MADISON, WI – A family’s request to provide Ivermectin to a dying relative in a hospital with COVID pneumonia was effectively denied by the Wisconsin Supreme Court earlier in October, according to reports.

Said denial came in the form of the Wisconsin Supreme Court refusing to approve a petition to bypass the appeals court’s decision to impose a stay on the circuit court’s order that would’ve allowed the patient to be treated with Ivermectin while the courts figured out whether the courts could impose hospitals to render treatments that the hospital doesn’t endorse.

Close

The case in question is Allen Gahl v. Aurora Health, where Gahl filed the case in early October on behalf of John Zingsheim – a man dying from Covid-related pneumonia who was prescribed Ivermectin by a physician not authorized to work at the Aurora Medical Center, where Zingsheim is currently on a ventilator.

On October 14th, following the circuit court hearing the case, Gahl and Aurora Health signed on to a draft agreement that would allow Zingsheim to be administered Ivermectin at the hospital, so long that Gahl could locate a doctor to physically administer it and absolve Aurora Health from all liability if the treatment goes south.

Yet on the same day, the court of appeals granted Aurora Health’s petition and memorandum for leave to appeal the circuit court’s decision and took it a step further by issuing a stay on the circuit court’s order, thereby also nullifying the draft agreement that both parties signed.

Come October 20th, Gahl filed an emergency petition to bypass the court of appeals so that the state Supreme Court could immediately hear the case. The rationale for such bypass was due to the fact that Zingsheim does not have the luxury of time that can pass while courts ponder cases.

But on October 25th, in a 4-3 decision, the Wisconsin Supreme Court refused to grant the bypass, which left the stay imposed by the appeals court in effect – meaning Zingsheim will not be afforded any such Ivermectin treatment.

The justices who denied the petitioned bypass were Ann Walsh Bradley, Rebeca Frank Dallet, Brian Hagedorn, and Jill Karofsky.

In a scathing dissenting opinion drafted by Justice Rebecca Bradley, with Chief Justice Annette Ziegler and Justice Patience Roggensack joining, she condemned the inaction of her peers on the bench. She pointed out that the case literally was a matter of life and death:

Who do you think would win the Presidency?

By completing the poll, you agree to receive emails from LifeZette, occasional offers from our partners and that you've read and agree to our privacy policy and legal statement.

“Judicial decisions have consequences. While every judicial decision must be well-grounded in the law, in this case, nothing in the law supports the court of appeals’ decision nor compels this court’s inaction. The likely consequences of those unreasoned decisions is irrevocable, irreversible, and grave harm inflicted on Mr. Zingsheim.”

This piece was written by Gregory Hoyt on October 29, 2021. It originally appeared in RedVoiceMedia.com and is used by permission.

The opinions expressed by contributors and/or content partners are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views of LifeZette.