Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Doctors Join Limbaugh Case
Insight Magazine ^ | 01-23-04 | Les Kjos

Posted on 01/23/2004 6:30:09 AM PST by veronica

Conservative talk-show host Rush Limbaugh is gaining some allies in his pain-pill case, including many of the medical profession's pain specialists.

"We're filing an amicus brief arguing that his medical records should not be released," said Dr. Jane Orient of Tucson, Ariz., executive director of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons.

Limbaugh, 53, is under investigation for allegations of doctor-shopping to get prescriptions for painkillers. Investigators say they believe Limbaugh bought more than 2,000 pills illegally over a five-month period. Court records show Limbaugh suffers from back pain and completed a monthlong drug-rehabilitation program in November.

Orient fears if the documents are released and Limbaugh is convicted, it will have a chilling effect on doctors who prescribe painkillers for the 50 million people who suffer from varying degrees of pain. She said it would be "terrifying" to some physicians, because they also can be prosecuted.

"It would really be a deterrent to prescribing painkillers, and a lot of patients really require a great deal of [painkillers]," she said. "Those patients do terrible things, like buy drugs on the street."

Joining the foundation in the case are the Florida Pain Initiative and the National Foundation for the Treatment of Pain. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) also had joined the case on Limbaugh's behalf.

Limbaugh's lawyer, Roy Black, and the ACLU believe the confiscation of his medical records by investigators last year was a violation of his right to privacy. Black has appealed the original decision to allow the confiscation of the records.

The well-known attorney has not been giving any interviews in the case, but in a prepared statement said: "The issues raised in this appeal affect all Floridians, regardless of their political inclinations. As both the ACLU and we have stated, the seizure of Mr. Limbaugh's private medical records without due process is not only a violation of Florida law and the Florida Constitution, but also a threat to everyone's fundamental right to privacy."

An investigator for Assistant State Attorney James Martz briefly examined Limbaugh's medical records after Circuit Judge Jeffrey Winikoff of West Palm Beach issued an order allowing prosecutors to do so. Winikoff soon froze his ruling to give Limbaugh a chance to appeal. Doctor-shopping is a third-degree felony punishable by up to five years in prison.

"We're concerned about the doctor-shopping law," Orient said. "It's called getting a second opinion." She said refraining from telling the second doctor what the first doctor said only helps ensure an unbiased opinion.

The case began when Limbaugh's maid went to authorities and the National Enquirer tabloid about his use of painkillers. Investigators said he bought 2,300 pills ordered by four doctors over a five-month period. Limbaugh said the maid blackmailed him for $4 million.

During a hearing on Dec. 22, Black said Limbaugh was being legitimately treated for a spinal condition and ear surgery.

Mary Baluss, attorney for the three medical organizations, said that Limbaugh is a pain patient, not an addict. Baluss said pain patients need the privacy of their records to be protected more than other patients. She compared pain patients to HIV-positive patients of 20 years ago because both groups carry negative stigmatization.

The Palm Beach Post has said an investigation revealed that Palm Beach County prosecutors have charged only one other person under the doctor-shopping law in the last five years, and that case never went to trial because the accused died.

"The Post's research confirms what we have been saying all along: Rush Limbaugh has been singled out for special prosecution because of who he is," Black said in another written statement. "We believe the state attorney's office is applying a double standard."

Les Kjos writes for UPI, a sister wire service of Insight magazine.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Extended News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: doctorshopping; junkie; privacy; rush; wodlist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-112 next last
Comment #41 Removed by Moderator

To: ConservativeMan55
Bump in Support of Rush!!!!!
42 posted on 01/23/2004 7:27:29 AM PST by E.G.C.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: veronica
I reiterate, and you may not like it, but it's the wise doc who avoids celebrity patients. He has the right whether you acknowledge it or not to have a say over who he takes on as a patient.

From all I've read, Rush has treated his docs with cruel dishonesty. Do you care about the position they've found themselves in?

I didn't think so. You're just here with liberal-speak about "rights" that translate into a kind of professional enslavement.

