Judge Accepts Prescription Excuse to Forgive Gambling Theft
An Oregon woman who stole from her employer to support her gambling was given probation rather than prison after a judge agreed a prescription medication caused her to have uncontrollable gambling urges.
Christine Jaeger, 56, received five years' probation after pleading guilty to aggravated theft. While working at Langdon Farms Golf Club as a bookkeeper, Jaeger had written a slew of checks to herself, totalling $233,000.
Jaeger had used the money to gamble at Spirit Mountain Casino.
Jaeger was taking the medication Mirapex for restless leg syndrome, as well as another medication for migraines. Defense attorney Katherine Weber introduced evidence that Mirapex is currently the subject of several civil suits brought by patients who suffered severe side effects.
Weber also ran an ad produced by Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, the manufacturer of Mirapex, warning of side effects including increased gambling and sexual urges.
While the prosecution questioned whether Mirapex would diminish Jaeger's ability to tell right from wrong, Judge Kathie Steele felt all of Jaeger's questionable behavior could be written off to the drug's side effects. Steele said, "The breach of trust and multiple criminal episodes can all be laid to the drug issue."
The concept of taking such a potentially harmful drug for such a questionable problem as restless leg syndrome shows a mindset that blames the slightest quirk within oneself on exterior causes, which must be treated. The foolishness that slight urges become so beyond control that one must steal a fortune from one's employer should never have been given the legal precedent set here.
This case is as ridiculous as the "hot coffee" award. At some point, the common sense concept must return to legal decisions, wherein one is responsible for oneself.
Recent Comments
| Posted by: Evan | When: 05/13/2008 08:51:20 PM EST |
| I'm going to fill you in on a little something wise-guy... but, first, I'm going to tell you that I've been the foremost critic of my mother, Christine Jaeger, in this gambling case, even surpassing the D.A. However, my sentiments don't diminish her case; so let me help you get the facts straight before you go running around saying anything more about things you know nothing about. First of all, I imagine you read a copy of this story from the AP Wire, which has gross amounts of relevant information removed from the contents (perhaps for financial/advertising reasons?). To see the original story, before it was chopped up, go to the Oregonian's website at www.oregonlive.com/oregonian Next, there is a detail that was omitted from the Oregonian that is very pertinent to critics of this case. When Jaeger was taking Mirapex, the companies (yes, plural) manufacturing, operating, licensing, and distributing the drug had not revealed the compulsive gambling side-effect. That didn?t come until August of 2007. Big Pharma had known about these side-effects for a long time, but delayed informing consumers; much like how the cancer issue was handled by Big Tobacco and the schizophrenia side-effect was dealt with by Prozac. Well, the time of this information?s release needs to be put in contrast with the fact that Jaeger's compulsive behavior began when she started taking Mirapex in 2000; gambling was a problem soon after, and had become a serious issue during the months of Jan.-Dec. of 2006. That's when the crimes were committed, and for the sole purpose of sitting in front of a slot machine. Checking those dates, you will see that the Jaeger had no reason to believe that Mirapex was causing her compulsion. Like so many Americans, she blindly believed what the "health-care professionals" told her. You can read more about the public announcement by the drug companies here: http://blog.nj.com/njv_peter_rost/2007/08/fda_approved_drug_makes_you_hy.html Additionally, a fact that was omitted from the formal hearing, where Jaeger was sentenced to 120 days in the Clackamas County Restituion Center, to be held in custody (jail) of the Sheriff until a bed was available, five years of probation, and ordered to pay a sum of $233000, was that Mirapex was originally designed to treat Parkinson's patients. This issue is significant because Parkinson's disease is caused by insufficient dopamine levels. So, what do you do when you don't have enough dopamine? You increase it, right? Well, that's how Big Pharma felt. Mirapex has been placed in the class of "Nonergot dopamine receptor agonist." Now, I don't expect people to be able to read clinical pharmacology, so, translating, that means that Mirapex will increase the availability of dopamine within the brain. Can you think of a couple other substances that increase dopamine levels? I'll name two that I'm sure gamblers are familiar with: cocaine and methamphetamines. If you understand the mood altering affects of these drugs, the compulsions they create, and how they tend to inhibit commonsense, you can figure out what kind of effect Mirapex can have on a person's behavior. ---a link noting Mirapex as a treatment for Parkinson's: http://abclocal.go.com/kfsn/story?section=news/consumer&id=5718180 ---Mirapex's Clinical Pharmacology: http://www.drugs.com/ppa/pramipexole-dihydrochloride.html Lastly, in addition, to Mirapex, Jaeger was taking Topamax for migraines. Topamax?s ?less serious side effects? include: ?slowed thinking, memory problems, trouble concentrating; problems with speech or balance;? sleep problems (insomnia),? (you can see more here: http://www.drugs.com/mtm/topamax.html). Well, I can attest to Jaeger?s 12, 24, 36, and 48 hour trips