DEA Wants Access To Medical Records Without Warrant (thedailybeast.com) 176
mi writes from a report via The Daily Beast: Unlike in cases of commercially-held data, where the Third Party doctrine allows police warrantless access, prescription drug monitoring databases are maintained by state-governments. The difference is lost to the Obama Administration, which argues that "since the records have already been submitted to a third party (a state's Prescription Drug Monitoring Program) that patients no longer enjoy an expectation of privacy." The DEA has claimed for years that under federal law it has the authority to access the states' prescription drug databases using only an "administrative subpoena." These are unilaterally issued orders that do not require a showing of probable cause before a court, like what's required to obtain a warrant. Some states, like Oregon, fight it; some, like Wisconsin, do not. "The federal government is eager to see all these databases linked," reports The Daily Beast. "The Department of Justice has developed a software platform to facilitate sharing among all state PDMPs. So far 32 states already share their PDMP data through a National Association of Boards of Pharmacy program. The Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act (CARA), which passed Congress in March, calls for expanding sharing of PDMP data."
First it was the NSA ... (Score:5, Insightful)
... then FBI, then DEA ...
The system rots, from within
Re:First it was the NSA ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:First it was the NSA ... (Score:4, Interesting)
Let the addicts have their favored poison, and quietly remove themselves from the gene pool.
I would rather we had a drug problem than suffer the continuing existence of the DEA. Oh, wait - we still do have a drug problem as well as a DEA. And when the agency goes, can we have back the parts of the Constitution that we deleted for their benefit?
DEA will putting themselves out of a job? LOL (Score:4, Insightful)
Let the addicts have their favored poison, and quietly remove themselves from the gene pool.
I would rather we had a drug problem than suffer the continuing existence of the DEA. Oh, wait - we still do have a drug problem as well as a DEA. And when the agency goes, can we have back the parts of the Constitution that we deleted for their benefit?
The entire idea that the DEA would remove the drug "problem" is laughable on the face of it. Their existence is predicated on the problem continuing to exist.
My take on criminalization and addiction (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:First it was the NSA ... (Score:4, Insightful)
I will do any damn drug I want..
I've never done any sort of illicit drug, and I stand behind your take. I too will do any damn drug I want. (in my case that happens to be none, but still)
This part of the drug argument should be simple for all to comprehend. What you chose to do with your own body, mind and life is up to no one but you. And any prick who wants to pick up a gun and point it at you "for your own good" can go rot in a special place in hell. Whether that gun is intended to keep you safe from addiction, or keep you out of hell for loving the wrong person, or any of the other myriad things that nannies want to prevent consenting adults from doing with each other.
I don't personally do any of these things, and that answer would be the same the day after they are all legalized, but that doesn't mean that I can't comprehend the evil that is inherent in using force to make people live according to your personal moral code.
Re: (Score:2)
What a nasty post; I'm for the de-criminalisation of drugs and addicts, but wishing the DEA agents death by AIDS is just plain ugly.
+5 insightful? C'mon mods...
Re: (Score:2)
Evil organizations are not staffed by people who are profoundly evil and actively work against humanity. (I can come up with reasons why many drugs should be illegal. I don't necessarily find them convincing, but I recognize that there is room for reasonable people to differ here.) Many of them think they're doing the right thing. Many just work there because they got a job. Hannah Arendt coined the phrase 'banality of evil" when describing organizations considerably more evil than the DEA.
I don't w
Re: (Score:3)
It's been like that for ages. It was only after the Snowden leaks we started caring because it wasn't just certain "inconvenient" figures that were targeted, it was everybody. The fact is that nowadays, after conception you no longer enjoy an expectation of privacy.
Re: (Score:2)
I may have underestimated the power of the Dark Side. :-(
Re: (Score:2)
what KIND of mushrooms? (Score:2)
> mushrooms were growing out of them.
