The Phoenix Network:
About  |  Advertise
Adult  |  Moonsigns  |  Band Guide  |  Blogs  |  In Pictures
Media -- Dont Quote Me  |  News Features  |  Talking Politics  |  This Just In


The DEA’s bad-faith war on pain doctors
By HARVEY SILVERGLATE  |  September 26, 2007


Things haven’t been going well as of late for Needham-based chronic-pain specialist Dr. Joseph Zolot. In May, state and federal officials seized his office records. One month later, the state Board of Registration for medicine revoked his license. Now that the US Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) and local police have launched a criminal investigation into whether he overprescribed narcotic painkillers such as OxyContin to patients, Zolot’s troubles are about to multiply.

The notion that Zolot crossed the line that separates legitimate treatment from enabling destructive narcotic addictions — that is, the line between ethical doctoring and a serious federal felony — presumes that such a distinction has been made. In fact, federal drug-enforcement authorities have never given physicians much guidance as to what constitutes legal versus criminal prescribing conduct.

Yet the feds continue to prosecute a handful of pain specialists every year, sending well-meaning doctors into a panic that they, too, will be the victim of ill-defined laws. For Zolot, that threat is all too real, as his will likely be the next name on the docket.

Disappearing standards
The relationship between pain doctors and the federal government has long been strained, dating back to the advent of the “war on drugs” in the early 20th century, when opioids and other analgesic drugs were first regulated.

At the time, medical professionals resented anti-drug bureaucrats for dictating what modes and amounts of anti-pain medication were appropriate. Yet in recent decades, doctors have accepted that government interference is likely here to stay. Their main complaint now is not that the government seeks to regulate prescription drug use; it’s that the laws are so vague.

Given the medical difficulties of treating patients in acute pain (or those who are willing to fake pain in order to get narcotics), this state of affairs poses grave legal dangers to conscientious physicians.

But it doesn’t have to be this way.

In 2004, in a rare and long-overdue gesture of cooperation with health-care professionals, the DEA produced a pamphlet, also posted on its Web site, titled “Prescription Pain Medications: Frequently Asked Questions and Answers for Health Care Professionals and Law Enforcement Personnel.” The tract, co-written with the Pain & Policy Studies Group at the University of Wisconsin, was a well-reasoned and thorough guide to prescribing controlled narcotics. June Dahl, a University of Wisconsin-Madison professor of pharmacology, even hailed the guidelines as “a great step toward reducing the barriers” to the treatment of severe pain.

“It’s amazing how much confusion there still is,” Dahl told the Associated Press in August 2004. “There is a reluctance to give adequate doses. It kind of seems unbelievable that there is a reluctance to treat people who are dying.”

Two months later, though, the tract was removed from the DEA’s Web site. Doctors expressed shock, while 30 state attorneys general signed a letter to the Justice Department protesting the puzzling move. “Adequate pain management is often difficult to obtain,” wrote the attorneys general, “because many physicians fear investigations and enforcement actions if they prescribe adequate levels of opioids or have many patients with prescriptions for pain medication.”

No matter. The DEA was then prosecuting a high-profile pain specialist in the US District Court in Alexandria, Virginia. So the document had to be expunged, lest it seriously damage the feds’ prosecutorial rationale.

1  |  2  |   next >
Related: The DEA says no (again) to medical marijuana. Now what?, Hemp — the law, the musical, Bad medicine, More more >
  Topics: News Features , Health and Fitness, Medicine, Illegal Drugs,  More more >
  • Share:
  • Share this entry with Facebook
  • Share this entry with Digg
  • Share this entry with Delicious
  • RSS feed
  • Email this article to a friend
  • Print this article

Today's Event Picks
Share this entry with Delicious
    It should come as no surprise to readers of “Freedom Watch” that yet another instance of political, intellectual, and academic censorship has sprung up at Harvard, the self-touted pinnacle of higher education.
  •   THE GATES CASE ISN'T ABOUT RACE  |  August 05, 2009
    The weeks-long hubbub over the arrest of Harvard professor Henry Louis "Skip" Gates Jr. by the Cambridge Police Department has centered on race, understandably, for two reasons: 1) the African-American population has suffered inequitably in its relations with law enforcement across this country, and 2) a race story is easier for the media to tell — and to sell.
    In a 1957 Supreme Court decision upholding the free-speech rights of university professors ( Sweezy v. New Hampshire ), Justice Felix Frankfurter quoted prominent South African scholars on the importance of academic freedom.
  •   GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY  |  June 24, 2009
    The US Supreme Court's June 18 decision denying prisoners access to DNA testing — a procedure that could reliably prove innocence — adds to the high court's decades-long shameful record on criminal-justice issues.
  •   ROBOJUDGE  |  June 11, 2009
    Judge Stephen Breyer, Bill Clinton's latest pick for the Supreme Court, has attracted support so broad that it spans ideological and political differences.  

 See all articles by: HARVEY SILVERGLATE

RSS Feed of for the most popular articles
 Most Viewed   Most Emailed 

  |  Sign In  |  Register
Phoenix Media/Communications Group:
Copyright © 2009 The Phoenix Media/Communications Group