changes made to vic drug law in april2008

[lightning]

The latest current updates(Sept 2008) of the Victorian Legislation

The most significant change is the new legal requirements of reporting by doctors anyone who uses Medicinal Cannabis to the Minister totally breaching doctor/patient confidentiality and patient privacy which is leading to a situation where many doctors who are conflicted by the obligation are simply refusing to treat any one who admits to medical cannabis use See Part 3 section 7

http://www.cannabisfacts.info/sites/defaul...les/08-017a.pdf

[linbaba]

The most significant change is the new legal requirements of reporting by doctors anyone who uses Medicinal Cannabis to the Minister

 

the legislation doesn't actually say that or mentions cannabis specifically at all from what I can see. It is only if the Doctor is prescribing the patient an addictive substance to notify the department so that the person is recognised as a drug dependant person. The registration of known drug addicts or "Doctor Shoppers" is nothing new and is a measure to combat drug addicts who keep going from doctor to doctor until they find one that will give them the drugs that they want.

 

I guess whether or not you think this is good legislation depends on whether or not you think drug addicts should be able to get prescribed narcotics at will. Its a tough issue.

[lightning]

Cannabis is listed in Schedule 9 of the Drugs Poisons and Controlled substances act and all use of cannabis is considered as misuse and addiction by the authorities.

All doctors are required to notify the authorities if a drug addicted person ie a daily cannabis user comes to them to seek medical assistance and the patient requires or asks the doctor to prescribe a schedule 4 substance. ie write them a prescription for any substance which is restricted to doctor authorization only which includes all antibiotics pain killers antidepressents or for that matter ANY other script a doctor writes as that is what S4 is about.

 

I know that this situation is occurring as we have recently moved to a new area and have repeately tried to find a GP to oversee our ailments and medical treatment. We have been refused on all attempts!!!!!

 

The reporting requirements have been raised as one of the reasons why.

[linbaba]

wow I'm sorry to hear that. are they refusing you medical treatment point blank or just refusing you the meds you are asking for? or is it that they are advising you that they have to report your drug use and you don't want to be treated under that condition?

 

you might assume that the listing of drug dependant people is purely a health care issue and wouldn't be used by police or the court system against you but I would understand if you were mistrustful of our legal system.

 

I really hope you can find a Doctor with a conscience who is willing to manage your medical treatment on your own terms. Surely there must be a few good ones left out there?

Edited September 8, 2008 by linbaba

[lightning]

We are being refused point blank.

To take us on as a patient the doctor must apply for a permit to treat us and given the current political climate in Vic we have been unable to find one that will. We have no issue with them reporting us as we are already "on the radar" so to speak and have NEVER hidden our medicinal usage from our doctors previously, but now it appears to be the only way to get medical assistance is to lie by ommission.

A fabulous approach to medicine don't ya thunk!!!

 

Religious bigotry imposed in law.

[grace]

The latest current updates(Sept 2008) of the Victorian Legislation

The most significant change is the new legal requirements of reporting by doctors anyone who uses Medicinal Cannabis to the Minister totally breaching doctor/patient confidentiality and patient privacy which is leading to a situation where many doctors who are conflicted by the obligation are simply refusing to treat any one who admits to medical cannabis use See Part 3 section 7

http://www.cannabisfacts.info/sites/defaul...les/08-017a.pdf

 

Hi Lightning,

 

I read it as only applying to situations where the doctor is seeking to obtain approval to prescribe s 9 drugs and not to all patients in general and only if the doctor has reason to believe the patient is drug dependent. You need to look for the definition of drug dependent person in the legislation.

 

Just remember doctors are not lawyers and many do not understand the legislation.

 

Sorry, I have not looked at the Vic legislation however a similar issue has been before the courts in QLD to determine who classifies the patient as drug dependent; what is the definition of a drug dependent person; and what are the doctor's obligations under ss 120 and 122 of the Health (Drugs and Poisons) Regulations.

 

The Health Act 1937 (QLD) provides a defintion of a Drug Dependent Person (see below)

Even if you use controlled drugs every day does not automatically mean you are a drug dependent person

Controlled drugs are schedule 8 drugs (morphine, pethidine, methadone etc)

Dronabinol (THC) is a restricted controlled drug (needs approval)

 

The court determined:

 

1. That the treating doctor determines whether the patient is a drug dependent person not staff at the health department or drugs of dependence unit etc.

 

2. If the doctor does not classify the patient as drug dependent the doctor is only required to give notice to the Director General of the treatment being prescribed. See section 120 Notice required if lengthy treatment with controlled drug.

 

3. If the doctor classifies the patient as a drug dependent person then the doctor "must" obtain approval from the Director General to treat the patient with controlled drugs. See section 122 Approval needed for treating drug dependent person with controlled drugs

 

The Health Act 1937 (QLD)

s 5 Interpretation

drug dependent person means a person—

(a) who, as a result of repeated administration to the person

of controlled or restricted drugs or poisons—

(i) demonstrates impaired control; or

(ii) exhibits drug-seeking behaviour that suggests impaired control;

over the person’s continued use of controlled or restricted drugs or poisons; and

( who, when the administration to the person of controlled or restricted drugs or poisons ceases, suffers or is likely

to suffer mental or physical distress or disorder.

