I’m very happy about the Supreme Court’s recent decision on abortion rights.
The law provides “few, if any, health benefits for women, poses a substantial obstacle to women seeking abortions, and constitutes an undue burden on their constitutional right to do so,” Justice Stephen Breyer wrote for the court…
But I can’t help wondering about the rights of pain patients, and how the DEA poses a substantial obstacle to women and men seeking treatment. For every woman to have access to all treatment options in reproductive health care, abortion had to become a constitutional right.
Do pain patients have a constitutional right to treatment? Do we need to make it a constitutional right for pain to be treated? Something to think about.
The case tested how much leeway the government has to regulate clinics in the name of protecting women’s health. The effect of the law was to leave some patients hundreds of miles away from the nearest provider…
The DEA has been responsible for the closure of hundreds of pain clinics, along with criminalizing hundreds of doctors willing to prescribe opioids, all in the name of the drug war. In the name of protecting the health of those who suffer from drug addiction.
How many pain patients are now hundreds of miles away from the nearest provider? Hundreds of miles away from the nearest drug store willing to fill their prescriptions? And because of government regulations, many drug addicts cannot find or afford treatment, either.
“Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” That’s part of the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. Does current law give us the right to pursue liberty from pain?
All Things Chronic 