Dr Conrad Murray aired his side of events about the death of Michael Jackson in a documentary shown on both British and US media. The Dr Murray documentary entitled, Michael Jackson and the Doctor: A Fatal Friendship.' was aired even after Murray declined taking the stand to defend himself during his just concluded trial.
Throughout the documentary, Dr Murray made various claims that served only to portray Michael Jackson as a mentally broken man way before the good Doctor entered his life. Murray's interview on MSNBC, some would argue, was distasteful in light of circumstances. In some respects, it perhaps came off as the desperate attempt of a guilty man trying to save face in light of all the damning evidence pointed in his direction. Did Dr Murray appear remorseful during the documentary? The court of public opinion has already begun, in earnest, to cast its view on that very question.
There is an issue at the forefront, I believe, of what is ethically and morally acceptable as it pertains to whether Murray, found guilty of causing Michael's death, should have been allowed to speak to the media in such specific terms. His boundaries during the interview went much more beyond medical explanations, as he pointed towards Michael's depleted finances in stating that AEG Live CEO, Randy Phillips, told him before the Tour that Michael Jackson does not have a f**king cent to his name.
AEG Live is the company that was promoting the fifty concert dates in London before Michael died. During the documentary, Murray claimed AEG's CEO said to him in an angry tone, "He's [Michael] is going to be homeless_..I'm paying for the toilet paper he wipes his f**king ass with." AEG's CEO, of course, aggressively denied these statements ever came fron his lips during the trial. So it leaves the question on everyone's mind; would Murray go so deep as to lie to make himself look more favourable to the public? It is certainly the public he is attempting to appease, as in if he had all this knowledge of Michael's alleged depleted condition, then why during the trial did he not take the stand and allow his side to be heard, from him?
It is already an unwelcomed practice to slander but to slander someone in death, the way Murray has done in his portrayal of Michael Jackson, carries a bad stench of insensitivity and mindlessness with it.
During the documentary, Dr Murray insinuated that Michael was a bed wetter. He stated that he had to persuade Michael to clean the bedroom that he slept in because he peed the bed."
According to Murray, "It did not smell good. It was mildew, and I had to get it clean. Who would ever believe that a man his age would still be wetting his bed?
I frankly was astounded to hear these allegations coming from Dr Murray and I seriously have to question whether Murray is devoid of decency in making these very damaging claims that cannot be verified by anyone but him, or defended by Michael Jackson himself, as he is now dead.
Michael may not have been your average 50 year old man but the evidence against Dr Murray during the trial highlighting his negligence in caring for Michael in those final moments was shocking. I would have thought that if he were in receipt of $150,000 a month, then he would have ensured that Michael's care was top notch.
I do not believe Dr. Murray intentionally intended to harm Michael Jackson. His documentary appearance does though make it seem that he believes he is the victim in this situation. No Dr Murray, you were not. Michael Jackson was the victim who paid with his life.
One of the fundamental rules of practicing medicine is to do no harm. Using a dangerous drug such as propofol in the confines of Michael's bedroom, and then leaving him unattended, all medical experts are agreed that this points to a severe dereliction of duty.
The documentary just aired will no doubt raise further questions about the ethics of the man who will go down in history as the one responsible for causing the death of a global icon.
Photo Credit to Chip Hazard