re: #429 formercorpsman

Sal, I will only comment on one angle of this case (also because I think Charles prefers this topic elsewhere) but as someone in medicine, and having now had the luxury of the drug abusing, non-compliant lunatic, working under the table but having the tax-payers pick up her medical expenses try unsuccessfully to sue me, one aspect of the case has always rubbed me the wrong way.

Michael sued their doctor for negligence, and malpractice. He won, and memory serves me, the award was determined in relation to the lifelong care she would require as a result of this medical error.

In the autopsy, it was verified her cerebral vascular incident was not due to the original supposition, and subsequently what led to the court ruling.

Would the physician be considered not guilty of malpractice now?

Sounds reasonable. But at the time, the husband had no way to know that, so he was suing in good faith. And the issue dos not in any way whatsoever affect the morality of either removing the feeding tube and allowing her cored husk to wither, or leaving her soulless body lying there for years as a tube-fed zombie.