorry but i know some medical Doctors. I had it explained to my faimily what that damn drug does, and it is not pretty. Sorry from a medical point of view, this Doctor or any like him, did not have for his patient, his best interest. What i was told that this drug should not be administered without the proper precautions and without proper monitoring. This should have been in a hospital setting and not a bedroom.

Last edited by california-jewel; 11-08-2011 at 12:00 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > True Crime
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top