On this in-depth, investigative edition of Light ‘Em Up we expose what we maintain is an illegal invasion of your personal privacy and an illegal search and seizure in violation of the 4th Amendment.
Picture this: During your annual physical checkup — your doctor draws near to you with the stethoscope and asks you to perform a few deep breaths — is she really listening to your lungs or is she looking for signs of extensive drug use or smelling for the use of alcohol?
This is a very odd dilemma. The doctor writes a prescription for you, and has been doing so for years. Suddenly, without advanced notice, she has an “issue” with doing so. She says, “We need to run a toxicology screen on you”. A what?
You may have no clue whatsoever that your rights are even being violated — by, of all people, your primary care physician and local hospital. In an extension of the “War on Drugs” — as it continues to target the poor and the neediest among us, many hospitals across the country have begun drug testing their patients, especially Medicaid recipients, through urinalysis.
The 4th Amendment has been hotly debated since its ratification in 1791. How much do you know about the rights granted to you by the 4th Amendment?
Subjecting patients, especially poor patients, seeking medication for a health condition to an intrusive seizure of his/her bodily fluids is an intentional act of intimidation. Threatening to withhold essential medications from patients — the use of condescending and coercive, bullying tactics through the use of a “pain contract” or a “controlled substance agreement” — serves only to further damage the quality of care that has already been compromised due to the way insurance companies have rigged the system in their favor.
This bullying and forced compliance are completely contrary to the “do no harm” motto that has served as the foundational pillar of the medical profession since its inception.
Who wants to have a medical doctor who in reality is a “narc” — eager to “report” anything she observes? What benefit is it to have a “doctor” that violates the doctor-patient trust that is essential and at the core of quality, comprehensive care?
If patients distrust their physician, or feel stigmatized or distrusted by them, this will impact greatly upon the therapeutic relationship and deeply compromise care.
Lacking sufficient financial means should not be a criminal offense — nor should a course of action apply to only one group of people as a “suspect class”, treating them as if they are not “worthy” to be afforded the same Constitutional rights as others.
At Light ‘Em Up — we have always fought against THIS kind of disparate treatment.
In this episode as we lobby for justice and speak truth to power, we shall:
♦ Dissect the 4th amendment and provide analysis of what the U.S. Supreme Court says about this process as we delve into what a “pain contract” is.
♦ Examine “controlled-substance agreements” for patients on chronic opioid therapy, with a keen eye on “indifferent enforcement” from a criminal justice perspective. Are they binding, or enforceable in a court of law?
♦ Dig into our case study: Rivers vs The Administration of Children Services (ACS) for the City of New York.
It’s easy to turn a blind eye when the violation of rights applies to someone else. What happens when it happens to you?
Tune in - be empowered! Check here for bonus content.
Follow our sponsors Newsly & Feedspot here: