The husband of a wife who sued an Ohio hospital for not administering the drug Ivermectin has died. The family’s attorney confirmed that Jeffrey Smith, 51, passed away on September 25 after losing his battle to COVID-19.

Smith contracted the virus on July 9, and his condition continued to worsen while he was receiving care at West Chester Hospital’s intensive care unit. At the onset of his diagnosis, Smith received the drug Remdesivir, along with plasma and steroids to help battle the virus. While the treatment initially appeared to be working, at the end of July his condition began to decline. On the first of August, Smith was put on a ventilator.

As Smith's condition deteriorated, his wife Julia became a proponent of using Ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment for her husband. Ohio physician Dr. Fred Wagshul wrote Smith a prescription greenlighting Smith to use the drug as a way to battle the virus.

As his health declined, Smith’s wife filed a lawsuit against the hospital because they refused to treat her husband with the controversial drug. The drug is commonly used on horses, cows, and other animals for deworming purposes. Over the past couple of months, however, fringe groups have emerged online encouraging the use of Ivermectin as a treatment for coronavirus. Dr. Wagshul has also been identified as the person behind a controversial group that supports the use of Ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment, even though there is no substantial research or government approval backing the claim.

In her lawsuit Smith explains, "My husband is on death's doorstep; he has no other options." Smith goes on to add that her husband's chances of survival had “dropped to less than 30 percent.”

Both the Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have stated that the drug is neither safe nor proven to be an effective treatment for Coronavuis. Despite the lack of medical support, Smith won her lawsuit, and Butler County Common Pleas Judge Gregory Howard granted an emergency judgment that would allow Smith to continue receiving the drug as part of his treatment. The emergency judgment went into effect on August 23 and granted Smith 30 milligrams of the drug daily for three weeks.

Two weeks into Smith’s treatment with Ivermectin, Common Pleas Judge Michael Oster reversed the ruling after Mrs. Smith and Dr. Wagshul failed to provide “convincing evidence” at a court hearing that showed the drug could help Smith’s condition improve. In his opinion, Judge Oster explained that "Based on the current evidence, Ivermectin is not effective as a treatment for COVID-19. ... Even Plaintiff’s own doctor could not say [that] continued use of ivermectin would benefit Smith.” Court records show that when Dr. Wagshul was asked whether or not continued use of the drug would help Mr. Smith, Wagshul responded, “I honestly don’t know.”

Oster also contested claims that the drug could treat Covid. “The studies that tend to give support to Ivermectin have had inconsistent results, limitations to the studies, were open label studies, were of low quality or low certainty, included small sample sizes, various dosing regimens, or have been so riddled with issues that the study was withdrawn,” he explained.

Oster added, “While this court is sympathetic to the Plaintiff and understands the idea of wanting to do anything to help her loved one, public policy should not and does not support allowing a physician to try ‘any’ type of treatment on human beings.”

While the reversal of the initial order no longer compelled the hospital to continue with the treatment, Judge Oster did write that Smith could have her husband moved to another facility where Dr. Wagshul has privileges. Once there, her husband could continue with the Ivermectin treatment.

Oster’s reversal of the initial order favoring Smith’s treatment falls in line with the growing efforts by the government to squash novel and unauthorized medal treatments to combat the coronavirus. The FDA went as far as tweeting out warnings to deter people from using Ivermectin and other controversial, unproven treatments. “You are not a horse. You are not a cow. Seriously, y’all. Stop it,” the FDA tweeted as reports of Ivermectin use surfaced.

While the medical profession warns about the harmful and even deadly side effects of using Ivermectin to treat COVID-19, the case has brought forward questions about experimental drug usage for individuals with no more medical options.

Many doctors fear negligence and backlash in emergency instances where non-FDA-approved drugs are used. However, in the case of Mr. Smith, his wife allegedly agreed to free the hospital, doctors, and staff from any liability from the treatment as she felt it was her last hope.

Other lawmakers call on the hypocrisy that exists for states that discourage experimental treatments but allow physician-assisted suicide. California for example is one of five states where physician-assisted suicide is allowed but experimental drug treatments in emergency situations are still hot-button issues. Some in the medical field point to the hesitancy of doctors and hospitals because of fear of liability, even though a recently passed “Right to Try” law allows doctors and hospitals to explore new avenues.

Southern California Democratic Assemblyman Ian Calderon authored the Right to Try law in 2017 after a 2016 law passed allowing physician-assisted suicide. Calderon explained of experimental treatment options, "It's inhumane to have a law on the books that allows you to end your own life, but no law on the books that allows you to fight to extend it," he shared with NPR. "That just seems counter-intuitive."