Writing Letter for Emotional Support Animal

[elektroshok]

.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[psych md jd]

I am a forensic psychiatrist and I will be happy to evaluate you. Please PM me if you are interested.

My hourly rate is $500 per hour. From what you have stated above, I will waive my $10,000 retainer for the time being.

 

[elektroshok]

.

 

[psych md jd]

Check with your state Medical Board.

 

[eject]

even if your license weren't an issue (not sure about it), some states and many hospital employers/residency programs specifically frown on/scrutinize or outright forbid treating a significant other or family member--or yourself. Are you really your significant other's "treating physician?" Doesn't that seem problematic? Why take this risk?
Furthermore, even if you can somehow meet the technicalities, this kind of abuse of provisions for support animals is deeply unethical. Great way to start your career.

Edited to add: if this were anything other than a fraudulent scheme to avoid paying airline fees, she could go to an actual treating physician and get the paperwork she needs. Abusing prescribing power so you don't have to live by the rules that apply to everyone else contributes to the public's diminishing respect for the profession.

 

[psych md jd]

IMO the standard of care these days is that a good-faith exam has to be performed prior to treating [or in this case, providing a excuse]. To prove that an exam was performed, there has to be documentation. A history and exam should take no longer than a few hours. Your records will be reviewed, and then a DSM V diagnosis will have to be formulated. A person with an unrestricted license should sign your form. I would think that a training license covers only your residency associated educational activities.


Better call Saul.

 

[jonb12997]

The way you write this is that you're falsifying a medical document just so you can avoid paying an airline fee. This is illegal at worst, unethical at best...

 

[Dral]

You'll be an attending in a few years. Just pay the fees.

If you actually go through with this, I wish upon you 20 patients bringing in their workmans comp forms for you to fill out (when you know damn well they are still perfectly able to work) daily for the rest of your career.

If she actually does need it, do it legit and have a psychiatrist eval and write it.

 

[elektroshok]

.

 

[psych md jd]

FWIW, I write all sorts of excuses and letters on behalf of my patients.

They are all criminally insane felons or sex offenders, most of whom I have been treating for over a decade.

Even a jury duty summons disturbs them enough where they become anxious and some of them start hearing command auditory hallucinations to kill themselves or others.

A jury duty excuse sets their minds at ease.

 

[Raryn]

I have written letters for emotional support animals for my patients before to get them allowed to have their animal in an apartment that forbid that sort of animal. All I write is something like "I can confirm that Mr. XYZ has a documented history of anxiety and that per discussion, Fluffy has proven to be a source of relief for them.

Sincerely,
Raryn, MD"

Just ask your PCP. I wouldn't write it for myself.

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

I wouldn't be falsifying anything. I'd have a record of an H&P obviously documenting everything.
The only sound advice was that my training license doesn't cover things outside the institution - so I will just have to wait until I get my full license.
Thanks for the input.

No, it entirely sounds like you're falsifying this. Nowhere do you mention that either you or your significant other actually have anxiety that the dog relieves. In fact, you come right out and say that you're wanting to do this to save airline fees. If this is true, that's called lying. As you should have learned in kindergarten, lying is bad. As you should have learned in medical school, lying in an official capacity as a physician is also bad except now its your state medical board that gives you a spanking.

 

[rokshana]

Hey everyone -

So my gf lives out of state now that I moved for residency and we'll be traveling back and forth quite a bit to see each other. We have a small dog that we'd like to bring but not pay the fee to fly every time.

Has any other resident ever written a friend/SO a letter stating that that person has anxiety and thus benefits from the emotional support dog? Basically the airlines just need a letter by a doc stating that. I won't have my full license until next year, just the institutional one but they just ask the state/type of license (medical, mental health, etc.).

https://www.southwest.com/html/cust...ds_allergies_disabilities_pol_tab_list_tab_10

https://www.aa.com/i18n/travelInformation/specialAssistance/serviceAnimals.jsp

Thoughts?

pass it by your PD and see what he has to say...if he is ok with it, then no problem...

 

[Wordead]

Ignore the silly attendings and just do it, write her a script for some benzos while you're at it since you're the treating physician.

 

[hamstergang]

I'd have a record of an H&P obviously documenting everything.

And where would this record be?

 

[NotAProgDirector]

I'll give you an opinion as a PD. Under no circumstances, at all, should you do this. Whether you have a full or training license is immaterial. This is the type of thing that likely will cause no problem at all, but could blow up in your face badly. When you're a resident, everything you do needs to be supervised. Anything that isn't supervised is "moonlighting" and you will have no medmal or other protection for that.

If your GF really needs the dog on the plane for anxiety issues, then her physician should write a letter stating so. If not, what you're suggesting is fraud.

Let's say someone else is on the plane and is very allergic to dogs, needs to cancel their flight because of this. Or let's say the dog somehow injures someone. You could find yourself in deep trouble if anyone looks into this.

Pay to fly the dog like a normal person. Or leave the dog in someone's care when she comes. Unless she has a documented medical need for the dog to fly, your plan is unprofessional -- and if she does, getting the letter shouldn't be a problem. This is exactly the kind of thing that will trigger a BoM to take your license away. Don't be stupid.

 

[Doctor Bob]

As an aside... it always seems like when people come into the hospital with their "emotional support dogs", it's always some hyperactive yippy lap dog... the sort of breed that looks as though it needs constant benzo infusions. What's up with that?

"I'm super anxious... so I need this dog which is even more anxious than me to help put things into perspective"

 

[psych md jd]

This situation reminds me of something that happened when I was a medical student. It seems that the chief resident of surgery had to go in after hours to handle a matter. Since it was the middle of the night , he decided to park in a handicap spot. When he returned, he found that he had been cited. He decided to fight the citation at first through the hospital claiming there was an emergency that required him to park in that spot. Unable to get the citation dismissed, he decided to proceed to traffic court. Still unable to get his citation dismissed there, he decided to proceed to a full trial. At the trial, each of the nurses on duty that night were called to testify. They testified there was no "emergency" as the chief resident had claimed. Needless to say, the judge threw the book at him. He ended up spending several months in prison on a perjury charge and had to make up several months of missed rotations.

Stupid is as stupid does.

 

[DoctwoB]

This situation reminds me of something that happened when I was a medical student. It seems that the chief resident of surgery had to go in after hours to handle a matter. Since it was the middle of the night , he decided to park in a handicap spot. When he returned, he found that he had been cited. He decided to fight the citation at first through the hospital claiming there was an emergency that required him to park in that spot. Unable to get the citation dismissed, he decided to proceed to traffic court. Still unable to get his citation dismissed there, he decided to proceed to a full trial. At the trial, each of the nurses on duty that night were called to testify. They testified there was no "emergency" as the chief resident had claimed. Needless to say, the judge threw the book at him. He ended up spending several months in prison on a perjury charge and had to make up several months of missed rotations.

Stupid is as stupid does.

And the state paid around 75k in prison, court, and legal costs. Your tax dollars at work.

 

[michaelrack]

Agree with aProgDirector. Another reason not to do this is that it makes you a treating physician of your GF. When things go bad in your relationship, she could complain about you to the medical board (for example, claim that you forced her to have sex with you in payment for your professional services, etc)

 

[TraumaLlamaMD]

Emotional support animals have been in the news a lot recently due to how widely people are abusing this system. I wouldn't be surprised if requirements tighten at some point in the near future and I sure wouldn't want to risk a call from the government if anyone actually starts paying attention.

 

[mom2doc]

Emotional support animals have been in the news a lot recently due to how widely people are abusing this system. I wouldn't be surprised if requirements tighten at some point in the near future and I sure wouldn't want to risk a call from the government if anyone actually starts paying attention.

The abuse of the system will eventually lead to requirements becoming much stricter, as they should. My husband has a very severe allergy to dogs....and with the recirculating air in the plane, it doesn't matter how far away the seat is of the pet owner. We always check for pets on board, and board last minute, but are constantly getting off and rebooking because of these "support" animals. The flight attendants told us there are some routes....Palm Beach, Boca,Scottsdale...where on some days the majority of women on board (it's almost aways women) have a stupid frou-frou dog on their lap for "support." We have been working with our state Board and some legislators to institute spot checks of the notes and records, and we are making headway, as the airlines themselves have been having issues. This is fraud, and it's not victimless fraud.

 

[ThoracicGuy]

I'll give you an opinion as a PD. Under no circumstances, at all, should you do this. Whether you have a full or training license is immaterial. This is the type of thing that likely will cause no problem at all, but could blow up in your face badly. When you're a resident, everything you do needs to be supervised. Anything that isn't supervised is "moonlighting" and you will have no medmal or other protection for that.

If your GF really needs the dog on the plane for anxiety issues, then her physician should write a letter stating so. If not, what you're suggesting is fraud.

Let's say someone else is on the plane and is very allergic to dogs, needs to cancel their flight because of this. Or let's say the dog somehow injures someone. You could find yourself in deep trouble if anyone looks into this.

Pay to fly the dog like a normal person. Or leave the dog in someone's care when she comes. Unless she has a documented medical need for the dog to fly, your plan is unprofessional -- and if she does, getting the letter shouldn't be a problem. This is exactly the kind of thing that will trigger a BoM to take your license away. Don't be stupid.

This can't be repeated enough.

 

[Winged Scapula]

The abuse of the system will eventually lead to requirements becoming much stricter, as they should. My husband has a very severe allergy to dogs....and with the recirculating air in the plane, it doesn't matter how far away the seat is of the pet owner. We always check for pets on board, and board last minute, but are constantly getting off and rebooking because of these "support" animals. The flight attendants told us there are some routes....Palm Beach, Boca,Scottsdale...where on some days the majority of women on board (it's almost aways women) have a stupid frou-frou dog on their lap for "support." We have been working with our state Board and some legislators to institute spot checks of the notes and records, and we are making headway, as the airlines themselves have been having issues. This is fraud, and it's not victimless fraud.

"...cough cough..."

 

[Siggy]

And the state paid around 75k in prison, court, and legal costs. Your tax dollars at work.

To punish someone who was lying under oath over something trivial in terms of relative cost? Community service probably would have been better, but I'd rather my tax dollars go towards that than locking up drug addicts.

Of course if the resident was smart, he would have parked 5 feet away in the open non-handicapped spot, even if it's otherwise restricted/reserved. Park in the reserved clinic patient parking at that time of night. It's an easier argument and smaller ticket if anything.

 

[Siggy]

The abuse of the system will eventually lead to requirements becoming much stricter, as they should. My husband has a very severe allergy to dogs....and with the recirculating air in the plane, it doesn't matter how far away the seat is of the pet owner.

http://www.askthepilot.com/questionanswers/cabin-air-quality/

 

[Crayola227]

Agree with aProgDirector. Another reason not to do this is that it makes you a treating physician of your GF. When things go bad in your relationship, she could complain about you to the medical board (for example, claim that you forced her to have sex with you in payment for your professional services, etc)

I'm sure this varies by state, but if you start out in a romantic relationship and THEN become treating physician, it's almost legally impossible for the other person to make a suit stick unless they can show medical malpractice/negligence, the standard would be the same as for another patient. Your girlfriend and you entering into a therapeutic relationship is as stupid as it sounds to both of you on its face, so neither person can hold the other accountable for how idiotic that is, except, as I will explain. You would either have to be held accountable for your feelings consciously or unconsciously affecting care (you can be sued for this with any patient), or that you could reasonably suspect that her feelings for you as treating provider led to inadequate care and you should have referred/stepped down (again same standard). If she has all the s/s of syphilis and you don't make the dx when she's your girlfriend and it's because you a) didn't think of it for that reason b) didn't suspect that the patient might not be truthful with you in this circumstance, then you could go down, but again, if any other doc could have made the same missed diagnosis the girlfriend having chose to now use you as provider does not give an edge.

If you dot all your is and cross all ts in prescribing an antibiotic for sinus infection, and this is the same case for both patient and girlfriend, girlfriend still has to make the same case for malpractice as anyone.

On the other hand, if you start off as patient/doctor, then start boning, then that could be used against you later, because they can claim that any harm from boning was an extension of that relationship.

To sum this up, if my boyfriend becomes treating provider, any harms from that are either personal I willingly entered into, or medically related, and then you have to make the same malpractice case as anyone else, the edge the other party has in proving that is showing the boyfriend part led to malpractice.

OTOH, if you're patient/doctor and that's how this started, anything from then on romantically can be linked to that relationship and be malpractice.

As far as medical boards, they can do whatever the **** they want and it won't matter that the accusations don't hold in court, they have a different standard for deciding if you get a license, moral turpitude and the like.

This was what I gleaned from various chats with various lawyers over the years.

I could be wrong.

This makes sense to me because you see malpractice cases from patients-turned-lovers, but not from lovers-turned-patient.

But it always looks bad to the profession to treat your SO, and the attorneys I talked to said that the SO you treat, while they won't have a case based on that, they will have one if it's a legit malpractice case, and you may have better luck avoiding a case by apology with a stranger than your pissed off ex.

Just food for thought.

In any case, you're a resident, it's all supervised, people get away with lots of ****, but is it worth it?
Play it smart.

 

[pulmoblast]

Just pay the for the goddam ticket will ya !

 

[psych md jd]

I don't think my dog would like to travel in a plane. Instead, I think he prefers me to chauffeur him around while he has the back seat of the Lexus all to himself.

He likes to stick his head out the window. When the vehicle speed is just right and the wind direction is just right his lips start smacking to the delight of passers-by and other drivers.

While some other dogs spend their lives in a single yard, my dog has logged 40,000 miles going back and forth between the beach house and the country house, 400 miles a month for the last 8 years.

(Lately, he has been watching the mole family digging up the front yard, patiently sitting at the window watching their every move. Sometimes, I take him to look at the sea lions in the backyard, but he just starts barking at them and scares them back into the ocean. I don't think he sees the whales breaching or spouting.)

Is driving with the dog not an option?

 

[Doctor Bob]

they can claim that any harm from boning was an extension of that relationship.

If someone takes you to court claiming harm from boning, you're being too rough.

 

[chicagochildpsych]

As a treating psychiatrist in a wealthy zip code, I see this nonsense all the time. Real housewives of Chicago lady shows up, has done zero therapy, not had an adequate trial of ssri , and only wants Xanax and the letter for a dog. They usually leave with neither because I practice ethical medicine, the op should try it sometime.

 

[psych md jd]

Kinda like this DIY jury duty excuse:

http://m.savannahnow.com/latest-new...l-contempt-court-fined-jury-forgery#gsc.tab=0

 

[awared2]

It's interesting because not only can support dogs be taken on planes, but to my knowledge they can also be used as an excuse to keep certain restricted breeds in apartments that are generally not allowed

 

[Crayola227]

It's interesting because not only can support dogs be taken on planes, but to my knowledge they can also be used as an excuse to keep certain restricted breeds in apartments that are generally not allowed

Not too weird when you figure that from the apartment's perspective, larger dogs can inflict more damage to buildings and humans than smaller dogs (F=ma)
Yet, if you were blind, the larger dog would be better able to lead you based on size (F=ma)

therefore, while the apartment doesn't want to allow a German shepherd (because even if they have the same attack rate as a smaller dog) because if they attack their attacks have higher mobidity/mortality, none of this takes training into account of course
you can argue that the larger or smaller dog can be equally trained not to attack
you can't argue that the smaller dog is just as capable based on training to fulfill all service needs as a larger dog
in order to know if size is a factor in the selection of the service dog, one would have to know for what tasks the dog is needed

contrary to popular belief as well, the apartments do not have the right to ask for what condition the service dog is for under federal law

therefore, to satisfy compliance with federal law they can't get nitpicky on what dog I need for what condition

however, support dogs are not covered by Federal law
other laws could cover support dogs, but that would not be at the Federal level

at the local level re: support dogs, to sort this out, the physician and apartments have to be saavy to the laws, what to ask, and what they can't ask
I imagine some apartments are more or less willing to take on the legal effort to sort this out, the liability of looking into it further, and the liability of defending a suit denying a support dog (vs a service dog) even if such denial was legal
so I imagine that some places have gone the road that if a doc has signed for Fluffy the Big Red Dog, to just make an exception

 

[Law2Doc]

To punish someone who was lying under oath over something trivial in terms of relative cost? Community service probably would have been better, but I'd rather my tax dollars go towards that than locking up drug addicts...

You get a lot more bang for the buck in terms of deterrents throwing the book at the trivial things. There will always be drug addicts. Throwing one in jail doesn't deter any others. Probably just gives the addict more connections and street cred when he gets out. But throwing the book at a doctor who eg writes bogus scripts or lies about it under oath is going to put the fear of god into every other doctor thinking of doing the same thing.