What kind of mushrooms does the DEA grow? ;)
Re: (Score:3)
The DEA, and the War on Drugs in general, has had such a caustic effect on our society, from turning police into a paramilitary force with the power to seize property or money on suspicion alone, with an unquenchable thirst for
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This will annoy a lot of people, especially since it appears to be true. Many people understandably question the abuses of government, yet they want the populace to be disarmed, which would enable more abuses by the government.
Off-topic I admit, but true.
Maybe you haven't noticed, but all those weapons you cherish are doing jack shit for our freedoms.
You and your ilk continue harping on the second amendment as if it were a guardian against governemtn overreach/tyranny. Well guess what dumbo, government has already gone astray and in daylight too. I ain't seeing you hillbillies up in arms and fighting for our freedoms.
Hey, Obama, Trump doesn't need any help... (Score:3, Interesting)
As a Obama supporter (twice), can I just say:
Dude... Obama... stop. The tin foil hat brigade is giving me that knowing nod of "see? We fucking told you", and I have no reasonable retort. The Constitution was supposed to be your wheelhouse.
Re:Hey, Obama, Trump doesn't need any help... (Score:4, Insightful)
As a Obama supporter (twice), can I just say:
Dude... Obama... stop. The tin foil hat brigade is giving me that knowing nod of "see? We fucking told you", and I have no reasonable retort. The Constitution was supposed to be your wheelhouse.
Gee, thanks.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Serious question: Are you upset because our privacy is at risk or because it makes Obama look bad?
You can be honest, I know people IRL who seem to really care only about rooting for "their guy" and forgive all the bad things.
Re: (Score:3)
Serious question: Are you upset because our privacy is at risk or because it makes Obama look bad?
You can be honest, I know people IRL who seem to really care only about rooting for "their guy" and forgive all the bad things.
Both really, the privacy is the big thing but when you have high expectations is hurts even more. Bush I didn't expect much but Obama, I had my hopes.
As a Texan under Governor Bush jr I feel your pain (Score:3)
I totally understand where you're coming from. In Texas we had a pretty good governor from 1995-2000. He did a good job, earning praise from Democrats in the state legislature as well as Republicans. He was good at working across the aisle and getting things done, so I had high hopes when he was elected president. Oops.
I hoped that Obama would inspire the nation, JFK-style. While his own radio ads about "going after corporations" let me know he was intending to cause harm to business owners such as myself,
Re: As a Texan under Governor Bush jr I feel your (Score:2)
I think the real truth here is the one(s) responsible for setting the policies of the President is not the President.
Re: (Score:2)
Has it occurred to you yet that you made a big mistake, and that all this crap shoveled into your head about conservatives is wrong? Or are you going to hold on to it like grim death to the very end?
Re: (Score:2)
From the outside looking in, Obama doesn't seem much different then Bush when it comes to the important policies. You have bank bailouts started by Bush and continued by Obama. You have a medical plan designed originally by Romney to give the insurance companies more business and power. You have trade agreements designed to fuck people everywhere which are supported by all the pro-business types. You have continuous war, mostly in support of one of the most conservative societies on Earth. Do you think thin
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Fuck The DEA (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
You should "double glove" first. You do NOT want to catch what they have.
Re: Fuck The DEA (Score:2)
Batshit crazy with a side of evil?
Re: (Score:1)
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:makes no sense (Score:5, Interesting)
Several reasons, here's two:
1) They want to run correlations to see if they can find people abusing prescription medicines and bust them.
2) If they want to put pressure on someone for any reason, they want to dig up their prescription records. Aha, you've had several prescriptions for Percocet, does your professional review board know about your drug habit? Does your boss know you've been prescribed SSRIs? Do you want them to? No? Better play ball.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Option 1 would be legal, and I dare to say desirable.
Option 2 would be illegal and require several failures of due process (opening up the law enforcement agency to rather large lawsuits) to actually occur, and it would likely render inadmissible any evidence obtained while you "played ball".
