In the small town of Souderton, PA, a community with less than 6,700 people, a 76-year-old doctor named Dr. Richard Ruth allegedly doled out over 240,000 OxyContin  pills from his tiny office space. Ruth, in the span of just 12 months, is accused of writing nearly 1,800 prescriptions for OxyContin, which is currently one of the most addictive painkillers on the market.

Doctor’s Family Left Temporarily Penniless When All Financial Assets Were Seized

Presently, Dr. Ruth has posted a $250,000 bail for both he and his son, Michael Ruth who worked as his office manager and is also being accused of illegal activity related to the OxyContin prescriptions. Although both men are free until their next court dates, Ruth has had $967,000 in assets confiscated by police as evidence for the prosecutors in the case who are preparing for trial.

Ruth has now formally submitted an emergency petition for the immediate return of all items that had been taken. He argues that they were “improperly seized” and that the assets are not just his, but also those of his wife of almost 50 years, Phyllis Ruth. Mrs. Ruth is not under investigation for any crimes at this time.

Doctors In Criminal Court System for Illegal Prescriptions

This story exemplifies two disturbing trends:

• Painkiller addictions are starting to affect even small towns on a grand scale.
• Doctors, such as in the Michael Jackson case, are being tried in the criminal courts for their behavior surrounding prescription medications.

With the escalating prescription drug abuse problem, an increased number of doctors are now under scrutiny for their prescription drug practices on a criminal level. Should assets belonging to an entire family be seized because one member made criminal decisions?

We are not talking expensive cars, clothes, jewelry or other luxury items being taken; the family’s checking, savings and retirement funds have all been part of the seizure. This leaves them will no cash to live on or pay lawyers for their defense until a ruling has been made. The prosecution says all items seized are proof of the “fruits of the criminal enterprise.”

In a country where we are innocent until proven guilty, it is a difficult scenario to accept that an individual’s basic necessities can be taken before they have been deemed guilty by the proper court channels. However, it is hard to feel sorry for a man who had his license suspended in 2005 for suspect prescription drug activity and who is possibly responsible for creating and maintaining the addictions of hundreds of individuals.

What do you think of the Ruth family’s asset seizure process? Necessary or unnecessary? Let us know your thoughts below.