Who killed Anna Nicole? - pipTalk Forums

How to Join	Member's Area	Private Library	Search	Sanctuary		Login
Main Forums	Discussion	Tech Talk	Mature Content	Archives	A home without a wall, Our haven without ends, A circle we all call Our Family of Friends!

serenity blaze
Member Empyrean

since 2000-02-02

Posts 27738

0 posted 2009-03-13 09:27 PM

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090313/ap_en_ce/anna_nicole_smith_drug_charges

I am not without sympathy for such a painful situation, having some personal experience with this sort of thing--but I think this establishes a bad legal precedent. I have no doubt Anna Nicole experienced a nervous breakdown--but I don't think that "enabling" ought to be a crime, as there are too many fine lines involved.

We all know that a bartender can be held liable for a intoxicated customer's behavior/possible death, and I think that's not quite right either.

Why stop there?

What about the cashier at the corner store?

Or--taxicab companies that will purchase liquor and home deliver? (Um--yeah--not sure if that was legal or not--but it happens.)

While we're all concerned these days about how much government is too much government, I'd like to hear what ya'll think about this particular scenario.

And what about the reality show that made money, televising her outrageous behavior while she was obviously strung out on drugs even prior to her son's death--they made a profit from sensationalizing bad behavior while she was so obviously under the influence of these medications--even if they were prescribed. Isn't intoxication, intoxication, and by law, a person who is intoxicated can't grant consent...??? <--worded badly, but I'm on my third glass of whine.

Balladeer

Administrator

Member Empyrean

since 1999-06-05

Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

1 posted 2009-03-13 10:43 PM

Who Killed Anna Nicole?

Anna Nicole did.....

serenity blaze
Member Empyrean

since 2000-02-02

Posts 27738

2 posted 2009-03-13 10:53 PM

And I agree. There's more to the question, though...care to elucidate?

Balladeer

Administrator

Member Empyrean

since 1999-06-05

Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

3 posted 2009-03-13 11:10 PM

sorry...Idon't date.

serenity blaze
Member Empyrean

since 2000-02-02

Posts 27738

4 posted 2009-03-13 11:24 PM

Well now.

That's very disappointing, but understandable.

Get some rest, lovie.

serenity blaze
Member Empyrean

since 2000-02-02

Posts 27738

5 posted 2009-03-14 12:07 PM

I guess I'll have to play my own devil's advocate then.

Two words: Angela Suleman.
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Story?id=6833533&page=1

Now here's a woman, having octoplets--with the assistance of a physician--and I'll ask the question in obverse:

"Should the physician be held financially responsible, having "enabled" conception?"

Perhaps this might be better suited for philosophy, I dunno--it seems to me that life and death are inextricably intertwined.

Considering these two women as the seperate entities that they are is quite enough, I agree, but if one is to bring legalities into this, I think the two subjects are as distant to a physician as ... life and death.

I find both interesting as a pair because we are challenged to ask ourselves if these women are/were capable of responsible decision making, and how far our government should intervene in the decision of sanity--a word which relies, btw, on our collective decision. (Um, that's a lot of decisiveness.)

And anybody can feel free to re-word this discussion, as long as the integrity of me talking to myself remains.

SEA

Moderator

Member Seraphic

since 2000-01-18

Posts 22676
with you

6 posted 2009-03-14 01:49 AM

I don't know about Anna. I think she did that all by herself.

That octimom...that lady is unbalanced and that doctor and her both did that to get famous, nothing else. I think it backfired and people are outraged by it. If you ask me, it's gross and so unfair to those kids. She wanted the spot light, well...she got it.

serenity blaze
Member Empyrean

since 2000-02-02

Posts 27738

7 posted 2009-03-14 02:07 AM

Thank you, Sue-sea.

I think the thing to think about is that life--no matter the cost--gets a big yahoo--eventually.

And death, begs for accountability.

I was won over by the grandfather, who stated, that no matter how these children were brought in the world, they should not be held accountable for the bad judgement of their parent(s).

I'm also enthralled by the lovely and innocent Danielle.

This is the stuff of Shakespeare.

We live in interesting times.

Krawdad
Member Elite

since 2001-01-03

Posts 2597

8 posted 2009-03-14 02:50 AM

What court would hold the physician responsible, financially?  Or the mother, simply for having them?  Who's going to sue?
I have my opinion about the responsibility of adding to the population, one or eight at a time, but that is another thread.  And it is not a matter of law.
Perhaps Angela is delusional or worse, tipping the scale of personal responsibility?  Her physician is not a physician by my definition.  Neither is being fair to the community they live in, though I doubt either has a sense of community.

serenity blaze
Member Empyrean

since 2000-02-02

Posts 27738

9 posted 2009-03-14 04:01 AM

Both situations are complicated enough on their own, I agree.

