Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 2
77
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 07:14 AM
link   
I am not mistaken AT ALL

READ the legislation. The doctor may use the disclosed information to TELL THE PATIENT that something in the recipe is making him sick and to devise treatment option. He is prohibited only from disclosing the actual recipe.

Ie - he can say that there is benezene in the recipe and it is affecting your health. He just can't tell you the exact recipe.

Why would the patient need to know the exact recipe to receive treatment or to be advised that it is the fracking fluid that is making his sick?

Tired of Control Freaks




posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 07:37 AM
link   

“The confidentiality agreements are worrisome,” says Peter Scheer, a journalist/lawyer who is executive director of the First Amendment Coalition. Physicians who sign the non-disclosure agreements and then disclose the possible risks to protect the community can be sued for breech of contract, and the companies can seek both injunctions and damages, says Scheer.

themoderatevoice.com...

Ill believe this guy before Ill believe ^ that guy



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 07:46 AM
link   
You know what sucks, I live in PA, went to the dentists last monday, and literally after I left, I felt deathly ill and had to go home and sleep for 2 days. Still haven't fully recovered and am pretty sure it's because I picked something up there. Don't know if it has to deal with this, but it very well could be.



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 09:10 AM
link   
reply to post by loam
 

Even with the most generous considerations toward this, it would seem to make doctors want to swerve around a particular diagnosis so that they wouldn't have to deal with all of this, putting the patient in jeopardy. It would also dissuade doctors from diagnosing patients with problems associated with fracking fluids so that they don't get themselves in a fight with oil companies. I would assume their malpractice underwriters will be urging them to look for other causes as well.



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 09:12 AM
link   
reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks
 


Because it's the patients LIFE at stake. Are you blind?



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 09:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by TiredofControlFreaks
reply to post by loam
 


ok lets tone the rhetoric down just a little bit.

Obviously, the "recipe" for the fracking fluid is proprietary information. This is information, that if it were to be made public, would put the company at an economic disadvantage.

Just as obviously, if a person suspects this symptoms may be related to fracking fluid, a doctor would need to know the exact "recipe" to properly diagnose the patient.

What this law does is order the company to release the recipe to a doctor upon request but places the doctor responsible for not revealing the exact recipe.

There is NOTHING that stops the doctor from telling a patient that he has symptoms that appear to be related to exposure to fracking fluid and recommending treatment options. (or from telling the patient that his symptoms cannot be possibly caused by the fracking fluid used by a local company).

We really don't need the melodrama here.

Its like a doctor acquiring the recipe for fig newtons to be able to diagnose a patient who claims to be allergic to flour. The doctor needs to confirm that the company uses flour in the recipe but the patient has not need to know what the exact recipe is.

Tired of Control Freaks


But the whole fracking problem is what is put in these concoctions. Does this mean that anyone can dump anything as long as they call it proprietary? It brings the whole cause and effect thing down to a guessing game. I believe if you are going to dump massive amounts of something and you can not really be sure what will happen to it -- perhaps I want to know what that stuff is. Remember after it is done fracking it becomes industrial waste.



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 09:36 AM
link   
reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks
 



Originally posted by TiredofControlFreaks
I am not mistaken AT ALL

READ the legislation. The doctor may use the disclosed information to TELL THE PATIENT that something in the recipe is making him sick and to devise treatment option. He is prohibited only from disclosing the actual recipe.




I can only assume, you either do not understand the law or are choosing not to understand the law. Either way, you are WRONG.

Let me walk you through this. The language of the statute is quite plain. (Link.)



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.


So what this means is that the physician may USE the information to devise a treatment, but may NOT DISCLOSE the information to any other party.

This language is so ridiculous it even potentially operates to prevent the physician from sharing this information with colleagues or other medical personnel, let alone the patient. The question would hinge upon whether a court would include in the phrase "health needs asserted" as necessarily requiring these additional disclosures to the other parties to effect treatment. But leave alone that ambiguity. It is certainly clear the doctor would not be able to share the information with other colleagues or medical staff not involved in the patient's treatment. And there are certainly circumstances where additional disclosures would routinely be made in any other context that would CLEARLY not qualify as necessary for the patient's "health needs".

For example, a disclosure to the insurance company of the patient would be prohibited....or even the simple act of documenting the information in the patient's medical records, which in every other context are routinely made available and reviewed by administrators, billing personnel, review boards, and a whole host of other individuals who have access to these records. (Think now of secret medical records.
)


Originally posted by TiredofControlFreaks
Ie - he can say that there is benezene in the recipe and it is affecting your health. He just can't tell you the exact recipe.


NO he can't!

The law EXPLICITLY prevents disclosure of the "the specific identity and amount of any chemicals".

Did you actually READ the statute????


The statute provides confidentiality protection to EACH of those items, not just the combination. So if a physician asserts 'identity' and 'amounts' are necessary for treatment, the operator is compelled to disclose both. But the physician is prohibited from disclosing any of the "information" in whole or part.