Re: (Score:2)
For option 2 they tell your boss anyway due to some legally required disclosure regulations they just made up, you get canned for being an addict and won't be able to get another job with that on your recordsso, how can you afford any legal costs for your defamation, because fuck you.
Re: (Score:2)
I can't see any possible way that legally prescribed and obtained drugs can be used to prosecute someone, and I don't care if they are abusing them.
"Legally prescribed" and "legally obtained" are not necessarily the same. If you have four doctors in four states prescribing you the same medication because you're reselling them, that's illegal (being obtained under false pretenses), even though each individual prescription might be legal within its state (good faith by the doctors). As for a fishing expedition, the government is actually only explicitly prevented from "unreasonable searches". If law enforcement has can lawfully see something (like for in
Re: (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I mean, why should you be protected if you're a criminal? What's the reasoning. Stop committing crimes.
The laws currently on the books are past the size and complexity level for any human to be able to determine whether they've broken any laws while just going about their normal daily lives. Even just the FDA regulations alone causes pharmaceutical companies to hire teams of regulatory specialists and lawyers to keep up with the required paperwork for their products to be legal.
Re: (Score:2)
Why should the government be allowed to dig through my prescription history if they have no evidence a crime has even been committed.
Because it CAN. That's why we of the dark side want to keep defunding it until it has to cut back to something less harmful.
Re: (Score:2)
The 3 letter agencies will be the last to lose their funding and are also the agencies most capable of self-funding. At least they'll be happy that any watchdogs (are any agencies watching?) get defunded.
No expectation of privacy? (Score:1)
Does this mean we, as the general public, can request the prescription drug database results for lawmakers in states like Wisconsin?
Re: (Score:2)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Sadly, technically correct (Score:3)
since the records have already been submitted to a third party (a state's Prescription Drug Monitoring Program) that patients no longer enjoy an expectation of privacy.
I don't buy into this bullshit normally, since people generally leave their information with third parties because they trust the third party will keep it in confidence. This case has the added force of law behind it -- HIPAA was written specifically to ensure that medical records are not passed around without the patient's consent.
...or so, any normal person would believe.
Unfortunately, it appears in this case, the DEA is correct. There is a specific exemption in HIPAA for administrative requests [hhs.gov]:
When does the Privacy Rule allow covered entities to disclose protected health information to law enforcement officials?
To respond to an administrative request, such as an administrative subpoena or investigative demand or other written request from a law enforcement official. Because an administrative request may be made without judicial involvement, the Rule requires all administrative requests to include or be accompanied by a written statement that the information requested is relevant and material, specific and limited in scope, and de-identified information cannot be used (45 CFR 164.512(f)(1)(ii)(C)).
Re:Sadly, technically correct (Score:4, Informative)
HIPAA was written specifically to ensure that medical records are not passed around without the patient's consent.
Based on my conversations with lawyers, I would say that the HIPAA laws were written specifically to ensure that hospitals could disclose medical records to law enforcement without incurring any liability.
When politicians want to do something particularly outrageous, they use Orwellian language. They call it the "Privacy Rule" because it takes away your privacy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Covered entities may disclose protected health information to law enforcement officials for law enforcement purposes as required by law (including court orders, court-ordered warrants, subpoenas) and administrative requests; or to identify or locate a suspect, fugitive, material witness, or missing person.
If you want something to be private and confidential, don't let it go in your medical record.
A lawyer once told me that a medical record is a "public document." It's accessable to everyone with a "need to know," and that includes the janitor who mops up your room and is concerned about infections.
Re: (Score:2)
States (Score:3)
>"The difference is lost to the Obama Administration, which argues that "since the records have already been submitted to a third party."
Of course... that pesky Constitution just gets in the way so much. Due process is overrated and the Fed should be able to do whatever they want, I mean, anything can be "interstate commerce", right? That the records are held by the States shouldn't matter, since the interpretation of the Constitution is now that the Federal Government has any rights DENIED to the States, not the other way around.