Equally sad, at that.

I just happen to think the connection of "responsibility" is where we really need to stop, and think.

As science plays bumperpool with nature, I think we've got a lot to think about.

Thank you, Ed, and Sue, for sharing those thoughts.

M'self? I'm gonna sleep on it.

Balladeer

Administrator

Member Empyrean

since 1999-06-05

Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

10 posted 2009-03-14 07:12 AM

A friend of mine has an avocado tree in her back yard. A short time ago someone broke her fence gate, went in and carted away as many avocados as possible. She called the police, who informed her it was partially her fault for having the tree in plain sight where it could entice people to steal.

The shifting of responsibility gets real goofy sometimes.....

Ron

Administrator

Member Rara Avis

since 1999-05-19

Posts 8669
Michigan, US

11 posted 2009-03-14 08:02 AM

What if the drug that killed Anna Nicole had been heroin? Would that necessarily be different than prescription drugs?

http://www.mlive.com/news/kalamazoo/index.ssf/2009/03/man_who_sold_heroin_that_kille. html

Poet deVine

Administrator

Member Seraphic

since 1999-05-26

Posts 22612
Hurricane Alley

12 posted 2009-03-14 11:49 AM

If you were Anna Nicole Smith's friend or doctor what would you do?

Personally, I'd see that she had lost the ability to make sound decisions for herself and I'd say - no more! I'm not buying/supplying/prescribing for you. And I'm going to help you get over this.

As for the octomom, I think the fertility doctor should have his license revoked. It was irresponsible! My daughter had invitro and they said they would implant a maximum of three! THREE! So where does this doctor get off implanting all these embryos??

This is a very sore subject for a lot of people.....grrrr.

serenity blaze
Member Empyrean

since 2000-02-02

Posts 27738

13 posted 2009-03-14 01:16 PM

Shar? I absolutely agree that the physician who assisted in those implants should, at the very least be privately reviewed. As for the babies and their mom? Unfortunately, we can't censure the mother without also censuring the babies. It's not their fault. So that one truly is a conuncrum of emotion, I agree.

And Ron, I'm thinking about that one. When someone messes with street drugs, or even drugs not regulated by the FDA-- common sense should tell the person they are gambling with their lives. I don't know of any drug dealers that have taken the Hyppocratic Oath. Well, I've known some Wiccan drug dealers, but I'm not sure if the Wiccan Rede counts? *wince*

Ron

Administrator

Member Rara Avis

since 1999-05-19

Posts 8669
Michigan, US

14 posted 2009-03-14 03:09 PM

Karen, I'm not sure what you just said. Drug dealers aren't responsible for the damage they do because people should know they are gambling with their lives? Or doctors aren't responsible because they took an oath? One is and the other isn't?

As to octomom, I personally would like to see everyone examined and licensed before they can have kids. Eight kids or one at a time, some can handle it and some (most) can't.

The problem is, the minute you start regulating child birth, saying who can have what and how many and how often, you put a whole lot of power into someone's hands. I know of at least one well known and respected writer of ballads who probably believes Democrats shouldn't be allowed to breed at all?

If we get to decide that eight is too many for some, how do we stop our politicians from deciding that one is too many for us? I think it comes right back to that one truth upon which this country has always rested: You can't protect a right unless you're willing to protect it for everyone equally. Even the idiots.

serenity blaze
Member Empyrean

since 2000-02-02

Posts 27738

15 posted 2009-03-14 04:30 PM

There's moral responsibility (or ethics) and legal responsibility--now, if a minor is the one who is hurt then I believe whomever enabled the damage should be prosecuted, yes. But if an adult makes the personal choice to dabble in drugs, I think that is sadly self destructive, (yes) but I do believe that history proves that there is no law that will stop them. I'm an advocate of the more compassionate laws regarding addiction treatment as an illness. I was especially interested to learn that the good folks in Van Couver have taken that approach. I also happen to know that the truth of the laws in Amsterdam belie their reputation.

I do agree that we tend bring a shovel to the hole when we try to legislate morality--in most incidences, it just breeds a harsher immorality. (no pun intended on the octomom thing) I think that's a genuinely sad situation--I worry that those babies will grow up with the weight of some opinion that they were a mistake.

That's so incredibly harsh to have in your psyche.

I don't have the answers, Ron. When I post questions, it's because I actually like to hear what others think.

As for psychological evaluations for having children? I don't think there's much you can do to prepare yourself for that.

Sorta like um, the presidency, I don't think the full impact of the daunting responsibilty hits you until you already have the job. I can only speak for myself that I knew after having TWO children that was all I could handle. And at times I find myself resentful of people who don't take that job seriously. My kids hang out with their kids--usually at my house. And some days, that's groovy gravy. I love our round table discussions, and I'd help more with their schoolwork if they would let me. Other days, I wish the band would practice at somebody else's house.

