@Xavery Said
Propofol is used in surgery as anesthesia for patients undergoing surgery. It must be given intravenously. It is not used at home for sleep by insomniacs not unless you were Michael Jackson.
Sources say that Jackson was given propofol on the day or eve of his death. They say Dr. Conrad Murray regularly administered propofol to Jackson, even though Murray is a cardiologist and therefore unlikely qualified to administer propofol.
If all of the above is confirmed, Dr Murray could be charged with manslaughter.
However, do you think is fair? If Murray gave Michael this drug, Michael allowed him to.
I'm not acquainted with the drug, but I'm sure the drug has some recommendations, cautions and contraindications for use. If the administration of this drug was used outside of what it was recommended for, yes, someone who administered it could be liable.
For example, this drug may only be recommended to be used in a hospital setting, with an anesthesiologist present, monitoring equipment operating and supervising staff present. Most anesthesic drugs are under lock and key in hospitals for this reason - the damage they can cause if used incorrectly & the very real problem of addiction to these drugs. It's not unheard of for anesthesiologists themselves to use and abuse these drugs personally.
I would imagine that only a trained anesthesiologist would be able to administer this drug in Australia. I don't know what the laws are in the US re: Propofol.
Whilst the charges for this cardiologist involved with MJ are uncertain and his involvement alleged only, I have no doubt that serious questions will be asked about how Collins got access to the drug. As a cardiologist, he should not have needed it, nor had access to it.
Any a medical practitioner owes what is known in law as a duty of care - legally, doctors are in a better position to understand what the drug might do, than MJ was. That MJ asked for it or consented to the risks involved would be a poor defense I believe. If MJ was well informed and signed a statement to that effect, I still believe negligence could be found. The dangers were obvious & any decent doctor would surely refuse.