Ratzan Weissman & Boldt Founding Partner Stuart Ratzan recently contributed to two published articles in the New Jersey Law Journal and the Daily Business Review on Ivermectin.

Mr. Ratzan served as an expert source speaking to whether legal claims surrounding this matter have legs and what lawyers should bear in mind for doctors and hospitals regarding liability.

Here’s What You Need to Know about Ivermectin

According to the FDA:

“The FDA has not authorized or approved ivermectin for use in preventing or treating COVID-19 in humans or animals. Ivermectin is approved for human use to treat infections caused by some parasitic worms and head lice and skin conditions like rosacea.”

“Currently available data do not show ivermectin is effective against COVID-19. Clinical trials assessing ivermectin tablets for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19 in people are ongoing.”

According to the New Jersey Law Journal

“Some judges have been granting emergent orders directing that COVID-19 patients receive Ivermectin treatment, despite opposition from hospitals.”

“Some lawyers say the rulings compelling Ivermectin treatment are examples of judges second-guessing doctors' judgments about medicine and science.”

What Does This Mean for the Legal System in the United States?

According to the Daily Business Review:

“As more and more litigation emerges over an off-patent drug with a purported ability to treat COVID-19, judges are increasingly finding themselves in a bind: forced to ponder the merits of unapproved treatment and essentially second-guessing physicians whose patients don’t get what they want. That’s generated concern among healthcare lawyers, some of whom see growing requests for the anti-parasite drug Ivermectin as a Hail Mary attempt to keep loved ones alive."

"Courts across the country have ordered hospitals to allow COVID-19 patients to undergo treatment with Ivermectin, overruling protests and arguments over standards of care that exclude the drug."

Attorney Stuart Ratzan’s Take

“It’s hard to understand how a judge could supplant their own politics or view of medicine and science for that of actual medical doctors and scientists."

"You shouldn’t be compelled to become a quack or a snake oil salesman by a judge who’s got no training or experience in the field. Unless or until the science or the medicine says something is the standard of care, based on evidence, you should not be able to go to a judge and have the judge exchange his own view or her own view of what is medically sound for that of people that are trained to do it.” 


Read the full New Jersey Law Article here.

Read the full Daily Business Review Article here.