tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2447438783001404385.post955244047942742350..comments2024-03-28T23:48:08.527-05:00Comments on Jackson Jambalaya: Wolfe-Med Board: Round XXXKingfishhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06184990110961727404noreply@blogger.comBlogger48125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2447438783001404385.post-51418562260166324732019-07-17T13:20:05.361-05:002019-07-17T13:20:05.361-05:00Boards are not 'state agencies'. Boards ar...Boards are not 'state agencies'. Boards are boards. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2447438783001404385.post-36674565063841012572019-07-16T11:51:54.026-05:002019-07-16T11:51:54.026-05:00Reading these comments is entertaining to say the ...Reading these comments is entertaining to say the least. What is even more entertaining than reading, is picking out the "anonymous" comments made by Dr. Wolfe, who is clearly trying to conduct damage control. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2447438783001404385.post-91642290056347151642019-07-16T07:16:20.196-05:002019-07-16T07:16:20.196-05:00@7:32 Yours is very much a minority view . . . on...@7:32 Yours is very much a minority view . . . on all points . . . according to those who know the lawyer and understand the legal issues. LOL at your "dissent".Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2447438783001404385.post-90071444788538672172019-07-15T22:53:23.774-05:002019-07-15T22:53:23.774-05:007:32 is right, and 9:51 is wrong. 9:51 is real goo...7:32 is right, and 9:51 is wrong. 9:51 is real good at taking cheap shots at 7:32 rather than just disagreeing with him.<br /><br />The fact is that there was no emergency, there's no proof that Dr. Wolfe is an immediate threat to anybody, and the Board got this wrong. This is not about Dr. Wolfe' income. I'm sure missing a few weeks of pay won't land him at Stewpot. This is about following the rule of law and giving the doctor due process before taking his medical license. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2447438783001404385.post-10761970189553555612019-07-15T22:48:37.807-05:002019-07-15T22:48:37.807-05:00Personally, I'd like to see the posters at 7:3...Personally, I'd like to see the posters at 7:32 and 9:51 face-off in court, and then on appeal, as I suspect they are both skilled, experienced attorneys. High-quality counsel with genuinely-different interpretations of the law make for good published opinions, in my opinion. If competent, reasonable minds couldn't differ on what the law means, society wouldn't need attorneys or the courts (except to deal with the unreasonable minds - 9:56, I'm looking in your direction).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2447438783001404385.post-91776862884692962042019-07-15T21:56:46.822-05:002019-07-15T21:56:46.822-05:00"I was simply disabusing the notion that doct..."I was simply disabusing the notion that doctors keep boxes and boxes of abortifacients in their office. "<br /><br />Correct - most doctors do not - only those who want to provide them so patients can have an abortion in private, without going to an "abortion clinic".Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2447438783001404385.post-6934537422456464812019-07-15T21:51:38.227-05:002019-07-15T21:51:38.227-05:007:32 PM The "controversy" is the board&...7:32 PM The "controversy" is the board's charges of the violations by Wolfe contained in the board's affidavit/complaint against him. The board utilized the emergency suspension statute to suspend Wolfe, and followed the procedure specified. Go read the statute. If Wolfe wants to make the controversy about due process instead of the charges against him, then he needs to file a complaint that constitutionally challenges the statute. The application for a TRO does not accomplish it. Go read the TRO rule.<br /><br />As for the publicity, the board has no reason to want it, and I doubt that the doctor does either. It's not in the best interest of either. That sorta narrows the list of who benefits from publicity. But one of the associates of the doctor's lawyer wouldn't admit that, would they? They'd more likely suck up, don't you think.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2447438783001404385.post-77452866006610350582019-07-15T19:32:04.584-05:002019-07-15T19:32:04.584-05:006:52 - you are correct in the elements to win a TR...6:52 - you are correct in the elements to win a TRO; however, I believe you misapprehend what the ultimate "controversy" is. You believe it is whether Wolfe will ultimately lose his license. I disagree. The "controversy" is whether the board had grounds to suspend the medical license without affording Wolfe the usual due process most doctors receive prior to having their license pulled. I've represented doctors who would have posed more legitimate immediate dangers to the public than what Wolfe poses...assuming all allegations against my clients were true and the all allegations against Wolfe are true. And, they were always afforded due process through notice and a hearing. I see nothing in the allegations that warrant immediate suspension. I believe Wolfe will win this battle in chancery..but as others have pointed out, he will likely lose the war after he gets what he asking for...a hearing. Finally, with regard to Maison Heidelberg....I've never met a finer attorney. And, a publicity seeker he is not. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2447438783001404385.post-55297823824479330152019-07-15T19:07:56.134-05:002019-07-15T19:07:56.134-05:00The only person harmed here is the child that isn’...The only person harmed here is the child that isn’t wanted, or wasn’t wanted and survived attempted murder. With this generation, he might be spoiled and then think him or herself deprived and attempt revenge on the Wolfe Man. Time will tell and the poor kid will never get to live without folks talking bad about him. Or, her. Daddy’s money will never make it better. That’s Ephed Up. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2447438783001404385.post-18137919434669380122019-07-15T17:34:59.243-05:002019-07-15T17:34:59.243-05:004:39 PM I for one read proof that the board put i...4:39 PM I for one read proof that the board put in the papers they filed. If what they said is true, then the doctor could be a menace to women. <br /><br />It's more important to be cautious and protect the public from a possible menace, than it is to let the doctor keep raking in his fees for a few more weeks. If there's not enough proof, then he'll get his suspension lifted in a few weeks when the board has its hearing. That's a small price to make sure that the public is safe. But hey, he might be able to sue the board to get back his two weeks worth of fees if he wins at the board hearing. <br /><br />I guess in your mind, the almighty dollars for the doctor are more important than women. Isn't that what the doctor's claim for a TRO is really all about -- money that he can make in two weeks.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2447438783001404385.post-88927728452115309202019-07-15T16:39:47.019-05:002019-07-15T16:39:47.019-05:006:39, I could care less what the outcome of all of...6:39, I could care less what the outcome of all of this is. I'm just saying what might well happen given how the Board has messed this up. The fact is that there is no proof in the record about the abortion pill allegation that allegedly happened years ago. I agree that IF he did that, he needs to lose his license and be prosecuted.<br /><br />Question: How long has the Board known about this abortion pill allegation? Months? Why is it all of a sudden an emergency that can't wait till July 24?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2447438783001404385.post-31857088342295462742019-07-15T06:45:42.953-05:002019-07-15T06:45:42.953-05:00There's a name for people who prey and do sick...There's a name for people who prey and do sick things to people in a vulnerable position. If what the medical board alleges is true, then that name fits the doctor. Hopefully, no judge will permit the doctor to continue doing those things.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2447438783001404385.post-45543627347035010222019-07-15T06:39:43.157-05:002019-07-15T06:39:43.157-05:009:59 PM Most people believe that there's some...9:59 PM Most people believe that there's something very very wrong with a doctor who inserts pills into the vagina of his patient while they are having sex in order to cause the death and abortion of the fetus that he conceived without his patient's consent or knowledge. <br /><br />That takes a very sick mind, and in some ways it could be considered attempted murder. So if he did that, where are his limits and what else might he do if he's allowed to continue to practice (no pun intended) on other women before a hearing. <br /><br />But you apparently think that it's better to force the public to be at risk and exposed to the doctor's practices so that the doctor can get a few more weeks of pay. I think that the doctor will lose before the chancellor because I don't think that chancellor will tip the scales of justice the way that you want. That's just sick.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2447438783001404385.post-30739751661096093232019-07-14T21:59:51.560-05:002019-07-14T21:59:51.560-05:005:58 is dead on. Dr. Wolfe should win the battle b...5:58 is dead on. Dr. Wolfe should win the battle but will lose the war at the Board hearing, where the tribunal consist of the same doctors who just gave him a renewed license on July 1 and then revoked it with no due process days later. His only chance, albeit a very slim one given the standard of review on appeal, is that the Chancellor on appeal reverses, in part based on the Board's obviously illegal actions taken against Dr. Wolfe so far. He may well need to lose his license, depending of course on what the proof at the hearing shows, but this should happen only after he is afforded due process. There is not a scintilla of proof that he is an immediate threat to his patients. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2447438783001404385.post-61634540725898134292019-07-14T17:58:14.672-05:002019-07-14T17:58:14.672-05:00The Legislature gave the Board the power to preven...The Legislature gave the Board the power to prevent an IMMEDIATE threat to the public. Immediate and egregious are not synonyms. What the doctor is accused of is reprehensible and in some ways unheard of, but it is sporadic, and for the most part isolated. Not something that should suspend due process. Board filings cite two experts: one that is an OB/GYN, and the other an author on medical ethics and boundaries. I feel quite certain that it is the ethicist that provided the opinion that there was an IMMEDIATE threat posed. <br /><br />The Board states that it took it time assembling a case, but to this layperson that flies in the face of the argument that an immediate suspension is warranted. E.g., if an axe murderer physician was practicing, the Board should wield it's power to IMMEDIATELY stop the next axe murder. The very hint of an axe murder demands that due process be suspended and beheadings stopped. (Forgive the reductio ad absurdum). The Board would not wait for all aspects of the murders to be explicated prior to action. This is not the case here. But doctors do love to play lawyer, or in this instance law enforcement officer. The public breathes a collective sigh of relief that their vaginas are now, at last, safe from the surreptitious insertion of cytotec. Or worse yet, the threat of marriage to Dr. Wolfe. <br /><br />Not that it will matter. If you peel this onion, even the most thin layer will empower the Board to take action. Not having a patient file documenting the need for controlled substances will elicit a suspension, and in the larger context here a revocation. So Dr. Wolfe only buys himself a bit more time...and creates a Board level and public feeding frenzy. <br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2447438783001404385.post-47293340582913572552019-07-14T17:08:53.891-05:002019-07-14T17:08:53.891-05:00Dear 3:39,
At 9:58 it was said "how is it th...Dear 3:39,<br /><br />At 9:58 it was said "how is it this doctor had a supply of 'those things', the practical purpose of which is to cause an abortion". I was simply correcting this misperception. He had a supply of those things that, when used off label, can cause an abortion. Of course he knew that. Of course that was his intent. Nothing in my comment indicates that I am am defending or denying. I was simply disabusing the notion that doctors keep boxes and boxes of abortifacients in their office. <br /><br />Thank you for your well reasoned response...<br /> Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2447438783001404385.post-30556694141507487392019-07-14T15:39:48.716-05:002019-07-14T15:39:48.716-05:00"Cytotec is not, primarily, an abortion pill...."Cytotec is not, primarily, an abortion pill. It is a medicine invented to prevent stomach ulcers in people taking non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. In the US, it is neither sold, nor marketed, as an "abortion drug"."<br /><br />Thank you for your comments. But, please tell us how it is that a man spends half his life becoming a successful medical doctor with a specialty in vaginal and Fallopian issues and chooses this particular drug for the purpose of inducing abortion? Oh...but you did say 'primarily', didn't you?<br /><br />He is a physician specializing in women's issues and chose a particular drug in order to cause an abortion. Deny that all you want to. The jury would laugh you off the stand. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2447438783001404385.post-60544180676810222712019-07-14T14:45:46.947-05:002019-07-14T14:45:46.947-05:0011:33 AM I don't know about all those other t...11:33 AM I don't know about all those other things you mentioned. But, I do know that a MS Statute gives the medical board the legal right to suspend a doctor's license without a hearing. <br /><br />I doubt that you're a doctor, so you don't know whether or not the doctor is a danger. What do think that the MS Legislature had in mind when they enacted that statute? I don't know and neither do you. My guess is that they felt like the medical board would be in a better position to make that call than you or I, or a judge. Don't like it, then vote for somebody to change it. But no judge is going to second guess the doctors at the medical board who say that one of their own is a danger to the public. Ain't gonna happen.