Jump to content

Do You Know What Your Registered Patients Condition Is?


t-pain

What do you know?  

23 members have voted

  1. 1. Do you know your registered patients condition?

    • yes
      22
    • no
      1
  2. 2. Do you know how much marijuana your registered patient needs?

    • yes
      20
    • no
      3
  3. 3. Do you know the name of the doctor who certified your registered patient(s)?

    • yes
      19
    • no
      4


Recommended Posts

Thanks Doc i guess you must mean that a Caregivers Job is more then just growing Cannabis i can agree to that part

Even if the patients doesn't want you to know what they have and just wants to try and see what works, say just starting with indica for one affect and a sativa for another?   If the patient just wants privacy and to do it themselves?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My first prospective patient is a friend of my wife's and his job would require complete secrecy.  Trying to paint me as a "bad" guy won't get you far.

A supplier just supply's and a caregiver supplies to a certified patient according to their wishes?  Again what about HIPAA and privacy?  Your thoughts?

My feeling is that the caregiver is part of the treatment team and brings his/her expert knowledge of strains to bear on the patient's symptoms.  Having a card or not is not the difference between a caregiver and a supplier.  Care giving clearly implies you are part of treatment.  Supplier means you supply.  There is a difference.  The law requires caregiving.  As such, Hippa certainly doesn't come in to play.  It is like saying I admit a patient to the hospital but the nurses don't need to know what is wrong with the patient due to Hippa.

 

Dr. Bob

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My feeling is that the caregiver is part of the treatment team and brings his/her expert knowledge of strains to bear on the patient's symptoms.  Having a card or not is not the difference between a caregiver and a supplier.  Care giving clearly implies you are part of treatment.  Supplier means you supply.  There is a difference.  The law requires caregiving.  As such, Hippa certainly doesn't come in to play.  It is like saying I admit a patient to the hospital but the nurses don't need to know what is wrong with the patient due to Hippa.

 

Dr. Bob

So nurses can disclose any info they get?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So nurses can disclose any info they get?

again, no bearing on the discussion and reflects a lack of understanding of both Hippa and the care team concept. There is NO reference whatsoever to nurses disclosing the information to outside parties in the setting of knowing what the patient is admitted for by the doctor.

 

Nurses (and doctors) very definitely must disclose that information in a legal setting as noted in the Hippa regulations. 

 

Since this is causing some confusion with you, perhaps discussing it privately might help.  Feel free to PM me.

 

Dr. Bob

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We were just discussing, in another thread about how strains affect different people differently.  How is one supposed to work w/ that?  Isn't there lists of what supposedly works with what?  If not I'm never going to be able to figure it out any better than a patient or doctor printing out the same page and going thru the list.

Edited by Norby
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We were just discussing, in another thread about how strains affect different people differently.  How is one supposed to work w/ that?  Isn't there lists of what works with what?  If not I'm never going to be able to figure it out any better than a patient or doctor printing out the same page and going thru the list.

Excellent point, that is where the experience of the caregiver is an invaluable part of the treatment team.  Experience and expert understanding of strains.  That is why I work with compassion clubs to bring those experienced caregivers into contact with my patients.  The networking and education aspects of compassion clubs is very valuable.

 

Dr. Bob

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Excellent point, that is where the experience of the caregiver is an invaluable part of the treatment team.  Experience and expert understanding of strains.  That is why I work with compassion clubs to bring those experienced caregivers into contact with my patients.  The networking and education aspects of compassion clubs is very valuable.

 

Dr. Bob

And I'm all for it being available, I think it would help and would offer all I have but I don't think it should be MANDATED as a jailable offense if the patient(remember this is who we're supposed to be helping) doesn't want the help because say most anything helps for their depression(or whatever affliction).  Some people are paranoid and maybe thats part of their condition, why worsen it?

Edited by Norby
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We were just discussing, in another thread about how strains affect different people differently.  How is one supposed to work w/ that?  Isn't there lists of what supposedly works with what?  If not I'm never going to be able to figure it out any better than a patient or doctor printing out the same page and going thru the list.

It is a  Practice after all.

 

We Need Sunshine Organic Strains to Naturally Produce ALL the Best Meds

Link to comment
Share on other sites

bob can you show me where it says i have to provide or be able to provide such info to a judge?  ive never heard of such a thing, if it happens while you are in court do your job and inform the judge he isnt a dr so he has no back ground to judge anything medical valid or not.

Have you read the CoA decision GW?  Perhaps you might like to know what we are discussing before interjecting something that really isn't helpful to the discussion.

 

People v Hartwick  here is the link...   http://michiganmedicalmarijuana.org/topic/44948-people-v-hartwick-coa-mmma-published-opinion/

 

Dr. Bob

Link to comment
Share on other sites

bob can you show me where it says i have to provide or be able to provide such info to a judge?  ive never heard of such a thing, if it happens while you are in court do your job and inform the judge he isnt a dr so he has no back ground to judge anything medical valid or not.

 

The law states:

 

(d) There shall be a presumption that a qualifying patient or primary caregiver is engaged in the medical use of marihuana in accordance with this act if the qualifying patient or primary caregiver:

(1) is in possession of a registry identification card; and

(2) is in possession of an amount of marihuana that does not exceed the amount allowed under this act. The presumption may be rebutted by evidence that conduct related to marihuana was not for the purpose of alleviating the qualifying patient's debilitating medical condition or symptoms associated with the debilitating medical condition, in accordance with this act.