Think this is just a Democrat problem? Think again. It seems all politicians- from the President, through Congress and elsewhere think the government, especially the Fed, should grow and grow, spend and spend, make law after law taking away more and more rights from Citizens. What is the next "war"? We haven't yet "won" of the "war on drugs" which stripped countless rights... followed by the unwinnable "war on piracy", and then the "war on terror", in which everyone is a terrorist and if you are a good Patriot, you should surrender all your rights in the name of "patriotism". If you have nothing to hide...
It seems we continue to allow the evolution of the "Federal Fascist Socialist State of America" everyone loses. Where does it end?
OK, rant over... gotta go mow the stupid lawn now. Unless there is some Federal law against that I don't know about.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
What gets me is they pass a law saying third parties have to keep this information (cellphone/telephone data, prescriptions drug data) then pass a law saying that because it is given to a third party, they can get it any time they want.
I suspect somewhere down the road, a law will be passed saying that all banks that hold a mortgage on a property must grant access to the property without a warrant so even if you rent, your landlord will be forced to open up your home up for inspection without a warrant. It
Re: (Score:2)
OK, rant over... gotta go mow the stupid lawn now. Unless there is some Federal law against that I don't know about.
Not so fast, citizen. Have you read and complied with the relevant [epa.gov] regulations [cpsc.gov], citizen? The EPA [consumerreports.org] is only concerned [epa.gov] with what's best for all of us, citizen. You do want [wmbfnews.com] to be a good citizen, don't you, citizen? Now pick up that can.
To anyone who scoffs at this: ask yourself: "Why should the federal government be concerned with how I mow my lawn that I paid for and continue to pay taxes for?"
Explicit consent? (Score:4, Insightful)
FTFA: The Obama administration disagrees, and argues that since the records have already been submitted to a third party (Oregon’s PDMP) that patients no longer enjoy an expectation of privacy.
How do *I* lose my rights if a second party turns over info to a third party?
Now I see why the Obama administration has had such a hardon for electronic medical records.
only tip of the iceberg (Score:3)
Massive collection of data by government is a necessary part of implementing financial regulation, health care regulation, environmental regulations, gun control, employment regulation, public education, and civil rights legislation. That is, federal and state governments cannot accomplish their goals of detecting fraud and inefficiencies, without detailed data on the health, drugs, purchases, sales, salaries, and education of every American. And, of course, the IRS, DEA, and other agencies are going to get access to it: it's their job to find fraud and abuse in the system. What rubs people the wrong way about it is that they are now starting to realize that once that data has been collected and the three letter agencies get access to it, they themselves are potential suspects and may be identified for idiosyncratic reasons by some data mining algorithm. That's in addition to the other abuses that such data collection engenders: political blackmail, government corruption, and massive leaks of personal information.
The combination of the war on drugs, anti-terrorism legislation, the ACA and the massive increase of financial services regulations in recent years have fundamentally changed the US from a country where you were left alone unless you did something wrong, to a country where every aspect of your life is recorded and scrutinized by state and federal agencies. I think we need to reverse that.
Re: (Score:2)
Evidently, I was selected (well, my area was) for the census community survey which is mandatory to participate by law. I avoided it as long as I could until I left the house one day and found a census worker parked in the driveway. I know she has been there at least 10 other times from pamphlets left in the door and alarms set off when people enter the driveway triggering my video recording. I'm not sure how this particular day, she didn't set one off unless I forgot to rearm it when checking who was there
Re: (Score:2)
Almost every single question except when I was home or not could have been answered by contacting another government agency.
They could have just asked the police department or one of the federal 3 letter agencies what time you leave and come home. They have license plate readers deployed all over every major city and alongside most interstates so they know where most people are (or at least where their cars are) pretty much all the time. Don't you feel safer knowing Big Brother is watching over you?
