Medical Attorney | Charge of Violating the Narcotics Control Act Arising from Sedation Procedures, Non-Referral Decision

The client had been providing treatment centered on implant and extraction procedures, and given the painful nature of these procedures, sedation was frequently used alongside them.

In particular, one patient continually requested treatment under sedation due to a fear of dental treatment and the burden of pain, and considering the patient's condition, the client came to repeatedly carry out treatment accompanied by sedation over a certain period.

Afterward, as the number of sedation procedures for this patient accumulated, the investigative authorities suspected that the administration might have gone beyond a therapeutic purpose, and taking issue with the frequency of sedation use, the intervals between sessions, and certain aspects of the record-keeping process, they referred the client on a charge of violating the Narcotics Control Act.

Because, if the charge were recognized, it could affect not only criminal punishment but also the maintenance of the client's medical license, the client urgently requested the assistance of a medical attorney.

Proof of the Medical Necessity of Sedation

In order to prove the degree of pain involved in implant and extraction procedures and the patient's symptoms of dental phobia, the medical attorney secured the medical records and the consultation records and presented medical grounds showing that sedation was necessary in the course of the procedures.

In addition, explaining through relevant guidelines and literature that sedation techniques are a treatment method commonly used in dental procedures, the attorney emphasized that the administration was a legitimate medical act for a therapeutic purpose rather than a matter of convenience.

Proof of the Lawfulness of the Administration Records and the Management Process

The medical attorney secured the medical records and the data from the Integrated Narcotics Management System and cross-checked and organized, one by one, the patient's visit dates, procedure dates, and the points of administration.

On this basis, the attorney explained that the number of administrations during the specific period that the investigative authorities had taken issue with had in fact been carried out in accordance with the stage-by-stage schedule of the implant procedures.

Furthermore, the attorney explained that differences between the time of the electronic data entry and the time of the actual procedure could make certain records appear concentrated, and by confirming through the data that there had been no changes to or deletions of prescriptions, emphasized that there was no intentional concealment or manipulation.

Argument That the Repeated Procedures Were Part of a Course of Treatment and That Intent Was Absent

The medical attorney secured the patient's visit records and the records of consultations on the course of treatment and organized them to show that the repeated procedures were carried out in accordance with a long-term treatment plan.

In addition, presenting as grounds the circumstances in which the patient had continually complained of pain and anxiety, the attorney explained that the client had chosen sedation in consideration of the patient's condition.

Where a medical professional handles or manages psychotropic substances without a legitimate medical purpose, the level of punishment may vary according to the classification of the substance, so particular care is required.