Medical board question: Is Jackson doctor threat to patients?

December 04, 2009

Medical board question: Is Jackson doctor threat to patients?
When Dr. Conrad Murray, the Houston cardiologist at the center of the investigation into Michael Jackson's death, resumed seeing patients in Acres Homes last week, the question on many minds was, Should he be able to practice?

After all, Murray faces possible criminal charges — Los Angeles police investigators recently said they won't make a decision on his case until 2010 — for giving the pop singer the powerful anesthetic propofol, which the coroner's report ruled killed him. And even if he escapes prosecution, most doctors expect Murray will lose his license over what one says "goes beyond medical malpractice."



Houston Chronicle
The enduring question: Will Texas Medical Board revoke Conrad Murray's license?


So what's the latest from the Texas Medical Board, which, contrary to the impression you might have got from everyone's favorite gossip site TMZ, has not confirmed it is investigating Murray. State law only allows disciplinary actions to be made public, not investigations.

"Murray, like all Texas doctors, is subject to scrutiny as well as entitled to due process as outlined in the law which the board must follow," TMB President Irvin Zeitler said in a statement. "Developments and final actions in California and Nevada on both a medical board and criminal action basis will be monitored."

Curious whether that meant Texas is letting California and Nevada, the two other states where Murray is licensed, take the lead, hoping to piggyback on their action, we called the board for clarification. Mari Robinson, the board's executive director, said it simply means if another state board were to take a disciplinary action against Murray, that would trigger a TMB investigation (if one is not already under way) and could trigger immediate TMB action. She said that a license revocation by another state would obviously receive greater priority than a fine.

Beyond that, Robinson wasn't tipping her hand about Murray's status in Texas. If officials deemed Murray a threat to his patient, the board could act quickly to convene an emergency hearing at which some sort of limitation could be placed on the doctor's practice, such as suspending his license or requiring he be accompanied by a supervising physician. It would appear Murray is not seen as such a threat, given the lack of such a hearing or rumors of such a plan more than seven months after Jackson's death.

Robinson acknowledged many Houstonians' concerns, but emphasized the board still needs to meet legal standards and that proof a violation occurred can be difficult to obtain.

So what do you think? Murray's admission he gave Jackson propofol in an unmonitored setting enough proof for you? Or do you think a disciplinary body needs to wait until it has all the evidence?


http://blogs.chron.com/medblog/archives/2009/12/public_waits_fo.html