Timeline for Why doesn't House prescribe vicodin himself?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
10 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 27, 2016 at 2:48 | vote | accept | Michael Pittino | ||
| Jan 4, 2016 at 22:03 | comment | added | cde | @crow unethical behavior is grounds for legal punishment for certain professions, like a doctor or lawyer. | |
| Jan 4, 2016 at 21:22 | answer | added | Evorlor | timeline score: 4 | |
| Jan 4, 2016 at 20:44 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/StackMovies/status/684113136710991872 | ||
| Jan 4, 2016 at 19:14 | comment | added | Pesetas74 | I guess that in the case of House, he was simply concerned that the constant self-prescribing of vicodin (an opiate) would have certainly raised more than one flag. He just knows he couldn't get away with it. article. It also seems that in America the matter is disciplined at a State level, therefore it may vary a lot article2 | |
| Jan 4, 2016 at 18:57 | comment | added | sanpaco | If it were simply due to the fact that it was unethical then House would get around it. I believe he does steal other doctors prescription pads and write himself some at one point but using the other doctor's signature. What I believe the TL;DR version of what @CrowTRobot is saying though is that there are regulations against doctors being able to write prescriptions for themselves. | |
| Jan 4, 2016 at 17:51 | comment | added | Crow T Robot |
... They also say Except in emergencies, it is not appropriate for physicians to write prescriptions for controlled substances for themselves or immediate family members. Both of these suggest to me that it's not illegal (at least at a federal level), but I'll wait and see if anyone else can find out more.
|
|
| Jan 4, 2016 at 17:49 | comment | added | Crow T Robot |
It seems to be classified as unethical by the American Medical Association (under Opinion 8.19) except In emergency settings or isolated settings where there is no other qualified physician available, but I can't find much information on what this actually means. The AMA FAQ makes it sound like the doctor has to be a member of the AMA (only 30% of US doctors are) and that someone else in the AMA would have to complain about it, and then it could be investigated and their membership could be suspended, but that doesn't seem to mean anything more than being barred from joining a union ...
|
|
| Jan 4, 2016 at 17:34 | review | First posts | |||
| Jan 4, 2016 at 18:12 | |||||
| Jan 4, 2016 at 17:34 | history | asked | Michael Pittino | CC BY-SA 3.0 |