AMPHETAMINE PRESCRIPTIONS Doctor’s actions to be discussed by colleagues

Press, Volume CXII, Issue 33093, 7 December 1972, Page 17

AMPHETAMINE PRESCRIPTIONS Doctor’s actions to be discussed by colleagues

(N.Z. Press Association—Copyright) NEW YORK, December 6. The Medical Society of the County of New York says that its board of censors would discuss whether to bring charges against Dr Max Jacobson in connection with his practice of prescribing amphetamines, the “New York Times” reports.

The society, which said it had not previously considered any charges against the 72-year-old Manhattan physician, said last night that it was acting now in response to a report on the doctor’s practice published on Monday in the “New York Times.”

Dr Lawrence* Essenson, chairman of the society’s board of censors, said that after reading the “New York Times” article all five members of the board had requested a discussion of the situation at their scheduled meeting for Thursday.

The “New York Times” articles described Dr Jacobson’s use of amphetamines, which are regarded by many medical reports as potentially dangerous stimulants, in the treatment of patients prominent in the arts and politics. Although many patients interviewed by the “Times” praised the doctor’s approach to medical care, others said that they had developed serious adverse reactions and had become dependent on the mind-affecting drug. Some patients said that they had developed a psychotic reaction resembling paranoid schizophrenia and at least one patient died, according to the medical examiner, as a result of acute amphetamine poisoning.

Dr Essenson said that at the Medical Society “there have never been any charges pending against Max Jacobson and, as far as I know, there has never been a specific letter of complaint received here.” He added that every letter received by the society questioning a doctor’s

practice was “discussed and investigated.” Dr Essenson said that he assumed that after tomorrow’s meeting of the board of censors, Dr Jacobson would be asked to appear fbr a hearing before a trial committee.

The chairman explained that the Medical Society had very limited power. “It can dismiss a member from the society and cite him for unethical conduct,” he said.

If the society so decides, the case may then be referred to the state department of education, which licenses physicians and is conducting its own investigation of Dr Jacobson. Dr John Roberts, who was identified by the “New York Times” as Dr Jacobson’s assistant, was quoted by United Press International as saying that the doctor thought the "New York Times” article was “slightly distorted and one-sided.”

Dr Roberts was reported to have said that “at no point” did Dr Jacobson give any amphetamines without a combination of vitamins. Dr Roberts was asked for a statement by Dr Jacobson and Dr Roberts later relayed a statement by the physician to U.P.I.

One of Dr Jacobson’s patients, Tennessee Williams, spent three months in a St Louis mental hospital in 1969 as a direct result of taking drugs given by Dr Jacobson, according to Mr Dakin Williams, the playwright’s brother.

Mr Williams, a lawyer, said in a telephone interview tonight from his home in Collinsville, Illinois, after having learned of the “New York Times” article, that he had become aware in 1969 that his brother had undergone “a complete change of personality” after having taken amphetamines for several years. “He was driven to the brink of commitment by this drug,” Mr Dakin Williams said. “It had a devastating effect on his personality, it drove him into rages at the i slightest thing and caused him to have severe delusions.” The lawyer said that he had his brother committed to the mental ward of Barnes Hospital in St Louis after the playwright had telephoned him from Key West, Florida, saying an attempt was to be made on his life. “He would take an injection every night at 7 o’clock,” Mr Dakin Williams said.

“Finally, when he went off the drug, he went through convulsions three times before he recovered.”

The “New York Times” article, and a discussion of the moral implications of the affair, appear on page 21.