SOS
Secretary of State ie. Save Our Ship?!? The questions are out there! Here's a statement..... "I
hope my doctor and his fill-in are qualified for.... Should a person who is in pain be cut off pain killers because their
parents don't want them on them and they are an adult? Should the fill-in doctor be ordering drug screens? For what cause?
Is that NOT THE Doctor's job? I haven't been able to afford what I need and had so much trouble trying to get it, I quit trying
for a time, but my pain is 'unbearable' alot of the time. And I believe there are alot of people, RIGHT NOW, jealous because
they can't get the 'D' word. I still need an attorney...and I found a guy on Martha Stewart's website who needs one too."
These
contracts they come up with (are discriminating for one) do not protect the patient, and are aimed at person's who are addicted,
and to get them CUT OFF! I can prove this! You are not allowed to do as you wish with YOUR OWN BODY any longer, without the
threat of someone else telling you how to live. This is not FREEDOM, but a Capitalist Government run conspiracy, that's right,
IT IS A CONSPIRACY to control the population and it is working, I HATE to ADMIT! They have turned doctors into cops and addicts
who are in pain are supposed to be protected by the Dallas Agreement, but I don't see it! Not saying I'm an addict, although
I have gotten that way due to having to take High Powered Anesthetics. Withdrawal symptoms and addiction are synonyomous?
I dunno. What I do know is that there is way too much hype over addiction. There are plenty of functional alcoholics and addicts.
They can operate, UNTIL you take away what they need....I believe they want to KILL ME and the sad part IS, they want ME
to do it! That's the truth! Drugs Are Really Expensive!
Here's a bit of Law that seems contrary: §10.110 Canon 9. A practitioner should avoid even the appearance of professional
impropriety. [Added 50 FR 5181, Feb. 6, 1985, effective Mar. 8, 1985] §10.111 Avoiding even the appearance of impropriety.
(a) A practitioner shall not accept private employment in a matter upon the merits of which he or she has acted in a judicial
capacity. (b) A practitioner shall not accept private employment in a matter in which he or she had personal responsibility
while a public employee. (c) A practitioner shall not state or imply that the practitioner is able to influence improperly
or upon irrelevant grounds any tribunal, legislative body, or public official. [Added 50 FR 5181, Feb. 6, 1985, effective
Mar. 8, 1985]
In more recent news.... Check out the Slate: What would George do?
The AMA's secret pact with the Federal Government
Especially see this page about Physician concerns
Bryan Epis, Persecuted Doctor who prescribed Medical Marijuana.
http://www.dranonymous.com/dranon.html
|