Then came the CPH demand that I receive psychotherapy from one of two of their hand picked therapists. Again, treatment abuse. Who would conceive of any other medical patient not having the right to choose his own doctor? Their criterion was that the therapist be a board certified addiction psychiatrist. I found one on my own whom I trusted and they categorically rejected her. When I objected to this vehemently, they reversed. Jeez!

I discussed this treatment abuse with her prior to making an appointment. She understood and felt we would have no problems dealing with the CPH. I did my mandated therapy with her under secret protest which she was aware of and concurred with. She found Labins’ diagnosis inappropriate, his use of the DSMIV despicable and the CPH’s behavior most egregious. We got along fine and did good addiction work for the next 9 months at which time she pronounced me fit and no longer in need of treatment, which she didn’t think I needed to begin with.

After completing this chazari, I finally received the letter of advocacy from the CPH. It took six years, three years longer than it should have at the worst. For, in fact, I was no different from any other doctor addict except for the relapses, and most doctor addicts go through this process in months, not years. The CPH had kept its promise to itself, to keep me out of practice as long as possible because I didn’t get straight their way.

Restoration and the Dept. of Ed.: Three years after applying for the restoration hearing, I finally got a hearing date. My lawyer, who is completely powerless and useless at these hearings, and I began this process. The two hearings, 8 months apart, consisted of one panel made up of two doctors (who volunteer) and two lay people (who happened to be lawyers) while the other was three education dept. employees who thought they were addiction and recovery experts, were humiliating, biased and painful. Rather than used to discover information to make an unbiased recommendation to the board of regents, they seemed to serve the purpose of finding testimony by me to be misconstrued and twisted into good reasons why I shouldn’t be restored. If you read the testimony then read the reports of the hearings, that’s the only conclusion you could reach. They ignored all factual and documented evidence, and only included their twisted revisions of remarks I made in what they termed "the evidence." For the most part, they used feelings and remarks I had previously made about the initial revocation hearing 8 years ago as evidence for lack of recovery and lack of "sufficient" remorse which made me too dangerous to be relicensed to practice medicine as of today.

Are they so irrational as to believe the following worst case scenario is likely?

Assuming that their motive for denying my license is actually public safety let's look at the worst case scenario, in terms of public safety, if I were to be licensed under the restrictions I have offered. A. The same monitoring system that is already in place for all the rest of the recovering doctors including practice monitor, personal monitor (recovery), forensic urines done as frequently as you decide (within reason), and whatever other monitors deemed necessary (within reason). B. I voluntarily surrendered my right to a BNDD number, removing my ability to write prescriptions for controlled substances. This demonstrates how far fetched it would have to be to realize their worst patient damage fears.

Under these conditions you are saying I will:

1. Get my license.
2. Practice medicine.
3. Relapse back into addiction.
4. Immediately injure a patient before being picked up by a positive urine.

Under what circumstances and what risks would I be taking to accomplish this scenario?
Under this scenario, I would have to:
Relapse back into addiction after the 10 year battle to have license restored (same chance as any other recovering doctor).
Write illegal prescriptions risking a federal offense and jail time for second offense.(without BNND number, how do I write a prescription for my addictive drug?)
Or, get drugs from street pusher (risks arrest for this action after finally getting license back.
And then injure a patient due to my drug use before being picked up by the monitoring system.

There is no documented case of this occurring since the monitoring system has been put in place according to Dr. Talbot in his chapter in Substance Abuse - A Comprehensive Textbook, and recently confirmed by telephone. Thus, I would have to be the first case of this happening. Having no history of patient injury while previously addicted for three years, now, all of a sudden, I'm going to injure a patient between my last clean urine and the next dirty urine (possibly as short a time as a week, or even 1 day as I have volunteered), in other words, I am going to relapse, and before this is detected through this monitoring system they have put in place, more rigorous than used to pick up these relapses in all other recovering doctor's instances, I am going to injure a patient.

This entire series of events would have to occur for me to actually be a danger to the public. They are saying that the odds of this happening, that he is so devious and preternaturally dangerous, are so great in my case, as opposed to other recovering doctors cases, as to reasonably deny just my license under these circumstances, and this is not discriminatory? This case scenario is preposterous as much as it is a lie.

What is the objective evidence that you bring to this forum supporting your belief that this scenario would occur in my case, as opposed to all the other doctors who have had their licenses restored?

According to the ADA it is the Dept. of Ed.'s burden of proof to produce OBJECTIVE evidence, not "interpretation" of my remarks, opinions, or beliefs that differ from their opinions, or their opinion, fear, belief or fantasy, or use of generalizations about the disability, which would support their action of denial.

This is how the state of NY perceives addiction as a disease? I was treated as if I was still using and had in the past injured countless patients, something I had never done even when I was using while practicing. I was considered dangerous because I didn’t agree that I was not just potentially dangerous 10-12 years ago, but actually and definitively dangerous 10-12 years ago. To them, this opinion distinction is what makes me dangerous today? Give me a break. This is all a preposterous excuse to prejudicially denying my license, period, what they had planned all along.

Future: I am currently preparing to file an article 78 proceeding in accordance with the law as the only legal recourse available for appeal in the NYS Court of Appeals. Additionally, I am searching for federal and state agencies to sue the NYS Ed. Dept. under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the NYS Human Rights Act, both of which see recovering addicts as discriminated against disabilities.

Lastly, I have begun The National Association for the Advancement and Advocacy of Addicts to: 1) provide free of charge education about the real disease of addictions, 2) evaluate objectively research proposal most benefitial to the future science of addictions rather than to the scientific and political biases, and 3) actively advocate legally for addicts who are discriminated against, the only current legal recourse.

I hope to be relicensed soon so I will be able to have the credentials necessary to have patient contact and help individual patients with real diseases, my true calling. In order to accomplish this I have had to sue the Dept. of Ed. in NYS Supreme Court with an article 78. Hopefully the judge will see clearly enough to overturn the Dept. of Ed. and restore me to my rightful and useful place in medicine.

In conclusion: If the regulatory agencies responsible for overseeing addicted doctors demonstrating no actual danger to their patients while in practice want to ensure public safety while adhering to the antidiscrimination statutes of the federal government and their own states, as well as according to the disease model of addictions, the accepted model, they can easily do both. Policies for doing so would keep actively addicted doctors out of patient contact while ensuring there is ample rehabilitative support and resources for these sick people as well as protection of the doctor from career, business, and financial predators. These policies would be easily distinguishable from punitive and revengeful ones by there very nature. The attitudes behind these policies would originate from this question: - How do we help a sick doctor recover (irrespective of the illness), not cause patient harm due to the possible effect the illness may have on his decision-making abilities, while helping him to keep his practice and career intact for when he is ready to resume work? Policies can be worked out in conjunction with varied experts in the fields involved with the varying illnesses as well as administrators of the regulatory bodies. Criminalizing illnesses would be a last resort reserved only for doctors who are causing intentional interpersonal damage unrelated to the contingencies of their illnesses. Such an attitude would protect public safety while protecting the sick doctor and his family. Moreover, it would alleviate the need for nonproductive and wasteful disciplinary hearings, legal nonsense, and unnecessary administrative battles which misutilize administrative resources required for dealing with real threats to the public safety and health welfare as suggested by the reports from the National Academy of Sciences dealing with systemic health care issues causing by far the overwhelmingly largest percentage of patient injuries.

Don’t you agree that addicted doctors would more readily volunteer for recovery within the atmosphere of this attitude and thus do so earlier and more propitiously, thus actually preventing any future patient harm? Isn't this our true goal?

Treating addicted doctors according to the appropriate medical disease model will also go a long way toward changing warped and bigoted societal attitudes toward all other addicts, a much needed change needed by our society at large. Under the above attitude, none of the damaging, illegal, criminal, and unethical manipulations and abuses which I experienced would have ever occurred. There never would have been the need or desire for such horrendous behavior from practically all involved in my illness. The criminal justice and administrative regulatory system would be able to deal with issues more needing of their talents. The benefits this policy change would accrue for our society are immeasurable and enormous.