Dear Drug Enforcement Administration:

I am asking the DEA to investigate what I believe may have been the unlawful use of controlled substances by physicians at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences (UAMS) to restrain a patient who had not consented to those drugs and had not been diagnosed with a psychiatric condition that would justify chemical restraint.

The patient was my son, Sean Lynn.

According to the information and evidence available to me, approximately 25 UAMS doctors conspired and forced Sean to ingest controlled substances beginning January 13, 2024, including fentanyl, lorazepam, diazepam (Valium), Haldol, and other medications.

The stated purpose, as I understand it, was not to treat a diagnosed psychiatric illness or an imminent threat to life. Rather, the medications were used to prevent Sean from escaping the surgical intensive care unit (SICU).

That raises an obvious question:

Were controlled substances prescribed and administered for legitimate medical purposes—or were they used as a means of physically restraining a patient who refused ICU observation of a mild to moderate TBI?

Sean was not being treated for a psychiatric disorder

Sean had suffered a traumatic brain injury before arriving at UAMS.

But, according to the information available to me, no psychiatrist examined or diagnosed Sean before the chemical and physical restraints began.

Nor was a specific imminent threat of death documented before the restraints.

The justification for the restraints apparently rested, in full, on a mechanism of injury that was reported by an EMT who did not witness the accident and arrived only after it had occurred.

This distinction matters.

A traumatic brain injury does not automatically mean that a patient has a psychiatric disorder or that physicians may administer controlled substances against his will simply because they believe he might leave the hospital with a family member.

The drugs were not merely incidental medications

The issue I am asking the DEA to examine is the use of controlled substances as chemical restraint.

Among the medications administered to Sean were fentanyl, lorazepam, diazepam, and Haldol.

These are not insignificant drugs.

The question is not whether these medications can ever be appropriately administered to a hospitalized patient. Of course they can.

The question is why they were administered to Sean, under what authority, pursuant to whose orders, and for what medical purpose.

If controlled substances were administered without Sean’s consent primarily to keep him from leaving the SICU, that is fundamentally different from administering curative medication.

Some of the orders were allegedly given by telephone

There is another circumstance that deserves investigation.

According to the information I have, some of the medication orders were made by telephone without the supervising physician being physically present.

That raises additional questions about who authorized the medications, who made the decisions, what information was communicated to the prescribing physician, and whether the medications were being ordered for a legitimate medical indication.

I am not asking the DEA to accept my interpretation of these events.

I am asking the DEA to investigate them.

The medications themselves created additional medical problems

The forced medication allegedly contributed to or was associated with aphasia and hyponatremia.

Neither condition had been documented when Sean arrived in the emergency room.

His sodium subsequently fell to approximately 122, an extremely serious level.

If physicians administered medications that caused or contributed to additional neurological or metabolic problems while simultaneously using those medications to keep a patient physically confined, the victim has a right to equal protection – punishment of the criminal, deterrence against repeated harm and restitution.

Two weeks later, I obtained Sean’s release

For approximately two weeks, Sean remained at UAMS against his emphatic protest.

Eventually, I was able to obtain his release against medical advice.

That fact is important because it demonstrates the practical consequence of the medication and restraint regime: Sean was not simply receiving medication during ordinary medical treatment. According to what I witnessed and the information available to me, the medication was part of a broader effort to prevent him from leaving.

UAMS subsequently sent a bill for more than $46,000.

I am concerned that the hospital’s treatment decisions may have created unnecessary medical complications and prolonged hospitalization, while generating substantial medical charges.

I believe the surveillance evidence may be critical

There is another reason I am asking for an independent investigation.

UAMS surveillance videos of the incident have reportedly been deleted.

I have ample evidence concerning what happened, including evidence relating to the treatment and restraints.

An independent investigation could determine what records exist, what medications were ordered and administered, who ordered them, who administered them, what diagnoses were documented, and what the stated medical indications were.

The DEA is in a particularly important position to examine the controlled-substance component of this matter.

This is not an accusation that doctors may never restrain a patient

I want to be very clear about what I am—and am not—alleging.

I understand that hospitals sometimes must restrain patients who present an immediate danger to themselves or others. I understand that sedating medications have legitimate medical uses. And I understand that physicians treating patients with traumatic brain injuries sometimes face extraordinarily difficult circumstances.

That is not the issue.

The issue is whether controlled substances were intentionally used as chemical restraints on a patient without his consent, without an appropriate psychiatric diagnosis, without a court order and without a legitimate medical necessity—principally to prevent him from leaving the SICU.

If that happened, I believe the circumstances warrant arrest and trial of the persons who instigated or carried out the abuse of controlled substances.

To the DEA: Please investigate

I am therefore asking the Drug Enforcement Administration to examine:

• Which controlled substances were prescribed and administered to Sean Lynn;
• Who ordered each medication;
• Who administered each medication;
• The stated medical indication for each controlled substance;
• Whether Sean consented to the medications;
• Whether any physician determined that Sean presented an imminent danger requiring chemical restraint;
• Whether a psychiatrist or other qualified professional evaluated Sean before the medications were used as restraints;
• Whether the medications were used primarily to prevent Sean from leaving the SICU;
• Whether telephone orders were issued without the supervising physician being present;
• Whether the prescribing and administration of the controlled substances complied with applicable federal requirements; and
• Whether the records concerning these medications accurately reflect what actually occurred.

I am not asking the DEA to take my word for it.

I am asking the DEA to look at the evidence.

A hospital is entrusted with enormous power over patients who are sick, injured, confused, unconscious, or otherwise unable to advocate for themselves.

That power must not extend to using controlled substances as a convenient way to keep a patient confined.

If there was a legitimate medical reason for every medication administered to Sean, an investigation should establish that.

But if controlled substances were instead used to accomplish non-consensual chemical restraint for the purpose of preventing a patient from leaving, the public deserves to know that, too.

The question to the DEA is simple: Were controlled substances used to treat Sean Lynn—or were they used to restrain him?

I am asking the DEA to find out.

Laura Hammett
Mother of Sean Lynn