The English baby that the British health plan want to kill should tell everyone a lot

LOL! Calling a doctor a quack is a textbook example of slander per se. Hit the books.

Or read this carefully:

Among statements considered slanderous per se are those that impute the commission of a felony, as by calling an individual a forger or murderer; that impute an individual to be suffering from an offensive disease, such as leprosy or syphilis; or that are injurious to an individual in his or her trade or profession, as by calling a doctor a ****quack****.”

http://lawin.org/slander/ [**** mine]

 

A false accusation of malpractice, other than a lawsuit, would be defamation.

Slander, in the law of torts, oral defamation or use of the spoken word to injure another's reputation, as distinguished from libel or written defamation. To be the basis of a legal action, a publication of the words complained of, that is, their utterances in the hearing of third persons, must demonstrably have taken place. Among statements considered slanderous per se are those that impute the commission of a felony, as by calling an individual a forger or murderer; that impute an individual to be suffering from an offensive disease, such as leprosy or syphilis; or that are injurious to an individual in his or her trade or profession, as by calling a doctor a quack. When the reputation of the injured party is not presumed to have been injured by the statement itself, the plaintiff must allege special damage or loss that was suffered as a result of the statement.

http://lawin.org/slander/ [**** mine]

Medical errors that amount to malpractice are very common. Hence: "When the reputation of the injured party is not presumed to have been injured by the statement itself, the plaintiff must allege special damage or loss that was suffered as a result of the statement." Think.

 

I'll stick with NOLO thanks

 

Here, I'll quote one for you: " Because the statements did not ascribe the lack of a necessary skill that is peculiar or unique to the profession of being a physician, we hold that they did not defame the physician per se."
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/tx-supreme-court/1631622.html

Telling people you've committed malpractice is imputing a lack of necessary skill unique to the profession. Calling them a name does not rise to that level

 

In court? No, just going around telling people that? Different.

 

He'd have to prove he wasn't a quack, too. This snake oil salesman is willing to experiment on Charlie. That is my opinion and is one shared by many others.

His parents want to try anything and have fooled themselves into believing Charlie isn't as ill as his medical team are claiming, based entirely on wishful thinking and no evidence whatsoever.

They've called the doctors at GOSH liars in court and have become abusive and aggressive which is fast losing them sympathy over here, yet, be assured, they are still entitled to argue their case.

This isn't a criminal trial. There is nobody to find guilty or innocent, therefore no jury is necessary.

Charlie has been appointed a legal guardian of his own from cafcass to protect his rights.

 

So your claim of providing considerable care was a lie. Why am I not surprised.
And your claim that hospice is essentially assisted suicide is a lie.
So that is two lies. Care to go for three?

Oh, sorry forgot your claim that opiods at end of life speeds death. That is three already. Want to go for four.

 

Incidentally, Charlie is a patient in Great Ormond Street Children’s hospital, one of the world’s great teaching hospitals. I prefer taking their medical opinion rather than anyone offering miracle treatments at a price.

 

This may help:

“Slander per se consists of especially egregious offenses, including false accusations that another person has contracted a morally offensive communicable disease, and a defamatory expression impacting directly on one’s profession, such as stating that a particular attorney is a crook, or that a doctor is a ***quack***.” Fundamentals of Tort Law, By: Eric Baime. ©2014- 2017. [mine]
https://nationalparalegal.edu/FundamentalsTortLaw.aspx

Good advice for anyone who has committed libel or slander per se: apologize for doing it, and correct the record - fast.

 

How do you figure that? Do you just hear what you'd like and insert things into people's statements to help your worldview? I haven't lied, though I can see your need for denial considering your experience.

 

You didn't read the case did you

 

I read your posts. You have yet to paste up anything that would justify publishing libel per se. Denouncing a doctor as a quack is the textbook example of libel/slander per se.

When you libel or slander someone you should apologize and take it back - fast.
That is the right and ethical thing to do. It is also the way to reduce the damages suffered by the victim of the defamation.

 

You should read the case.

 

That should be your choice, but you clearly have no choice.

 

Perceived political expediency vs personal ethics. Bet on political expediency - every time.

 

It appears that the doctors were correct.......

 

You are free to paste up anything you find especially persuasive. Why haven't you done that?

 

So if your child had a 10% chance, you wouldn't take that? You would give up on your child and just say oh well? I didn't even try.

 

It is clear that Charlie's parents in the UK have no choice - as I pointed out.

Are you citing the doctor who has been denounced as a "quack" on this forum?

 

Or is it more a case of "the government says that is what I should do."

 

The doctor from Columbia in NY.

 

You prefer not to answer my question?

 

Subjects vs free citizens.

 

I never said that but when I read this...

I could never condone this horrific poor life quality for anyone, let alone someone I love.

 

I provided a link.