Ruling may ease DEA pressure on pain prescribers

Some advocates for pain specialists say the U.S. Supreme Court's decision on Oregon's assisted-suicide law might help doctors charged with overprescribing controlled substances.

By Kevin B. O'Reilly, AMNews staff. Feb. 13, 2006.

The U.S. Supreme Court's 6-3 ruling in Gonzales v. Oregon didn't just keep intact the essence of the nation's only physician-assisted suicide law, it also gave hope to pain medicine physicians, patients and advocates who believe the decision might chasten the Drug Enforcement Administration and provide a useful weapon in ongoing legal battles.

"This opinion should have a huge impact," said Eli Stutsman, who represented a physician and patient in the Gonzales case and is working on the appeals for two other physicians convicted of overprescribing pain medicines.

"The expansive reading of the attorney general's authority that was thoroughly rebuked in the Supreme Court's opinion is the same expansive reading of 'legitimate medical purpose' that's being used to prosecute pain physicians," he said.

A 1971 Dept. of Justice rule interpreted the Controlled Substances Act to forbid prosecuting any physician who prescribes controlled substances for a "legitimate medical purpose."

In Gonzales, the federal government argued physician-assisted suicide was not a legitimate medical purpose for which schedule II controlled substances such as barbiturates could be prescribed.

The court rejected that reasoning, ruling that to follow it would grant the attorney general unrestrained authority to regulate medical practice.

Geoffrey Michael, a lawyer who filed a pro-Oregon amicus brief on behalf of a coalition of medical organizations in Gonzales, said he hopes the decision will cause the DEA "to be more careful" in its use of the Controlled Substances Act to only pursue drug abuse and drug trafficking, "rather than trying to intrude upon state medical standards, whether this be in the context of pain physicians or any other physicians."