REMINDER: I AM POSTING A NEW TOPIC ABOUT ONCE A WEEK OR PERHAPS TWICE A WEEK. HOWEVER, IF YOU DON'T FIND A NEW TOPIC POSTED, THERE ARE AS OF MARCH 2013 OVER 900 TOPIC THREADS TO WHICH YOU CAN READ AND WRITE COMMENTS. I WILL BE AWARE OF EACH COMMENTARY AND MAY COME BACK WITH A REPLY.
TO FIND A TOPIC OF INTEREST TO YOU ON THIS BLOG, SIMPLY TYPE IN THE NAME OR WORDS RELATED TO THE TOPIC IN THE FIELD IN THE LEFT HAND SIDE AT TOP OF THE PAGE AND THEN CLICK ON “SEARCH BLOG”. WITH WELL OVER 900 TOPICS, MOST ABOUT GENERAL OR SPECIFIC ETHICAL ISSUES BUT NOT NECESSARILY RELATED TO ANY SPECIFIC DATE OR EVENT, YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO FIND WHAT YOU WANT. IF YOU DON’T PLEASE WRITE TO ME ON THE FEEDBACK THREAD OR BY E-MAIL DoktorMo@aol.com
IMPORTANT REQUEST TO ALL WHO COMMENT ON THIS BLOG: ALL COMMENTERS WHO WISH TO SIGN ON AS ANONYMOUS NEVERTHELESS PLEASE SIGN OFF AT THE END OF YOUR COMMENTS WITH A CONSISTENT PSEUDONYM NAME OR SOME INITIALS TO HELP MAINTAIN CONTINUITY AND NOT REQUIRE RESPONDERS TO LOOK UP THE DATE AND TIME OF THE POSTING TO DEFINE WHICH ANONYMOUS SAID WHAT. Thanks. ..Maurice
FEEDBACK,FEEDBACK,FEEDBACK! WRITE YOUR FEEDBACK ABOUT THIS BLOG, WHAT IS GOOD, POOR AND CONSTRUCTIVE SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT TO THIS FEEDBACK THREAD
“Legitimate Medical Purpose”: What is it and who defines it?
Ashcroft's directive declared that as assisting suicide was not "a legitimate medical purpose" under the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 and that prescribing federally controlled drugs for that purpose was against the federal law. In today’s Supreme Court decision, Justice Scalia said in his dissent that he would uphold the administration's position. "If the term 'legitimate medical purpose' has any meaning, it surely excludes the prescription of drugs to produce death," he said.
What still remains is the question as to what physician acts represent “legitimate medical purpose” and particularly who are the ones to define it. ..Maurice.
6 Comments:
Dr. Bernstein ... do you believe that the government should even be involved in any of this?
Moof, federal government--no. State government and its physicians--yes. ..Maurice.
Maurice - Since you seem to approve of state governments "meddling" in medicine, I'm led to wonder...
A few years back, so-caled patient advocates "persuaded" some state legislatures to mandate the provision of BMT to all breast cancer patients who desired it. Do you see any problems here?
But, Bob, that request and pressure was at a time that bone marrow transplantation for certain breast cancer patients was considered a rational standard of medical practice until studies showed that it was not effective and was dangerous. State medical boards, of which I am mainly familiar with my California board, have the power of licensure and the legal responsibility to define parameters of medical practice and behavior of physicians. They don't denovo set detailed therapeutic programs but they do set how medicine should be practiced. For example, the California board has set requirements, under penalty for ignoring, for printed as well as verbal information to patients prior to treatment for breast cancer, prostate exam, blood transfusion, gynecologic cancer and breast silicone implants. This degree of state government "meddling" is what all reasonable physicians expect and certainly so do the patients. ..Maurice.
"federal government--no. State government and its physicians--yes.
Dr. Bernstein ... why would the state gov be any better? I know that it's more local, but still ... what real business does any government have in medicine?
I'm not saying I disagree, I just don't fully understand what you're saying.
.
Moof, thanks for your question. I created a whole new post today to try to answer your question. If you have more comments on the issue you can post it there. ..Maurice.
Post a Comment
<< Home