Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Pain meds + Marijuana

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Found this online regarding Marijuana Laws in Oklahoma, just looking at jail time alone, urinalysis proof? : " Possession of any quantity of cannabis is punishable by up to one year in jail for the first offence and 2 - 10 years in prison for subsequent offences. Conditional discharge is possible to first time offender ...sale or delivery of less than 25 pounds results in 2 years - life imprisonment and a fine of $20,000. ."... http://www.marijuanaaddictiontreatme...homa-laws.html

    http://www.ok.gov/obndd/Prescription...ram/index.html

    To file complaint Oklahoma medical board http://www.okmedicalboard.org/displa...s:md_contactus

    Happy New Year!
    Last edited by med100; 12-31-2009, 07:53 AM.

    Comment


    • #32
      Back at ya.

      My life was messed up by people that smoked my rabbit tobacco, and drink my wine. I can almost hate some people, but I wouldn't call the law on them.
      The ones that called me best friends done some others the same way,, and now
      they have to hide everyday, and protected. Has to be a sad way to live. lol
      I think its funny. Thats just me.

      Comment


      • #33
        Vent here, be pissed, rant and carry on.
        But let it go in the med world and formal complaint section

        Comment


        • #34
          Would you have considered calling on him if he didn't give you the boot?

          Comment


          • #35
            I'd be surprised if he would have.

            Noble though it sounds to report the guy writing your scripts, I suspect most people who need pain meds would be too afraid to do so, for fear they couldn't find another to give them the meds they need.

            Which is a pretty sad state of affairs really - that wouldn't happen with any kind of medication other than pain meds.

            Now, he won't lose his meds by reporting the doctor - so it became something to consider.

            At least that's my guess. If it's not true for GoTWHeels, I'd bet it's true for some.

            Comment


            • #36
              He stated he was found to test positive for MJ. MJ is illegal. Medical doctors with licenses have an obligation as mandated reporters to report suspected abuse, crimes, neglect. The urinalysis appears to be hard evidence of MJ in system of patient. This med was not prescribed by this doctor. Crime has been committed by patient, not doctor. This patient can be reported to authorities.

              Another look. This patient anonymously files a complaint to authorities to the medical board. He writes he suspects doctor is giving out narcotics to patients in excess, so they can be abused on the street, to known abusers (of which he knows as well). He claims he has witness of a couple of dozen cases (or something like this). He is also one of the cases of those who were tested but claims medical reason for taking the medication for spinal cord. He requests for an investigation of this doctor who dropped him. When the state investigation is underway, they look at each of the patients who were given narcotics, including the patient who filed the complaint. Actions are allowed to be taken against the doctor, but also against the patient if criminal acts were found, and could be reported. This is permanent on medical record.
              Last edited by med100; 01-02-2010, 09:20 AM.

              Comment


              • #37
                No, that is absolutely not correct. Doctors are not only not mandated to report crimes, they are forbidden to. The doctor would lose his medical license.

                A mandated reporter (and I was one) must report elder abuse, child abuse, and an immediate danger to self or others. i.e. if you tell him you're beating your child, going to kill youself and he believes it is really likely, or you're going to murder a named person -then a mandated reporter must turn you in. Anything else, like drug abuse, he is absolutely not allowed to.

                Think about it... how would anyone ever get treatment for drug abuse, if all the doctors were mandated to call the cops?

                Also, you cannot be convicted of a drug crime based upon a urine test. They have to catch you with the drugs, not with the "evidence" of supposedly having used a drug. Any medical test has a false positive rate.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Actually, another problem with a drug testing being considered "hard evidence" is that - how do you know the person took the drug on purpose? It has to be on purpose to be a crime.

                  Think of the roofies...
                  As a teen, I had someone spike my drink once (horrible, horrible, experience)

                  And lol, I saw on one of those TV real ER shows, a woman who ate the brownies her college age son brought home - couldn't figure out what was wrong with her lolol

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    I think it is interesting that doctors are not mandated to report a crime. I also was a mandated reporter in my state, for children. I will look this up. Those who are in drug treatment for abuse, may already be in another category- drug treatment program etc with its own rules. Interesting question. As far as proving that for two weeks a patient had this in system but did not know about taking it or being exposed? I guess it is plausable, in the unlikely event one had to go to court, but this also would be exposed. A mandated reporter is also responsible for protecting persons with disabilities who may be at risk. So if it were 'merely suspected' that a vulnerable person with a disability was being drugged or abused by someone else, couldn't this also be reported?
                    Last edited by med100; 01-02-2010, 09:40 AM.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re. the person with a positive urine screen - The person would not have to prove that they didn't know about taking the substance - a court would have to prove:

                      1) that the test is 100% accurate (not possible)
                      2) that the person knew they were taking it (unlikely)

                      Remember, you don't have to prove you're innocent, a court has to prove you are guilty

                      Re. the disabled persons - yes, I think you are probably right, a mandated reporter would report abuse of such a person (with a severe disability anyway, like someone who is mentally handicapped) in the same way as that of an elder or a child.

