Convicted?? Noooo…
Like QtM mentions, the penalties for getting caught in a lie one one of those applications can be extremely severe.
When I took my bar exam in Illinois, I answered truthfully the question that, yes, I did try dope and some other recreational pharmaceuticals in college. Never heard from them again about it.
I also did an internship with the US attorney’s office in St. Louis. There where three different applications for the clearance, with sometime overlapping questions. I answered truthfully there, and had no problems.
Captain AMazing
But the question doesn’t ask whether the use was illegal, it asks whether the drug was illegal.
How? Someone with a drug problem is much more likely to lie than someone who doesn’t.
I don’t know about your state board of medical examiners, but it’s possible they have an anonymous ethics line or there might be further information regarding the rammification of checking “yes.” I’d guess that they’d have to follow-up regdarding a “yes” answer anyway…when?, what kind?, how often–maybe even why…
I’ve found, as a lawyer applying for bar exams, they were MUCH more lenient if there was a truthful answer rather than a false one…for instance I know people who were not allowed to take the bar becuase they failed to tell the bar about DUI convictions. But, then there are folks who have bad things to tell the examiners–depending on the level of “badness” they determine whether futrther action is necessary. I got busted for a fake id and had to divulge that and nothing more was ever said although I had to get all the police and court stuff and write out a summary.
Frankly, I’m surprised they don’t give an area to explain…
But, it does suck that they ask that question…on the TEX and OK bar applications they only asked you if you had abused drugs or alcohol…
In CA, all information on Bar applications/exams/etc., is given under penalty of perjury. Don’t know about doctors.
Too bad you’re not in CA - we’ve got your loophole: medicinal marijuana. THAT’S not an illegal drug in this state. 
Aw hell, who are we kidding? Pot isn’t a “drug,” anyway. Sheesh! Of course, if the illegal drug in your past was horse . . .
It would be stupid to answer anything but NO to the question especially since there isnt a question that asks if you were drunk out of your mind within the last five years.
IMO, you’re both playing the system. They know it. You’re supposed to know it. Lie. Do you think the examiner doesn’t know that the majority of applicants have probably dabbled in recreational drug use? Of course they do, but, to put it another way, They Don’t. To answer truthfully would only set yourself apart from the thousands that are answering untruthfully, as they play to the system.
I certainly advocate honesty, and I think its a shame that the system, in this case, cannot reward honesty…but it can’t. Therefore, the pragmatic thing to do is to lie.
Last illeagal drug use was October of 1990.
Last use of drugs illeagally, (DWI). Today
Zoff, in the state where I live, a “yes” answer is not going to end your medical career. As Qadgop the Mercotan said and others echoed, if you answer no and it is found out later you lied, you will most likely be charged with fraud, along with whatever other allegations they have against you that led to their finding out about the pot in the first place, because they’re not going to be looking into your practice for no reason.
We have docs with a lot bigger problems in their past than having smoked a doobie in college, and they get licensed, with the proper monitors. Most do not have any kind of public “mark” on their license.
However, answering “yes” to one of these questions, including the one about do you have a mental or physical condition which could affect your ability to practice medicine safely, does have an impact. In this state, that application form is public record. Your yes answer and any explanation attached are available for the asking, if you know to ask for it, which the general public does not, but trial lawyers sure do. Say you got sued later and a lawyer gets ahold of that . . . not good. Also, hospitals, malpractice insurance carriers, and third-party payors will find out that you have to give urine screens and are being monitored, or whatever it is the medical board decided.
I’m sure we have plenty of applicants who lie on both the drugs and the physical/mental impairment question and never get caught out and never have a repurcussion from it. Some get caught out. The last one I remember who did not answer a question (on a renewal form, also a public document, and it asks the same questions, only, within the last two years) truthfully got a public fine and reprimand. It did not, however, ruin his career.
You’ve got to really have a drug or mental problem or be a danger to your patients with poor quality of care for an issue to get to the point where some disciplinary action is taken on your license.
So, taking all that into consideration, I think it is morally wrong to lie on the application, whatever the question might be. This is not a job application as some people are discussing, this is an application for the privilege of a license to practice medicine on you, your mom, your friends. There was a thread here recently about people in positions of authority being held to a higher standard – physicians are held to a higher standard and are expected by their profession, the licensing boards, and the general public to be more upstanding, truthful and diligent than the average yoyo. Lying on a medical licensure application is not a good way to start out an upstanding, distinguished career.
The question is asking you to incriminate yourself, whether they give you a slap on the wrist or not. It is bullshit for that reason, and that reason alone.
So? If you don’t want to incriminate yourself, don’t apply for the medical license. This is always repeated, but I’m not sure some people understand this: it is a privilege, not a right. When you apply for a privilege you waive some rights. The laws in my state allow the medical board to order an applicant or licensee to release medical and psychiatric records and can order the applicant or licensee to have a psychiatric or drug addiction evaluation. If you don’t want to release the records or have the evaluation, you don’t get to keep the privilege of practicing medicine.
**
Why would self-incrimination be bullshit in this situation? Because Americans are supposedly given the right to not self-incriminate? I say that doesn’t apply in this instance, since you have the choice of not incriminating yourself by not applying. It’s not like you’re on the witness stand under oath where you need the protection of your right to be mirandized, etc., by being able to “take the Fifth” if your testimony may incriminate yourself.
But erislover, the practice of medicine is a privilege, not a right. And applying for and being denied a license to practice does not enter into the scope of criminal law. So how do one’s 5th amendment rights come into play at all?
Hey Al, a simulpost! Great minds think alike! And fools seldom differ!
I’m not talking about the fifth amendment. I am talking about someone asking you to incriminate yourself by admitting to a specific brand of crime. Yeah, yeah, I know they are similar, but this isn’t a court of law.
IMO a medical board shouldn’t ask any questions that I wouldn’t ask in looking for a doctor. I would not ask such a question. I guess that’s what it comes down to (among the other points I’ve brought up).
Well, frankly eris, in general the public these days does want to know that someone has asked their doctor that question before licensing them, and gets highly indignant if they learn their local medical examining board is not adequately policing the ranks.
I had a similar question when applying for a national security clearance. I did some research on the net and got the impression that answering yes would essentially mean an automatic denial of the security clearance… then if I were to apply again in the future, even if I hadn’t used drugs for 7 years, I’d have to say yes to “Have you ever been turned down for a security clearance?”
I thought about lying on the application, but I figured the government wouldn’t want to cut any corners investigating applicants after 9/11, and the penalties for lying on the application were pretty severe.
Eventually, I talked to my boss and ended up not applying for the security clearance at all. Hasn’t hurt me so far.
But the question never should have been on there in the first place. I don’t work with prescription drugs or dangerous chemicals; all the chemicals I’ve ever seen at work can be bought at hardware stores or from photo supply catalogs. Even if the government’s worst fears came true, and I arrived at work stoned out of my mind, what harm could I possibly do? Write some nonsense code and clean out the fridge?
It might be a trick question, with them expecting a great amount to answer yes, knowing that many people have at least tried drugs and the question is to determine just how truthful you will be.
For an application that important, I would have said yes if I had done any drugs in the last 5 years.