HeadingNorth Posted September 29, 2011 Share Posted September 29, 2011 The drug has to be administered intravenously. Similar to heroin? I know that a great many people can self-administer heroin intravenously - although usually, a prescription is not involved. I'm not at all sure how the doctor is supposed to defend himself, given that his whole argument rests on Jacko being addicted to all these drugs and self-administering, and the fact of his drug addiction is forbidden from being mentioned in evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Speed Demon Posted September 29, 2011 Author Share Posted September 29, 2011 it looks like murry is screwed, just seen right now on sky news, they are saying the propofol bottle was actually put in a bag with a slit in it and fed intravenously to jackos leg, the doctor looks well worried now, damning evidence someone put it there, was it murry or jacko, god knows Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFKvsNixon Posted September 29, 2011 Share Posted September 29, 2011 Similar to heroin? I know that a great many people can self-administer heroin intravenously - although usually, a prescription is not involved. Propofol isn't administered via a prescription as it's an intravenous anaesthetic usually used as an induction agent, it's not opiate based, so the big question is why the doctor had it on Jacksons premises. There are hundreds of more appropriate drugs to administer to someone who has sleeping problems. It should never be used outside of a hospital based environment, and only then by an experienced practitioner in a specific area with a load of safety equipment, and experienced help on hand. I'm not at all sure how the doctor is supposed to defend himself, given that his whole argument rests on Jacko being addicted to all these drugs and self-administering, and the fact of his drug addiction is forbidden from being mentioned in evidence. I don't think that there is any evidence to suggest that Propofol has ever been used recreationally, or by addicts as there is not any high associated with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fibutton Posted September 29, 2011 Share Posted September 29, 2011 I really don't care, at least jackson's children are safe from him now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Badlittlepup Posted September 29, 2011 Share Posted September 29, 2011 Propofol isn't administered via a prescription as it's an intravenous anaesthetic usually used as an induction agent, it's not opiate based, so the big question is why the doctor had it on Jacksons premises. There are hundreds of more appropriate drugs to administer to someone who has sleeping problems. It should never be used outside of a hospital based environment, and only then by an experienced practitioner in a specific area with a load of safety equipment, and experienced help on hand. I don't think that there is any evidence to suggest that Propofol has ever been used recreationally, or by addicts as there is not any high associated with it. I don't think he has ever disputed that he administered Propofol to Jackson, I know he admitted he had given it to him via a drip on the day he died a couple of days after he died. What he's claiming is that when he started working for Jackson it was on the understanding that he was weaning him off it. Murray is saying that he was administering the drug in a controlled manner via the IV which would not have harmed Jackson but that Jackson ALSO drank some Propofol which was what killed him. It doesn't HAVE to be administered intravenously, it only HAS to be used intravenously if you are bothered about adminstering it safely and according to the guidelines of use. If someone was desperate for a sedating 'hit' of it they could well try and speed the process up by drinking it alongside the IV. It's well documented he had long standing addictions. Jackson knew that he could make an offer that SOMEONE couldn't refuse to get his hands on those drugs. The bloke should have some kind of criminal sanction against him (but not manslaughter) and should never practice as a doctor again, but the fact remains that he had financial difficulties and Jacko targeted him for exploitation. Jackson knew he shouldn't be doing what he did but was prepared to exploit others and pay through the nose to continue doing it so much of the responsiblity has to lie with him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted September 29, 2011 Share Posted September 29, 2011 It's well documented he had long standing addictions. When it comes to the doctor's trial, it is not well documented. In fact they're not allowed to bring that evidence in at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFKvsNixon Posted September 29, 2011 Share Posted September 29, 2011 I don't think he has ever disputed that he administered Propofol to Jackson, I know he admitted he had given it to him via a drip on the day he died a couple of days after he died. What he's claiming is that when he started working for Jackson it was on the understanding that he was weaning him off it. Murray is saying that he was administering the drug in a controlled manner via the IV which would not have harmed Jackson but that Jackson ALSO drank some Propofol which was what killed him. It doesn't HAVE to be administered intravenously, it only HAS to be used intravenously if you are bothered about adminstering it safely and according to the guidelines of use. If someone was desperate for a sedating 'hit' of it they could well try and speed the process up by drinking it alongside the IV. It's well documented he had long standing addictions. Jackson knew that he could make an offer that SOMEONE couldn't refuse to get his hands on those drugs. The bloke should have some kind of criminal sanction against him (but not manslaughter) and should never practice as a doctor again, but the fact remains that he had financial difficulties and Jacko targeted him for exploitation. Jackson knew he shouldn't be doing what he did but was prepared to exploit others and pay through the nose to continue doing it so much of the responsiblity has to lie with him. It's negligence of the highest manner to administer the drug outside of a very controlled setting within a hospital. For me it's manslaughter alone if a death occurs after it's use inside of someone's home. Also it would be interesting to see what the effect of drinking Propofol, I'd guess that the amount needed to cause someone to lose conciousness would be far to much for someone to tolerate, without vomiting due to the bad taste of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFKvsNixon Posted September 29, 2011 Share Posted September 29, 2011 Double post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Speed Demon Posted September 29, 2011 Author Share Posted September 29, 2011 doctor murry asked a security guard to pack viles in a bag and get rid of them, sounds very suspicious, could murry have been covering his back by getting rid of evidence, mmm... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big time Posted September 29, 2011 Share Posted September 29, 2011 Dr Murray is Dr Hibbert from the simpsons http://youtu.be/7KILW-f7YfQ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.