                      Re. doctors reporting crimes - I was trained in psychology, so that's one of the professions most likely to hear about behaviors. If a doctor/psychologist (same rules apply as far as I know) were going to turn you in the minute you confessed to something, it would be impossible to do therapy. Because you would not be able to trust the psychologist.

                      It would also very much discourage many people from getting medical care - they do a tox screen many times in ERs, to best treat the patient. But they certainly don't turn all those patients in to the police - if they did, many would be afraid to go to the ER.

                      That's sort of the point behind the medical ethics of confidentiality and mandatory reporter rules - people must be able to confide in the people involved with their medical care, without fear of adverse consequences. But - if something too bad is going to happen, to seriously injure/harm that person or another, that is then overridden and the mandatory report must prevent it.

                      One key is the difference between something that has happened, and something that the person plans to do. I will have to go look up the current rules, just to make sure nothing's changed, and that I remember correctly. But this is what I remember:

                      Ted Bundy could have told a doctor or psychologist that he'd murdered those people - and they would not have been allowed to report it. If I remember correctly, he could say he was going to do another one next weekend - and they still couldn't report it. The minute he said WHO it was - they would be mandated to report it.

                      Of course, in his particular example, I'm sure any doctor/shrink would be trying most valiently to come up with something they could commit/report him for.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Thanks. Good information TAM. You certainly bring up some interesting points.
                        I am aware of reporting to adult protective services for a person with a disability as well as for children. I have been in the difficult position of having to report to APS (adult protective services) and DSS (dept of social services) when I suspected (or witnessed) abuse. In two of the reportings, actions were taken which I am aware, to protect these individuals from further harm. One 's family member was drunk often and abusive in many fronts to his brother who was quadraplegic. This resulted in an arrest. The second, DSS, had the child taken out of the care of the immediate family and put into another family members care.

                        I also heard about the situation like you were describing. If a person said they were involved in a crime but did not give the name or details, then nothing could be done until more direct evidence of a name was given. But a mandated report does not have to prove the crime or abuse (getting back to this) but just needs to suspect it has happened. In our state, if we don't report abuse for the vulnerable population we are entrusted to support/care-for, then we can also be fined.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          I'd agree absolutely, with most of that.

                          But I do not believe it applies to any 'ol crime.

                          Suspected abuse of some vulnerable person - you're absolutely right, you don't have to prove it, just the suspicion.

                          But I do not think you are mandated to report past crimes, or even contemplated crimes, that do not involve abuse of vulnerable persons. For example - you don't have to report a past or planned check-writing fraud, bigamy, car theft, etc. etc.

                          Depending upon your exact profession - you may be free to do so if you like, as is any other citizen - if you have no requirement of confidentiality.

                          But certain professions and even types of volunteer work (doctor, psychologist, rape counselor) may not choose divulge anything told to them, with the exceptions such as we have been discussing.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Good information TAM. Thank you! To add a few more thoughts As far as privacy, the HIPPA regulations, from my understanding, provide protections for patients in revealing their medical reports to others who they do not wish to see it. Some may believe then, that a doctor will not show the drug tests or other information to others, along with a persons SS number etc. However, from my understanding, this right is waived if and when it comes to a criminal investigation. So if the doctor in this case, is being investigated for suspicion he committed a felony or other criminal act, the state and fed investigators certainly have a right to access the files of the patients. Any insurance company paying for the testing, and paying for treatment, also has access.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Yes, but you specifically sign a paper giving the insurance company that right.

                              And if a doctor is criminally investigated, I think you're right, patient information can be viewed. I suspect there are some protections for the patients, but I am nor sure there.

                              But first of all, the police or even the DEA aren't really that interested in finding and prosecuting a drug user - they want the dealers. And again, a positive drug screen is not really useful evidence anyway. So I think that it is unlikely that there would be any impact upon the patients, from such an investigation.

                              You do raise very interesting questions though, for research - under just what conditions can law enforcement look at your medical records? And are they allowed to take any action based upon what they find?

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                TAM, I just looked that question up as well. http://www.enotes.com/everyday-law-e...onfidentiality. In this, it states the doctors have a right to disclose medical information and break the confidential patient- doctor agreement under certain conditions. This article made note of one of these conditions is if they had a patient they worried would or could harm others. I am aware of at least one doctor, who contacted the Registry of Motor Vehicles and asked for an elders license to be revoked due to being on meds and having age and health making him unsafe to drive (and at the urging of this mans son). Also, if a patient were in harms way, or was violent while under the influence of something, or other type of threat to humanity, then again, the mandated reporter statute would seem to apply.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X