Published: Sunday, Oct. 20, 2013, 9:00 p.m.
Let's consider state House Bill 1694, which proposes a prescription-monitoring program that would alert officials to overprescribing of narcotics by licensed providers. The Pennsylvania Medical Society is working against the bill, arguing that it would violate doctor-patient confidentiality.
Passage of this bill would significantly reduce the amount of prescribed narcotics that hit the streets where our children start their opioid addiction, which leads to illegal drug usage. Institution of this type of monitoring program would reduce the amount of accidental drug overdose deaths; Kentucky has noticed an 80-percent drop in the last five years after institution of such a monitoring program.
I was born and raised in the Greensburg area and am a practicing general surgeon and father of two teenage girls in the Greensburg Salem School District, where I am a board member. This has exposed me to families that have lost beautiful children — children who usually started their addiction with legal prescribed narcotics.
Institution of this monitoring system would lower the amount of narcotics that reach our children, thereby preventing exposure that may lead to addiction. To save a child, readers should contact their legislators and the Pennsylvania Medical Society and insist upon passage of HB 1694 in its entirety. This may hurt a few physicians' egos, but it will save a life.
The writer practices medicine in Greensburg.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Prevailing wage downsides I
- Prevailing wage downsides II
- Hero at rest
- Eagles’ plight
- Double standard?
- Lies and disrespect I taught …
- Fuel tax increase
- Us & them
- Zubik is right
- Prevailing wage misunderstood
- Promotion questionable