(And I thought "soundchecks" were a thing of the past for me...

)

I'm curious if anyone has information on that physician regarding what his motivations were when he agreed to do that procedure. How is it that I a friend (a medicaid patient) and she can't find a physician who will perform the hysterectomy that she needs (she has no children and they don't wish to cause her emotional damage) and for the past two years we have all helplessly watched her go through the emotional trial of chronic pain and increasing physical disability?

I dunno. I suspect that if there are answers, they are as individual as the um, individuals.

I just backspaced more stuff--because it's very easy to get lost in related questions of ethics, legality and moralities.

(Note: I was apparently smiling way too much while typing this too. Let me try to "submit reply" again.) *grin*?

But I'm sure you're way ahead of me on that too. *wink*

I'll be around. I either typed myself up into a sweat or I'm having a hot flash or I'm breaking a fever from a pesky respiratory infection that I caught the night I took that new "celebratory" picture of mine. (The parade was the krewe of Muses, too. Go figger. *laughing*)

Balladeer

Administrator

Member Empyrean

since 1999-06-05

Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

16 posted 2009-03-14 04:47 PM

Aw,Ron, they can breed as long as they are raised under strict supervision!

Mysteria

Member Laureate

since 2001-03-07

Posts 18328
British Columbia, Canada

17 posted 2009-03-14 08:09 PM

I was only going to say that life is strange, some of us make good choices, and others sure as heck don't do they? However, I had more to say and it is raining

Karen, I hate to put a pin in your balloon about how we treat drug addicts here, but this only just started because they don't want them sitting curbside and lingering in lanes when the 2010 Olympics begins and we try to take everyone's money here.  They couldn't find housing for them before, but all of a sudden it is no problem.  However, it is working for some, but a very small minority recover.

I agree with Ron 100% and think everyone should be tested when they want children.  I would like to see that test both for drug use, and mental stability, taking into account the backgrounds of their parents too.

I have one child, a friend of mine has 7, and trust me I could never have put up with what she did, and it fell on deaf ears with her.  Further to that, I wish they would change the laws and make it SO difficult to get married, and easy as pie to get a divorce. I bet my bottom dollar there would be way less broken homes if people really are aware of what they getting into.  The love, marriage, and baby carriage just doesn't work in these times anymore.

I am thrilled to see a dealer got sentenced for selling a drug that is deemed dangerously addicting if not deadly.  By the way K, read this when you get time.  This new method is being used with HUGE success here. Legal cough medicine Dilaudid Replaces Methadone For Addict Treatment  Sorry, just rambling on a rainy Vancouver day.

Squeeze ya all later.

JenniferMaxwell

Member Elite

since 2006-09-14

Posts 2423

18 posted 2009-03-15 04:51 PM

Opening a new can of worms and maybe Pandora’s Box by requiring testing for those who want to have children?

So what would happen to those who failed the test? Would they be involuntarily sterilized, locked up in chastity belts, single sex work camps, monitored by the sex police, forced to take birth control pills or what? And, since many pregnancies aren’t planned, would those who failed the test after they become pregnant be forced to have abortions?

Mysteria

Member Laureate

since 2001-03-07

Posts 18328
British Columbia, Canada

19 posted 2009-03-15 09:25 PM

Something like that

Sunshine

Administrator

Member Empyrean

since 1999-06-25

Posts 63354
Listening to every heart

20 posted 2009-03-16 11:15 AM

For regulating birth control, just look towards China. Do we want that kind of control?
http://geography.about.com/od/populationgeography/a/onechild.htm

And Mys, I agree. It should be very tough not only to get married, but to have children as well. There ought to be a book on raising kids well past their teens...and not just Dr. Spock's outlook on childhood illnesses and behavior.

Heh...I know how Mom sometimes used Spock's book, and it sometimes wasn't "open". Let alone for discussion.

Midnitesun

Member Empyrean

since 2001-05-18

Posts 28647
Gaia

21 posted 2009-03-16 12:15 PM

It seems to me history keeps trying to tell us that we cannot legislate morality for other sentient adults. It's my contention though, that there's a huge gaping hole between responsible and irresponsible behaviors that impact the 'innocents' of society.
My perspective is that the 'innocents' category often includes those who fall prey to disabling drugs, and they'd be better off with treatment and compassion than being locked behind bars or chastised morally.
Yet I believe each must take a certain level of personal responsibility for their actions. Life is chaotic and a jigsaw puzzle to many, usually without precise clear cut lines and rules.
Drugs and overindulgence killed Anna.
We can only hope her daughter will find her personal life-path keeps her away from those dreadful blockades.
As for Octomom? Sheesh, we already have more people on this planet that our resources can sustainably support! I think she is selfish as well as socially/mentally unstable.

serenity blaze
Member Empyrean

since 2000-02-02

Posts 27738

22 posted 2009-03-16 11:00 PM

Shar? Before you agree with Ron 100 percent, make sure you understand him 100 percent. I don't understand Mike's winkie comment either. (I love ya Mike, but clarify your pronouns, k?)

And yes, Shar, perhaps I gave more credit to the compassionate folks of Van Couver than is deserved. I had no idea that these legal acts of compassion are mere cosmetic. I'll take it though. If you've ever shivered, wept, sweat and cried through three months of non-compassionate methadone withdrawal, you'll take anything. Or should I qualify my own pronouns too? I don't live there--so I dunno. That's not sarcasm, it's how I feel. And may the Gods bless Canada for allowing folks to have 2mg.s of codeine in their aspirin too.

I regret bringing octomom into discussion, but I did so in order to convey how disconerting I find the role of Physician as "God." Bad example? I dunno, but? As everybody learns on the playground, you can't indict someone's mamma impersonally. Again--I say my concern is for the lives of the kids, first, and legal precedent second.

Jennifer Maxwell? It's great to see you here, although I'm confused yet again. I'll put you in the category of -->

Kari? I'm confused as to why you said that--I don't believe I once ever even hinted I considered life as expendable, disposable, negotiable, or even government controllable. NOT EVEN CHINA CAN ENFORCE THAT--but they try, I'm sorry to acknowledge.

And thank you, kacy...you're a light at the end of the tunnel. Thanks for the acknowledgement that just maybe society is not well served by taken broken hearted people and breaking their spirit as well. And as soon as I find the article regarding how prisons are now a government profit business (Vanity Fair) I'll make that point, properly referenced as well.

Jenn? Pandora's box is a box of jones.

Ain't nothin' left in it but hope. But welcome back, lovie.

Stephanos

Member Elite

since 2000-07-31

Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA

23 posted 2009-03-17 11:57 PM

Ron,

the plain difference there, is that doctors are documented ... drug dealers aren't, and take all pains to avoid it. Illicit dealers already break the law, and never did claim a "higher" cause, such as attempting to help people better themselves with responsible use of medication.

And a reminder, it's impossible not to legislate morality to one degree or another, since the concept of legislation itself has intractable moral implications. Even the question "should this bill be passed?" has moral overtones, in addition to the pragmatic ones ... especially for those who are sure its always wrong to impose ethics by law.

Just my two cents,

Stephen

[This message has been edited by Stephanos (03-18-2009 12:08 AM).]

Bob K
Member Elite

since 2007-11-03

Posts 4208

24 posted 2009-03-18 06:56 PM

     Who killed Anna Nicole?

     You could pretty much point your finger in any direction, say "zotz!" and bring down a culprit.  If Anna Nicole herself were finger-pointing, she'd have three fingers pointing back in her own direction.  It's not clear that she'd go down much faster, though; she was a one woman nexus of disaster.  I don't know how bright she was when she started out, but I.Q. wasn't really much of an issue by the time things were winding up.  She didn't have enough unclouded attention to do very much thinking at all, and without attention and focus, all the IQ in the world doesn't do you a lick of good.  You can't keep a train of thought going long enough to make a decision beneficial to yourself or to anybody else.  She was legally responsible, probably, and existentially responsible ultimately, but pragmatically it looks like there was nobody home.  Apparently there was enough there for her to carry out basic programming only, reproduction and ingestion of food and enough of the chemicals to keep the pain centers shut down most of the time.  I don't think it was pretty.

     For all of this, she apparently created a paradoxical situation around her.  The appearance of money that may have trapped her initially in her marriage with her grotesquely mismatched elderly billionaire husband perhaps thirty years ago prevented people from saving her life.  If she'd been poor, a social worker and the courts would have intervened in her relationship with her child, and insisted that she enter drug treatment.  The lawyer and advisors who allowed her personal circus to continue would have been unmotivated to do so, and she might have had to face what her life had become.  Instead, they helped maintain the mask of normality that she tried to draw around herself with less and less success as time went on.

     And now, after Anna Nicole's death, they stand ready willing and able to supply the same services to Anna Nicole's daughter.

Artic Wind
Member Rara Avis

since 2007-09-16

Posts 8080
Realm of Supernatural

25 posted 2009-03-22 02:53 PM

Oh me too ~ as much is it is sad to say ~ she totally did this to herself. Don't do drugs, that's it

Thanks for this Serenity! I enjoyed reading peoples thoughts

ARCTIC WIND

	⇧ top of page ⇧
All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format.