Blog post of referring to John Tierney’s blog post: ‘Dr. Hurwitz’ Mysterious Motive.’ Ms. Baluss discusses prosecution tactics in the first trial, and rebuts accusations that Dr. Hurwitz was enriching himself as a venal physician.
Collection of observations, analysis, and Comments from the PRN advocacy community, John Tierney, David Borden and other professional and non-professional analysts of the war on doctors on the retrial of Dr. William Hurwitz. I will be adding to this collection over the next few days especially, and will be including testimonials from former Hurwitz patients and family of patients. Check the Collected Observations / Analysis of Court Proceedings, Jury Deliberations, and Verdict in the Retrial of Dr. William Hurwitz for newly added documents.
Siobhan Reynolds, PRN, on the re-conviction of Dr. Hurwitz on federal drug-trafficking charges: “Each time [a war on docs prosecution comes to trial] the lawyers believe that they will be the ones to try the case correctly [within the context of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA)], and so do not make the Constitutional challenges that need to be made. The CSA reverses the [usual] presumptions [of innocence] and in essence induces physicians to prescribe drugs that are only nominally legal. After they have done the deed, the Department of Justice gets to come in, with all the force and resources …
“[Hurwitz] crossed the line from a healer to a dealer,” Assistant U.S. Attorney Gene Rossi told the jury in closing arguments April 18. Defense lawyers presented testimony from 10 former patients of Hurwitz. The defense portrayed him as a medical pioneer, a caring and courageous doctor who just wanted to help people in unbearable pain.
More observations from Hurwitz retrial watcher Mary Baluss, Esp. Here Mary describes in greater detail the discussion between judge and prosecutors immediately after the Verdict was rendered by the jury.
Mary Baluss, Esq., gives a quick rundown of the charges Dr. Hurwitz was found guilty of, those not guilty, and those charges dismissed.
Brief excerpt and link to full text of John Tierney blog entry regarding the verdict in the retrial of Dr. William Hurwitz. “One of the jurors left the courthouse in tears, and others whom I talked to said it had been a wrenching decision for all of them because they believed Dr. Hurwitz was a compassionate doctor.”
Brief note from Hurwitz trial watcher M. Baluss, Esq. The verdict is in – Hurwitz convicted on 16 out of the original 59 charges. Worst charges thrown out. Sentencing to follow.
Excerpt: “Bill Hurwitz thought he had an ‘understanding’ with the authorities, he thought, not only was he being totally above board about what he was doing, and apparently told lots of people like me and these people, but he also thought that the authorities were responsibly monitoring his practice as per agreement in a sort of defacto partnership. I think Billy saw his work in part as a demonstration project – an working model of what the Pain societies and ASAM taught in the 90’s (and still do) – a sort of supervised, real life, proof-of-concept study of outpatient chronic …
Blog post regarding expected Hurwitz verdict. Links provided to review TierneyLab and War on Docs/Pain Crisis coverage of the retrial.
Update from the retrial of Dr. William Hurwitz. Jury deliberations continue suggesting a schism is developing.
Blog entry regarding another in a series of articles by New York Times journalist John Tierney about the re-trial of Dr. William Hurwitz. This is my favorite Tierney-on-Hurwitz yet. This one is not so much about the law or courtroom tactics. This one is about people who hurt; bad. About desperate people; dying people. And about the doctor who wasn’t afraid to welcome them; who wasn’t afraid to try and help.
Comment in response to a TierneyLab blog post. Excerpt: “So, regarding the medical treatment of pain in America, we have the deeply disturbing situation that what most doctors do is at odds with and below the ’standard of care.’ Literally, in the treatment of chronic pain, an ethical physician attempting to practice in good faith how the textbooks say you should practice IS AN OUTLIER, deviating from what most reputable physicians would do.”
Excerpt from Mary Baluss, courtroom observer: “They were given the standard “good faith” instruction which I don’t like since it talks about the honest exercise of “best” professional judgment. But they were also clearly and carefully instructed about the difference between malpractice and drug distribution. They also got the “willful blindness” (ostrich) instruction and were told that it is possible to determine the requisite scienter (knowingly, wilfully) from that.”
Collection of documents by defense counsel John P. Flannery II, including two appeal briefs filed with the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals in support of Dr. Ronald McIver. Siobhan Reynolds comments on the briefs: “Friends, these briefs raise questions of exceptional importance. For nearly a hundred years, the DOJ has manipulated the legal system, using defendants and judges alike as pawns in its effort to acquire by precedent what it could not have gotten had it honored the democratic process. At the Pain Relief Network (PRN) we have been working with attorneys to ‘push back’ since early 2003. These briefs …
30 Apr 2007 |
