By John Q. Hosedrinker I recently came across a news article that caught my attention: “Doctor who prescribed more than 500,000 opioid doses has conviction tossed.” As a fan of the TV show Doctor Who, I couldn’t help but make a connection between the fictional doctor and the real-life medical professional. However, the gravity of the situation quickly overshadowed my initial amusement.
The article states that this Virginia-based doctor prescribed an astounding 500,000 opioid doses in less than two years. At first glance, this number seems staggering, but it’s crucial to examine the details more closely. The doctor was convicted on 861 counts, with the jury instructed to determine if he acted “without a legitimate medical purpose or beyond the bounds of medical practice.” However, the appeals court discovered that the jury instruction was defective, as it did not align with a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision that required proof of “knowingly or intentionally” acting in an unauthorized manner.
While I do not have all the details of the case, this decision raises questions about the effectiveness of our justice system. People’s faith in our system seems to be dwindling, leading to a decline in cop and lawyer series on television. It’s disheartening to see that many individuals perceive our justice system as largely ineffective.
However, focusing solely on the numbers can be misleading. The article mentions that the majority of patients traveled long distances to see the doctor, who did not accept insurance. He collected over $700,000 in cash and credit card payments before law enforcement raided his office. Perhaps this information sheds some light on the situation, revealing a practice that operated outside the typical healthcare system.
The way the “500,000 opioid doses” is presented in the article is peculiar and somewhat misleading. The term “doses” itself is misleading because it fails to consider that a single prescription may contain multiple tablets. If we take into account the potential variations in dosage and frequency, the number becomes less alarming. For example, if patients were prescribed a three-month supply, we can estimate around 694 individual prescriptions over a two-year period. If the doctor worked five days a week, this averages out to approximately 2.67 opioid prescriptions per day. These calculations suggest that 173 patients may have been on opioids, which, for a pain or palliative clinic, seems like a justifiable number.
It is crucial to note that I am in no way defending the actions of this doctor or dismissing the potential harm caused by the overprescription of opioids. However, it is essential to put the numbers into perspective and avoid jumping to conclusions based solely on headline figures.
This case highlights the broader issue of the opioid crisis in our country. Over the years, pharmaceutical companies have played a significant role in pushing opioids for various purposes, downplaying their addictive nature. The Sackler family, for instance, has come under scrutiny for their involvement in the opioid crisis. It is disconcerting that these influential figures seem to escape accountability while a doctor faces legal consequences.
Furthermore, the current climate surrounding opioid prescriptions has made doctors increasingly reluctant to prescribe them, leaving many individuals with legitimate chronic pain conditions struggling to find relief. This, in turn, may lead some to seek opioids from illegal sources or be left without proper medical supervision, resulting in dire consequences. It is a complex issue that requires careful consideration.
In conclusion, the case of the doctor who prescribed over 500,000 opioid doses and had his conviction tossed raises important questions about our justice system, the opioid crisis, and the challenges faced by individuals with legitimate chronic pain conditions. While the headline figure may seem alarming, it is crucial to delve deeper into the details and put the numbers into perspective. It is my hope that through continued discussions and responsible actions, we can find a balance between providing necessary pain relief and addressing the harm caused by opioids in our society.