quote:Your "sinister" pharmaceutical company, Dagonee, or at least their sales representative was the one who discovered the discrepancy between their sales and the pharmacist's dosages. The company itself was the first to ask for a criminal investigation.
Yes, I know. That's why I wonder why you think the "real question" involves their actions at all. This is not something drug companies should be spending lots of resources on to detect. The fact that they did is a good thing, not something to berate them for.
Especially not something to say is the "real question" when the real questions should be about the criminal.
quote:I've been reading about this case from the beginning, Theaca. The pharmacist who was convicted owned the pharmacy. This isn't a case of an employee able to hide his actions behind a chain store's number of pharmacist-employees. And the circumstance leading to the criminal investigation&arrest was as I described.
That doesn't change the fact that the factors Theaca described make this something drug companies could catch in only a small number of potential cases. Therefore, expending resources to expand such efforts because one stupid, horrible pharmacist did this in a fashion they might have been able to detect is poor planning.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:You're complaining about hair-splitting? You're the one who insisted not murder but manslaughter.
Because a lot of people seem to equate this act with going up to someone, looking them in the eye, and stabbing them in the heart with a knife, and I don't think that's true. And a lot of people think he ought to be killed for his action in ways that well exceed the idea of cruel and unusual punishment, and I definitely don't think that's true.
You can make a strong case that everyone- EVERYONE- makes decisions every day, through apathy, greed, and laziness, that in some way down the line contribute to someone's death before the full natural life span they might have lived. This man was a lot closer to the bone on such a decision, and he did the wrong thing. He did the wrong thing, knowing in a concrete way the likely consequences, and he did it times several thousand.
For that, he fully deserves to spend thirty years in prison, during which time he can hopefully understand the full weight of society's disapproval of his actions and come to regret what he did in a real way.
But when we say someone is a murderer, we say they're a monster, that they're beyond the pale, that they're not part of what we consider human society.
This guy isn't. He let everyone down, he deliberately botched his duties, he did something greedy and stupid. That's not inhuman. That's all together too human.
Get me? If you don't, at this point we're just going to have to agree to disagree.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
To know how important is was for these people to get their medication and to deny them a fighting chance? Sounds like a monster to me.
Posts: 1015 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
How many of his patients taking chemo drugs died _before_ he started giving out faulty prescriptions?
Maybe at one time he cared about these people. Maybe after a certain number of people come through your door, get their medicine, and die anyway, you start to harden your heart out of necessity. Maybe he started to convince himself that it didn't matter anyway.
If I'm truly in a company of people who have never done things that they found morally unpalatable but justified them at the time or afterward, however partially, however shakily- I humbly submit myself to your greater wisdom.
If not, maybe you should consider what it would be like to lose thirty years of your life. Yes, I know the automatic reaction is to say how many years the people he victimized lost. Resist the obvious, and actually think about it.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:But when we say someone is a murderer, we say they're a monster, that they're beyond the pale, that they're not part of what we consider human society.
This guy isn't.
You admitted on the last page that this guy is a murderer.
In many ways, this man is worse than someone who stabs someone else through the heart in an argument. And that person would likely be called a murderer.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I admitted that I was willing to accept that legally he was guilty of a non-capital offense. If I was faced with a lynch mob that was ready to stuff pills down the man's throat if they felt justice wasn't done, I'd do the same.
If you say the man is a monster and his motivation and origin is something out of the purview of societal norms, you may take that individual out of the picture and you may satisfy your own self-righteous need for vindication and purgation. But you deny yourself the ability for a more careful examination that might prevent the same damn thing from happening somewhere else.
Get over the semantics.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Where do you get off saying that to me? I have been very precise in my use of words because we are trying to be very precise in assigning the level of culpability.
This is twice now you have gotten pissy about the use of words.
If you don't want to have semantic discussions don't start them. Especially when you claim to want a "more careful examination."
Careful examinations require precise language.
quote:I admitted that I was willing to accept that legally he was guilty of a non-capital offense.
You admitted that murder 2 could be an appropriate charge. That means you admitted he could be called a murderer.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was willing to compromise over the terms on the possibility that such compromise might cause someone to think and consider the situation beyond a very narrow and fixed view. Apparently that was a mistake.
(Erase, rewrite. Erase, rewrite.) The response I'm getting indicates to me that you engage on the terms "murder" and "murderer" without the least notice as to why I might have thought those terms appropriate or inappropriate, or the associations I make with them and think or fear others make with them. Instead, what I'm receiving is "You admitted he was a murderer! You did it- back on page one! Got you!"
I'm frustrated, because what I'm writing is getting engaged on a very shallow level. So I ask you to look past the level of words to the level of meanings. If you were doing that, you might realize that whether or not I said what he did might fit the legal definition of murder 2 is irrelevant.
The response I'm getting is extremely antagonistic. I think all you see is that on some level I disagree with you, so your anger at the situation with the pharmacist is spreading to me.
That is perhaps understandable, seing as how what is said on Hatrack is going to make absolutely no difference in the outcome of this particular case. There is a very small chance someone here might be involved in a similar case some time up the road- as jury, counsel, witness, what have you. But I wouldn't lay long odds on it.
So, I'll try to put this carefully, one last time. Because quite frankly, I've got enough spittle on my glasses, metaphorically speaking.
This particular forum can be a place where everyone gets to agree, "Oh, no! That's terrible! (walla walla walla)" and go on about what a monster this man was and how they'd hang him from the nearest yardarm and bury him in the desert and release the fire ants and pour gasoline over his entire genetic line and light a match. The grand effect of that will be purgation of feelings of outrage that didn't exist before the events were brought to light in this forum in the first place. I would call that a net gain of squat all.
Or we can try to recognize that the seeds of things like this aren't especially uncommon at all, discuss it like civilized human beings, and perhaps come out of this with a few ideas that would actually stop something like this from happening in the future.
When people imagine someone pulling out a gun and shooting someone, or stabbing them with a knife in an alley, only the very fearful imagine it happening to them, and only the very paranoid imagine the act being committed by someone they know. And virtually no one imagines themselves on the side pulling the trigger. The monster. The "murderer."
If we can't envision the mindset that enabled this to happen rather than just condemning it, we accomplish nothing. If we can't contemplate the self-justifications that made this act possible, we can't envision it.
You get down to a word like "murderer", you get a closed loop. Give the average person's imaginary "murderer" a gun, he shoots people; give him a gun, he stabs people; give him a high building, he pushes people off; give him an automobile, he runs people over.
Take the pharmacist out of the pharmacy in this case, you get your next-door neighbor, the guy you come over to to borrow a lawnmower. _Maybe_ some day you hear he's been embezzling from his company and got hauled off to prison and you're kind of surprised- he seemed like such a nice guy! More likely, nothing much ever happens to him, and you don't think about him very much.
Now have you read through this rather lengthy text? Are your fingers itching to fire off a reply to tell me what a jerk I am?
If so, please don't bother. I've spent quite enough time and energy, there's no point in my continuing, and I yield the forum to the lynch-mob. May it bring ye much purgation. It will bring you nothing else.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The response I'm getting indicates to me that you engage on the terms "murder" and "murderer" without the least notice as to why I might have thought those terms appropriate or inappropriate, or the associations I make with them and think or fear others make with them. Instead, what I'm receiving is "You admitted he was a murderer! You did it- back on page one! Got you!"
I spent a lot of energy making a specific case and responding to yours, with very valid reasons for what I posted. Stop treating this as a game.
quote:I'm frustrated, because what I'm writing is getting engaged on a very shallow level. So I ask you to look past the level of words to the level of meanings. If you were doing that, you might realize that whether or not I said what he did might fit the legal definition of murder 2 is irrelevant.
It's been engaged on every level. You have simply refused to re-engage - simply to restate your conclusions without adressing the actual elements of your arguments to the objections raised to them.
quote:This particular forum can be a place where everyone gets to agree, "Oh, no! That's terrible! (walla walla walla)" and go on about what a monster this man was and how they'd hang him from the nearest yardarm and bury him in the desert and release the fire ants and pour gasoline over his entire genetic line and light a match. The grand effect of that will be purgation of feelings of outrage that didn't exist before the events were brought to light in this forum in the first place. I would call that a net gain of squat all.
The very fact that you summarize pretty much the entire rest of the thread in this manner shows you've not truly apprehended it. No one has suggested killing his children. Few people have suggested the death penalty.
quote:If we can't envision the mindset that enabled this to happen rather than just condemning it, we accomplish nothing. If we can't contemplate the self-justifications that made this act possible, we can't envision it.