 

[writing]

You get a lot more bang for the buck in terms of deterrents throwing the book at the trivial things. There will always be drug addicts. Throwing one in jail doesn't deter any others. Probably just gives the addict more connections and street cred when he gets out. But throwing the book at a doctor who eg writes bogus scripts or lies about it under oath is going to put the fear of god into every other doctor thinking of doing the same thing.

Not in the slightest. There are:

• the trial costs (not sure how accurate the 70k estimate is)
• lowered tax revenue (3 months of missed work)
• cost of housing a prisoner

The best outcome would have simply been a hefty fine:

• State doesn't need to pay for a prisoner
• State doesn't lose out on 3 months of tax revenue
• Surgery resident complains to his colleagues and they take parking rules more seriously

Americans are way too punitive. This attitude is why America has the most prisoners in the world. There is little justification for the argument that a non-violent offender should go to prison. Even community service is kind of silly. For someone like a surgeon or banker, the state would benefit more from 100 hours of wages than they would 400 hours of them picking up trash.

100 hours of wages from Surgeon = $10,000

400 hours of community service = -$12,000 taxes + $3,000 labor = -$9,000

It just doesn't add up! Set aside feelings and just look at the money.
It costs the state more money for a doctor or banker to go through community service than it does for them to pay fines + normal taxes.

 

[gutonc]

Not in the slightest. There are:

• the trial costs (not sure how accurate the 70k estimate is)
• lowered tax revenue (3 months of missed work)
• cost of housing a prisoner

The best outcome would have simply been a hefty fine:

• State doesn't need to pay for a prisoner
• State doesn't lose out on 3 months of tax revenue
• Surgery resident complains to his colleagues and they take parking rules more seriously

Americans are way too punitive. This attitude is why America has the most prisoners in the world. There is little justification for the argument that a non-violent offender should go to prison. Even community service is kind of silly. For someone like a surgeon or banker, the state would benefit more from 100 hours of wages than they would 400 hours of them picking up trash.

100 hours of wages from Surgeon = $10,000

400 hours of community service = -$12,000 taxes + $3,000 labor = -$9,000

It just doesn't add up! Set aside feelings and just look at the money.
It costs the state more money for a doctor or banker to go through community service than it does for them to pay fines + normal taxes.

It's not about the Benjamins in this case.

Throw a doc in jail and the ones on the edge (and not having substance abuse or mental health issues) are more likely to take notice and straighten up and fly right. By throwing the book at one doc, you're throwing it at a bunch of them.

 

[writing]

Sending a message is fine, but it depends on the crime. The resident surgeon parked in a handicap spot in the middle of the night. You really think it's in the taxpayer's interests for them to lose $70-100k to send a message against parking in handicapped spots?? Or do you think taxpayers would be better off gaining $5-10k in fines and sending a message through fines rather than prison?

Throw a doc in jail and the ones on the edge (and not having substance abuse or mental health issues) are more likely to take notice and straighten up and fly right. By throwing the book at one doc, you're throwing it at a bunch of them.

I'm not trying to offend you, but this type of attitude (punish punish punish) is the problem. We have a nonviolent offender; he parked in a handicapped spot in the middle of the night.

There are schools who don't receive enough money for textbooks, bridges that need maintenance, but the government should spend thousands of dollars in legal fees, prison costs, and missed taxes to imprison someone who parked in a handicapped spot??

 

[NotAProgDirector]

Sending a message is fine, but it depends on the crime. The resident surgeon parked in a handicap spot in the middle of the night. You really think it's in the taxpayer's interests for them to lose $70-100k to send a message against parking in handicapped spots?? Or do you think taxpayers would be better off gaining $5-10k in fines and sending a message through fines rather than prison?




I'm not trying to offend you, but this type of attitude (punish punish punish) is the problem. We have a nonviolent offender; he parked in a handicapped spot in the middle of the night.

There are schools who don't receive enough money for textbooks, bridges that need maintenance, but the government should spend thousands of dollars in legal fees, prison costs, and missed taxes to imprison someone who parked in a handicapped spot??

