Same Day Multiple Prescriptions
 Why is Our Government Pursuing a War on Doctors?

Free Electronic Newsletter

In the words of the Pain Relief Act's architect:
The primary goal of this Act is to terminate actions against providers engaging in justifiable pain management practices as early as possible in the disciplinary or criminal process. The objective is to prevent unnecessary investigations, protracted proceedings, and inappropriate legal sanction. To this end, the Act provides that disciplinary action or state criminal prosecution cannot be brought against a health care provider under certain circumstances. Where such action is brought, the Act sets a procedural and substantive standard for the evaluation of the professional's practices.

The structure used to create this shield for providers engaged in appropriate treatment practices is a form of rebuttable presumption. A provider meeting the standards specified in the Act is presumed to be in compliance with disciplinary standards and criminal law; however, the disciplinary board or prosecutor may rebut the provider's demonstration of compliance with the Act's standards with clinical expert testimony.

Commentaries:
Sandra H. Johnson, Disciplinary Actions and Pain Relief: Analysis of the Pain Relief Act, 24 J.L. MED. & ETHICS 319 (1996). [HTML] [PDF]
Summary: Article outlines the major provisions of the Pain Relief Act, a proposed statute for states to emulate in formulating their own pain policies, and explains how it nullifies the risks of inappropriate legal sanctions against health care providers who employ legitimate pain management techniques. Johnson also compares the Act to several state statutes and notes the importance of these guidelines on intractable pain.

A substantial number of states have enacted intractable pain legislation based on the Pain Relief Act.