Wisconsin Supreme Court To Take Up Case On Ivermectin
Waukesha resident sought judge's order for Advocate Aurora to use drug to treat his uncle.
Wisconsin Supreme Court. Photo by Mariiana Tzotcheva.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court will take up a lawsuit that sought to force a hospital to administer ivermectin to a COVID-19 patient.
The Court agreed to look at the issue after a state appeals court rejected the demand of a Waukesha County man who wanted a judge to order a hospital to use ivermectin to treat his uncle who was hospitalized with COVID-19. Ivermectin is a drug used to treat parasites in horses as well as human beings.
After Waukesha County resident John Zingsheim was put on a ventilator with COVID-19 in October 2021, his nephew, Allen Gahl, obtained an ivermectin prescription for his uncle from a doctor he had connected with online. Gahl holds a power of attorney for health care for his uncle.
Doctors at the hospital, operated by Aurora Healthcare, refused to fill the prescription or administer the drug, saying it would be below the standard of care for COVID-19 patients.
Medical studies, the World Health Organization (WHO), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) have all recommended against using ivermectin to treat COVID-19.
Gahl went to Waukesha County Circuit Court, where a judge held a hearing and directed the hospital to administer the prescription. The judge subsequently revised his order to say that Gahl would have to supply both the drug and a doctor who met with the hospital’s approval to administer the drug.
The Court of Appeals District II stayed the order and later reversed it on a 2-1 vote in May 2022. In the opinion, the majority concluded that “the circuit court had no legal authority to compel Aurora, a private healthcare provider, to provide care that is below its standard of care.” The opinion also said the lower court lacked the authority to require Aurora “to credential an outside provider” to provide such care.
In taking the case, however, the justices said they would consider the questions Mueller raised.
The first of those is whether the state’s health care power of attorney law gave the circuit court authority to issue a declaratory judgment and an injunction on behalf of a patient.
The other questions are whether the hospital, in rejecting the treatment Gahl sought, was breaching a contract with the patient, and whether the court had either “inherent authority” or authority under the Wisconsin informed consent law to order the treatment.
Mueller finished third in the Aug. 9 Republican primary for attorney general with 25% of the vote after running on a promise that if elected she would investigate hospitals for not treating COVID-19 with ivermectin.
Her platform also included conspiracy theories about COVID-19 vaccinations and election fraud. Mueller lost a lawsuit asking the state Supreme Court to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election.
Supreme Court to weigh in on whether judge can order ivermectin to treat COVID-19 was originally published by the Wisconsin Examiner.
More about the Coronavirus Pandemic
- MHD Release: Milwaukee Health Department Launches COVID-19 Wastewater Testing Dashboard - City of Milwaukee Health Department - Jan 23rd, 2024
- Milwaukee County Announces New Policies Related to COVID-19 Pandemic - County Executive David Crowley - May 9th, 2023
- DHS Details End of Emergency COVID-19 Response - Wisconsin Department of Health Services - Apr 26th, 2023
- Milwaukee Health Department Announces Upcoming Changes to COVID-19 Services - City of Milwaukee Health Department - Mar 17th, 2023
- Fitzgerald Applauds Passage of COVID-19 Origin Act - U.S. Rep. Scott Fitzgerald - Mar 10th, 2023
- DHS Expands Free COVID-19 Testing Program - Wisconsin Department of Health Services - Feb 10th, 2023
- MKE County: COVID-19 Hospitalizations Rising - Graham Kilmer - Jan 16th, 2023
- Not Enough Getting Bivalent Booster Shots, State Health Officials Warn - Gaby Vinick - Dec 26th, 2022
- Nearly All Wisconsinites Age 6 Months and Older Now Eligible for Updated COVID-19 Vaccine - Wisconsin Department of Health Services - Dec 15th, 2022
- City of Milwaukee Bi-Weekly COVID-19 Update - City of Milwaukee Health Department - Dec 9th, 2022
Read more about Coronavirus Pandemic here
The ‘Sha judge directed the hospital to administer a drug prescription that was obtained online by someone for someone else… let that sink in.
By revising his “direction” that the first someone “would have to supply both the drug and a doctor who met with the hospital’s approval to administer the drug,” the judge said he didn’t know WTF he was doing in the first place.
The problem with the average rCon, self-claimed conservative, is that they aren’t. They don’t know what they don’t know and and thus remain willfully ignorant. They are anti-science, anti-reality, and PiOuS.
If the judges rule that anyone can go to a hospital and demand any quack treatment that they have read about online, does this mean that someone could demand that they be injected with chicken blood or some other voodoo treatment that they might have read about? Some courts at all levels both State and Federal levels are quite willing to promote Republican issues or even rule in favor of some very bizarre practices.
I don’t know about you, but I have not come down with heartworm, distemper, kennel cough, or fleas and ticks since I started taking Heartgard chewables and my dog’s other medications. Woof!
There’s a whole lot wrong with this story.
If you compare the (30 year/3.7 billion dose) stellar safety record of ivermectin to the damning numbers of the VAERS¹ Covid ‘vaccine’² records, AND get actual versus innuendo ‘evidence’ of ivermectin’s outcomes, you will find that Aurora’s treatment ‘standard’ is dangerously low.
Unless comprehensive disclosure and explanation of the VAERS data was done, informed consent was not given. Questions about the court’s inherent authority under Wisconsin informed consent law are moot. The United States signed the Nuremberg Agreement which describes the role and definitions of informed and consent, individually and together, in full detail.
Unless the license of the the online doctor mentioned is for out-of-state, Aurora has nothing to say about it. They do not “credential” doctors, the state does. (The same State that chartered their hospitals)
The private versus public affiliation of a medical provider is irrelevant. The health and welfare of the patient supersedes the ownership status or affiliation of the provider.
Unless something has changed since I was a power of attorney, that authority overrules Aurora.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court would do well to obtain the ivermectin investigation notes of of the Atty. General’s Office of the State of Nevada.
There’s more, but why count hairs On a dead horse?
¹ Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System
² The CDC website has removed the definition of vaccine. They
have a definition of vaccination … the use of a vaccine….
@MartyE. Or maybe like rojo says, ” try all of them”. Dip$hit.
Why is the court taking a case that affects only one person? That is nuts.