DRUG COURT OFFERS BETTER WAYS FOR DEALING WITH ADDICTS

On Jan. 13, I stood before a circuit judge in the mountains, beside a
client who had been indicted for stealing from Wal-Mart. She was a
right pretty lady, a mother, a wife. Less than 30 years old, she had
very little criminal history.

It was her medical and surgical history that had brought her here. She
was very tentative about discussing her past illnesses. A doctor had
told her, when she was 25, that she had "possible cancer" and
therefore needed a full hysterectomy. Federal benefits pay for those.

Later, a pain doctor told her that she had possible cancer "of the
spine." These operations and diagnoses were justifications for years
of narcotics pain prescriptions. It was under the influence of those
narcotics that my client had gotten into trouble with the law.

Last fall, the son-in-law of one of my very best friends had a heart
attack and died. One of his risk factors was the methadone he took
daily to keep him off OxyContin, one of the deadliest narcotics ever
manufactured.

He'd had a lot of back trouble. He was disabled from it. But a pain
clinic had given him OxyContin for "possible cancer," not his back. I
asked him, "Just what the heck is possible cancer?"

"It's what the doctor says I have," he replied. "My condition may be
cancer or may turn into cancer." It was, in fact, just the diagnosis
that those doctors were using to keep these folks coming back, sort of
like "possible polio."

The difference is that in this highly polluted region of America, with
many environmental problems and a very high rate of cancer, everyone
has somebody in his or her family who has died of "The Big C."

We have high unemployment in a culture where disability is vocation.
Everyone has a loved one who "draws a check."

They live in dread of cancer. This is the reason for the diagnosis. It
is not questioned because it is so drastic, so feared, yet not totally
unexpected due to its commonality.

This diagnosis is needed to keep the patient returning. It is made by
very few medical personnel and almost no local doctors. It is the few
unscrupulous medical providers who are making the money from this practice.

And I say unscrupulous because, frankly, you either have cancer or you
don't. You either need to be treated for it or you don't. And
narcotics don't do anything against cancer.

My friend's son-in-law is dead. His possible cancer didn't kill him,
but the remedy did.

My client may have a better prognosis. Her new, reputable doctor has
taken her off narcotics. Instead of prison, she now faces 18 months of
supervision by a drug court. If she can get and remain drug-free, she
will have those charges against her dismissed.

This is one of the brave new programs being tried in the mountains in
hopes of finding a way to change the culture. The culture must be
changed because such a tremendous amount of resources, both human and
financial, are being wasted because of drug addiction.

Drug court is a truly courageous attempt to turn this around.

Bill Hayes is a former prosecutor engaged in the practice of law in
southeast Kentucky and North Carolina.