Amicus Briefs / Emergency Petitions
/ Comments on Proposed Regulations
v. Lane Labs-USA
We filed an amicus brief in the case of USA v. Lane Labs-USA in partial
observation to the government’s motion for summary judgment. Our
position is that the government’s request will impose an overbroad
ban on sales of substances that may lawfully be sold under the Food
Drug and Cosmetic Act as dietary supplements and cosmetics. It would
also impose an unconstitutional burden on protected speech in violation
of the First Amendment.
View full text of the USA v. Lane Labs-USA Amicus Brief (WORD doc)
Amicus Curiae Brief in
Support of Robert Sinaiko, M.D.
The California Medical Board has placed Dr. Robert Sinaiko, a well-respected
San Francisco physician, on five years probation (after trying unsuccessfully
to revoke his license for several years) for using so-called alternative
therapies to treat multiple chemical sensitivities, allergies, ADHD,
Candida and chronic fatigue. After many years of battling the Board
for his right to use nonstandard approaches, he has filed an appeal
challenging the Board's action as an unlawful restriction of his right
to practice sound medicine. We filed an amicus brief stating, among
other things, that if the Board's decision is upheld, it will define
as "unprofessional conduct" the provision of nutritional therapy
for ADHD, and effectively make prescription of Ritalin required treatment
for this condition.
This could be a landmark case, as California
is a bellwether state, and the Board's action clearly infringes on physicians'
abilities to decide which approach is best for each patient. The appeal
also challenges cost recovery provisions used in many states; questions
boards' abilities to dismiss the testimony of expert witnesses that
disagree with the board's position; questions the propriety of boards
going after doctors beyond classic negligence situations and examns
the expansion of the scope of their oversight. All of these issues have
come into play in other states where boards are harassing and censuring
physicians who use complementary and alternative therapies.
Other organizations have also filed amicus
briefs, including the California Medical Association, the Center for
Science in the Public Interest, the United Association of Physicians
and Doctors, and the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons.
text of the Amicus Brief (WORD doc)
The Progress in Medicine Foundation has established
a web site and legal defense fund for Dr. Sinaiko. Click here to visit
their site: www.treatmentchoice.com
Ric and Paula Schiff Law Suit
AAHF filed an Amicus brief in support of a lawsuit brought by Ric
and Paula Schiff against physicians on the University of California,
San Francisco hospital tumor board for withholding information which
led them to believe that their only choice was to pursue treatment regimes
that had never succeeded in curing a single instance of childhood rhabdoid
brain cancer which had afflicted their young daughter. Our brief addresses
the issue of whether informed consent in the treatment of a terminal
illness can be meaningful without the disclosure of potentially efficacious
experimental treatments in those instances where conventional treatments
have proven ineffective. When the trial court granted summary judgment,
the Schiffs appealed to the San Francisco County Superior Court. A decision
is expected sometime in 2001. If the Schiffs are successful, the Superior
Court will remand the case back to the trial court, where the family
will have a trial by jury. A victory in this case could dramatically
alter the behavior of physicians and hospitals in California and, by
inference in other states which require physicians to notify patients
of any and all reasonable treatment options.
to view full text of the Amicus Brief.
to Legal Affairs