With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Tatta received between Dr. Wright’s initial denial of Tatta’s April 2002 request to be retreated with Pegylated Interferon in combination with Ribavirin and his subsequent approval of Tatta’s request in December 2003 was inadequate. Further, Dr. Wright has repeatedly stated that he initially refused to re-treat Tatta with Pegylated-Interferon with Ribavirin because, even though recommended by Drs. Fish and Rogers, the treatment had yet to gain FDA approval. See Wright Decl. at ¶¶ 18, 35-39. It was neither unreasonable nor indifferent for Dr. Wright to refuse a treatment not approved by the FDA. Thus, Tatta has failed to demonstrate that Dr. Wright was deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs. See United States ex rel. Hyde v. McGinnis, 429 F.2d 864, 867-68 (2d Cir.1970) (<HOLDING>). As to Tatta’s allegation that Eastern’s

A: holding the trial court violated bradleys right to counsel of choice because none of the conditions identified in wheat as overriding the right to counsel of choice were present
B: holding that inmates do not have the right to the medication of their choice
C: holding that evidence that patient who had a history of not taking medication and who murdered husband during a period when she was off of her medication and delusional tends to confirm the likelihood of serious harm to patient or others
D: holding that inmates have a property interest in their money
B.