|
02/18/05 |
February 18, 2005 -- Quarterly meeting of the MBC
DMQ
Frank
H. Lucido M.D.
Diplomate A.B.F.P.
2300 Durant Avenue
Berkeley, Ca,
94704
510-848-0958
fax 510-848-0961
drfrank@drlucido.com
MedicalBoardWatch.com
February
18, 2005
Dear Members of the Medical Board of California
DMQ:
I have been coming before you for the past 7 quarterly meetings,
now 8, and have been requesting an audit or investigation of the Board's legal
staff for their inappropriate investigations of physicians for recommending
medical cannabis, a safe and effective medicine, to patients in accordance with
state law.
I still contend that almost all of these investigations were
initiated by complaints from law enforcement, and none by a patient or legal
guardian. This would be easily amenable to an independent audit if there were
any WILL to learn the truth.
I will repeat again, the fact of law
enforcement’s institutional bias against cannabis. The California Narcotic
Officer's Association’s website, still, this morning, has this obvious untruth:
"There is no justification for using marijuana as a medicine." This lie is
thoroughly contradicted by the federal government's own Institute of Medicine
1999 report. (
http://www.cnoa.org/position-papers-1.htm
)
I am sorry that I had to learn about the existence of the Enforcement
Monitor (EM) from the San Francisco Chronicle, and the fact that they have been
conducting an ostensibly independent investigation of the Medical Board for
these past 15 months or so, almost as long as I have been calling for an
independent audit.
Knowing that I have a website called
MedicalBoardWatch.com and am the de facto liaison to the board for a small but
growing group of pro-cannabis doctors, I would have expected you to inform me
of the Enforcement Monitor's work. I, and the rest of the public, would have had
an opportunity to give input to the EM.
As I told Senator
Figueroa's committee on 1/25/05, in Sacramento, this was not an independent
monitor: “From what I have seen, the Enforcement Monitor falls far short of
an independent report.
I am intimately familiar with the issues touched on in
the 3 pages out of 294 of the Enforcement Monitor’s report dealing with medical
Cannabis. This section is so inaccurate, that it bodes poorly for expecting
accuracy in the other 291 pages…
This report was basically directed by Mr.
Thornton, who came out of “retirement” to work with the Monitor, and his staff,
and perhaps elements of the AG’s office staff.
Although Ms. Fellmeth is most
likely a good consultant in many ways, she is way too cozy with MBC legal staff
for someone doing an independent investigation, as you can see from my minutes
of the 1/21/05 meeting.”
In the 1/25/05 statement to Senator Figueroa’s
Committee, (which is attached to today’s written statement, which I will submit
to you), I include relevant transcripts of the Board’s 1/21/05 special meeting
regarding the Enforcement Monitor’s report.
I pointed out Dr. Karlan's
charade of creating "unanimity of opinion" long before there was ANY discussion
by the Board Members.
Some specifics of concern in the Enforcement
Monitor’s Report:
A fascinating change has already occurred, probably
without adequate Board input:
How many of you are aware of the DMQ’s change
of focus from "Quality of Care" (and ACTUAL harm to something called "Physician
Behavior"?
The report criticizes SB 1950 (Figueroa). The authors worry
that the language of the statute and the way in which MBC has implemented the
mandated priorities have “elevated patient outcome over factors which may be as
or more important in enforcement circumstance....”
They go on: “Patient
injury or death is always tragic. But the mere
presence of a tragic outcome
should not always dictate prioritization of enforcement activity.”
Can
you believe this? The EM (read your legal staff) seem positively horrified
that actual patient harm should rank higher than the possibility of future
harm.."[p]rotection of the public shall be the highest priority"
becomes an excuse for pre-emptive attacks on whomever your legal staff wants to
attack. Did you see "Minority Report"? A movie about a futuristic pre-crimes
unit that would bust people BEFORE they allegedly committed a crime? Great
video. See it!
This leads to the issue of “Vertical
Prosecution”, or removing investigations and the prioritizing of what is
investigated from MBC control and transferring control to the AG’s
office.
From what I have seen, “Vertical Prosecution” will formalize, if not
legitimize, the uncontrolled and inappropriate investigation of doctors,
perpetrated by your legal staff, for having recommended a safe and effective
medicine.
I caution you: DO NOT GIVE UP THE LAST VESTIGE OF ANY PHYSICIAN, OR
BOARD, RESPONSIBILITY for directing law enforcement in protecting California's
public from ACTUAL medical harm.
I read the Action Report.
As an
example of misplaced priorities, I noted 2 years ago, that one doctor was given
a public letter of reprimand for “admitting to and testing positive for use of
marijuana”.
I called this doctor, and apologized if I was intruding on his
privacy, but asked if he would be willing to tell me what happened. Apparently,
his estranged wife reported him as a pot smoker. Your understaffed, and
under-funded, legal staff found time and money to investigate the report of this
misdemeanor, and drug test him. I wonder how many Dr. Miofsky’s you missed
prosecuting while your staff was out on this marijuana witch-hunt, which
continues today, and will increase if you agree to vertical
prosecution.
As I have stated before, I am monitoring all cases
that come to my attention of doctors being investigated for having recommended
cannabis and I will post all relevant information on MedicalBoardWatch.com
I
will also monitor and report all allegations of law enforcement non-compliance
with the law.
Thank you for your attention.
Sincerely,
Frank H. Lucido MD
Attached:
My 1/25/05 statement
to Sen Figueroa’s Committee
My intended 1/21/05 statement to the
MBC special
meeting regarding the EM Report
(Unfortunately interrupted by Dr. Karlan,
this statement is actually more complimentary to the Board than what I actually
ended up saying.)
|
