Meanwhile, in New York...
-
From The Epoch Times:
Mount Sinai South Nassau in New York City was twice forced to give COVID-19 patient Deborah Bucko, who was close to death after the system’s normal treatment failed, ivermectin under court order. Mrs. Bucko’s condition improved after she began taking ivermectin.
However, the system stopped the second round of treatment before the prescription ended, and Mrs. Bucko then died.
After being sued, Mount Sinai said the lawsuit should be thrown out because it’s immune under the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP Act), which covers health care workers administering drugs and vaccines during a health emergency, such as the COVID-19 pandemic.
“There is no refuting that the complaint is a frontal attack on the use of COVID-19 countermeasures as defined by the PREP Act,” lawyers for the hospital system said in a filing. “The complaint expressly implicates conduct encompassed by the PREP Act by alleging a claim for loss that has a causal relationship with the dispensing and administration of covered countermeasures to treat COVID-19. As such, the law requires its dismissal.”
The act has been successfully invoked in a range of COVID-19-related cases. Workers who injected a child with a COVID-19 vaccine without parental consent, for instance, recently won the dismissal of a lawsuit by citing the law.
The motion to dismiss by Mount Sinai, though, was rejected by New York Supreme Court Justice Randy Sue Marber.
Justice Marber wrote in a May 17 order that Mount Sinai, its workers, and ivermectin, fit under the definitions of “covered person” and “covered countermeasure” under the law. But the suit against the system does not bring a claim relating to the use of ivermectin to treat COVID-19, she said.
“Rather, in stunning contrast to South Nassau’s assertions, the complaint alleges, with particularity, that South Nassau ‘acted wrongfully and negligently, by repeatedly refusing to administer ivermectin to ... [the decedent]’ notwithstanding it ‘having been prescribed” ... and ’despite clear evidence in the medical records that ... [the decedent’s] condition showed significant improvement once the ivermectin treatment was initiated,'” the justice said, quoting from the complaint.
That means the immunity conferred by PREP “is inapplicable,” she added later.
The ruling means the case will move forward. The next hearing is scheduled to take place on June 3.
“Scott and I are extremely pleased that the judge denied the hospital’s motion and has given us a fighting chance to obtain justice for Debbie,” Steven Warshawsky, a lawyer representing Scott Mantel, Mrs. Bucko’s husband, told The Epoch Times via email.
Mount Sinai did not respond to a request for comment.
Federal regulators say people should not take ivermectin against COVID-19, although a number of doctors have said patients who received the drug, approved by regulators for other uses, have recovered quickly. Some studies have found evidence of a benefit, while others have not.
Background
Mr. Mantel sued Mount Sinai in 2023, alleging the hospital system violated a law that enables representatives of decedents to sue over “wrongful act, neglect or default causing [the] death of [the] decedent.”According to the suit, after being admitted to Mount Sinai with suspected COVID-19, Mrs. Bucko’s condition was not improved by the system’s standard treatment protocols, including supplemental oxygen. She was ultimately placed on a ventilator.
Mr. Mantel researched alternative treatments and read about how some patients recovered after being treated with ivermectin. He learned that the Front Line Covid-19 Critical Care Alliance features ivermectin in its COVID-19 treatment protocol.
Mr. Mantel presented what he had learned to doctors at Mount Sinai. Dr. Robert Clark, one of the doctors, said that he was “all out of bullets” and that ivermectin might be able to help Mrs. Bucko. He wrote a prescription on April 7, 2021, for five days. Mount Sinai’s pharmacy department, though, placed the prescription on hold and the system’s stewardship committee rescinded the prescription.
Mr. Mantel took the matter to court, resulting in an order to immediately start giving Mrs. Bucko ivermectin.
After being treated with ivermectin, Mrs. Bucko’s condition improved, according to the suit. The initial prescription ended, and her recovery stalled. Mr. Mantel went back to Dr. Clark, who was said to have acknowledged ivermectin helped Mrs. Bucko get better and could keep helping her improve. He wrote another prescription, this time for 35 days.
The hospital rescinded the prescription again, prompting the family to seek legal redress. The system was ordered again to enforce the prescription.
Mrs. Bucko improved further with the second round of ivermectin, but the system changed the prescription and stopped administering it after five days. Dr. Clark also informed Mr. Mantel he was being prevented from writing any additional ivermectin prescriptions.
Once Mrs. Bucko stopped receiving ivermectin, her condition deteriorated, her family says. She died on on May 16, 2021.
Mount Sinai “committed medical malpractice and/or otherwise acted wrongfully and negligently, by repeatedly refusing to administer ivermectin to Ms. Bucko, who was suffering from severe COVID-19 illness that was not responding to the hospital’s standard treatment protocols, despite the ivermectin having been prescribed by her treating infectious disease doctor ... and despite clear evidence in the medical records that Ms. Bucko’s condition showed significant improvement once the ivermectin treatment was initiated,” the suit stated.
The family is seeking damages as determined by the court and a jury.
“This fight is not just about Deborah and our family, but also for ALL Americans that will one day need a hospital to treat them,” family members said in a fundraiser. “What happened to Deborah must never ever be allowed to happen again, and those responsible for her tragic death must be held accountable.
-
I am not really sure about this. Patients requesting a treatment plan of an unproven (and maybe disproved) treatment...................
But if it is a last resort, maybe.
I am pretty undecided on this. Leaning in favor of the hospital until I research more of this case.
-
I am not really sure about this. Patients requesting a treatment plan of an unproven (and maybe disproved) treatment...................
But if it is a last resort, maybe.
I am pretty undecided on this. Leaning in favor of the hospital until I research more of this case.
@taiwan_girl said in Meanwhile, in New York...:
I am not really sure about this. Patients requesting a treatment plan of an unproven (and maybe disproved) treatment...................
But if it is a last resort, maybe.
I am pretty undecided on this. Leaning in favor of the hospital until I research more of this case.
Here’s the thing, was the ivermectin helping? We all know now that it probably wasn’t. BUT at the time, they knew for sure that it wasn’t hurting, so why not continue the treatment? There is no good reason for them to have stopped the treatment except as a statement. One with political and social implications that don’t deserve to be in our healthcare system.
-
The act has been successfully invoked in a range of COVID-19-related cases. Workers who injected a child with a COVID-19 vaccine without parental consent, for instance, recently won the dismissal of a lawsuit by citing the law.
This is extremely troubling to me. Still think that “public health” supersedes our basic rights, Jolly?
The Brad
-
The act has been successfully invoked in a range of COVID-19-related cases. Workers who injected a child with a COVID-19 vaccine without parental consent, for instance, recently won the dismissal of a lawsuit by citing the law.
This is extremely troubling to me. Still think that “public health” supersedes our basic rights, Jolly?
@LuFins-Dad said in Meanwhile, in New York...:
The act has been successfully invoked in a range of COVID-19-related cases. Workers who injected a child with a COVID-19 vaccine without parental consent, for instance, recently won the dismissal of a lawsuit by citing the law.
This is extremely troubling to me. Still think that “public health” supersedes our basic rights, Jolly?
Yes, I do.
But there is a difference between transmission and treatment. In transmission, quarantine is used to prevent spread, but more importantly is used to make sure the health system is not overwhelmed. With COVID, we came close in some area to getting rolled. Hopefully, we learned some lessons, but I'm not sure the eggheads in D.C. learned a lot.
Some things we did learn:
- If we're going to have medical supplies and instruments in reserve, make sure they are in date and in working order.
- There is no substitute for doctors in a novel pandemic. We need more doctors.
- Off -label use is common and as long as the physician is not prescribing a harmful substance, the government needs to stay out of the physician-patient relationship.
- Maybe our rules for introduction of new tests and new pharmaceuticals are too stringent. This needs serious review. Kudos to the government for waiving some rules at the time, though.
- Don't lie and ruin your credibility. A lot of people no longer trust the FDA. At all.
Thought of one more...Surge capacity. Because of current rules, we no longer staff the number of med-surg beds we used to have. Medicare needs to loosen up some hospital stay requirenents, which will open up more beds.
-
@LuFins-Dad said in Meanwhile, in New York...:
The act has been successfully invoked in a range of COVID-19-related cases. Workers who injected a child with a COVID-19 vaccine without parental consent, for instance, recently won the dismissal of a lawsuit by citing the law.
This is extremely troubling to me. Still think that “public health” supersedes our basic rights, Jolly?
Yes, I do.
But there is a difference between transmission and treatment. In transmission, quarantine is used to prevent spread, but more importantly is used to make sure the health system is not overwhelmed. With COVID, we came close in some area to getting rolled. Hopefully, we learned some lessons, but I'm not sure the eggheads in D.C. learned a lot.
Some things we did learn:
- If we're going to have medical supplies and instruments in reserve, make sure they are in date and in working order.
- There is no substitute for doctors in a novel pandemic. We need more doctors.
- Off -label use is common and as long as the physician is not prescribing a harmful substance, the government needs to stay out of the physician-patient relationship.
- Maybe our rules for introduction of new tests and new pharmaceuticals are too stringent. This needs serious review. Kudos to the government for waiving some rules at the time, though.
- Don't lie and ruin your credibility. A lot of people no longer trust the FDA. At all.
Thought of one more...Surge capacity. Because of current rules, we no longer staff the number of med-surg beds we used to have. Medicare needs to loosen up some hospital stay requirenents, which will open up more beds.
@Jolly said in Meanwhile, in New York...:
@LuFins-Dad said in Meanwhile, in New York...:
The act has been successfully invoked in a range of COVID-19-related cases. Workers who injected a child with a COVID-19 vaccine without parental consent, for instance, recently won the dismissal of a lawsuit by citing the law.
This is extremely troubling to me. Still think that “public health” supersedes our basic rights, Jolly?
Yes, I do.
But there is a difference between transmission and treatment.
Stop right there. The forced vaccination without parental consent is a transmission issue. Do you believe that the threat of transmission supersedes the personal and parental rights?
-
@Jolly said in Meanwhile, in New York...:
@LuFins-Dad said in Meanwhile, in New York...:
The act has been successfully invoked in a range of COVID-19-related cases. Workers who injected a child with a COVID-19 vaccine without parental consent, for instance, recently won the dismissal of a lawsuit by citing the law.
This is extremely troubling to me. Still think that “public health” supersedes our basic rights, Jolly?
Yes, I do.
But there is a difference between transmission and treatment.
Stop right there. The forced vaccination without parental consent is a transmission issue. Do you believe that the threat of transmission supersedes the personal and parental rights?
@LuFins-Dad said in Meanwhile, in New York...:
@Jolly said in Meanwhile, in New York...:
@LuFins-Dad said in Meanwhile, in New York...:
The act has been successfully invoked in a range of COVID-19-related cases. Workers who injected a child with a COVID-19 vaccine without parental consent, for instance, recently won the dismissal of a lawsuit by citing the law.
This is extremely troubling to me. Still think that “public health” supersedes our basic rights, Jolly?
Yes, I do.
But there is a difference between transmission and treatment.
Stop right there. The forced vaccination without parental consent is a transmission issue. Do you believe that the threat of transmission supersedes the personal and parental rights?
In some cases, yes.
COVID is not a good example because of the novel nature of the vaccine.
Smallpox is. Polio is.
-
@LuFins-Dad said in Meanwhile, in New York...:
@Jolly said in Meanwhile, in New York...:
@LuFins-Dad said in Meanwhile, in New York...:
The act has been successfully invoked in a range of COVID-19-related cases. Workers who injected a child with a COVID-19 vaccine without parental consent, for instance, recently won the dismissal of a lawsuit by citing the law.
This is extremely troubling to me. Still think that “public health” supersedes our basic rights, Jolly?
Yes, I do.
But there is a difference between transmission and treatment.
Stop right there. The forced vaccination without parental consent is a transmission issue. Do you believe that the threat of transmission supersedes the personal and parental rights?
In some cases, yes.
COVID is not a good example because of the novel nature of the vaccine.
Smallpox is. Polio is.
@Jolly said in Meanwhile, in New York...:
@LuFins-Dad said in Meanwhile, in New York...:
@Jolly said in Meanwhile, in New York...:
@LuFins-Dad said in Meanwhile, in New York...:
The act has been successfully invoked in a range of COVID-19-related cases. Workers who injected a child with a COVID-19 vaccine without parental consent, for instance, recently won the dismissal of a lawsuit by citing the law.
This is extremely troubling to me. Still think that “public health” supersedes our basic rights, Jolly?
Yes, I do.
But there is a difference between transmission and treatment.
Stop right there. The forced vaccination without parental consent is a transmission issue. Do you believe that the threat of transmission supersedes the personal and parental rights?
In some cases, yes.
COVID is not a good example because of the novel nature of the vaccine.
Smallpox is. Polio is.
COVID is the only example as that is specifically what we are discussing. But, Polio Vaccines are not mandatory. Nor are Small Pox. There are requirements for public schools and other such mandates, which is fine, but not enforced vaccination.
