California Participating Physician: Fill & Download for Free

Your state rules Insurance law; in California dental and vision *insurance* exist only as group policies; both coverages sold retail are not “insurance” but prepaid plans that discount fees with participating physicians. Both coverages need 100% participation in large numbers to workCheck with an agent in your state.

New York doesn`t offer reciprocity. Certifications or registry ID cards from other states are not accepted.Nevada is currently one of the most liberal states in the Union regarding the use of medical and recreational cannabis. For this reason, it recognizes out-of-state medical marijuana cards, including those from California. Thus if you are visiting Las Vegas from California, the arrangement means that you absolutely CAN use your medical marijuana card to obtain cannabis from a dispensary.If you’re interested in getting a New York medical marijuana card, the following steps will guide you through the process:1. The first step is to determine whether you meet the residency criteria for the program. In order to participate in New York’s medical marijuana program, you must be able to demonstrate current residency in New York State. Temporary residents who are receiving treatment in New York for a qualifying medical condition may demonstrate residency by providing a lease, utility bill, hospital bill, or other documentation as approved by the Department of Health.2. If you live in New York and you have a qualifying medical condition, you are eligible to apply for your medical marijuana card. Patients diagnosed with any of the following medical conditions are eligible to apply for a patient certification:Chronic PainPTSDNeuropathyInflammatory Bowel DiseaseEpilepsyParkinson’s DiseaseHuntington’s DiseaseALSCancerHIV/AIDSMultiple SclerosisSpinal Cord Injury with SpasticityAny condition for which an opioid could be prescribedThe associated or complicating conditions include:Cachexia/Wasting SyndromeOpioid Use DisorderSevere or Chronic painSevere NauseaSevere or Persistent Muscle SpasmsSeizuresAdditional qualifying conditions are being considered and added to the program on an ongoing basis.3. If you can prove NY residency and you have a qualifying medical condition, the next step is to obtain a patient certification from a participating physician, physician’s assistant, or nurse practitioner. When discussing medical marijuana with your care provider, it’s important to be honest about your health situation and explain why you believe medical marijuana treatment will be beneficial to you. If they agree to approve you for the program, they must submit a patient certification form on your behalf.4. Once you’ve received your patient certification, you’ll need to complete an online patient application for the medical marijuana program. The first step is to create an account at The Official Website of New York State and click on ”Health Applications” then “Medical Marijuana Data Management System” in order to access the online application form. The form will request basic information from you including your proof of New York residency. If your application is approved, you’ll receive your new york medical card in the mail.

There's an argument to both sides. Atul Gawande wrote a compelling piece illustrating both sides in NEJM a few years ago: When Law and Ethics Collide — Why Physicians Participate in Executions — NEJMArguments against:In 1980, when the first execution was planned using Dr. Deutsch's technique, the AMA passed a resolution against physician participation as a violation of core medical ethics. It affirmed that ban in detail in its 1992 Code of Medical Ethics. Article 2.06 states, “A physician, as a member of a profession dedicated to preserving life when there is hope of doing so, should not be a participant in a legally authorized execution,” although an individual physician's opinion about capital punishment remains “the personal moral decision of the individual.” It states that unacceptable participation includes prescribing or administering medications as part of the execution procedure, monitoring vital signs, rendering technical advice, selecting injection sites, starting or supervising placement of intravenous lines, or simply being present as a physician. Pronouncing death is also considered unacceptable, because the physician is not permitted to revive the prisoner if he or she is found to be alive.The California Medical Association, the American Medical Association (AMA), and the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) immediately and loudly opposed such physician participation as a clear violation of medical ethics codes. “Physicians are healers, not executioners,” the ASA's president told reporters.Still, I have always regarded involvement in executions by physicians and nurses as wrong. The public has granted us extraordinary and exclusive dispensation to administer drugs to people, even to the point of unconsciousness, to put needles and tubes into their bodies, to do what would otherwise be considered assault, because we do so on their behalf — to save their lives and provide them comfort. To have the state take control of these skills for its purposes against a human being — for punishment — seems a dangerous perversion. Society has trusted us with powerful abilities, and the more willing we are to use these abilities against individual people, the more we risk that trust. The public may like executions, but no one likes executioners.Arguments for:States, however, wanted a medical presence. In 1982, in Texas, Dr. Ralph Gray, the state prison medical director, and Dr. Bascom Bentley agreed to attend the country's first execution by lethal injection, though only to pronounce death. But once on the scene, Gray was persuaded to examine the prisoner to show the team the best injection site.6 Still, the doctors refused to give advice about the injection itself and simply watched as the warden prepared the chemicals. When he tried to push the syringe, however, it did not work. He had mixed all the drugs together, and they had precipitated into a clot of white sludge. “I could have told you that,” one of the doctors reportedly said, shaking his head.3 Afterward, Gray went to pronounce the prisoner dead but found him still alive. Though the doctors were part of the team now, they did nothing but suggest allowing time for more drugs to run in.Ultimately, he [the doctor] decided to participate, he said, because he was only helping with monitoring, because he was needed by the warden and his community, because the sentence was society's order, and because the punishment did not seem wrong.The judge found, however, that evidence from execution logs showed that six of the last eight prisoners executed in California had not stopped breathing before technicians gave the paralytic agent, raising a serious possibility that prisoners experienced suffocation from the paralytic, a feeling much like being buried alive, and felt intense pain from the potassium bolus. This experience would be unacceptable under the Constitution's Eighth Amendment protections against cruel and unusual punishment. So the judge ordered the state to have an anesthesiologist present in the death chamber to determine when the prisoner was unconscious enough for the second and third injections to be given — or to perform the execution with sodium thiopental alone.Basically, it's a fine line between a physicians obligation to preserve life versus a physician's obligation to ease suffering for people who are already condemned. The key is already condemned. Some can argue that the physician would be causing the "patient" even more pain and suffering if he does no offer his medical expertise. I'm not in a position to argue for either side, however, I'd highly suggest reading the Gawande article — he lays a ethical framework and then gives specific examples where he interviewed doctors who have participated in state–sanctioned executions.