Crossing the line

[Guest guest]

Meryl wrote:

" ..The doc is not performing malpractice if she uses a drug for what the

medical literature says it is good for, and if that use is standard... "

This may be something to focus on: This may be the 'thin' gray line.

Gretchen

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 12/10/98 9:00:07 PM Pacific Standard Time,

anna_nim@... writes:

Meryl wrote:

" ..The doc is not performing malpractice if she uses a drug for what the

medical literature says it is good for, and if that use is standard... "

Gretchen wrote:

This may be something to focus on: This may be the 'thin' gray line.

--

However, what is medically " standard " for persons in combat is defined by

Washington. The military even manages to use doctors that fail civilian

licensing (Oklahoma gives them special military licenses)... the medical

literature angle might be a better route, but I believe that this policy is

most likely going to changed through political pressure through Congress and

public embarassment through the media.

Legal routes are notoriously futile in military matters. Recently, the courts

ruled that service member spouses could not even sue the military for the

deformations of their children due the exposure (under orders) of their

husbands to harmful pesticides, and part of the argument that won the case was

that the husbands were responsible because they carried the poison to their

children. The military, and its cheerleaders in the judicial system, seem

determined to protect its leadership from accountability at all costs, but

Congress and the public are less likely to tolerate this level of

irresponsibility and failure of discipline.