Not DEA'd Yet: Gonzales v. Oregon

Baron takes a look at the implications on the case of Gonzales v. Oregon, in which the US Supreme Court affirmed decisions of two lower federal courts and made permanent a 2001 injunction against federal prosecution of physicians who prescribe narcotics under the terms of the act. Among other concer...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:The Hastings Center report 2006-03, Vol.36 (2), p.8-8
1. Verfasser: Baron, Charles H.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Baron takes a look at the implications on the case of Gonzales v. Oregon, in which the US Supreme Court affirmed decisions of two lower federal courts and made permanent a 2001 injunction against federal prosecution of physicians who prescribe narcotics under the terms of the act. Among other concerns, rather than seeking criminal convictions only in cases that meet the Controlled Substances Act's requirement that drugs have been intentionally diverted outside "the course of professional practice," prosecutors have sought and in some cases achieved convictions where they have been able to prove that prescribing painkillers for a particular patient did not meet the civil standard of good medicine--situations constituting medical malpractice.
ISSN:0093-0334
1552-146X
1552-146X
DOI:10.1353/hcr.2006.0018