Insanity (Score:3)
For f* sake, my doctors can't even get my medical records. Went to the emergency room, told them I just had a cat scan in the same hospital a few weeks ago of the problem area and they could use that for comparison. "Was it an out-patient procedure?", they asked. "Yes". "Then we can't use that." Another time I went to hospital, told them I had been to another hospital for the same thing but out of state, again oh well, they can't use those. Hell, every time I go to the doctor they ask for my height. That doesn't change very much. But they ask it every single freaking time. What's the point of all these records? We make an endless stream of them and never use them again.... oh, except when a foreign dignitary needs an organ, then they read them alright.
See that mark on the wall? That's my height. (Score:2)
It shouldn't. But it can. Particularly in the case of spinal pathologies.
Of course, asking you isn't exactly diagnostic, as you're just going to regurgitate the number you've been spitting out for years. What they need to do is measure your height. That way they'd actually learn something.
I want to defend the medical profession for the good they do. But sometimes, they do mak
Re: (Score:3)
We ask height because it's part of the 'vital signs package'. Admittedly it's stupid when it's done every week, but federal regulations (who else?) kinda sort of encourage this (it's complicated). It's also a way to track identity abuse. If you gained 50 pounds and 8 inches in a month then somebody ought to look into it a bit closer. This happens not infrequently with Medicaid patients.
It's hardly the most idiotic thing US medicine does.
Re: (Score:2)
When I go to the doctor, they weigh me, and every so often measure my height. I don't get asked questions that they can quickly measure to get the answer.
Comment removed (Score:4)
Re: (Score:1)
100% cashless is probably unachievable (Score:2)
A cashless society is almost impossible to enforce. This is because trade and barter of actual goods bypasses all forms of currency. In order to actually regulate those kinds of transactions, 100% surveillance and corresponding follow-up are required. Even as bad as government intrusion on freedom and liberty is today, we're not even a fraction of the way down that hill.
Re: 100% cashless is probably unachievable (Score:2)
I own thousands of CDs. Because DRM is obviously poision. Likewise books. Real objects with inherent merit. No one is taking them. So there's that.
That's not how it *should* work. (Score:5, Insightful)
The government can't (or should not) pass a law that requires collection of data, then claim that people have no expectation of privacy in that data.
What if the government passed a law requiring you to upload the contents of your computer to a massive database, then decided that it didn't need a warrant to access that same data?
If the Supreme Court allows this, it shows that the justices are themselves corrupt.
diaf (Score:2)
Over those millennia we've tried many different systems, and developed a way to let police catch bad guys while giving them restraints from hurting good people. Our system isn't perfect, but it's a careful balance built over a lot of experience. And now these guys want to upend that balance.
They are more in the problem set than in the
Don't tell your doctor about marijuana (Score:5, Insightful)
I would recommend that you never tell your doctor that you use marijuana.
That will usually go into your medical record, because it's part of your medical and social history.
Now with electronic medical records, anybody with access can do a text search for "marijuana" and find it.
The most obvious problem that I can identify is that years later, you might have a legitimate need for opioids.
For example, hip and knee replacements are very painful. In order to be successful, they require physical therapy, which is also very painful, and often can't be done right without opioids. (See Jane Brody's story in the New York Times about her own knee replacements.)
If your medical record mentions marijuana, that can set off some (unscientific) guidelines for using opioids, which require that you sign a "pain contract." You have to take (unnecessary and expensive) drug tests, with (unnecessary and expensive) doctors' visits, with lower doses than would be medically appropriate, and they can discontinue opioids if you test positive for marijuana. Normally it would be a violation of medical ethics to abandon a patient, but these pain contracts allow doctors to unethically abandon a patient if they violate some of these provisions.
The Veterans Administration just backed off on one of those pain contracts after a veteran sued them. But not everybody can afford a lawyer.
http://journalofethics.ama-ass... [ama-assn.org]
Veterans Health Administration Policy on Cannabis as an Adjunct to Pain Treatment with Opiates
Michael Krawitz
AMA Journal of Ethics.
June 2015, 17(6):558-561.
If a doctor specifically asks about marijuana, I think a good answer would be, "You can't guarantee me that this information will be confidential, right?"
Re: (Score:2)
As a physician, I hate to agree, but I would avoid saying anything not exactly relevant to the problem. Much of the doctor-patient relationship is based on trust which is in part based on privacy of the conversations. With electronic records, privacy is a thought that fluttered in the wind and disappeared years ago.
Re: (Score:2)
>> If you do something that is not harming anybody else but you
Iwould agree but in the case of drugs theres a whole industry of death living off your money.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, they're living off of the war on drugs. If anyone is supporting them, it's the DEA. Make them legal to buy at CVS or Walgreen's and the cartels will collapse overnight.
Re: (Score:2)
FTFY. The US medical system is screwed up in more than one unique ways.
Work around the problem... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty much too late [namsdl.org] for that.
Sorry.
Re: (Score:2)
...or better yet just dont use recreational drugs....
Are you talking about Caffeine, Nicotine and Alcohol?
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, that won't help you. All it takes is one clipboard ticking nincompoop who's never felt worse than a stubbed toe deciding you aren't really in that much pain (never having met you) to screw you over good.
Re: (Score:3)
WTF are you talking about? This isn't about drug abuse.
This is about a blatant violation of patient confidentiality and government overreach in a time when the fourth amendment has apparently been rescinded by fiat.
They already do (Score:1)
They just want to remove obstacles to 'parallel construction'
Target is the Pharmas not the Consumers (Score:2)
Short answer NO (Score:2)
Long answer: there are special laws which protect doctors from revealing information of patients. In job interviews you can even lie about conditions if they do not endanger you and others. This is for a reason. Look in the human rights declaration if you do not understand. DEA you cannot have access to such private data without a warrant.
Hell hath no fury... (Score:2)
Hell hath no fury like an armed agency losing its sense of purpose. Even if we could snap our finger and de-fund them right now, you've got a bunch of guys who are used to carrying guns and wielding power. Same deal with the gangs on the other side. Pot legalization won't make them go away. They're used to living the easy life, and they'll move into other forms of vice and perhaps get even more violent competing for a share of the smaller pie. At least, that's what I heard happened with alcohol prohibi
Those who accept restrictions... (Score:3)
Those who accept "reasonable" exceptions to the Second Amendment should not be surprised when "reasonable" exceptions to the Fourth (or any other) Amendment are also accepted.
After all, these exceptions are all "for the good of society" - who can argue with that?
Re: (Score:2)
Those who accept "reasonable" exceptions to the Second Amendment should not be surprised when "reasonable" exceptions to the Fourth (or any other) Amendment are also accepted.
If the first amendment didn't have exceptions, threats, fraud, libel, slander, false advertisement, grooming and a ton of other crimes couldn't be crimes. Heck, I could order a hit man to kill you. The truth is, the bill of rights sucks as a legal document by any modern standard. Almost no term is defined, it says you will have "due process" but what that means is only vaguely guessed from contemporary documents, which can obviously contain conflicting and controversial meanings that might not reflect what
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, in the 1800s there were no electronic medical records. In fact there were no electronic devices, communication, or records of any type. Therefore, obviously, the Fourth Amendment doesn't prevent searching all of those without a warrant.
As well, the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment obviously couldn't have applied to electronic communication. When all you could do was stand on a street corner and shout or print leaflets and then distribute or post them, the speed of this limited communication me
Their logic is lacking (Score:2)
If the medical records have no expectation of privacy due to their catch-all " third party " bullshit, then what exactly is the point / purpose of having networks HIPAA certified ?
Are DEA databases considered HIPAA compliant ? They going to assume responsibility ( and penalties ) if / when their database is breached ?
Taking this a step further, would it be safe to assume that any and all data residing in " The Cloud " would have the same definition since you're letting a " third party " manage it for you ?
Re: (Score:2)
It's safer because rhino horn is chemically indistinguishable from fingernails.
Re: (Score:2)
If you're going to count rhino horn against Chinese medicine, you'll have to count snake oil against western medicine to be fair.
Every culture has it's charlatans.
Re: (Score:2)
has it is charlatans? WTF is that supposed to mean?
Re: (Score:2)
Guess.
Or be brainless. Your choice.
Re: (Score:2)
And the people hunting rhinos aren't reputable herbalists.
Re: (Score:2)
The people prescribing bits of rare species are.
But waaaagh, racism, right?
Re: (Score:2)
Just some quacks. No racism in pointing out that Chinese medicine has it's quacks just like western medicine.
Re: (Score:1)
...try not to be so arrogant.
The effect of rhino horn is equivalent to that of a placebo, because it does nothing that eating toenails and hair doesn't do.
Another point. Who is it that is having rhinos killed so they can consume their horns? The general impression I had was it was users of "traditional" Chinese medicine. Maybe I was wrong and it is western baseball accountants.
Re: (Score:1)
Its the Chinese, dont let that fag tell you otherwise
https://www.savetherhino.org/rhino_info/threats_to_rhino/poaching_for_rhino_horn
Rhino poaching has escalated in recent years and is being driven by the demand for rhino horn in asian countries, particularly Vietnam. It is used in Traditional Chinese Medicine but more and more commonly now it is used as a status symbol to display someone’s success and wealth.
Re: (Score:2)
I'll stuck with traditional Asian and herbal medicine.
That's your choice of course but when you get sick for real I'll be waiting for you at the hospital.
Re: (Score:2)
Some traditional medicine has merit, to be sure - but we only know that because we tested it the same way we test medicine. And standardized dosing of drugs is a lot safer than herbs, where the amount of active ingredients can very substantially between plants.
Re: Chinese/Alt. medcine (Score:2)
Anybody who takes enough colloidal silver to turn blue really fucked up. Consider it their "stupid sign."
Re: (Score:2)
Anybody who takes enough colloidal silver to turn blue really fucked up. Consider it their "stupid sign."
Or that they identify as a smurf.
Re:why does this database exist in the first place (Score:5, Interesting)
Because there were about 30,000 deaths a year recently from opioids in the US.
This widely-reported number deliberately confuses
--people who take heroin to get high
--people who take prescription drugs without a prescription to get high
-- people who were appropriately prescribed opioids and died anyway
-- people who were appropriately prescribed opioids but given doses that were too low and got additional drugs somewhere
-- people who were prescribed opioids but couldn't afford them so they used cheaper heroin, etc.
It is a legitimate problem, but the Drug Enforcement Agency runs things and their solution to all problems is to put people in prison. When you've got a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
You could get a rational discussion of the problem in those silly European magazines like Lancet, BMJ or New Scientist. Unfortunately some of the Europeans are following the American example of stupidity.
Re: (Score:2)
Not to mention terminal patients who were prescribed "too much" because it's better to live another week in comfort than two in agony.
Re: (Score:2)
I think the "opiod deaths" number also includes "people who died and we detected opiates in their system". So you die of a heart attack and you are taking Vicodin, you died an opiod related death, even though the direct cause was a heart attack and there may not even be a true link to the drug.
So unless the cause of death is "got shot by crazy stalker", if you are on drugs when you die, the chances are that the death will be scored as drug-related.
I know this is true for marijuana use. If you die in a ca
Re: (Score:3)
In other words, you will refuse to treat anyone who won't agree to entirely give up doctor-patient privacy, and consent to mandatory additional potentially inconvenient procedures at their expense. You get away with this because it beats two months of intense pain. If a patient has any objection to unreasonable demands, you will let that patient suffer.
The only difference between you and a CIA "enhanced interrogator" is that you're more smug about it.