Do You Know What Your Registered Patients Condition Is?

[t-pain]

well do ya, punk?

 

obviously this poll should exclude caregivers for family members and patients with no caregivers.

Edited November 20, 2013 by t-pain

[trichcycler]

I know, right !. For years I safely assumed it was "pain", as it always turned out to be, everytime. People in Pain seek me out, cuz I'm special maybe?

I'm not so special anymore it turns out, because now that I've filed all info neatly for a few yrs I see many qualifying conditions besides pain. More people are coming out  to heal.  I couldn't sleep well  if I did not know this info, for treatment/reference sake, not to mention the court, which only recently came to my light.

 

I will admit though, how could I possibly know how much my patient needs?  they use as necessary, and order it up. Each uses exactly what they've agreed on at registration, I insist. I also pad their deliveries with gifts of more than they need. guilty!!

[Dr. Bob]

It is important that a caregiver know the condition and symptoms the patient seeks relief from.  My recommendation, and I'll be expanding on this later on my website and here, is to keep a copy of the patient's full application packet to the state.  That solves several problems- you know who the doctor is, you know the condition, you can see any recommendations, you can prompt the patient to follow up.

 

Dr. Bob

[bobandtorey]

All great advise but shouldn't it go both ways a patient should know things about their Caregiver  how the plants are grown and were ? i mean how far should all this go?

[Petyr]

All great advise but shouldn't it go both ways a patient should know things about their Caregiver  how the plants are grown and were ? i mean how far should all this go?

Is a patient ever going to end up in court being grilled about how and where his caregiver grew his meds?

 

Is a caregiver ever going to end up in court being grilled about how and where his patient got his recommendation?

[bobandtorey]

Is a patient ever going to end up in court being grilled about how and where his caregiver grew his meds?

 

Is a caregiver ever going to end up in court being grilled about how and where his patient got his recommendation?

I wish i knew the answer to all the above 

 

IMO i never knew that a court would ask a caregiver the things they did  so i don't know how far they can or would go in any court case ?

[trichcycler]

patient is the end user of the produce that caregivers are supplying to them. If a patient doesn't care how and why I grow cannabis, there's usually a couple more reasons added in the interview, for me not to register them in the garden. yes I know, a strict registry, but hey, it's mine.

[Dr. Bob]

Clearly the patient AND the caregiver will be grilled about their doctor, their condition, etc if it goes to a section 8 hearing.  Have your ducks in a row and remember, this is MEDICAL.  Caregivers should and apparently must be knowledgable about what strains work for what conditions.  They must grow those strains for their patients with those conditions.

 

One thing that would help Zap would be to make a specific forum in here to help caregivers with this decision.  I'll leave it to the growers and caregivers to determine how that is best done.

 

Dr. Bob

[GregS]

All great advise but shouldn't it go both ways a patient should know things about their Caregiver  how the plants are grown and were ? i mean how far should all this go?

It should meet the requirements of the law. Any more is not necessary in a court that operates in good faith and is a big mistake in one that does not. It does not matter that I know a patient's condition if that patient does not wish to tell me so long as they have a valid medical opinion that cannabis use can help. It does not matter how or where plants are grown as long as I conform to the law. That many pt/cg relationships permit or even encourage more disclosure than the law requires is interesting, but to say it is necessary is completely counter to the law.

Edited November 21, 2013 by GregS

[zachw]

Uh where is there any requirement that a caregiver know about the specific conditions of the patient? Yes it may be helpful if the caregiver has done research into what the best meds are for a condition - and can supply them - (e.g., high cbd for its anti-inflammatory properties, the lack of which was the main reason why I had to drop my last caregiver since that is what I was most interested in), but I otherwise see no reason that this information be divulged. Hell, even a pharmacist dispensing all kinds of dangerous drugs doesn't know the specific diagnosis for a medication he/she dispenses, nor could he/she find out this information due to HIPAA laws, nor does he/she usually have any kind of relationship with the patient whatsoever.

 

Has ANY caregiver been challenged in court as to WHY their patient with a legitimate card actually needs meds? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I seriously doubt it.

