We are very encouraged about the issues as they are presenting themselves in Dr. Bordeaux's case.
I don't know if you've had a chance to read Judge Jones' decision in the Oregon 192 F. Supp.2d 1077 (D.Or.2002) PDFcase but it is very interesting and very helpful. What is perhaps most interesting is that the Government offered the following piece of the Congressional record in support of their intrusion into Oregon medical practice...
"Although the Committee is concerned about the appropriateness of having federal officials determine the appropriate practice of medicine, it is necessary to recognize that for the last 50 years this is precisely what has happened, through criminal prosecution of physicians whose methods of prescribing narcotic drugs have not conformed to the opinions of federal prosecutors of what constitutes appropriate methods of professional practice."
The Government offered that, I repeat, as rationale for why they should be allowed to say that prescribing for assisted-suicide is without legitimate medical purpose. Or why they should ever be allowed to make the call about any medical practice. Astonishing, but true. It's right there.
Of course the judge said, in response, "To state the proposition is to refute it. Federal Prosecutors have never possessed such powers and the vagueness of the reference would render any alleged violation based on a prosecutor's subjective views about medical practice patently unenforceable."
They may not have possessed those powers but they've been exercising them nevertheless. And they say so....
They've been doing it for 50 (now nearly 90) years.
The amazing thing is, the U.S. Attorney was admitting that this is precisely what they do (what I've also been saying they do) and what I watched them do to Dr. Bordeaux and threatened to do to Joe Talley, Billy Hurwitz and many, many more.
They are telling us that they do this.
This is why there is a pain crisis.
Now, the difficult thing is they don't come right out and say they are regulating medicine while they are doing it. Of course they say that the doctor is committing crimes. And they charge whatever is necessary to make sure they get rid of the doctor. The newest evolution is conspiracy and Medicare fraud. But in Dr. Bordeaux's case, the lack of evidence against her, as well as the fact that she was acting as a doctor in compliance with South Carolina State law in that the board of medicine had looked at her practice and had declined to prosecute or even restrict her in any way, might actually make the true shape of their conduct apparent.
As Judge Jones said later in the case, distinguishing Oregon's doctors from other targets of The Department of Justice "In none of the cases was a doctor or pharmacist prosecuted and convicted under the CSA for legal medical actions taken in compliance with state law..."
In Dr. Bordeaux's case, she was.
With Eli Stutsman as Dr. Bordeaux's attorney, we are cautiously optimistic.
All The Best,
Feel free to contact the author at: