An Ohio judge ordered a local hospital to move forward with treating COVID-19 patient Jeffery Smith, 51, with the anti-parasitic drug ivermectin. But according to New York University bioethics professor Arthur Caplan, the judge's order was "absurd."
"If I were these doctors, I simply wouldn't do it," Caplan told Ars Technica.
The case was brought to court by Smith's wife Julie after he was hospitalized with COVID-19 and placed on a ventilator.
After her husband was on a ventilator for 19 days, Julie reached out to Dr. Fred Wagshul about using ivermectin to treat his condition, according to court documents. Wagshul prescribed 30mg of ivermectin to Smith, but the hospital staff refused to administer the drug.
As Ars Technica point out, ivermectin was initially developed as a treatment for river blindness and other parasitic infections. At high doses, ivermectin can cause serious side effects in humans, ranging from nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea to low blood pressure, seizures, coma, and death.
It has not been approved as a treatment for COVID-19 in humans. Nevertheless, it's been falsely touted in anti-vaccine circles as an effective treatment for the virus.
Ivermectin "is absolutely not indicated for COVID. There is no standard of care saying you have to use it. Indeed, major medical groups advising against using it because people have died from it," Caplan said, adding that the judge's order was asking hospital doctors to do something "unethical and illegal."
"The doctors who are caring for the guy in the hospital are his doctors, not this guy," he said.
"The judge is trying to throw a life preserver to a dying man. The problem is what he's throwing is actually a 50 pound weight that'll sink him."