I don't know much about this group; I'll be reading up on it. Most "groups" of this sort consist of docs who are sick of treating patients and are looking for a job in advocacy or sitting on the board of some organization.

This is the case of most of the governing boards of the specialties--doc gets tired and burnt out, wants some sort of admin job bossing around other doctors...

Lately a lot of laws have been passed concerning privacy that add a lot to your hospitalization bill--silly little things about calling you name in a waiting room. New laws are allowing specialists to avoid certain kinds of emergency room on call services--very scary. You really want that neuro when you bash up your back in a car wreck.

43 posted on 01/23/2004 7:30:50 AM PST by Mamzelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: veronica
Lots and lots of groups with names that sound like that. This proves what? There's a lot going on that is highly confusing concerning patient privacy these days. None of us has any medical privacy anymore, unless we want an abortion.
44 posted on 01/23/2004 7:32:33 AM PST by Mamzelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: veronica
The BIG PICTURE and real problem is being overlooked

the INSANE WODs
45 posted on 01/23/2004 7:33:17 AM PST by uncbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Prodigal Son
Let's ask the question as to why prescription drugs exist in the first place (i.e., why certain drugs require a prescription). Do you know? Is it to protect the patient, the doctor, or the drug company? Is it safety or business interests? Isn't part of the answer in how some drugs go from prescription to over-the-counter? Are they suddenly safer, less effective, or is there an underlying business reason? Which are more expensive, OTC drugs or prescription drugs? The question looks into a fundamental leg of the medical profession. A medical doctor has a license to practice medicine, right? So is he practicing healing or medicine? Are they the same? The word medicine is the key; they are "controlling" medicine. And prescription drugs are medicine. So they are controlling drugs. I believe there are intentional and unintentional undercurrents involved here. And a prosecutor's job is to punish those who have broken the law. Not punishing would be against their job description now wouldn't it? Ever heard of a prosecutor going into court trying to prove that someone didn't break the law. I don't know, I just think about these things sometimes and wonder why things happen the way they do.
46 posted on 01/23/2004 7:34:39 AM PST by GigaDittos (Bumper sticker: "Vote Democrat, it's easier than getting a job.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Mamzelle
Your warning to physicians is duly noted but irrelevant here. You need to go elsewhere to have your warning truly heard. The doctors that treated Rush made their decisions, and your advice doesn't change that. It's water under the bridge. The relevant discussion is about the law and civil rights now.
47 posted on 01/23/2004 7:38:24 AM PST by GigaDittos (Bumper sticker: "Vote Democrat, it's easier than getting a job.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

Comment #48 Removed by Moderator

To: veronica; nmh; GigaDittos
Would you like to know the real hospital breakroom scuttlebutt concerning Rush?

The revelation to many pros is that it may well be a criminal act of some sort to lie and attempt to trick a doc into prescribing drugs. They didn't realize that. Wading through masses of clever and stupid lies takes hours out of every day...

They are now wondering, hospital admins and technicians, if this might be a means to try to protect themselves from these predatory sorts of patients.

There's a lot of talk about how professionals can protect themselves from a public clearly bent on eating them alive at any opportunity. I always say..."When M. Country Western Star walks through the door, help him dry out and then call his real doctor in Dallas..."

49 posted on 01/23/2004 7:41:58 AM PST by Mamzelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Prodigal Son; jmc813; *Wod_list
I see libertarians catch a lot of sh!t around here for their views on drug use but it cannnot be denied that his whole thing with Rush would be a non-issue by libertarian standards.

It's not the State's business what Limbaugh eats.

Are you suggesting that ordinary citizens should have the same freedoms as Rush?!

50 posted on 01/23/2004 7:43:37 AM PST by Land of the Free 04
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Mamzelle
Is that what you call breakroom scuttlebutt? I don't see anything specific at all here about Rush. If you know something, spit it out, otherwise I don't see your point.
51 posted on 01/23/2004 7:45:11 AM PST by GigaDittos (Bumper sticker: "Vote Democrat, it's easier than getting a job.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: GigaDittos
re: Your warning to physicians is duly noted but irrelevant here. You need to go elsewhere to have your warning truly heard. The doctors that treated Rush made their decisions, and your advice doesn't change that. It's water under the bridge. The relevant discussion is about the law and civil rights now.)))

