PENNSYLVANIA LAW: Forces Doctors to HIDE what makes some of their patients sick!

reply to post by muzzleflash


In response to your first statement.

Yes it is a paper tiger. This law is just one of thousands of others that often conflict with each other. The creation and disposal of toxic industrial waste is its own issue that is far more expansive then proprietary fracking formulas.

sb

reply to post by safetyblack

Originally posted by safetyblack
It amazes me how people can read things and insert their own meaning into them.

You mean like you? I take it the legal thing ain't your area of expertise.

Originally posted by safetyblack
reply to post by muzzleflash

 

I see that you do disagree. Perhaps it is because you are still stating that the Dr. can not inform the patient. This is false. The Dr. can inform the patient. I believe that is where we disagree.

What I meant was inform the jury of what happened to their patient.
That's the only thing that matters anyways now isn't it?

If a doctor told you "you have cancer" nothing can be done...
But if he said "You have cancer because the company next door is negligent and polluted you, and I am willing to testify in court this is true", than you have a lawsuit potential.

Of course there are loopholes to every law, but only the most savvy of lawyers can identify them effectively. And guess who hired them? The gas companies...

All the cards are stacked against us, and in favor of big $$$. This game is so rigged.

Originally posted by safetyblack
reply to post by muzzleflash

 

In response to your first statement.

Yes it is a paper tiger. This law is just one of thousands of others that often conflict with each other. The creation and disposal of toxic industrial waste is its own issue that is far more expansive then proprietary fracking formulas.

sb

Laws made it cheaper.

Like that law that said you can only be fined a max amount of $ per day for dumping toxic waste?

Yeah, so the companies dump all their waste at once and will willingly pay the fine because the cost of the fine is lower than the cost of proper disposal methods.

That paper tiger has teeth.
I'm going to have to say it's a real tiger.

reply to post by loam


I am curious to know if similar disclosure practices exist in New York. I will need to delve further into this. I find it interesting (and admittedly speculative) that these companies would go to this extreme to protect their chemical cocktails without considering the legal and financial accountability (and liability) that the release of such toxins on the environment would have. The very first news story that popped into my mind after reading the OP's posting was the story of the kids from LeRoy, NY who came down with a sudden case of 'tics' or mass hysteria.

The LeRoy, NY, kids’ tics: Caused by a toxin, infection, or just hysteria?

The initial talks and concerns centered on the lack of information sharing between the medical communities that had been treating these children. Now I completely understand the need for HIPPA but for many of us these always seemed to be something missing (especially those of us with ties to this community). My 2 cents tends to believe that there are those within the energy industry who at least considered the possibility of ground/environmental contamination as a possible cause for these kids illness and with that consideration, have been working to close any potential legal loopholes that allow for a large financial payout to potential victims in the future.

Just my opinion and these are strange times that we are living in. I wouldn’t put anything past big business.

reply to post by loam


Really? I have been wrong before. It wouldn't be the first time and probably wont be the last.

Care to show me where it states that dealing with the medical emergency excludes informing the patient? Most laws like these state what you can not do, not what you can. The text that I read stated that the doctor may use the information to treat the medical situation. I say part of that is informing the patient. You say it is not. I say your giving them more power then what that piece of legislation actually gives them. I wonder why?

sb

reply to post by muzzleflash


I do agree with you that the entire situation of dangerous chemicals in the environment is a very bad and real threat. You make good points. I just see this one single law as nearly meaningless in the bigger picture.

In the case of a trial I would assume that a subpoena or court order would be sufficient to override the Non Disclosure Agreement.

I'm not marginalizing the overall problem of toxic substances. Just this one law.

sb

I agree with others that have said this is all about covering thier "fracking" azz"s in potential lawsuits, and effectively silencing potential wittnesses. Corporations saw first hand how letting a "little thing like LAW" can really be a "nuisance" and cost billions of dollars when Tobacco companies were so effectively sued, and in large part due to Doctors testimony on the hazards of not only smoking, but the "secret" additives put in cigarettes.

Now we see drug companies flooding the airways with comercials "warning" of possible "side effects" of thier drugs, so in a court of law, they can say, "hey, we warned you some people may commit suicide from sleeping pills , even if prescribed by a doctor"...I don't even know where to begin with how "crazy" this seems to me.

Companies dumping toxic waste have a whole different set of problems, they can't flood the airways with commercials "warning" of potential health hazards the same way pharmacy companies do because they don't have the "buffer" of a CHOICE to willingly being exposed, so thier only option is to "influence" law, in thier behalf, and it seems, reguardless of the best interests of "real people" corporations rights are valued more. "FRACK"

interesting read.

Text In 2005, President George W. Bush exempted oil and gas companies from federal regulations designed to protect U.S. drinking water, and most state oil and gas regulatory agencies don’t require companies to report the volumes or names of the chemicals they use in the fracking process, chemicals such as benzene, chloride, toluene and sulfates. The result, according to the nonprofit Oil and Gas Accountability Project, is that one of the nation's dirtiest industries is also one of its least regulated, and enjoys an exclusive right to "inject toxic fluids directly into good quality groundwater without oversight."

environment.about.com...


that doesn't exactly make me feel warm and fuzzy, although our water may be coming out of the ground that way soon.

reply to post by safetyblack

Originally posted by safetyblack
reply to post by muzzleflash

 

...you are still stating that the Dr. can not inform the patient. This is false. The Dr. can inform the patient. I believe that is where we disagree.

Ok. Let me try to explain this once again.