to the casino that were spent (constantly) sitting in front of a slot machine. Now, I?m sure the ?less-seriousness? of these side-effects makes you shrug your shoulders and label the issue a ?stretch.? Well, psychiatric professionals that are currently involved in research and case studies concerning the drug would prove you wrong? In fact, a professional witness did just that to the D.A. who took the same stance, and the prosecutor?s argument began to diminish in front of the judge. The testimony provided by this authority revealed information about the two pharmaceuticals that could not be ignored by the court. Still, ?pharmaceutical-induced stupidity? is not a plea, and it cannot exonerate a person from a crime; Jaeger was sentenced, and is repenting her actions. On a side note, the D.A., despite his familiarity with the finer details in this case, remained poignant about ?making an example? out of Jaeger as a deterrent for the community. After the defense noted that there can be no more cases like Jaeger?s since the compulsive side-effects of Mirapex have been made public, the prosecutor?s argument was quickly and incontestably proven to be based on fallacious reasoning. | |
| Posted by: Joshua McCarthy | When: 05/14/2008 12:40:46 AM EST |
| First off, let me express my sympathy that you find your mother in such unfortunate circumstances. And let me emphasize that i do not condone the pharmaceutical tendencies of this country's doctors. As Stephen Colbert sarcastically put it, " Thank you, AMA, for finding the cure for restless leg syndrome, and also for letting us know that restless leg syndrome exists! Otherwise no one would have realized they had a problem!" But, let's take your example. If someone had prescribed your mother meth or cocaine, that would be a shame on the medical industry, as this case is. But it would not explain or forgive your mother's premeditated forgery and theft from her employer. It might explain erratic behavior, including finding increased satisfaction at the casino slots. But other people enjoy slots, some more than they should, without concocting schemes to steal, schemes apparently well thought out enough to deceive for an extended period of time. Not really the act of some who has "slowed thinking, memory problems, trouble concentrating." I think, in a nation that seeks to find any excuse to lay off one's personal resposibility, that this is another "hot coffee" case, as far as the theft. Now, as to whether your mother's doctor is guilty of gross malpractice, should lose his license and face a civil case... well, we might agree there. In any case, I hope the future is better to your and tyour mother. | |
| Posted by: Warren | When: 05/14/2008 09:11:51 AM EST |
| As an individual that was prescribed the drug Mirapex after a Parkinson's diagnosis at Mayo Clinic in 2000, I can speak about the side affects of the drug. Within weeks, I was playing slot machines and exhibiting some of the other (now known) side affects of this drug, none of these behaviors having ever been an issue for me before. Instead of stealing from my employer, I stole from my family and our financial future. Some of the actions I exhibited are too embarassing to reveal and caused a good deal of emotional harm to my family (when revealed to them). I chose to (and had to convince my doctor) to stop taking Mirapex after a little more than one year, because of the known (at that time) side affect of drowsiness, which was causing issues at work and driving. Within weeks of discontinuing this prescription, I literally stopped all of these other behaviors and gave myself the credit for just 'bucking it up' and straightening out my life. I did not discover this other information about Mirapex until 5 years later, but the story is beyond coincedence. I have chosen not to participate in the class action lawsuit against Mirapex manufacturers for several reasons and beleive that I am ultimately resposnsible for my actions. I also beleive that those who are pursuing these actions (and the defense used in this case) are entirely justifiable. | |
| Posted by: Joshua McCarthy | When: 05/14/2008 10:32:10 AM EST |
| After speaking with a Ph.D. expert in drug addiction therapy, I have learned the proper ways to describe a drug's reaction upon a person. A "causal" relationship is one that anyone who takes the drug will suffer; for example, anyone taking arsenic in a certain dosage will die. This is not the case here, as not everyone who takes Mirapex gambles. There is "necessary but insufficient", in which the behavior requires the presence of the drug, but the drug alone is not enough; other circumstances are required to generate the behavior. Then there is "secondary", in which the drug may contribute, but behavior is more heavily influenced by other factors. If we allow that gambling may be caused by Mirapex in a necessary but insufficient response, then the question becomes: what sort of gambling? Is flipping coins adequate? Blackjack? Horse racing? Fantasy sports? And what amounts need to be wagered to satisfy impulses? Further, even after the argument that Mirapex may contribute to gambling impulses, is there an argument that Mirapex causes theft? Isn't that a separate question? Certainly it is possible to gamble without stealing, as millions do each day. At some point this becomes the Twinky defense, in which the man accused of attempted murder claimed his actions were caused by a rise in blood sugar due to gorging on Twinkies. | |
| Posted by: Evan | When: 05/14/2008 09:09:51 PM EST |