Edited November 21, 2013 by zachw

[GregS]

Clearly the patient AND the caregiver will be grilled about their doctor, their condition, etc if it goes to a section 8 hearing.  Have your ducks in a row and remember, this is MEDICAL.  Caregivers should and apparently must be knowledgable about what strains work for what conditions.  They must grow those strains for their patients with those conditions.

 

One thing that would help Zap would be to make a specific forum in here to help caregivers with this decision.  I'll leave it to the growers and caregivers to determine how that is best done.

 

Dr. Bob

You are the resident doctor here, and have never offered anything resembling professional help regarding our conditions. We are sick and injured people.

 

You'll leave it to us. Gee thanks B*B. That is a disgusting attitude from a sick little man. Signing certs keeps the meter running for you. Beyond that you offer nothing.

 

You mentioned the need to know a physician's credentials. What are yours?

Edited November 24, 2013 by GregS

[Dr. Bob]

http://w3.lara.state.mi.us/free/publicinfo.asp?rb_name=ON&rb_facility=&l_person_id=1572200&l_profession_id=51&l_license_id=1780031&Last_Name=TOWNSEND&First_Name=ROBERT&License_number=&Facility_Name=&DBA_Name=&profession=51&offset=0

 

Right there they are Greg, now walk away, I am in no mood for your personal attack nonsense, I am trying to concentrate on dealing with this issue for patients.  Sorry about your luck.

 

Dr Bob

Edited November 21, 2013 by Dr. Bob

[GregS]

Is a simple license registration, which is what that link offers, what you had in mind when you told us that we should know a physician's credentials? Should we know more?

 

Just askin'.

Edited November 21, 2013 by GregS

[Dr. Bob]

It is as much information as you need to be comfortable that the doc will stand behind you and his credentials will be accepted by the court.  I don't need to explain myself any more than that, I am well known in the MMJ community and the legal community.  I suggest if you have a problem you check with your lawyer.  My qualifications are well known and I don't care to let you turn this into yet another bashing session when there are far more important issue at hand.  

 

Now run along.

 

Dr. Bob

[GregS]

Why does your non-answer not surprise me? I hope to think that readers here see the absurdity in it.

 

"Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain." said Oz to Dorothy.

Edited November 21, 2013 by GregS

[Dr. Bob]

Other readers pay attention to what people write, do, and what people (especially lawyers) have to say about them.  Check out 'Victory in Paw Paw' on Planet Greentrees if you are unfamiliar with my activities or credentials.  You can also google YouTube for my testimony in Lansing.

 

Dr. Bob

Edited November 21, 2013 by Dr. Bob

[bobandtorey]

It should meet the requirements of the law. Any more is not necessary in a court that operates in good faith. It does not matter that I know a patient's condition if that patient does not wish to tell me so long as they have a valid medical opinion that cannabis use can help. It does not matter how or where plants are grown as long as I conform to the law. That many pt/cg relationships permit or even encourage more disclosure than the law requires is interesting, but to say it is necessary is completely counter to the law.

 but to say it is necessary is completely counter to the law

what else can we do they want what they say 

[bobandtorey]

As i see it now Caregivers will have no know Patients Medical reason's for using Cannabis and Patients Phone # and Addresses By heart because you won't get a note book to look at when you'll up on the stand 

[Dr. Bob]

It is the ruling of the CoA so it is the law until it is overturned.  It is the standard that is forced on us, right or wrong.

 

Follow it to be safe until it is overturned, if ever.

 

Dr. Bob

[GregS]

The law says otherwise. The SC has ruled on these matters in more than one case, pointedly telling the COA judges to get it right.

 

I don't give a damm, B*B, what you and your imagined experts (especially imagined lawyers), who you cannot produce, say about me. Cav wrote, in a message to me, "Well, and thank you for being a zealous advocate for the law.  I, for one, appreciate all of your efforts on this website and beyond."

Edited November 21, 2013 by GregS

[Dr. Bob]

The law says otherwise.

No, WE say the law says otherwise.  So what?  The ruling is the ruling.  That is the standard until it is overturned.  Our agreement is not required.  

