Dimond: The Addict, the Enabler and Us
By News Desk on August 29, 2009 · 4 Comments · 
Email This
·
Who is to blame when a drug addict dies?
We now know the L.A. County Coroner’s Office considers the death of Michael Jackson to have been a homicide caused by acute propofol intoxication and the effects of five other powerful prescription drugs found in his system.
If the L.A. district attorney chooses to charge Michael Jackson’s personal doctor, it could very well be for manslaughter.
Realistically speaking, it was more like assisted suicide.
Michael Jackson struggled with addiction for years. He went into drug rehab in 1993. He was often very obviously overmedicated during his 2005 child sex-abuse trial. And during the run-up to his massive comeback concert tour this year, we’ve now learned he was engaged in an orgy of drugs and self-destructive behavior.
So doesn’t Michael Jackson bear some of the responsibility for his own death?
Before you answer, let me tell you about a sworn affidavit, attached to a now unsealed search warrant, which outlines excruciating details about the tragic last days of Michael Jackson. In the final hours of his life, he was injected by his doctor or was given oral doses of no fewer than four heavy-duty drugs. The last medication given was propofol. There are indications that when the doctor was not in the room, Jackson may have sneaked even more medications in his continuing quest to end his insomnia. It’s typical addict behavior.
At Jackson’s bedside when he died, there was a cornucopia of prescription pills, ordered up by several different doctors using fictitious patient names. It is a federal offense to prescribe pharmaceuticals under an alias. But there they were: bottles of Valium, Tamsulosin, Lorazepam, Temazepam, Clonazepam, Trazodone and Tizanidine. Drugs used as hypnotic sedatives, to reduce pain, anxiety and muscle tension. Some treated sleeplessness. Others have a relatively high addictive potential, and some are frequently sold and abused as street drugs. Finally, there was one prescription to treat an enlarged prostate, a nod to Jackson’s over-50 status.
In other words, one glance at that nightstand and a red flag should have gone up to any trained doctor that this was not a person for whom one should prescribe more drugs. But according to that sworn affidavit, several doctors did — a cardiologist, a dermatologist and a general practitioner among them. Read more…
Related posts:
I don’t know of anyone who has had such a difficult life as Michael Jackson.
“Why could you find no happiness without a painkiller?”
The painkillers did not bring happiness, they provided relief from the pain (and I’m not talking about physical pain). Trust me, when you have deep, unbearable, unremitting pain, any break, however brief, is incredibly welcome. It is not happiness, it is non-pain. Of course there are better ways to overcome pain, but this was likely the first thing he came across that worked and he stuck with it. Of course, there was the physical side of addiction as well.
“He had everything, but he acted as though he had nothing.”
You have nothing if you don’t have love. Michael Jackson had nothing. The fact that he acted like he had nothing was a good indication that he was at least more in touch with himself than most rich people are. He may have had all the money in the world, but that’s not what he’s after and he threw it all away because it meant nothing to him. He was seeking, seeking, trying to fill a void and never quite figuring out what he was after and what he was lacking. He worked himself to death to gain his father’s love and approval – something he could never have. As such, he could never be happy.
Surrounding himself with children was perhaps one way for him to get a little love because young children love unconditionally. He says that when he looks at children, he sees the face of God. God is unconditional love. What he was seeking was unconditional love, because his whole life, love was only granted to him conditional upon his success – from his father, from his fans, and not least from those around him who only “loved” him for his money. “He reveled in feeling he was a victim.”
He was indeed a victim – of serious abuse – which he never recovered from. Later, he was victimized by the press and money-grubbers who took away every shred of his dignity and killed his spirit. Instead of trying to understand things from His perspective, people imposed their perspective on him and accused him of “reveling” in it. Can you blame him for being pissed off at us? Nobody enjoys being a victim. If he acts like a victim, that’s because he is. He has not vanquished his father’s ghosts, and no-one helped him. Perhaps we feel that he plays “poor me” once too often, but then we might not say that, if you truly understood where he’s coming from.
His dysfunctional life was merely a symptom of deep emotional problems which he has never ironed out. We think we understood him, but perhaps Michael might disagree. Perhaps that’s why he pushed people away. Addicts cannot give up their drugs because it was filling a void. If you take the drugs away, what is he going to fill that void with? He should have been helped to fill the void first (with spiritual love), then there will be no more need for drugs and they will eventually fall away of their own accord. Instead, he’s asked to give up the one thing that had helped him cope and in doing so, threaten to return him to the pain of the void. Who would want that?
All of life’s dysfunctions stem from a disconnect from spirituality (God). We try to fill that void with worldly things like money, fame, success, drugs, ambition, but none of that brings lasting happiness. If you try to take away the material things without first filling the spiritual void, you will just end up substituting one addiction for another.
I only feel sad that Michael never met anyone who could help him, but then again, who could understand the depths of his pain? Ultimately, he didn’t die of drug abuse but of a broken heart.
Mary you have wrote this so beautiful, thank you, May God Bless You
WTF-Shut up DIMOND, you HATER
I have seen the above typical comment before regarding Diane Dimond. So I went back and reread this column. I still don’t know why someone would say Dimond is a hater. What am I missing? I don’t know where she is on the political philosophy scale. Why is she such a lightening rod? I this column, because she advocated some personal responsibility?