 

http://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/LEGISLTN...T/H/HealA37.pdf

 

See ss 120 and 122 of the Health (Drugs and Poisons) Regulations

 

http://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/LEGISLTN...ealDrAPoR96.pdf

 

grace

[entheofarm]

grace, am I reading into it wrong? Cannabis would not be covered under the Health Act (Qld) regarding dependence?

 

Interestingly SWIM went to the Doctor in Qld today regarding a back injury sustained earlier in the year, He pointed out to the doctor that all the medication so far had caused bad reactions and that he would down right refuse any more prescribed painkillers and that he had looked into a certain herbs medicinal benefits. The Doctors response was: "No No NO, we can give you other medications with less adverse reactions" SWIM pointed out that the certain herb did everything his so called medicine could do and didn't have any of the negative effects that the drugs he was tring to palm off have. SWIM is looking for a new doctor who won't try and force prescribed drugs onto him. Sadly SWIM is too scared to go near the certain herb due to fear of legal action, damned if you do damned if you don't.

[Rocker]

Guess who will be involved in defining a person as drug dependent.

Of course the process will be fair and equitable.

 

Yeah, right.

[grace]

grace, am I reading into it wrong? Cannabis would not be covered under the Health Act (Qld) regarding dependence?

 

Interestingly SWIM went to the Doctor in Qld today regarding a back injury sustained earlier in the year, He pointed out to the doctor that all the medication so far had caused bad reactions and that he would down right refuse any more prescribed painkillers and that he had looked into a certain herbs medicinal benefits. The Doctors response was: "No No NO, we can give you other medications with less adverse reactions" SWIM pointed out that the certain herb did everything his so called medicine could do and didn't have any of the negative effects that the drugs he was tring to palm off have. SWIM is looking for a new doctor who won't try and force prescribed drugs onto him. Sadly SWIM is too scared to go near the certain herb due to fear of legal action, damned if you do damned if you don't.

 

Sorry the footnotes have not come through ... but just some legal precedent on what the courts have held in respect of

The Right to Accept or Refuse Treatment

 

In Rogers and Whitaker, the High Court stated that the courts have also adopted the principle that, while evidence of acceptable medical practice is a useful guide for the courts, it is for the courts to adjudicate on what is the appropriate standard of care after giving weight to "the paramount consideration that a person is entitled to make his own decisions about his life."

 

In Canada, the Ontario Court of Appeal, in Malette and Shulman, awarded damages against a doctor who transfused blood into a patient who was unconscious as a result of a motor accident, but who carried a card saying that she would refuse blood transfusions. In delivering the court's judgment Justice Robins stated:

 

“A competent adult is generally entitled to reject a specific treatment, or all treatment, or to select an alternate form of treatment, even if the decision may entail risks as serious as death and may appear mistaken in the eyes of the medical profession or of the community. Regardless of the doctor's opinion, it is the patient who has the final say on whether to undergo the treatment. ... The doctrine of informed consent is plainly intended to ensure the freedom of individuals to make choices concerning their medical care. For this freedom to be meaningful, people must have the right to make choices that accord with their own values regardless of how unwise or foolish those choices may appear to others.”

 

Justice Robins added:

 

“Recognition of the right to reject medical treatment cannot be said to depreciate the interest of the state in life or in the sanctity of life. Individual free choice and self-determination are themselves fundamental constituents of life. To deny individuals freedom of choice with respect to their health care can only lessen, and not enhance, the value of life. This state interest cannot properly be invoked to prohibit Mrs Malette from choosing for herself whether or not to undergo blood transfusions.”

 

Justice Robbins also stated:

 

“The right to determine what shall be done with one's own body is a fundamental right in our society. The concepts inherent in this right are the bedrock upon which the principles of self determination and individual autonomy are based. Free individual choice in matters affecting this right should, in my opinion, be accorded very high priority.”

 

In England, in Re T (Adult: Refusal of medical treatment) the House of Lords has made it plain that the right to refuse medical treatment extends even to the point where refusal will result in the likely or certain death of the patient. Lord Donaldson acknowledged that there is an:

 

“absolute right to choose whether to consent to medical treatment, to refuse it or to choose one rather than another of the treatments being offered ... notwithstanding that the reasons for making the choice are irrational, unknown or even non- existent.”

 

Lord Donaldson also said:

 

“This situation gives rise to a conflict between two interests, that of the patient and that of the society in which he lives. The patient's interest consists of his right to self-determination - his right to live his own life how he wishes, even if it will damage his health or lead to his premature death. Society's interest is in upholding the concept that all human life is sacred and that it should be preserved if at all possible. It is well established that in the ultimate the right of the individual is paramount.”

In Australia, the same doctrine has been affirmed by superior courts.

 

In F against R the Supreme Court of South Australia considered a surgeon's duty to inform the patient of the risk that an operation will not succeed in its aim. Chief Justice King stated:

 

“The governing consideration is the right of every human being to make the decisions which affect his own life and welfare and to determine the risks which he is willing to undertake."

 

grace

[entheofarm]

grace,

 

SWIM said he agrees with everything stated by the justices in their decisions but is frustrated that it can not be applied to an individual case or similar cases in Australia as he feels the justices in local courts are being blinded by politics instead of drawing attention to points of law? SWIM feels he knows his body better than anybody and better than any legislation should tell him to!

 

SWIM is starting to lose faith and I think that is sad.