 

Don't like it, challenge it.  I am sure that is in the works.

 

Dr. Bob

[GregS]

No, WE say the law says otherwise.  So what?  The ruling is the ruling.  That is the standard until it is overturned.  Our agreement is not required.  

 

Don't like it, challenge it.  I am sure that is in the works.

 

Dr. Bob

We are a community that wishes to use cannabis as the law allows. We are in agreement with the Supreme Court that has repeatedly ruled on precisely these issues otherwise. That you would suggest we should shut the hell up and take our lumps is a real indicator of your pathetic juvenile, if not downright childish, character. You have no interest except to tap our wallets for certifications. It is these kinds of comments that make that obvious. You are not a member of the community because you are neither patient nor caregiver. To reckon your place here, all we have to do is follow the money.

 

There are those of us who aim to stand against hokey pretense by the bench. You ain't one of us. We get that.

Edited November 21, 2013 by GregS

[Norby]

So the State now wants us to know about your patients doctor and their credentials, amount that should be used(guess we'll have to talk to the patients doctor about that one?) and their condition?  Seems like the state wants the caregivers to double check their work?  So the COA is basically saying LARA aren't checking doctors when we issue cards so you have to check or you can get in trouble?  Might as well go back to an illegal state, seems that it won't be much different.  At least in a non medical state I won't have to disclose info about me to a stranger w/ no protection for my health records?

 

FKIN ridiculous.  Is there any state in the union that a patient can get a break and not be treated any different under the law?  When is the last time a doctor or pill dispenser had to rattle off conditions and amounts for scripts for patients off the top of their head?  Guess I shoulda researched more before I gave my wife the go on looking for work in a "medical" state. 

Sorry just spouting off.  I was soooooo happy to be moving here and now I'm getting more and more set back.

 

I'm just sick and tired of living my life under a rug.  I'm darn good at what I do.  I've taken care of my affliction for 25+ years and I was very happy I could start helping others.  Now I don't know if I'll ever take on patients.  Seems like too much of a risk.  The law, as it is, is working against patients.

 

I'm sure as hell not going to ask a patients affliction if they don't want to tell me.  We aren't bound by whatever law to keep their info confidential, it shouldn't be required, period.

Edited November 21, 2013 by Norby

[bobandtorey]

It is my own opinion that if we do wish to use Cannabis as the Law allows then we need to know what the rules are and they have been spelled out by the C.O.A 

[Dr. Bob]

The point of the matter is that if you are a caregiver (or self growing patient for that matter) the court wants you to be able to tell, specifically, why you choose that particular strain to treat this particular symptom. Again, that supports medical use, vs 'the guy has a card so I grow whatever I have on hand for him'.  You can see the reasoning behind this in the 'medical rather than recreational' setting.

 

As far as the doctor's credentials, the state has a good site to check their license status, good doctors (and bad) are well known in the community, there has been MUCH written on what to look for in a certification clinic (doctor is NAMED, sees the patient, requires records, and does followup) and a brick and mortar clinic that does things other than MMJ certification is preferred.  See my website and how my clinics are set up as an example of how it should be.

 

Finally, for those of you that read the ENTIRE ruling, the last page contains a real gem.  It clearly says that if the doctor would provide a letter listing their name, the condition, the recommendations for dosing and follow up, and a statement outlining the bona fide relationship it would go a LONG way towards solving this 'problem'.  There is a clearly defined solution listed in the decision.

 

Every court ruling tells us what NOT to do, but in doing so also tells us what would have been acceptable.  The reasoning, unfairness, and consequences of the ruling is for the lawyers to argue and debate.  Complaining about a ruling does nothing, we need to learn from the ruling and modify our activities to the new standard, right or wrong.  Complaining about how it doesn't mesh with our understanding of the Act is pointless unless we are prepared to go to court and appeal it.  There are those that are doing that I am sure.  I'm not personally because I don't have the $50-100K to do so.  Do those that complain the loudest here have it?  If not, we need to concentrate on keeping patients safe under the ruling.

 

Dr. Bob