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2447438783001404385.post-64126429252979265652019-07-14T14:02:02.362-05:002019-07-14T14:02:02.362-05:0012:24 Does that mean that in addition to the othe...12:24 Does that mean that in addition to the other charges, the doctor would also be guilty of malpractice if he attempted an abortion using that particular drug? Well, if he attempted it without the patient/lover's consent, wouldn't that also be malpractice?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2447438783001404385.post-37903288118807405202019-07-14T12:24:32.693-05:002019-07-14T12:24:32.693-05:00Cytotec is not, primarily, an abortion pill. It i...Cytotec is not, primarily, an abortion pill. It is a medicine invented to prevent stomach ulcers in people taking non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. In the US, it is neither sold, nor marketed, as an "abortion drug".<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2447438783001404385.post-75262976975155856522019-07-14T12:22:30.776-05:002019-07-14T12:22:30.776-05:00Thank you, 9:48, for the explanation. I had a feel...Thank you, 9:48, for the explanation. I had a feeling I was missing something.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2447438783001404385.post-91661017682952621552019-07-14T12:06:56.379-05:002019-07-14T12:06:56.379-05:00Those posting are obviously male and the board cer...Those posting are obviously male and the board certainly is male dominated.<br /> You all seem to assume that the women were unable to refuse the doctor's advances though there is zero indication of forced intercourse. You seem to think the women didn't know how to prevent pregnancy or if they did, the doctor wouldn't write the prescription or insert birth control prevention.<br /><br />The attempt at abortion failed and frankly that was probably because she kept the pregnancy to herself too long.<br /><br />Of course, few women seem to know that if they keep up with their cycles, they can, with probable success, end the early stages of pregnancy within the first few days of being late without ever seeing an abortion doctor. Women were aborting babies in Medieval times with herbs with fairly high success and now there are legal and over the counter drugs that can do the same that are in many medicine cabinets. The only women who can't use those with a high probability of success are those with irregular cycles. These methods, sadly, are found in historical and sociologic research on specific societies or women in those societies. <br />The ignorance in this country of all things sexual is astounding. And, if men hadn't been in control so long, birth control in pill form wouldn't had taken so damn long to appear on the market. <br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2447438783001404385.post-15979266652000544462019-07-14T11:33:43.100-05:002019-07-14T11:33:43.100-05:00As I asked in the other thread about this case, do...As I asked in the other thread about this case, does anyone really think that Wolfe could repeat the myriad actions that form the main basis for the immediate suspension, even assuming that he really wanted to do so, in the two weeks between the immediate suspension and the hearing? Since chancery is a forum of equity, how is it equitable, even assuming the allegations in favor of the board, that Wolfe not get a hearing prior to suspension? From the perspective of a outsider with no other knowledge about Wolfe or the workings/personnel of the board and based only on what has been posted by KF and the info in the CL, this just doesn't pass the smell test. <br /><br />I will also observe that just in the last 5-10 years, a number of MS lawyers and judges have admitted and/or had proved a variety of highly-inappropriate and sordid extramarital hijinks with clients, co-workers and/or litigants/defendants and I don't recall any hit with immediate disciplinary action (at least two come to mind where there were serious consequences after an appeal to MSSC and in which opinions are published).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2447438783001404385.post-84392944313397959412019-07-14T10:31:22.551-05:002019-07-14T10:31:22.551-05:00Posting orders on the website as a normal course o...Posting orders on the website as a normal course of business is not the same thing as sending out a press release to the media. No affirmative action was taken to notify the media. Kingfishhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06184990110961727404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2447438783001404385.post-66384383893363929192019-07-14T10:30:19.534-05:002019-07-14T10:30:19.534-05:00The board DID notify the media. It posted the act...The board DID notify the media. It posted the action on Wednesday.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com