# Was MJ's Doc a Mason?



## Blake Bowden (Aug 24, 2009)

Prince Hall maybe?


----------



## JTM (Aug 24, 2009)

can't tell from that picture.  possibly regular.


----------



## Bill Lins (Aug 24, 2009)

I'd Google his name if I could remember it.


----------



## JTM (Aug 25, 2009)

Bill_Lins77488 said:


> I'd Google his name if I cared.



fixt.  pretty rough/rude fix though.


----------



## Blake Bowden (Aug 25, 2009)

Dr. Conrad Murray


----------



## HKTidwell (Aug 25, 2009)

I had read an article a while back that said he joined freemasonry for business contacts however I do not know the validity of this and can not find the article again.

Dr. Murray has been a Freemason for three years according to the link below.
http://houstoncriminallaw-pressroom.com/photo-gallery/


----------



## Jamesb (Aug 25, 2009)

If someone could read the tags below the jewel, I bet it would say.


----------



## tomasball (Aug 25, 2009)

According to Chris Hodapp, somebody tracked down that he belongs to the "United Most Worshipful Scottish Rite Grand Lodge of Texas," with offices in Houston.  A member of three years, he has arisen to the office of "Grand Medical Director."


----------



## Jamesb (Aug 25, 2009)

http://www.thephylaxis.org/bogus/bogus_tx.php

This should explain it


----------



## Gerald.Harris (Aug 25, 2009)

I find it intresting that MJ's Doctor would have any reason to kill the goose that laid the golden eggs. It also seems incredulous that he would in fact join the Masonic Grand Lodge of Prince Hall for business contacts, heck he was already a well established doctor with probably dozens of business contacts. The one thing I do understand is that MJ probably offered him a lot of money to become a personal physician to a famous and infamous pop star. 
 I am not certain that It matters whether or not the Doctor was a Mason.


----------



## Wingnut (Aug 25, 2009)

who said PHA recognition is simple?


----------



## Bill Lins (Aug 25, 2009)

JTM said:


> fixt.  pretty rough/rude fix though.



That's NOT what I said!   :biggrin:


----------



## Bill Lins (Aug 25, 2009)

Gerald.Harris said:


> I am not certain that It matters whether or not the Doctor was a Mason.



Only if what he has done brings discredit upon the Craft. We all know that the profane do not differentiate between clandestine & mainstream Masonry- we all get tarred with the same brush.  :frown:


----------



## Blake Bowden (Aug 26, 2009)

Jamesb said:


> http://www.thephylaxis.org/bogus/bogus_tx.php
> 
> This should explain it



WOW! I didn't know there were so many clandestine Lodges!


----------



## Wingnut (Aug 26, 2009)

PHA recognition is a sticky wicket, there are a lot of clandestine lodges that use the PH name but are not part of what most considered (including PHA) recognized lodges.  There really is some interesting history there about the divisions that have developed over the years, but its much more than I can explain adequately here...


----------



## Gerald.Harris (Aug 26, 2009)

Bill_Lins77488 said:


> Only if what he has done brings discredit upon the Craft. We all know that the profane do not differentiate between clandestine & mainstream Masonry- we all get tarred with the same brush.  :frown:



Brother Bill , you are right, the same brush colors or tarrs all of us equally who profess to be Masons. I am in hopes that this man has done nothing to give us another black eye.


----------



## Gerald.Harris (Aug 26, 2009)

blake said:


> WOW! I didn't know there were so many clandestine Lodges!



That may be why the GLOT produces the book that tells us what lodges are recognized insted of the ones that are not. The book would probably be many times thicker.


----------



## Ben Rodriguez (Aug 29, 2009)

I recently read on the news that Michael Jackson's death has been categorized as a homicide due to the substances found in his body, it also looks like the doctor will be charged. First thing that came to my mind as well is the possible bad reputation to our craft.


----------



## owls84 (Aug 29, 2009)

Last I heard (and this is thinking back and I could be wrong) is that this Doctor will more than likely not be charged but now they are investigating a second doctor. Who knows? I know that they need to get a better grip on doctors that prescibe this kind of medication. I personally know of someone that OD'd because she would go to one doctor then another and get pain medication. Sad thing is she sent my GF at the time to one of the same Dr. and she would get SAMPLES of deppression meds then there was NO supervision of the meds and she basically built a dependancy and when she went to a "GOOD" doctor she had to go into 14 in patient just like a Drug User because of the dependancy she had on the meds the other doctor (family doctor) prescribed. So here is my question, Why do we allow a general doctor to prescribe ALL meds? Should we make it to where if you go on long term meds you should seek a specialist first? 

(JBD I would like your input since you are in this field)


----------



## JBD (Aug 29, 2009)

Josh -

Yes I am "in the field" but dont know all about it.  I am familiar with many drug regulations.  What you are describing is doc shopping.

You have to remember the physician only knows what you tell them and they do not know if you are lying or not.  No physician is going to write scrips that place a patient in danger or at risk for addiction without some presentation of symptoms or complaint by the patient.  Granted, there are some physicians out there who will do anything for a buck, but those are few and far between.

You asked about generalist physicians being able to write all drugs.

Most physicians these days are Board Certified in something including Family Practice - they are not the General Practicioner from the days gone by.  These physicians have more access to more knowledge than any physicians in the past (electronic PDRs, orders written from a PDA and delivered directly to the Pharmacy).  Today the pharmacist is better trained, better equipped and is more a part of the process than ever before.  The pharmacist has computer programs that can track patients across locations (docs do not), and they can notify physicians rapidly if something seems strange.

More regulation is not needed,  More limiting of access is not needed.  The current metropolitan provision of care practice is to keep all you can at the Primary Care level - think referrals from HMOs.  

If you went to your doc, who determines what is wrong and what you need but turns to you and says - _*Mr. Josh,  you are suffering from insomnia secondary to your stress of learing all your work for your A cert. *_ _I cannot help you because some guy from Lake Worth thought it would be a good idea to limit my access to treatments.  We called the specialist, who is right next door, who I went to the same medical school with but took another test to get the drug stamp on his medical license_.

The good news?  Your condition can be treated with one med and you will see immediate results and it will control this issue in little more than a week of treatment.
The bad news? He can see you - - in 2 months, AND he will need to repeat the studies we have already done because by then they will be over 90 days old- - AND you will have taken your Cert exam 3 weeks before his first available appointment IF - you can get your insurance company to give you a referral. 

Not real practical and the issue you wrote about was not caused by, precipitated by or the fault of the physician - it was the patients who caused this problem.

This has gone on forever -  your kids even do it - "Dad can I have an Ice cream?"  do you answer it (not being home all week and tickled they asked you) or do you say, "did you ask your Mother?"  Same deal with the patient, except the physician has 600 kids, a staff of 7, a life and 30 different insurance company guidelines to follow and doesnt always think to ask.  Perspective is a wonderful thing.

I am too Libertarian to ever want to expand governmental rules


----------



## owls84 (Aug 29, 2009)

Very Valid points so what could you see being in the administrative side a way to not correct the "Doctor Shopping" but maybe oversight of doctors prescribing medications to patients that just don't need that medication. 

Trust me I know there is not an easy answer but I am just brainstorming here for discussion sake. I mean would there be something you would go for if it came out of legislation?


----------



## HKTidwell (Aug 29, 2009)

JBD said:


> I am too Libertarian to ever want to expand governmental rules



Great answer!  On this subject there are programs that are being developed to track everything from a pharmacy, hospital, and Dr. office.  However anytime you add something to a Dr. office you affect the cost involved.  Also no offense intended but I do not want to be tracked by cameras, programs, or anything else period.  The more access that is allowed of my daily life the fewer freedoms I actually have, and the easier it is for a change in Government.  

I have two friends in the medical field who have talked about the need for a tracking software for all medical field personal.  I personally have issues with it because eventually you start tracking everything from IB prophen to Tums.  Where do you stop?

People can overdose on Water.  

This rational is also coming from a person who has never done drugs but believes drugs should be legal for a reduction in Prison costs and an increase in Taxable items.  Plus I think by legalizing things like Weed you could control it better.


----------



## JBD (Aug 29, 2009)

Josh - I think you are wanting a solution to a patient problem where there is, in actuality, not a significant issue in relation to the prescribing physician.  The rules are very clear, the consequences usually devestating for the physicians and they are generally very reticent to cross the line.  You have to remember, if it was an absolute, then it would be called the science of medicine, it is not and is called the Practice of Medicine.

The issue you now state is that you have forces pushing and pulling the dynamic.  First lets be clear - the percentage of physicians who are knowing prescribing drugs patients do not need is more like 3-5% than 50%.  You have some who do it to get the patient to shut up; you have some who do it to keep from getting sued; you have some who just weigh the possible side effects versus the risk of not doing something and just write the scrip.  The actual number who are script factories is extremely low.  Trying to pass a law, write regulations, or clutter our lives with more government intervention in our lives to solve/prevent any untoward outcome.

Texas is very aggressive in the punishment of docs.  They will hammer them for just not documenting the actual reason for writing the scrip; they will hammer them if the patient has a problem.  The Texas Medical Board posts all their actions on their website and you can verify your physician there as well.  

Check it out here http://www.tmb.state.tx.us/
Be sure to look at the press releases, it is the area where the disciplinary actions are available in one place.


----------



## owls84 (Aug 29, 2009)

Thanks for the information... good site as well just went and found out the guy that wanted me to have back surgery had a malpractice suit dismissed about 4 years ago. Oh and should I add my second opinion said he was a "moron" that physical therapy would help and has.


----------



## JBD (Aug 29, 2009)

ROFL - see Josh - the process is there, you just got lucky and a great second opinion physician


----------



## TCShelton (Aug 29, 2009)

JBD said:


> I am too Libertarian to ever want to expand governmental rules



+1.:beer:


----------



## RedTemplar (Aug 29, 2009)

Its not just the health industry.  What ever happened to the idea that we all should be responsible for our own actions? "How was I supposed to know that freshly brewed coffee was HOT, that is why I'm suing McDonald's for $3.8 BILLION!"


----------



## JBD (Aug 29, 2009)

RedT - 
Really bad example - the facts in the McDonalds case are such that the award was in line with the actions of McDonalds who intentionally raised the temperature of its coffee so they did not have to make coffee as often, thereby lowering their costs and making the public assumers of risk without that knowledge.  Did you ever wonder why McDonald's coffee tasted different or why you had to let is cool off to drink?

They took an action based on economics, not to benefit their customers.  And that grandmother had significant injury to her upper legs and genital area.


----------



## RedTemplar (Aug 29, 2009)

JBD said:


> RedT -
> Really bad example - the facts in the McDonalds case are such that the award was in line with the actions of McDonalds who intentionally raised the temperature of its coffee so they did not have to make coffee as often, thereby lowering their costs and making the public assumers of risk without that knowledge.  Did you ever wonder why McDonald's coffee tasted different or why you had to let is cool off to drink?
> 
> They took an action based on economics, not to benefit their customers.  And that grandmother had significant injury to her upper legs and genital area.



JBD,you are right in that I should have thought of a better example to state my point. However, I still plead my rationale is sound. McDonald's greed was to the extent of creating a public hazard and was definitely libel. At the same time, it is hard to convince me that Grandma didn't know that McDonald's coffee wasn't hot. It is also not far fetched to assume a certain amount of greed in Grandma as well. Did McDonalds really cause this much damage? In the end, who pays for all this? Have you ever wondered why a cup of coffee costs over a dollar? How about a visit to the doctor? And the medicine and/or the treatment he prescribed? Not to mention insurance costs of everyone involved? Or the legal fees?

Please forgive me for not staying on topic. But, JBD, Dadburnit, you caused it.:biggrin:


----------



## Bill Lins (Aug 29, 2009)

owls84 said:


> Very Valid points so what could you see being in the administrative side a way to not correct the "Doctor Shopping" but maybe oversight of doctors prescribing medications to patients that just don't need that medication.
> 
> Trust me I know there is not an easy answer but I am just brainstorming here for discussion sake. I mean would there be something you would go for if it came out of legislation?



In Texas we already have a "triplicate prescription" program & there is a penalty for prescribing for a non-medical purpose (don't remember the exact wording). The Medical Board, Board of Pharmacy, & DPS Narcotics enforce these laws.


----------



## JBD (Aug 31, 2009)

RedTemplar said:


> JBD,you are right in that I should have thought of a better example to state my point. However, I still plead my rationale is sound. McDonald's greed was to the extent of creating a public hazard and was definitely libel. At the same time, it is hard to convince me that Grandma didn't know that McDonald's coffee wasn't hot. It is also not far fetched to assume a certain amount of greed in Grandma as well. Did McDonalds really cause this much damage? In the end, who pays for all this? Have you ever wondered why a cup of coffee costs over a dollar? How about a visit to the doctor? And the medicine and/or the treatment he prescribed? Not to mention insurance costs of everyone involved? Or the legal fees?
> 
> Please forgive me for not staying on topic. But, JBD, Dadburnit, you caused it.:biggrin:



LOL - I am great at hijacking threads myself.  My son is an attorney and he was telling me the details.  The actions by McDonalds (at the corporate level and all the way to the store) was so far out of the realm of good business practices and concern for their customers that when it came out - they got nailed.  If I remember correctly Granny needed multiple skin grafts and went through very painful burn treatments as well.


----------



## JBD (Aug 31, 2009)

Bill_Lins77488 said:


> In Texas we already have a "triplicate prescription" program & there is a penalty for prescribing for a non-medical purpose (don't remember the exact wording). The Medical Board, Board of Pharmacy, & DPS Narcotics enforce these laws.



Federal Laws require triplicate Scedhule 2 scrips.  Check out the link I posted to see what the penalties are for.  If you think the IRS has too much power or can take action without completion of all steps of due process, you haven't seen anything until you see the FDA in action - they move first and you can explain later after the padlocks are on the doors - and most of the time you are explaining to a different Federal Agency.

I had an acquaintence several years ago who was invited to spend 36 months at club Fed for 4, yes 4 valium pills - forgot to actually "see the patient" before you write the prescription for your friend at the club.


----------



## Bill Lins (Aug 31, 2009)

JBD said:


> forgot to actually "see the patient" before you write the prescription for your friend at the club.



Yup- that'll work every time.


----------

