New at Reason

Tim Cavanaugh | April 1, 2005

Jacob Sullum revisits the case of William Hurwitz on the eve of the pain doctor's sentencing on drug trafficking charges

Comments

|4.1.05 @ 2:02PM|#

sage - you can hardly feel sorry for him because he didn't go out of his way to appease our overlords in the DEA? C'mon, he probably should have been more careful, but does that make it right? Overzealous prosecutor - what about overzealous laws, overzealous DEA, etc?

Yes, libertarians (at least this one) are all about personal accountability and taking responsibility for your actions, but when that's taken away from you, it's a travesty. Did anyone under his care die from an overdose of narcotics? If so, the family can go through civil court (hardly a good consolation prize, but...) to punish this horrible doctor.

This is all about control and the government telling you it knows how to better determine how you are medicated and how much pain relief you need than either you or your doctor. Bullshit.

|4.1.05 @ 2:10PM|#

all I know is, my grandmother has a prescription for methadone, because she's in pain, but she's refusing to take it, because the dumb-ass grandson of some friends of hers is a narcotics officer with some police dept told her that it's a narcotic, and people who use narcotics have to take more and more, because they become acclimated, and they become dependent

this is the woman, who a few months ago was in so much pain she was convinced she was about to die, and would have preferred to die. if she doesn't take the methadone, she might go back to that state, whereas now, with methadone, she's back to normal

I hope the cop-grandson of her friends catches a couple in the head, but doesn't die. Instead he ends up with a chronic pain problem and has to be on methadone for life, the fucking piece of shit

|4.1.05 @ 2:37PM|#

"You mean it *doesn't* make you sorry that doctors have to spend half their time and effort doing this rather than helping sick people?"

Look, I'm not defending the drug warriors here. But being a CPS is not like being an ENT. There is a delicate balance here between treating pain and monitoring narcotic intake. Should this guy go to jail? Not at all, but doctors like this are generally shunned in the pain treatment community. Perhaps that would be punishment enough.

|4.1.05 @ 3:03PM|#

Sage makes some good points. Part of being an effective healer is monitoring your therapy to make sure you aren't introducing new problems. If your patients become addicted to one your prescriptions, this should be noted and alternative therapies found. A healer isn't supposed to be in the business of recreational pharms; there are other people to see for that purpose. :)

So, one could argue that the doctor is something of a screw-up. However, as lowdog notes, being a screw-up is matter for civil action, not criminal action. The doctor should not be in jail.

|4.1.05 @ 3:27PM|#

As I've said before, the question is not whether Hurwitz was as careful as he should have been but whether doctors should be held criminally liable for their patients' misbehavior. His performance as a doctor is an issue for the state medical board and for the civil courts, through malpractice litigation; it should not be the basis for criminal prosecution. (The prosecutors maintain that Hurwitz is guilty of drug trafficking even if he did not intend to break the law.) Transforming a question of appropriate medical care into a criminal case is bound to have a chilling effect on prescribing, even among doctors who are more careful than Hurwitz--perhaps especially among doctors who are more careful than Hurwitz.

A more fundamental issue is whether and to what extent doctors should be expected to enforce the drug laws, a function that undermines the doctor-patient relationship and discourages adequate pain treatment. Going deeper still, of course, there's the question of whether those laws are just and sensible. But even people who support the war on drugs should be concerned about the overreaching in this case.

|4.1.05 @ 3:53PM|#

"But even people who support the war on drugs should be concerned about the overreaching in this case."

Unfortunately, I have no faith in drug warriors' logical consistency. These people are either so misguided or just plain "evil", that I can't give them the benefit of the doubt - in general of course.

|4.1.05 @ 4:34PM|#

"A more fundamental issue is whether and to what extent doctors should be expected to enforce the drug laws, a function that undermines the doctor-patient relationship and discourages adequate pain treatment. Going deeper still, of course, there's the question of whether those laws are just and sensible."

That's a good point, and to develop it a little further, perhaps there's a point to be made about the DEA's ability to basically define the law as they see fit here. As Sullum has implied, there's absolutely no reason to expect a doctor to enforce drug laws (or indeed any law), and therefore there's certainly no precedent for prosecuting him for not doing so. I'm not going to argue about whether the good Doctor is shady or not; he may very well be, but that really has no bearing on this case. From what I understand, the DEA has simply defined him as a "drug trafficker", (based on his failure to adapt some sort of draconian monitoring system of his patients), and defining that term as they see fit. The court has let the DEA's definitions and interpretation of the laws and terms involved stand basically unquestioned.

It may never be entirely wise to do so, but one has to wonder what is exactly the underlying motivation in this case. I'd like to believe it really is something as simple as a prosecutor making a name for him/herself, or yet another histerically funny case of the DEA "sending a message", but I can't help but think that it really may be deeper than that.

|4.1.05 @ 5:01PM|#

Lowdog,

They are just plain evil. Maybe they are misguided, but they are still evil and deserve to die for their sins. (Okay, that sounded religious, but these assholes probably are some sort of fundies, so they deserve to burn in "hell" for their "sins".)

Bob Basil|4.2.05 @ 4:58PM|#

Jacob Sollum for Pope.

|4.21.05 @ 8:15PM|#

Might as well toss my .02 into the mix. I live in the area, and a good friend of mine was one of doctor H's patients, until about 2003, when he moved out West. My friend helped the doc out with his website so knew him fairly well. He also spoke highly of him, in general. The only "negative" comment I remember regarded the doc's somewhat constant state of disorganization. I wonder if he was just a chronically terrible record-keeper? (like me) Oh, the kicker: my pal told me that the doc had already had a run-in with the DEA several years before, and was operating on a sort of "probation" which involved close monitoring and communications, and strict adherance to a set of DEA-provided guidelines, which the doc was following - to the letter. Apparantly the new charges came like a bolt from the blue. It gives me the shivers... R
Of course this is the rumor mill. Oh and one other neg.: the doc displayed a bit of an indignant 'tude at times. (bad idea!)