 |  | 

DEA Withdraws Its Support Of Guidelines on Painkillers
By Marc Kaufman
Washington Post Staff Writer
The Drug Enforcement Administration has reversed its support for a set
of negotiated guidelines designed to end a controversy over the arrests
of hundreds of pain specialists who prescribed powerful narcotics for
their patients.
The agency took the document off its Web site earlier
this month, less than two months after announcing it with great fanfare.
In rescinding its endorsement, the DEA wrote on its Web site that the
31-page document "contained misstatements" and "was not approved as an
official statement of the agency."
The agency declined to give any more
specifics, saying that it hoped to issue a statement "in one or two
weeks."
Worried doctors who had worked on crafting the "consensus" document --
written over the past year by DEA officials and prominent pain
management specialists -- criticized the agency's unannounced decision
to disavow it.
They said they were given no explanation or told whether
the agency had changed its position on the contentious question of when
and how doctors can prescribe the popular painkillers without risking
prosecution.
Advocates for aggressive pain management said the DEA's decision appears
to have been triggered when defense lawyers tried to introduce the
guidelines in the upcoming drug-trafficking trial of William Hurwitz, a
McLean physician.
In late September, Hurwitz's defense team sought to introduce them as
evidence. Several weeks later, the DEA took the document off its Web
site and said it was not official policy.
Twelve days after that, U.S. Attorney Paul J. McNulty, who is
prosecuting Hurwitz, filed a motion in the case asking that the
guidelines be excluded as evidence, again saying that they do "not have
the force and effect of law."
"It seems pretty clear that they felt they had to try to get rid of the
guidelines because they supported so many parts of our case," said
Hurwitz's defense attorney, Patrick Hallinan.
"If the Justice Department
followed the guidelines, there would be no reason to arrest and charge
Dr. Hurwitz." The case is scheduled for trial Nov. 3.
DEA spokesman Ed Childress said the agency intends to rework the
guidelines and publish them again. He said he could not comment on
whether the decision to remove them had anything to do with any legal
case.
The guidelines, which were published in August in the form of a
"Frequently Asked Questions" feature prominently displayed on the DEA
Web site, were described at the time as an effort to codify the
"balance" that both the DEA and the pain management community have long
said they are seeking.
The DEA has complained in the past that irresponsible, and possibly
criminal, doctors prescribed narcotic painkillers too frequently and
without enough care -- letting the valuable drugs get into the hands of
people who sell them, abuse them and sometimes are harmed by them.
But many pain specialists have watched with dismay as scores of
colleagues were arrested on criminal charges based on what many believe
was sometimes good, aggressive treatment or, at worst, negligent
prescribing practices.
Many of the cases triggered mandatory sentencing
guidelines that can send convicted drug dealers to prison for decades.
The introduction of long-lasting prescription opioids such as OxyContin
revolutionized the treatment of pain, which doctors say is greatly
under-treated in the United States.
Researchers say a small percentage of patients become addicted, but most
people in pain do not.
However, OxyContin and other powerful drugs
became popular with drug abusers in the late 1990s, especially in rural
and southern areas, and it has been linked to numerous hospitalizations
and some deaths.
The consensus document was the product of more than a year of work by
Russell K. Portenoy, a leading pain expert with New York's Beth Israel
Medical Center, University of Wisconsin pain specialist David E.
Joranson, professionals involved in the care of dying patients, and two
top officials of the DEA.
When the guidelines were made public, DEA Administrator Karen P. Tandy
embraced them and said in a statement: "The medical and law enforcement
communities continue to work together to carefully balance the needs of
legitimate patients for pain medications against the equally compelling
need to protect the public from the risk of addiction and even possible
death from these medications. . . .
The DEA is committed to assisting
the overwhelming majority of health care providers who successfully
strike that balance every day, as well as the law enforcement officers
investigating diversion and abuse of pain medications."
Portenoy said the group worked closely with the DEA, responding to many
of its concerns and revising drafts many times to accommodate the
agency. Portenoy said agency officials were active in the entire
process, and he said he strongly believed that there had been "complete
buy-in from the upper echelon" of the DEA regarding the guidelines.
Since word went out the guidelines had been withdrawn, he has received
many calls and e-mails from worried and upset doctors, Portenoy said.
"There was a real feeling that we had made significant progress, but now
we have to wonder whether that progress is all gone," Portenoy said. "If
they don't fix whatever problems they might have and put the document
back up, that would speak very clearly that the goal of the DEA is not
to collaborate with the medical community or to reassure doctors about
the proper role and use of prescription opioids in pain management."
The guidelines were also on many Web sites for pain clinics and
programs. The DEA called at least one of them, the Pain & Policy Studies
Group of the University of Wisconsin, and asked it to remove the
document.
Thursday, October 21, 2004
|
 |  |  | 
 October 21, 2004
see www.nccs.org

|  |
Remember we are NOT Doctors and have NO medical training.
This site is like an Encylopedia - there are many pages, many links on many topics.
Support our work with any size DONATION - see left side of any page - for how to donate. You can help raise awareness of CAM. |
|