Are we reading the same story? He parked in a handicapped spot at night. He was given a ticket. He could have paid the ticket (a fine) and been done with it. Instead, he decided to fight it in court and stated that he had an emergency that prevented him from using a regular parking space. In court, this was found to be untrue. He was found guilty of perjury, and sent to jail for that.

Perhaps jail time is too severe for perjury. But in this case the resident's lie consumed a bunch of judicial resources including the time of 12 jurors.

I am amazed his program allowed him to finish. This does not bode well for his professionalism going forward. I don't care that he parked in a HC spot and got a ticket. That's just dumb. But lying in court about the circumstances? That's narcissism.

 

[writing]

But in this case the resident's lie consumed a bunch of judicial resources including the time of 12 jurors.

Exactly. I fail to see how a fine would not be enough punishment.
He used up judicial resources and funds?
1. Let's put him in jail, pay for his housing, and reduce the amount of money the government can recoup from him. Surely this will make up for the wasted government resources.
2. Don't imprison him. Allow him to work. Give him heavy fines to pay.

Why would 2 not be a better option? Who benefits from a non-violent tax payer sitting inside a cell? It's not good for the government and it's certainly not good for citizens who rely on government services.
It surprises me that so many Americans think like this. He is not a danger to anyone, so why does he need to be imprisoned? This is what I mean by Americans being punitive.

 

[Law2Doc]

Exactly. I fail to see how a fine would not be enough punishment.
He used up judicial resources and funds?
1. Let's put him in jail, pay for his housing, and reduce the amount of money the government can recoup from him. Surely this will make up for the wasted government resources.
2. Don't imprison him. Allow him to work. Give him heavy fines to pay.

Why would 2 not be a better option? Who benefits from a non-violent tax payer sitting inside a cell? It's not good for the government and it's certainly not good for citizens who rely on government services.
It surprises me that so many Americans think like this. He is not a danger to anyone, so why does he need to be imprisoned? This is what I mean by Americans being punitive.

You are stilling missing the point. This is one guy. Costs to try and imprison him are chump change in the greater scheme of things. Deterrence is about stemming the other hundred thousand people who won't now do the same thing. If stringing up one guy saves millions because nobody else goes down that road it was a bargain. This is why punishing white collar crime strictly works. Lots of us would shrug and pay a fine. None of us would risk doing hard time.

 

[writing]

You are stilling missing the point. This is one guy. Costs to try and imprison him are chump change in the greater scheme of things. Deterrence is about stemming the other hundred thousand people who won't now do the same thing.

$70,000 in legal fees, missed tax revenue, and prison costs are justifiable costs to deter someone from parking in a handicapped spots/perjury? I simply don't understand how you can be happy with your tax dollars spent in such a wasteful manner. Why do you assume hefty fines would not be a deterrent or prevent people from doing the same thing?

Lots of us would shrug and pay a fine. None of us would risk doing hard time.

So you're saying people would just shrug off paying 100 hours of their income? Surgeons wouldn't mind paying $10,000-30,000? That wouldn't serve as a deterrent.
Why is prison a greater benefit to tax payers and the government, than heavy fines? Why do you think heavy fines would not deter people from committing a crime?
Just a simple cost/benefit analysis.
Prison: Crime deterrent, but costs taxpayers loads of $$$ (prison housing, legal fees, missed taxes)
Heavy fines: Crime deterrent, taxpayers benefit

I'm really struggling to understand the rationale for your point. Whether you're a Doctor or dog walker; fines are not cool. Just because a surgeon makes $400k doesn't mean he'd brush off a $15-30k fine.

None of us would risk doing hard time.

Yet the prison population is increasing every year. That directly conflicts the belief that prison is great deterrent. Surely maybe it's time for a reevaluation. Maybe taxpayers would benefit from nonviolent criminals being fined, than spending $30-40k/year to house a prisoner.

I don't understand how these ideas of imprisonment, zero tolerance, and "tough on crime" have become so popular for Americans. Just look at the numbers. It's not cheap! There are nonviolent prisoners, people we are punishing, who receive more government money (in housing costs) than some law abiding american families on welfare. How is this acceptable?

 

[Crayola227]

$70,000 in legal fees, missed tax revenue, and prison costs are justifiable costs to deter someone from parking in a handicapped spots/perjury? I simply don't understand how you can be happy with your tax dollars spent in such a wasteful manner. Why do you assume hefty fines would not be a deterrent or prevent people from doing the same thing?



So you're saying people would just shrug off paying 100 hours of their income? Surgeons wouldn't mind paying $10,000-30,000? That wouldn't serve as a deterrent.
Why is prison a greater benefit to tax payers and the government, than heavy fines? Why do you think heavy fines would not deter people from committing a crime?
Just a simple cost/benefit analysis.
Prison: Crime deterrent, but costs taxpayers loads of $$$ (prison housing, legal fees, missed taxes)
Heavy fines: Crime deterrent, taxpayers benefit

I'm really struggling to understand the rationale for your point. Whether you're a Doctor or dog walker; fines are not cool. Just because a surgeon makes $400k doesn't mean he'd brush off a $15-30k fine.


Yet the prison population is increasing every year. That directly conflicts the belief that prison is great deterrent. Surely maybe it's time for a reevaluation. Maybe taxpayers would benefit from nonviolent criminals being fined, than spending $30-40k/year to house a prisoner.

I don't understand how these ideas of imprisonment, zero tolerance, and "tough on crime" have become so popular for Americans. Just look at the numbers. It's not cheap! There are nonviolent prisoners, people we are punishing, who receive more government money (in housing costs) than some law abiding american families on welfare. How is this acceptable?

I'm surprisingly with @Law2Doc on this one.

As a side note to something someone said above, Throwing drug addicts in prison doesn't make sense, because they have a brain disease that is a compulsion, the definition is that they "are unable to control their use of a substance in the face of negative consequences" the whole reward system has been railroaded, they no longer respond to reward/punishment the same way. The point is, someone incapable of acting rationally is not going to respond rationally to what rational people would find to be rational reward/punishment scenarios. Jail time isn't as effective in "treating" addiction as other modalities, therefore, other modalities should be used.

I'm all for social reforms to reduce crime, imprisonment, recidivism, addiction, harm reduction models, etc.

But your argument is one based on rational behavior, that a surgeon that perjures himself in court over a traffic ticket is going to be deterred from that crime by the punishment of fine.

You or I, or even @Law2Doc , assuming we are otherwise rational, would likely not find a $70,000 fine an acceptable risk for illegal activity such as flouting a parking ticket, and perjury. I would argue a rational doc would not have parked in the HC spot. If they did, a rational doc would pay the ticket. A rational doc hopefully is less hated at work, and doesn't have nurses that hate him so much, or hopefully doesn't try to get coworkers that hate him to support his perjury. A rational doc hopefully doesn't perjure himself, but hopefully a rational doc would never find themselves in front of a ****ing jury over a traffic ticket they wouldn't pay, hopefully they are rational enough to never let things spiral out of control that bad.

The very irrationality, not motivated by addiction, that led this person to this crime, makes me suspicious that he would NOT respond as a rational person would to what you are saying is a punishment that would be enough to deter a rational person from the crime.

People will pay all sorts of money to be above the law and do whatever they like. That saying "money buys everything."

I'm with Law2Doc, this guy thought getting out of a few hundred dollar ticket was worth lying about, worth breaking the law. I don't think this person was thinking or acting rationally, and I'm sorry, there's no fine in the world that is going to affect his lifestyle as much as time in a cell being someone's bitch and looking over his shoulder every time he drops the soap in the shower. (I'm being hyperbolic, it depends where they house this guy how bad his sentence will be). Rational or not, above the law or not, willing to pay whatever amount of stupid money, no one likes hard time, QFT!

Even then, maybe this doesn't phase him. Point is, a physician acting this way, needs to have the book thrown at him. Actually, punishing him as harshly as possible to straighten him out and letting him keep his license, is trying to keep the public in mind.

Stripping his license would be very costly to society. But so is a crooked doc. Hopefully even the worst lying doc among us willing to pay their way out of trouble isn't willing to do hard time.

Dishonest docs on the job can do a helluva a lot more damage than a dishonest dogwalker (assuming the dogwalker's dishonesty isn't covering up heinous person crimes). Doctors more than many other professions, need to not get too big for their britches and think they are above the law and being dishonest in formal venues.

Anyway, no thank you, I'll take my American justice.

Maybe the same irrationality that you see in our justice system's reaction is what motivates these sort of irrational horse**** crimes. In this case, the punishment may fit the crime. Maybe we're such wild Yanks we need a big stick. You argue that going hard on this guy isn't going to prevent this kind of crime. I argue going hard or soft didn't create it, and going soft isn't going to prevent it. So we go hard.

I'm not sure the sort of British-police-don't-carry-guns approach is going to work on our folk. Different culture. That said, you might say we need to change our culture. Cultures don't just change overnight because you want them too. I'm not saying we're doing the right thing with social justice overall, but starting by going easy on yahoos like this guy is not necessarily the answer. We're not ready for gun-less police, even if you think we should have them. Putting them on the streets is not how we're going to get there, either, if you ask me.

TL;DR:
Of course a guy like this doesn't give a **** about fines, that's why he was such dumb dingus to begin with, and needs to be dealt with accordingly.

 

[Law2Doc]

...


So you're saying people would just shrug off paying 100 hours of their income? Surgeons wouldn't mind paying $10,000-30,000? That wouldn't serve as a deterrent.
Why is prison a greater benefit to tax payers and the government, than heavy fines? Why do you think heavy fines would not deter people from committing a crime?
Just a simple cost/benefit analysis.
Prison: Crime deterrent, but costs taxpayers loads of $$$ (prison housing, legal fees, missed taxes)
Heavy fines: Crime deterrent, taxpayers benefit

I'm really struggling to understand the rationale for your point. Whether you're a Doctor or dog walker; fines are not cool. Just because a surgeon makes $400k doesn't mean he'd brush off a $15-30k fine...?

Its not uncommon to shrug off a big fine one could afford. I know plenty of companies that incur hefty penalties regularly as a "cost if doing business" because they aren't even always imposed. I know plenty of delivery companies that double park and rack up tickets because it saves them a few minutes more times than they are caught. Income taxes are another example where fines haven't been shown to work or have deterrent benefits. So no, a fine really doesn't curb your actions in the same way. And more importantly doesnt curb the actions of the colleague down the street at all. You and he probably still wouldn't risk jail time in the same way.

 

[Law2Doc]

Yet the prison population is increasing every year. That directly conflicts the belief that prison is great deterrent. Surely maybe it's time for a reevaluation. Maybe taxpayers would benefit from nonviolent criminals being fined, than spending $30-40k/year to house a prisoner.

I don't understand how these ideas of imprisonment, zero tolerance, and "tough on crime" have become so popular for Americans. Just look at the numbers. It's not cheap! There are nonviolent prisoners, people we are punishing, who receive more government money (in housing costs) than some law abiding american families on welfare. How is this acceptable?

The number of white collar criminals hasn't increased -- our prisons are not full of doctors. Why? Because very few take the kinds of risks that put them into prison. It's a VERY effective deterrent for this population. Prison populations increase with things you can't effectively deter, like drugs and drug and alcohol related violent crimes. A guy on PCP or a heroin addict looking for his next fix isn't thinking rationally enough to worry about being sent to jail. The fact that he personally knows people who ended up in jail for the same thing has no impact here.

So that's where your costs analysis equation should come into play. Is it cost effective to warehouse criminals when there is no deterrent benefit. For the white collar doctor the analysis is really the opposite -- deterrents work extremely well and very few end up doing hard time if you throw the book at one. I might risk a hefty fine for my stupidity, but I'm sure not risking doing hard time.

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

Its not uncommon to shrug off a big fine one could afford. I know plenty of companies that incur hefty penalties regularly as a "cost if doing business" because they aren't even always imposed. I know plenty of delivery companies that double park and rack up tickets because it saves them a few minutes more times than they are caught. Income taxes are another example where fines haven't been shown to work or have deterrent benefits. So no, a fine really doesn't curb your actions in the same way. And more importantly doesnt curb the actions of the colleague down the street at all. You and he probably still wouldn't risk jail time in the same way.

This can't be stressed enough.

Would a really large fine suck? Sure, it absolutely would. It would make me do a little extra moonlighting to pay for it.

However, most of us would do almost anything to avoid spending more than a single night in jail. Money is only money, you still have your life and your freedom. A jail sentence is worse than almost any fine. Period.