| I appreciate your condolences, and the humor helps to lighten the mood a bit. Additionally, I must excuse the preconceptions being made here because the media has a way of not saying enough, or obscuring the facts to pull people into reading their publications for the purpose of pleasing advertisers. I see you have a blog riddled with ads, so you understand what I'm talking about. I have a blog too, but it's not quite as developed yet... but I do authorize Google to place ads there for the purpose of financial gain. Additionally, I'm in college, and an Advertising major, so I know few things about this (plus, I tend to be a bit more diligent about learning all the tricks of the trade so that I can have an edge over my peers). The media's nonsense aside, the "schemes" you allege that Jaeger concocted, were so cleverly thought out that Chris Maletis, a co-owner of Langdon Farms, upon his own testimony before the court, discovered the financial discrepancy in 20 minutes. Jaeger has spent her entire life as an accountant, and worked her way through the ranks into management positions. Anybody in their right mind, with over 20+ years in accounting, could have concocted something that would have taken longer than 20 minutes to figure out. I mean, come on now, it didn't even take an audit. Furthermore, forgery did not occur, but the Oregonian/AP Wire does imply that. If forgery occurred, the D.A. would not have withheld the charges. Additionally, if forgery had happened in this case, Identity Theft would have been tacked onto the list of allegations as well. Rather, Jaeger had full authority over the funds, and the crimes were convenient, rather than contrived. Langdon Farms had ATMs that had to have their cash stores replenished regularly. And Langdon Farms isn't, by any means, some cheap econoline golf coarse, conveniently located for Southwest passengers next to the airport. Instead, it's some 30 miles outside of the city, on a huge property with very comfortable surroundings... and it tends to attract a higher class crowd who's ATM allowances far exceed yours or mine. Well, Jaeger got the money from the ATMs. And she was so brilliant about it that it took one man 20 minutes to figure out -that's 1200 seconds! I hope you'll excuse my sarcasm. Now, there's one final thing I'd like to note... it's that the doctor's are not to blame for this. Health-care professionals are, many times, just dumb victims in these cases as well... their checks depend on their ability to push drugs. They have the choice of asking no questions, or taking the risk of becoming an excommunicated whistleblower. A doctor in Family Practice, like my own, might recommend not-taking something, but he certainly isn't taking up any arms to combat the evils of Big Pharma... and I'd think him rather stupid for doing so. The guilty parties here are Big Pharma and the FDA? and bought-out politicians, in my opinion. I suppose the question is: who dares to contest with the altruistic claims of the magical shamans at corporations like GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, and Boehringer-Ingelheim? Well, it's really just a small crowd of researches, to tell you the truth; watchdog groups can?t really do much. That said, as this response posts, Big Pharma will be ready to release a platoon of their evil winged monkeys (I think they?re called lobbyists today) from the upper levels of their Ivory Towers (they?re called "corporate headquarters" now), with the standing orders to offer researchers whatever they want in return for their silence. | |
| Posted by: Evan | When: 05/14/2008 09:31:20 PM EST |
| I can hardly believe your assessment about "drug addiction therapy." I would like to ask you something: Is stupid behavior "casual," "necessary, but insufficient," or "secondary" when you drink alcohol? I could care less which it is, and I believe the legal system recognizes "drunk and disorderly conduct" as any kind of stupid behavior while you?re under the influence. But, what is "stupid behavior," exactly? Falling down? Having sex with strangers? Throwing stuff? Starting fights? Yelling and screaming belligerently? What is it? Now, granted, not every person gets "stupid" when they drink, but some do, and everybody gets stupid at some point. That shows pretty good evidence that alcohol needs some kind of warning. Fortunately, it has one, and the effects of alcohol are well known. Mirapex is a very different case, and attempting to make a judgment with hindsight is arrogant. Giving somebody Mirapex who knows nothing about it, who trusts you fully, is like giving a child alcohol for some ailment. You can?t blame the child for acting stupid once the kid is drunk, and when the public learns about what happened, you?re going to be libel in court. | |
| Posted by: Marc Fortin | When: 05/27/2009 10:29:32 PM EST |
| My wife came up with the perfect P.D. drug Experiment. Bring all the so called Big Pharma (BoringerI and Pfizer) Genius corporate Madoff like snakes together and give them a coctail of Mirapex ,Sinemet and throw in some good old Bromocriptine as a chaser. Prescribe this to them for a year and take before and after audit of their financial situation. You can also make a list of their friends and family prior to taking the drugs and after this study is over. Next keep records of all the websites these guinea pigs visit on their computer and finally make sure they are weighed before they begin. I am positive you will see that 45 to 50% of these people s live will be ruined. Don'T forget to send them on that great withdrawal trip only to come out of it with nothing left but shame, embarrassment and totally financial devastation.You are welcome to join this great ride if you want Mr McCarthy. Just make sure you read the labels | |