 

While the COA decision adds some additional complication to caregiving, it really isn't as far out of line as people want to believe.  If you are a CG, then your conduct with MJ must be for the purpose of treating your patient's condition.  How can a CG possibly claim that his conduct with MJ is for the purpose of treating a patient's condition if the CG doesn't even know what the condition is or what is needed to treat it?

 

This ruling, in a sense, aligns caregiving more with traditional medical assistance.  It places at least some responsibility on the caregiver to know what his product will do to/for a patient.  If you are a CG and have a patient with high blood pressure and who is prone to anxiety attacks, maybe that is something you need to consider before you'd provide medibles that might land him in the hospital.

 

This ruling draws a very bright line between the act of simply growing MJ and actually caregiving.  In some ways, this is a benefit to our community because it shows that caregivers aren't just "weed growers."  They need to have more knowledge/skill/concern.

 

Let's be real.  How hard is it to comply with this?  You ask you patient what ailments he's treating, you help him select meds, you ask him how much he needs and how frequently.  You write that stuff down.  Done.  And now as a CG you enjoy a new and elevated status as a professional person with some valuable knowledge and background.

 

The courts decided that caregiver is a big responsibility.  I'm not sure why this is a bad  thing.  The ruling lends additional legitimacy to those who follow it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not that hard, apparently, as 90+ percent are already doing this according to the poll above.

90% here, should the other 10 go to jail?  Are they being a bad caregiver if they offer and the patient doesn't want the "records"?  What about the ones not entered in the poll?  I can't see the results because I am not a caregiver yet and can't participate, as would others who can't respond.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Norby, I sent you some information at your request, if it makes some sense of it you are welcome to repost it.

 

Highlander hit the nail on the head.  Let's repeat it so that it is very clear....

 

Again it is the MEDICAL CAREGIVER vs Supplier issue.

 

 

If you are a CG, then your conduct with MJ must be for the purpose of treating your patient's condition.  How can a CG possibly claim that his conduct with MJ is for the purpose of treating a patient's condition if the CG doesn't even know what the condition is or what is needed to treat it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

That is a lie. Tell us where we can find the requirement for caregivers other than that we must be more than at least 21 years old and agree to assist with a patient's medical use of marihuana and have not been convicted of any felony within the past 10 years and have never been convicted of a felony involving illegal drugs or a felony that is an assaultive crime as defined in section 9a of chapter X of the code of criminal procedure, 1927 PA 175, MCL 770.9a. That we do help in this regared is a great gesture, but sure is not required. Because judges are corrupt does not change the law. That you insist we do more than that, other than conform to the rest of the law, is despicable.Patients are, for the very most part, pretty up to speed with what works. If not, a sampling of the stuff works astoundingly well. We can then,introduce them to google and help walk them through a few steps. Many of us do help in that regard, but to state that there is a legal onus on us to do that is a lie. Don't pretend to be a lawyer, and I won't pretend to be an idiot.

Edited by GregS
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The law states:

 

(d) There shall be a presumption that a qualifying patient or primary caregiver is engaged in the medical use of marihuana in accordance with this act if the qualifying patient or primary caregiver:

(1) is in possession of a registry identification card; and

(2) is in possession of an amount of marihuana that does not exceed the amount allowed under this act. The presumption may be rebutted by evidence that conduct related to marihuana was not for the purpose of alleviating the qualifying patient's debilitating medical condition or symptoms associated with the debilitating medical condition, in accordance with this act.

 

While the COA decision adds some additional complication to caregiving, it really isn't as far out of line as people want to believe.  If you are a CG, then your conduct with MJ must be for the purpose of treating your patient's condition.  How can a CG possibly claim that his conduct with MJ is for the purpose of treating a patient's condition if the CG doesn't even know what the condition is or what is needed to treat it?

Umm. By listening to patients? It is not required under the law that caregivers conduct themselves in this fashion. The court is overstepping its bounds.

This ruling, in a sense, aligns caregiving more with traditional medical assistance.  It places at least some responsibility on the caregiver to know what his product will do to/for a patient.  If you are a CG and have a patient with high blood pressure and who is prone to anxiety attacks, maybe that is something you need to consider before you'd provide medibles that might land him in the hospital.

 

This ruling draws a very bright line between the act of simply growing MJ and actually caregiving.  In some ways, this is a benefit to our community because it shows that caregivers aren't just "weed growers."  They need to have more knowledge/skill/concern.

 

Let's be real.  How hard is it to comply with this?  You ask you patient what ailments he's treating, you help him select meds, you ask him how much he needs and how frequently.  You write that stuff down.  Done.  And now as a CG you enjoy a new and elevated status as a professional person with some valuable knowledge and background.

 

The courts decided that caregiver is a big responsibility.  I'm not sure why this is a bad  thing.  The ruling lends additional legitimacy to those who follow it.

This is a court ruling that has no basis in law. Jurisprudence has been bastardized here no less than it was by O'Connel and other prior COA judges.. We as caregivers are not responsible under the law to that degree, and to demand that we are is unlawful. I cannot imagine a court being more duplicitous than our own COA. I do not expect this decision to stand on appeal.

Edited by GregS
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...