Alexander DeLuca, M.D.
Addiction, Pain, & Public Health website

[Home] [Library]  [Slides]  [Search]  [Medline]  [Links]
 
[Statements of Purpose, Ownership, Sponsorship. Privacy,  Email-confidentiality, and Advertising Policies]

 
Siobhan Reynolds on U.S.A. v. Dr. McIver:
the Conviction, Flannery's Appellant Reply Brief, and Ongoing Pain Relief Network Support
 

 
Siobhan Reynolds. Pain and Social Policy listServ, Pain Relief Network; 2006-02-24. Posted: 2006-02-26; Modified: 2007-04-22.
[Identifier: http://www.doctordeluca.com/Library/WOD/WPS9-McIver/ReynoldsOnConvictAppeal06.htm]
 
Related resources: 
WAR ON PAIN SUFFERERS Collection #9 - U.S.A. v. Dr. McIver: Zero Tolerance for Opioid Therapy
Drug War Journalism and Advocacy Library 
 
See also:
McIver v. USA - Petition for Writ of Certiorari (PDF) - John P. Flannery II; 4th Circuit Court of Appeals; Filed: 2007-04-03
 
Why We Continue to Fight for Dr. McIver - John P. Flannery II; Pain and Social Policy listServ; Pain Relief Network; 2006-12-20
 
The Sad History of Mr. Shealy  (Addendum to McIver Appellant Reply Brief - 2006) - Flannery
 
Background on the PRN's Support of McIver (and link to McIver Appellant's Brief - 2005) - Reynolds (Stutsman)
 
 
 War on Doctors/Pain Crisis blog and RSS feed
 
 

Friends,

Dr. McIver is that rarity of all rarities. A clean case. He was practicing medicine when this Assistant U.S. Attorney decided to take him out. I don't want to comment on counsel or on others who were involved in this case. But John Flannery took over the appeal recently.

The government got the jury instructions they wanted which were that if the doctor prescribed in a fashion that was inconsistent with professional norms, then he had committed a crime. I must say that I find Mr Flannery's language quite accessible and that the doctor's position and that of the government are really quite apparent.

The government in his case seems to have believed that it was a crime for the doctor to have treated pain patients with high doses of opioids. From my experiences, this is the underlying belief in all of these cases. As the recent US Supreme court decision has said that the DOJ is not supposed to be enforcing its own notion of what is or is not "legitimate medicine" the government's position in all of our cases seems precarious at best.

The difficulty, it seems to me, is that the 4th Circuit is where the government did most of its shenanigans to move the case law over to where they had some basis for arguing that standard of care type evidence was applicable and helpful in one these cases. So it may be impossible to get the 4th Circuit judges to realize just how wrong they have been and how, really they have been deferring to Federal power, over and above states' rights in such an important arena. But then there is the Supreme Court who has already been quite clear about how they view this.

Both the opening brief and the reply brief are really instructive and I hope everyone will read them.

I have only spoken with Ron on a couple of occasions and his wife on many. They seem like very nice people who are enduring hell on earth.

We've been doing everything we can to help them and will continue to.

Siobhan Reynolds
Family Member of a Chronic Pain Patient
President, Pain Relief Network
'Standing up for patients in pain and the doctors who treat them'

[END]