You come off like a thread cop.

Since docs are criticized here for their ineptitude in improperly treating celebrities, I'll continue to point out that they were deceived and perhaps had a criminal fraud perpetrated against *them*. And every doc (or, what is more important--the technicians, nursing, hospital billing personnel, "greeters", etc.,) ought to take a cautious view of celebrities in general.

52 posted on 01/23/2004 7:45:42 AM PST by Mamzelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: veronica
Still waiting. (Refer to post #30)

Can anyone answer my questions?

I understand the doctor shopping issues are separate but, aren't 'medical records' off limits especially to the public as Federal HIPAA laws stipulate?
53 posted on 01/23/2004 7:46:22 AM PST by BluSky (“Don’t make me come down there.”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GigaDittos
Rush is only one of many celebrities that can get a doc, his nurses, and a hospital into trouble.

We don't hear much from that surgeon who did his ears. Is he joining in the "amicus brief"?

He's the one who'll be heard from eventually.

54 posted on 01/23/2004 7:48:09 AM PST by Mamzelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Land of the Free 04
Are you suggesting that ordinary citizens should have the same freedoms as Rush?!

Are you suggesting Rush isn't an ordinary citizen?

55 posted on 01/23/2004 7:48:38 AM PST by Prodigal Son
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Mamzelle
I only come off that way because I point out that your goodhearted warnings are going to the wrong audience; we are not doctors here. Do you really care to warn physicians, or do you just want to hear yourself? Telling me that doctors shouldn't treat celebs because they're a PITA means nothing to me; I'm not a doctor. However, I do care about the legal and civil rights aspects of this case, which can mean something to me.
56 posted on 01/23/2004 7:49:49 AM PST by GigaDittos (Bumper sticker: "Vote Democrat, it's easier than getting a job.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: BluSky
re: I understand the doctor shopping issues are separate but, aren't 'medical records' off limits especially to the public as Federal HIPAA laws stipulate?)))

Even people in hospital admins could not answer that question clearly for you. The law is such that people wanting to obey it will probably find it impossible and contradictory. Then the government can pick and choose over who it will be enforced against.

Like so many regulations, it is designed to make a criminal out of whoever the powers want to see criminalized.

57 posted on 01/23/2004 7:51:24 AM PST by Mamzelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Mamzelle
If a doc can get out of treating a celeb, he really ought to, for his own safety.

Yeah, pregnant women are a problem, too. If the baby has problems, the doctor can be sued. Most hospitals should get rid of their Emergency Rooms. Too many people complain about treatment and open you up to a lawsuit. Cancer and AIDS treatment can also open you up to unwanted scrutiny. Never prescribe a prescription pain killer. Even if a femur is sticking out of their leg, don't go stronger than Tylenol. Really, doctors should stick to non-celebrity hair transplant and breast augmentation, although their have been lawsuits filed over breast augmentation. Most guys won't sue over their hair, because they don't want to admit that they've had treatment, but the field may get overcrowded.

58 posted on 01/23/2004 7:53:47 AM PST by Richard Kimball
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: veronica
Yup. It's political.
59 posted on 01/23/2004 7:54:13 AM PST by hchutch (Why did the Nazgul run from Arwen's flash flood? All they managed to do was to end up dying tired.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: BluSky
I believe HIPPA is to protect the patience's privacy from probing ears. I don't know how it is impacted by legal issues that may arise. What have they caught Rush actually doing? They haven't, right? Isn't this all from allegations from a maid? It looks like the prosecution is "evidence shopping", because they can't find any the normal way.
60 posted on 01/23/2004 7:54:35 AM PST by GigaDittos (Bumper sticker: "Vote Democrat, it's easier than getting a job.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-112 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson