Vit C: The Facts The Fiction and The Law

[Guest guest]

 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Orthomolecular Medicine News Service, November 11, 2010 

 

 

Vitamin C And The Law

A Personal Viewpoint by E. Levy, M.D., J.D.

 

(OMNS November 11, 2010) As a patient, you have the right to any therapy that is

not prohibitively expensive, established to be effective, and not prohibitively

toxic.

 

Any physician, or panel of hospital-based physicians, claiming that vitamin C is

experimental, unapproved, and/or posing unwarranted risks to the health of the

patient, is really only demonstrating a complete and total ignorance or denial

of the scientific literature. A serious question as to what the real motivations

might be in the withholding of such a therapy then arises.

 

A doctor has the right to refuse to see you or treat you. A doctor does not have

the right to deny you any therapy that is inexpensive and known to be effective

and nontoxic; if there is toxicity involved, the patient can discharge his

responsibility for such toxicity with proper informed consent. A doctor does not

have the right to deny you consultation with another doctor that may have

conflicting medical points of view.

 

Just as ignorance of the law is no sound defense to legal charges brought

against you, ignorance of medical fact is ultimately no sound defense for a

doctor withholding valid treatment, especially when that information can be

easily accessed

 

While a hospital may or may not have a legal right to dictate to its physicians

what they may or may not do, the patient and the family of the patient have the

legal right to sue that hospital for any negative outcome that is perceived to

directly result from such interference in patient care.

 

The patient and the family of the patient also have the right to sue any

physician that refuses to administer an inexpensive, nontoxic therapy that is

established to be of use in the medical literature, such as vitamin C,

especially when no other options other than permitting the patient to die are

offered. Doctors have a very strong herd mentality, and they do not thrive well

when forced to deal with a lawsuit alone, and possibly not even with the backup

of their malpractice insurance company, which would seriously question why an

approved medicine such as vitamin C was withheld from the patient. Remember that

any insurance company always looks for a legal way not to pay expenses or

settlements.

 

In a court of law, legal decisions regarding medical issues are usually decided

by comparing a doctor's actions (or inactions) to the accepted standards of

medical practice in the community in question. The legal sticking points relate

to how different that community might be from others, and whether the accepted

standard of practice is too far deviated from overall mainstream medicine norms.

 

The legal system struggles with reconciling something well-established in the

medical literature, but not reflected in the standard medical textbooks. A case

involving withheld vitamin C would not currently have any direct legal precedent

of which I am aware, but there are multiple reasons to believe that the time is

ripe for the law to rule for the patient's right to receive vitamin C in the

hospital over the doctor's " right " to withhold it.

 

The time for changing the view of vitamin C by the law and mainstream medicine

has arrived. Over the past 20 years, many more doctors have begun to routinely

give 50 grams (50,000 mg) or more of vitamin C intravenously on a regular basis

to patients with the entire gamut of medical conditions. These doctors have come

from the same medical schools and postgraduate training programs as their

unlike-minded mainstream counterparts, meaning they have the same traditional

credentials and warrant equal consideration.

 

The law recognizes that there is no one perfect medical approach to a patient.

Having an increasingly large body of doctors who recognize the importance of

vitamin C will allow the courts to permit an additional " school of thought " as

long as enough traditionally-trained doctors think that way. The question yet to

be legally determined is, How many such doctors is " enough? "

 

Under United States law, the long-standing Frye standard (1923) held that expert

opinion based on a scientific technique is admissible only where the technique

is generally accepted as reliable in the relevant scientific community. This

standard made it almost impossible for any technique embraced by a minority,

however competent or appropriately trained, to ever coexist with, much less

supersede, a technique embraced by the larger scientific community. Basically,

majority always wins, and minority always loses.

 

The Daubert standard (1993) finally replaced the Frye standard.

Daubert held that the court should:

 

1. Evaluate whether the science can be or has been tested

2. Determine whether the science has been published or peer-reviewed

3. Consider the likelihood of error (quality and quantity of the data)

4. Evaluate the general acceptance of the theory in the scientific community

If the court is so inclined, the evaluation of general acceptance in the

scientific (medical) community does not have to invoke the " majority rules "

nature of the earlier Frye standard. Rather, it can allow the consideration that

enough scientific studies embraced by enough qualified doctors could prevail

legally. However, any final ruling would be heavily dependent on the particular

facts of the case and the precise intervention requested of the court.

 

The principles of Daubert do not assure a victory for vitamin C proponents in a

court of law, but they do allow an objective judge to see that the body of

evidence supporting vitamin C usage is clearly established in the mainstream

medical literature, warranting a thorough legal evaluation as to why it is not

yet a permissible therapy. These principles allow for much more flexibility than

the earlier Frye " majority rules " standard.

 

Also, with any individual case in which a doctor refuses to administer vitamin C

and serious damage (including death) occurs, a strong legal case can be now be

made that the burden of proof falls with the doctor to show:

 

1. That the therapy was exceptionally expensive, toxic, and/or unproven

2. That the patient's best interests were somehow best served by withholding

vitamin C

Always try to make an alliance with your doctor and avoid an adversarial

relationship if at all possible. Theoretically, if your doctor really wants to

do what is best for the patient and is not more concerned with being told what

to do, much stress and conflict can be avoided by all. However, do not hesitate

to let your doctor know directly that you will avail yourself of all your rights

or your family member's rights as a patient to optimal health care if so forced.

 

A very common " out " in all of these scenarios is to suggest that " further

studies " should be done. More information is always useful, but vitamin C has

already been researched more than any other supplement, or even most

pharmaceutical drugs, in the history of the planet. Don't allow another 70 years

of research to transpire before its proper use begins.

 

Stand up for your rights today. The way medicine is practiced will never change

until the public demands it and the law legitimizes it. Remember, it's your body

and your health. Doctors are answerable to you, not you to them.

 

 

Levy, M.D., J.D. is a graduate of the Tulane University School of

Medicine and the University of Denver College of Law. He board certified in

Internal Medicine and is also a Fellow of the American College of Cardiology. He

was admitted to the Colorado Bar in 1998 and the District of Columbia Bar in

1999. Dr. Levy is on the Editorial Board of the Orthomolecular Medicine News

Service.

 

 

 

References:

 

Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923)

Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579 (1993)

 

An expanded version of " Vitamin C and the Law " by Dr. Levy is available as a

free pdf download at http://www.tomlevymd.com/downloads/VC.NZ.Sept.2010.pdfor

http://www.doctoryourself.com/VC.NZ.Sept.2010.pdf

 

 

 

Nutritional Medicine is Orthomolecular Medicine

 

Orthomolecular medicine uses safe, effective nutritional therapy to fight

illness. For more information: http://www.orthomolecular.org

 

The peer-reviewed Orthomolecular Medicine News Service is a non-profit and

non-commercial informational resource.

 

 

 

Editorial Review Board:

 

Ian Brighthope, M.D. (Australia)

Ralph K. , M.D. (USA)

Carolyn Dean, M.D., N.D. (Canada)

Damien Downing, M.D. (United Kingdom)

Ellis, M.D. (Australia)

, D.Sc., Ph.D. (Puerto Rico)

Steve Hickey, Ph.D. (United Kingdom)

A. , Ph.D. (USA)

Bo H. Jonsson, M.D., Ph.D. (Sweden)

Levy, M.D., J.D. (USA)

R. Miranda-Massari, Pharm.D. (Puerto Rico)

Paterson, M.D. (Canada)

Gert E. Shuitemaker, Ph.D. (Netherlands)

Jagan Vamanan, M.D. (India)

 

 

http://www.doctoryourself.com/VC.NZ.Sept.2010.pdf

http://orthomolecular.org/resources/omns/index.shtml

 

http://www.orthomolecular.org/forms/omns_subscribe.shtml

God Bless !!

dragonflymcs

Mayleen

[Guest guest]

I have corresponded with Dr. Levy several times over the recent years. I have

also studied the research of Dr. Alfred Klenner's use of vitamin C from the

30's and 40's.... well before Linus ing and Dr.Levy. I have personally used

oral ascorbic acid at high doses and found improvement. ( Each person's dose is

variable and mine was 20,000 - 25,000 mgs per day) For me the results speak

volumes...... so much so that when I went to the Fibro and Fatigue Center.. they

thought I was a hormone only patient.... when actually I have CFIDS and have the

dreaded multisusceptible genetic profile.

Thanks Mayleen for siting this article as I received it as well and didn't think

to post it. I believe in the power of C....

Kathi

>

>  

> FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

> Orthomolecular Medicine News Service, November 11, 2010 

>  

>  

> Vitamin C And The Law

> A Personal Viewpoint by E. Levy, M.D., J.D.

>

>  

> (OMNS November 11, 2010) As a patient, you have the right to any therapy that

is

> not prohibitively expensive, established to be effective, and not

prohibitively

> toxic.

>  

> Any physician, or panel of hospital-based physicians, claiming that vitamin C

is

> experimental, unapproved, and/or posing unwarranted risks to the health of the

> patient, is really only demonstrating a complete and total ignorance or denial

> of the scientific literature. A serious question as to what the real

motivations

> might be in the withholding of such a therapy then arises.

>  

>>  

>> dragonflymcs

> Mayleen

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

My pleasure Kathi,   I hope others will it read too.

 

  

God Bless !!

dragonflymcs

Mayleen

________________________________

From: Kathleen <kpmanganaro@...>

Sent: Fri, November 12, 2010 7:04:05 AM

Subject: [] Re: Vit C: The Facts The Fiction and The Law

 

I have corresponded with Dr. Levy several times over the recent years. I have

also studied the research of Dr. Alfred Klenner's use of vitamin C from the 30's

and 40's.... well before Linus ing and Dr.Levy. I have personally used oral

ascorbic acid at high doses and found improvement. ( Each person's dose is

variable and mine was 20,000 - 25,000 mgs per day) For me the results speak

volumes...... so much so that when I went to the Fibro and Fatigue Center.. they

thought I was a hormone only patient.... when actually I have CFIDS and have the

dreaded multisusceptible genetic profile.

Thanks Mayleen for siting this article as I received it as well and didn't think

to post it. I believe in the power of C....

Kathi