John "Cato" Tierney

On the 25th I wrote a post on that day's Op-Ed piece by John Tierney. It wasn't the first time that I complained of his shoddy work.

I considered his report on the unfair conviction of a Doctor to be unfair. While I conceded that the Doc might in fact be innocent, I thought that Tierney's coverage was only emphatic in his condemnation of the FEA agent involved and not the prosecutor. (an 'up and coming' Republican) I further thought it deceptive to concentrate on the witness who seemed to have committed perjury, and not the other witnesses nor the documentary evidence presented. I pointed out that there were plenty of greater injustices in our system, and expressed my disappointment that he chose such an odd one to promote.

Radley Balko of The Cato Institute was upset with me. His comment said that I was me an "hysterical ideologue." This surprised me because I also criticized Tierney for not giving credit to Balko, who had already covered the issue. In fact, I think Mr. Balko's reaction would have to be the one described as hysterical, and here's why.

He states that my "characterization of Tierney is laughable. He's hardly a Republican shill." I  in no way implied that he was. I did complain that he seemed to concentrate on the D.E.A. agents , rather than the prosecutor. I have this aversion to those who blame the one obeying orders rather than the one giving orders. It's the prosecutor who cut the deal to grant leniency to the witness Tierney says is a liar, not the agents. I did accuse Tierney of following in the footsteps of Safire. But in my opinion Safire's intellectual dishonesty is the more salient characteristic that Tierney imitates, not his less than doctrinaire support of Republicans.

Balko describes the war on drugs as contemptible. I completely agree. He is angered that I don't embrace a columnist that speaks out against it.  True, since Tierney has been writing for the Op-Ed page he has written on the war on drugs. Once. (Aug 9/2005) Out of 84 articles, one was about the war on drugs.  He has written much more often on  Balko's specialty: the "War on Doctors," and that's why Balko was so harsh about my criticism of an article covering his signature issue. But I also agree with them that any medical treatment that eases pain should be as widely available as possible.

So the question becomes one of why would Balko get so hysterical over my post? Because I suggest that what he paints as a grave injustice of  the War on Doctors, is not a big deal. Balko needs to fan the flames of indignation over his pet issue, because it is not an issue at all.

While the War on Drugs has tens of thousands of casualties, the War on Doctors doesn't even have tens. There is no war.  One of Balko's staunchest allies in denouncing this non-existent war is John Tierney. "Handcuffs And Stethoscopes" 7/23/05 and  "Punishing Pain" of 7/19/05 are two of his pieces. In the first he describes how the D.E.A., having failed to have much of an impact on  illegal drug use by imprisoning hundreds of thousands of crack dealers and drug gangs, "shifted their focus to doctors and the new scourge of OxyContin and similar painkillers." 

Tierney explains the shift in focus by saying: " As quarry for D.E.A. agents, doctors offered several advantages over crack dealers. They were not armed. They were listed in the phone book. They kept office hours and records of their transactions. And unlike the typical crack dealer living with his mother, they had valuable assets that could be seized and shared by federal, state and local agencies..."

On April 5, Balko had also explained it: ". It's easy to see why. Doctors keep records. They pay taxes. They take notes. They're an easier target than common drug dealers. Doctors also often aren't aware of asset forfeiture laws. A physician's considerable assets can be divided up among the various law enforcement agencies investigating him before he's ever brought to trial.

Surprisingly, Tierney in his piece on "Handcuffs" does not tell us how many doctors have been handcuffed in this war. Nor how many have been arrested, prosecuted or imprisoned.

Another of Balko's allies in his crusade, is the Pain Relief Network.  It is vigilant in following the "war." In 2005 it issued 78 News Bulletins.  Many of them concerned Pain Doctors and their legal problems.  But they were virtually all old news, covering legal machinations of doctors who had been arrested in previous years. The same cases are referred to over and over again.   This watchdog in the war issued bulletins covering fewer than five new arrests in 2005.

In a piece for The Cato Institute, Balko gives us a number. Sort of. "The high-profile arrests and prosecutions of physicians (up to 200 per year by one estimate) have caused many doctors to under prescribe." That's it. That's the War. Who made the estimate? And don't most prosecutions involved people who were arrested?  So the 200 per year might  really be only 100 different doctors? And some of them are undoubtedly guilty.

I am sure the Balko/Tierney team has done some good. It sounds like the case of Richard Paey is  truly a tragedy and a travesty.

Some libertarians, like Tierney and Balko, seem to specialize in phony crises. The War on Doctors is probably even less real than the War on Christmas. But these guys gain their fame and fortune by their supposed independence and their willingness to take on entrenched foes.  They are about  as independent and as willing to fight as a pair of tag-team wrestlers in the W.W.F. If they really care about the war on drugs; then they should fight against that war. Not against a myth. They should be supporting some of the half-million, mostly poor and powerless, in jail for drug offenses. Not the prosperous physicians. Unfortunately, it's a lot more profitable to protect those with power than those without.

But even more disheartening is their claim that the "high profile" prosecution of doctors means worse care for pain patients.  If true, that would be terrible. But the ones who make this bogus war high-profile are Tierney/Balko.  I am happy to report that there was over 2 Billion dollars worth of OxyContin sold in the last 12 months.

P.S. I'll post additional italicized comparisons Monday.

Comments

[deadantstomp]

The idea that it is damaging to our standard of healthcare if we prosecute doctors who are abusing their position and feeding life-threatening addictions for personal gain is utterly ridiculous. It is not unlike the popular republican notion that any type of regulation hurts business and weakens our economy and has equally disastrous results. Doctors are entrusted with taking care of the sick amongst us and this trust is not given blindly. When a few are abusing that trust it is in the best interest of both other doctors and the public that they be called to account for that.

[nightflyer]

I suggest that you all review the record related to the Dr. Rottschaefer case. The witness that John Tierney refers to is not the only one with issues. The prosecution granted deals to three of the five witnesses who testified. These individuals all had other offenses unrelated to the doctor. As for the remaining two witnesses, their credibility is seriously in question.

I think the issue her is that after the prosecution was given mounds of evidence hand written in the witness's own writing that she planned and did committ well over 20 counts of perjury, the prosecution has refused to take action.

Whether or not you agree the Dr. is innocent is illrelevant at this point. The concern is that the prosecutor's process is flawed and they are taking no action to resolve it. How do we know that this issue is not isolated to Dr. Rottschaefer's case? How do we know that similiar issues are not continuing in present cases?

We don't. An investigation is warranted.

[nightflyer]

In relation to documentary evidence at Dr. Rottschaefer's trial. None was presented. The evidence was circumstantial and relied on the testimony of five witness's paid for through deals, a dea agent who attempted to give medical opinions, and a physician who diagnosed the patients through reviewing the prosecution's amended medical charts (that's right the physician never met with the patients). To add to this travesty, the DEA had an informant within the doctor's office for over three years and no evidence that sex occured ever surfaced.

[John Syckes]

You overlooked the point that John Tierney's article covered two not one of the prosecutions witnesses. The full article noted that "One of the other witnesses, who testified in salacious detail about having oral sex with the doctor, was unable to say whether he was circumcised."

http://www.aapsonline.org/nod/newsofday259.php

[bbbustard]

Thanks for the comments. My point is really that there is no big war on doctors. Deadantstomp was completely right in my opinion. There are Docs who abuse their position - they should be prosecuted. Possibly Rottschaefer is a bad example. Maybe he should not have been prosecuted. Maybe he's innocent. I am not arguing that our system of justice is perfect. Thanks to John Syckes about the second prosecution witness mentioned by Tierney. Actually Tierney is not all that clear that it is a separate witness, but the link provided by Syckes is. Of course the link is to an advocacy group allied with Tierney. And the group is questioning the description of a penis by an admitted drug addict more than three years after having dealt with it. Some addicts stumble when asked their address of three years ago.
I am sorry that I am not as familiar with the case as nightflyer - but when he says the evidence was circumstantial, I think that he's saying it's was based on documentary evidence. Although I can't buy all of his arguments, I have no problem with the conclusion that an investigation is warranted.
My difficulty was in the sloppy description of the case by Tierney, and his assertion that it was part of a "war on Doctors"

[jim johnson]

Sir,

The evidence presented in the case was simply he said she said. Except for the doctor's medical records which the prosecution miscontrued, there was no factual information.

http://www.painreliefnetwork.org/bernard_rottschaefer_.html

"I have no problem with the conclusion that an investigation is warranted"

Exactly when would an investigation be warranted in your opinion? This witness wrote over a two year period how she planned and did committ perjury on 20 occasions. The investigators either looked the other way, were too incompetent to catch this person, or were in league with her. How many other investigations have these people messed up in this manner? In order to re-establish the credibility of the Western District of PA's operations, an investigation should be carried out.

"I am sorry that I am not as familiar with the case" Then why did you chose to comment with such an uninformed opinion.

[bbbustard]

I would like to say that I am surprised at your stubborn obtuseness. My opinion as to the merits of the case might be uninformed - I have not seen all of the evidence, nor was I in the courtroom during the trial. I am thus not in a position to come to a conclusion as to the honesty of witnesses. That, of course, is why we have a jury system - to try to solve the riddle of a "they said" - "he said" argument.To suggest that the prosecution "misconstrued" the documentary evidence is just silly. Was there no judge? Was there no defense attorney? Was the jury not allowed to look at the documents?
The actual opinion that I expressed, which was about Tierney's reporting, is not uninformed. He did a lousy job. Whether or not there is a problem with this case does not prove that there is a "war on doctors."
Although the oddly passionate, and entirely undocumented, comments here make me feel that there may be a war on truth. Would it hurt you to link to something which proves 20 instances of perjury?

Dear Sir,

I have lnked to the apeals documentation that is available on the web. It was on the web page that you characterized as bias. Also, you may seek the public record of the appeal which includes the 20 counts documented.

I've read the comments noted throughout your blog by others. All these comments are documented within the court testimony and the investigator's notes that did not make it into the court testimony.

Please do your research and stop attacking others that do theirs.

[jim johnson]

Read the supplemental appeal. It includes in detail the instances of perjury committed by the prosecution's witness.

[bbbustard]

Thanks for advising me about the links - it sure does seem that she committed perjury. I am curious as to why so much emphasis is placed on a drug addict's inability to remember whether or not the Doctor was circumsized three years later. I have not read the original testimony, but I am puzzled that so many of the statements by Dr Clough were seemingly so wrong. Why wasn't any of it noted at the trial? But these points are just things about which I am curious.
I have no problem with a new trial, or a new investigation for the doctor.
I still have a problem with Tierney's piece. There is no evidence that there is a war on drugs. If Tierney has in fact actually read the testimony, why does he not say so? His conclusion as to the parallell nature of the doctor not being able to tell that he was dealing with 4 drug addicts, to the agent's failure to catch one of them in perjury is ridiculous. Tierney does recognize that Doctors can do tests, but thinks it outrageous to expect them to do so. What I read in the links, left a lot of open questions about the case. So how come Tierney has none?