Affirmation of States’ Authority to Define "Legitimate Medical Practice"

Affirmation of States’ Authority to Define “Legitimate Medical Purpose” (full text) David B. Brushwood, J.D.; American Journal of Health-Systems Pharmacy; 63(5); 2006

Excerpt: “If the U.S. Attorney General had won this case, DOJ, through the DEA, would have been given the authority to make decisions about the legality of prescriptions in all situations, not just end-of-life care… Perhaps now the medical and pharmacy professions can reclaim authority over their standards of practice…”

Comment (DeLuca): Excellent Brushwood. He analyzes Gonzalez v Oregon in terms of what it means in the War on Doctors and Pain Crisis. The Supreme Court decision is placed in the historical context of the DEA’s ‘Myth of the Chilling Effect’ myth, the DEA FAQ debacle, and the recent revelations about where major diversion happens, and who is responsible for preventing that. (And it’s not doctor-patients). The links below provide additional depth on the topic areas Brushwood covers.

See also: Defining “Legitimate Medical Purpose” (PDF) - David B. Brushwood; American Journal of Health-Systems Pharmacy; 62(3):306-308; 2005.

Drug Crime (Not Doctors) Is a (Huge) Source of Abused Pain Meds in the U.S. - D.E. Joranson and A.M. Gilson; Journal of Pain and Symptom Management, 30(4): 299-301, 2005.

Analysis of DEA’s 2003 Press Release: ‘The Myth of the Chilling Effect’ - Alexander DeLuca; Addiction, Pain, and Public Health website; 2003-12-06.

Non-Negotiables in the DEA FAQ Redux – David B. Brushwood; Pain and the Law; February 2005.

[END]