The Pain Relief Network

Jul 13, 2007
By: John Flannery
Pain Relief Network

While Dr. Hurwitz and his cause would have been better and more justly served by releasing Dr. Hurwitz immediately based on the 2 1/2 years he has already spent, we have to acknowledge the great accomplishment of having had a trial so ably handled that it convinced the court to eliminate ALL mandatory minimums that would have put the base sentence at 20 years instead of the 17 months more in custody that Dr. Hurwitz will now serve.
 
It was a combination of the government over-reaching, of Dr. Hurwitz speaking so well in his own defense, and good lawyering presenting good science and good law to a judge who admitted she changed how she thought and felt about these cases during the trial; thus, the "better" sentence.
 
It is unfortunate that these obvious changes are so hard to come by – and that the results are mixed.
 
Dr. Hurwitz lives in the here and now – as do we all – and his continued custody must cause us all concern and dismay.
 
But we also have to consider how far we've come – how much better – at least "relatively" – is Dr. Hurwitz's current sentence given the political and legal environment that disfavors those who treat chronic pain and criminalizes the medicine that would ease suffering and the patient who hurts without treatment.
 
There has been recognition in other quarters involving chronic pain that may reflect an awakening.
 
We are hopeful that Richard Paey in Florida may be recognized as a pain patient instead of a criminal in his clemency petition to the Governor.  Unfortunately, we have not yet heard for certain that the governor will waive the clemency requirements and follow the parole commission's recommendation — although we are hopeful.
 
We are hopeful as well that the Times Magazine cover story will educate more folk to the disaster that Dr. McIver suffers by his conviction.  Plainly, the remedy for Dr. McIver will be most challenging as he has exhausted almost all remedies.
 
Congress only yesterday convened a hearing before the Crime Subcommittee of Judiciary to consider the DEA's "Regulation of medicine."
 
That there was a hearing and that it was framed as DEA "regulating" medicine was significant.
 
DEA resisted the notion that they were doing anything more than "enforcing" the law.  They said they didn't "regulate" medicine.  But Siobhan came on strong – see her statement (submitted before the hearing).  I was also invited to give some perspective from the standpoint of what had gone constitutionally awry – see statement (also submitted before hearing).  We were given as much opportunity as you can get with a crowded panel of witnesses and a challenging agenda.  The members of the Committee, Chairman Scott and Rep. Nadler, were particularly forceful at the hearing.  The hearing room was packed and there was a net broadcast and the hearing will be published in the weeks ahead.
 
In short, the conversation about chronic pain and its treatment is less one-sided – in and out of court. The challenge remains daunting.  But there is hope.  If only the speed was less "deliberate" and more suited to the tragic circumstances in the here and now and the people who are so terribly and adversely affected.  But there is hope for change – and that is something.