The law offers, under certain circumstance, a compulsion of the 'company' to disclose the identity and amounts of the substances involved to the physician. But it also prevents the physician's disclosure of ANY of the information to ANYONE, including the patient, if it is not necessary for the emergency treatment.

If a health professional determines that a medical emergency exists AND the specific identity and amount of any chemicals...are necessary for emergency treatment...the [company]...shall immediately disclose the information to the health professional upon a verbal acknowledgment by the health professional that the information may not be used for purposes other than the health needs asserted AND that the health professional shall maintain the information as confidential.

Disclosing to the patient what made him sick has little, if nothing, to do with his emergency treatment. And the doctor certainly can't disclose the substance or combinations to you for preventative needs.

Originally posted by safetyblack
reply to post by muzzleflash

 

I see that you do disagree. Perhaps it is because you are still stating that the Dr. can not inform the patient. This is false. The Dr. can inform the patient. I believe that is where we disagree.

We do agree that what we are witnessing globally(especially in America) is the rise of fascism masked by "democracy".

What we have in America is a bastardized form of capitalism. The descriptive names for it are many. I like nationalized corporatism. It is anything but capitalism. Socialism is far from the answer. The only real capitalism I see anymore is usually related to the "black market".

I would argue that we have been running away from capitalism at lightning speeds and instead are experiencing the inevitable corruption and fascism that is the hall mark of socialism. Government is the problem. We need to stop feeding it.

Somewhere along the line the people have forgotten that all the wonderful gifts that are promised to them in exchange for a vote are really just coming from themselves.

sb

You are in profound denial... These kinds of thing occur because the government is not serving
the people, the citizenry. Suggesting that the citizenry have less say and input into matters that
impact them is a big part of the problem. That process leaves the shear power of wealth to
determine the law of the land because Americans have no representation or resources to oppose
that force.

If government was not there, what would keep a company from fracking???

Nothing

So you can see that your logic is not logical in any measure of logic.

The problem with America is that the government is not serving the citizens, this is because
many citizens like you inadvertently champion the $$$ interests and vote for people that share
your business first perspective as opposed to championing the interests of all citizens, like
poisoning ground water for example.

reply to post by safetyblack

Originally posted by safetyblack
Really? I have been wrong before. It wouldn't be the first time and probably wont be the last.

Fair enough.

Obviously, I'm also not infallible. However, I sincerely doubt this thread would be the example you get to use to make the claim.

Originally posted by safetyblack
Care to show me where it states that dealing with the medical emergency excludes informing the patient?

See my previous post above.

Originally posted by safetyblack
Most laws like these state what you can not do, not what you can. The text that I read stated that the doctor may use the information to treat the medical situation. I say part of that is informing the patient.

That's not right. You're using words not found in the statute. Read it carefully again.

reply to post by loam


I see what your trying to say and I do not agree.

No where in what you just presented to me does it state that the patient is not allowed the information. The patient is the medical emergency hence they are allowed to know.

Originally posted by safetyblack
reply to post by muzzleflash

 

In response to your first statement.

Yes it is a paper tiger. This law is just one of thousands of others that often conflict with each other. The creation and disposal of toxic industrial waste is its own issue that is far more expansive then proprietary fracking formulas.

sb

But those PROPRIETARY (

reply to post by braindeadconservatives


I said none of those things. You did not read my post. In your quote of me I stated that the government is the problem. Big money is the problem. Voting people into office that are in the pocket of government backed corporations is the problem. Letting these people legislate is the problem. Allowing them to spend money that is not there is the problem. The only way to stop them is to take away their play money and take away their power to make laws that benefit their chosen corporation. You seemed to have not understood my post.

sb

so they are saying the chems do harm people.
but its a big secret!?!?

Originally posted by safetyblack
reply to post by loam

 

I see what your trying to say and I do not agree.

No where in what you just presented to me does it state that the patient is not allowed the information. The patient is the medical emergency hence they are allowed to know.

Cancer is not would not get you admitted into an emergency room. Yet cancer would be
an effect of ingesting carcinogenic water everyday. The language is written specifically
to blur the line and fend off opposition by creating phony avenues for resolution. Fact is
Kidney cancer is not deemed a medical emergency, it is a terminal condition.

reply to post by safetyblack

Originally posted by safetyblack
I see what your trying to say and I do not agree.

No where in what you just presented to me does it state that the patient is not allowed the information. The patient is the medical emergency hence they are allowed to know.

But you would be wrong. This is simple statutory construction.

The law says "the information may not be used for purposes other than the health needs asserted".

The 'health needs asserted" are "emergency treatment". That is defined by the statute in the same clause.

Plain and simple.

I can't think of a single argument that would require YOUR knowledge of the substances that made you sick, in order for your physician to render EMERGENCY TREATMENT.

All that is required to render such aid is your physician's knowledge of the substances.

Originally posted by buddha
so they are saying the chems do harm people.
but its a big secret!?!?

They are saying you do not have the right to know what those chemicals
are composed of, which will make it hard, if not impossible to treat your
illness properly.

reply to post by braindeadconservatives


A person is admitted to the emergency room by showing up to it. I worked in an ER for three years. I see no statutory definition of medical emergency in this law. So you are using your own definition of what constitutes an emergency. Yes certain cancers are not immediately life threatening. Your point?

I used proprietary because that is what the context of this thread is about.

It seems that my position is being dictated to me by a false belief in either being for or against an issue as a whole.

I am discussing this law in particular only.

I have made no claim that toxic waste is not bad.

I have made no claim that corporations haven't corrupted our political process.

The only claim I have made is that this law does not prevent a Dr. from disclosing to the patient.

Please don't include me in your ideological manipulations of the discussion about this one particular law.

sb