And yet several people, including myself and Lyrnham, have given detailed reasons that specifically relate to the mindset involved here, including the particularities that arise from this man's profession.
quote:You get down to a word like "murderer", you get a closed loop. Give the average person's imaginary "murderer" a gun, he shoots people; give him a gun, he stabs people; give him a high building, he pushes people off; give him an automobile, he runs people over.
That seems to be a problem you have. We use the word "murderer" as "one who commits murder," a word with a fairly precise legal definition. And that's what we mean by it. You have added all this on top of it, then condemned us because the loaded version of the word that you use it closes discussion. This is an issue with you, not us. "Murder" has not prevented detailed examination of this act by anyone except, apparantly, you.
quote: Are your fingers itching to fire off a reply to tell me what a jerk I am?
No, they're not.
quote:I've spent quite enough time and energy, there's no point in my continuing, and I yield the forum to the lynch-mob. May it bring ye much purgation. It will bring you nothing else.
Ah, yes, we're one of those unusual lynchmobs who carefully parse available law to see what the person can be charged with.
Seriously, you are arguing with what's not been said, assigning ridiculous meanings to other people's posts, and we have the perfect example of it here. Especially me, who said that while it might meet the definition of murder, we can't charge him with it because we can't meet the evidentiary burden.
Yeah, such lynch mob.
Give me a break and stop playing the martyr. If you want to discuss it, discuss it. If you want to run off and pout because I actually hold you to what you say and don't let you add meaning to what I say, go ahead.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:But when we say someone is a murderer, we say they're a monster, that they're beyond the pale, that they're not part of what we consider human society.
This guy isn't. He let everyone down, he deliberately botched his duties, he did something greedy and stupid. That's not inhuman. That's all together too human.
There's a problem with this, Sterling. The man didn't just 'botch his duties'. It wasn't an accident, what he did. It was cold, calculated, thoughtful, and long-term. What he did was not stupid, it was a clever method of stealing money from the already-afflicted to fatten his coinpurse.
That's beyond the pale, Sterling.
He's still 'human', yes. We lock up for life human beings all the time. And I think we should continue to do so.
You're also mistaken that there's just one idea of 'cruel and unusual' punishment.
Have you ever seen the movie Aliens, Sterling? I realize it's a bit silly of me to make an argument based on a quote from there, but your words have reminded me of a scene from that film.
quote:Burke: I made a decision, and it was...wrong, it was a bad call, Ripley...it was a bad call.
Ripley: Bad call? These people are dead, Burke! Do you realize what you've done here?!
It's the same situation, man. This man cannot have planned his disgusting scheme so well and so thoughtfully without having realized, "This will kill people."
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, and reading your post to Dagonee...wahhh! Oh, gods, I realize we've so horribly wronged you! Please o thoughtful Sterling, forgive us! Oh, remorse remorse!
Get over yourself, man. Either quit playing your self-pitying violin, or just take your sob song elsewhere, I say.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, and for the record, my fingers weren't itching to tell you what a jerk you were...until that whining post of yours to Dagonee. And for the record, yes, I recognized the clumsy attempt at manipulation there. I just didn't care. I expect most people around here had the same reacion.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
And your responses are still far more anger than interaction with what I'm saying.
Whether you believe it or not, I'm not trying to manipulate anyone, nor am I trying to make myself into some kind of martyr. I'm asking, in the most diplomatic language I can muster in my increasing frustration, that you cool your rhetoric away from attacks and terms like pissy.
This is bloody ridiculous given that we came into this apparently agreeing on the most basic idea: that the guy deserved a full term behind bars.
I'll grant that I've indulged in some metaphors that sounded good to me in the heat of type but weren't worth the pain to re-explain when others found fault with the metaphor or put forth metaphors of their own. Mea culpa. I've seen discussions get so dragged down in metaphors that the original topic got completely eclipsed. It isn't worth it.
But if you believe that this has been a strictly legal discussion, I'd disagree.
In two pages- TWO- we've received such emotional nuggets as:
quote:98,000 counts of reckless endangerment. Punishment: death
quote:Rationally, I do not think violence solves anything. But honestly, trying to picture myself in this situation I think I would have done my level best to force feed that guy every pill in his pharmacy and staple his throat shut so he couldn't vomit them back out.
quote:he gets a moment of peace or happiness in this life or the next, it will be too good for him.
quote:Though for his punishment, I'd say lock him away for life, and every time he gets sick, only give him a half dose of medicine, if any at all.
quote:This is sick. This is disgusting profiteering. This is an argument for vigilante justice, almost. Jeez
quote:I'm not saying I want him to get the death penalty, but if I heard tomorrow that he was shanked in prison, I don't think I'd lose a moment of sleep.
quote:Shoulda charged him with 98,000 counts of attempted murder and then fried him.
And kindly note, when I changed the precise term from "murderer" to "monster", I immediately got two replies willing to categorize him as the latter.
When you say this pharmacist is _worse_ than someone who stabs someone else through the heart with a knife, you're not arguing a legal definition, you're arguing an emotional one.
I'm perfectly aware that no one suggested going after his family. It was an exaggeration to make a point about some of the things people _have_ suggested doing to the man, because this _hasn't_ been about nothing but strict definitions and legal definitions, but emotional responses.
The tone and topic has shifted from semantic definition to legal definition to emotional context many times. High emotions generally make for bad laws and poorly thought responses to situations.
I've been trying to move towards more thoughtful and less emotional responses. That was, again, the only reason I said I would accept the definition of murder: I was hoping the conversation might move on to something productive like how the actual law should treat a case like this, or how it might be possible cost-effectively to police the trade, or whether pharmacists are held to lower standards than others in medical fields, anything- ANYTHING- other than this mire of definition.
[Cheap shot written, considered, and deleted.]
Emotionally, I can argue that it wasn't murder for various reasons... Risk, intent, exposure, awareness of the crime by the victims and their families, fatality rates among the victims with or without the intervention of this particular pharmacist...
Legally, I would have to ask, in all seriousness: if this crime were committed _once_- if the pharmacist were caught with the first prescription shorted, even if the specific patient could be isolated- could you charge the man with murder?
If so, what's the murder weapon?
If not, can you think of any crime that becomes a different crime simply by repetition, before you get to the level of war crimes?
Or do we maybe need a new term to describe this kind of wrongdoing? Perhaps a new system of redress?
I suspect if he'd been caught after one count, he would have gotten a fine and a license revokation, possibly subject to review. _Maybe_ he would have done jail time. Not much comfort to his victim.
quote: And yet several people, including myself and Lyrnham, have given detailed reasons that specifically relate to the mindset involved here, including the particularities that arise from this man's profession.
I can find an isolated incident where Lyrnham explained how the phrarmacist's knowledge of his craft furthered his culpability by way of his understanding of the consequences of his actions. That's it; if you can show me otherwise, go for it. What I've been hoping for is more along the lines of "Why did he think he could get away with it? Why _did_ he get away with it for so long?" And, I suppose, more difficult questions about his training and any ethical component thereof, his relationship with the community, and so on. You might even go so far as to ask the extent to which "we" write off the elderly and those with a potentially terminal illness as less human. After all, companies are seeking the right to write off such people as of less worth for compensation in wrongful death suits anyway...
A significant portion of this discussion has been taken up by vitriol. I described the participants as a lynch mob, I feel it has influenced this discussion to its detriment, and I stand by that assertion. I don't think you're necessarily part of that, Dag, but if all you succeed in doing is nailing down the definition of this pharmacist as a murderer before moving on to the next horror of the week, what have you accomplished?
I'm not looking to play the martyr, I'm not demanding any apologies, and I'm damn sure not playing any games. If you have a particular point you'd like to address, or like me to address, illuminate.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
This guy was clearly a terrible human being, but his crimes don't differ much from those that are committed by other people in the medical field every day: doctors who recommend courses of treatment that are far more expensive and require more visits than is necessary, obstetricians who diagnose the need for a c section when there isn't a need, etc. The only difference is that this pharmacist got caught.
Or you could go broader, and highlight the fact that this pharmacist was just symptomatic of the entire FDA: driven by money rather than by helping people. If the FDA were truly concerned with helping people rather than making money, we'd have a LOT more cures and far fewer treatments. How many different time increments of heartburn relief medication are we going to go through before we "magically" discover the cure for heartburn? How many addictive prescription sleep aids will be invented before a realistic cure for sleep is revealed? How many different, obnoxiously expensive HIV treatments will the government produce before they finally unveil the cure? Why is it that labs researching CURES for malignant conditions instead of treatments are threatened by the FDA?
Money. It's the bottom line. Welcome to America, the capitalist paradise. As long as money is the greatest of incentives for so many people, we'll continue to see things like this happen over and over again. I'm not trying to say it's not sad and morally reprehensible, I'm just not surprised at all.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