Of course the section of the statute quoted above just concerns emergency situations. In non-emergency situations it provides for the following:




(10) A vendor, service company or operator shall identify the specific identity and amount of any chemicals claimed to be a trade secret or confidential proprietary information to any health professional who requests the information in writing if the health professional executes a confidentiality agreement and provides a written statement of need for the information indicating all of the following:

(i) The information is needed for the purpose of diagnosis or treatment of an individual.

(ii) The individual being diagnosed or treated may have been exposed to a hazardous chemical.

(iii) Knowledge of information will assist in the diagnosis or treatment of an individual.



Good luck trying to get a physician to accept the remedy provisions often found in these types of confidentiality agreements. So what that means is the patient's interests will be subordinated to the physician's interest out of fear of exposing himself to personal liability. The practical effect will be for physicians to not even bother with determining what specifically caused the patient's medical circumstances or how best to treat it.

:shk:

Good luck also in helping anyone else under these circumstances.

Let's say there is a fracking fluid spill with a proprietary cocktail of chemicals in some neighborhood. Let's also say that a specific chemical, or novel combination of chemicals, causes an acute respiratory illness that then resolves into a severe chronic illness and ultimately premature death.

There is no known treatment, other than prevention in terms of exposure.

Guess what? There is little that can be done by the physician to warn others of the peril!

Pathetic. Simply, pathetic.


edit on 28-3-2012 by loam because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 09:43 AM
link   
reply to post by wirefly
 



Originally posted by wirefly
reply to post by loam
 

Even with the most generous considerations toward this, it would seem to make doctors want to swerve around a particular diagnosis so that they wouldn't have to deal with all of this, putting the patient in jeopardy. It would also dissuade doctors from diagnosing patients with problems associated with fracking fluids so that they don't get themselves in a fight with oil companies. I would assume their malpractice underwriters will be urging them to look for other causes as well.


EXACTLY!



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 10:29 AM
link   
reply to post by wirefly
 


BEFORE your emotions run away with you.....please tell me why the patient needs to know the whole recipe in order for his doctor to devise a treatment option?

Don't you guys realize that proprietary information belongs to the company. Without this law, they are NOT obliged to give this information to ANYONE. With this new law, a doctor who feels he needs this proprietary information can sign a non-disclosure agreement, get the recipe, review it and evaluate whether or not he feels that the patient HAS been exposed to something that is hurting them and then devise a treatment option.

Without the disclosure agreement, the doctor will get bumpkus if he tries to get it from the company.

This is a law that tries to balance the needs of the doctor and his patient with the needs of a company to protect their competativeness.

Imagine if KFC had to publish its recipe for fried chicken so that Doctors could determine if a patient were allergic to it? But I am sure if a doctor required this information so that he could devise a treatment option for a patient, KFC would give it to him in order to devise the best treatment option.

Tired of Control Freaks.



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 10:38 AM
link   
reply to post by loam
 


I agree - the language is QUITE plain.

The company currently has no legal requirement to disclose proprietary information to a health professional.

If a health professional determines that the information is required, he need only state that it is required and sign a disclosure agreement and he will get it.

IE - a worker falls into a tank and is exposed to the fracking liquid. The doctor would want to know what he was exposed to. He tells the company and signs the agreement and BY LAW, the company has to disclose it. The doctor may not share the information to anyone who is not required to know it but is free to devise treatment options.

Without this law - the company has no legal requirement to disclose the information. and the doctor would have no idea how to treat the worker.

BTW - this type of proprietary information is routinely provided to government agencies who may require it (ie environmental agencies who must approve use of and limitation to the use of the fracking liquid). The government agencies are also required by law not to disclose it.

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 10:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by emberscott
You wont make it out. And you know this to be the truth. Because you have not gotten to the bottom of the hole yet and you know you are already too deep to get out.


Words of encouragement eh? No, we CAN get out of this hole. There are means...



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 10:54 AM
link   
reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks
 



Originally posted by TiredofControlFreaks
.....please tell me why the patient needs to know the whole recipe in order for his doctor to devise a treatment option?


Perhaps the quantities and combinations are relevant to the injury. Reactions to individual chemicals can be substantially different from reactions to certain combinations and quantities of chemicals. It doesn't help the patient not to understand his peril to future exposures or to help others from suffering similar injury.

Moreover, as I have already explained, the provision prevents necessary disclosure not just to the patient, but to any third party not directly involved in treatment.


Originally posted by TiredofControlFreaks
Don't you guys realize that proprietary information belongs to the company. Without this law, they are NOT obliged to give this information to ANYONE. With this new law, a doctor who feels he needs this proprietary information can sign a non-disclosure agreement, get the recipe, review it and evaluate whether or not he feels that the patient HAS been exposed to something that is hurting them and then devise a treatment option.

Without the disclosure agreement, the doctor will get bumpkus if he tries to get it from the company.

This is a law that tries to balance the needs of the doctor and his patient with the needs of a company to protect their competativeness.

Imagine if KFC had to publish its recipe for fried chicken so that Doctors could determine if a patient were allergic to it? But I am sure if a doctor required this information so that he could devise a treatment option for a patient, KFC would give it to him in order to devise the best treatment option.


Complete dribble.

Your hypothetical is not an equivalent scenario.

What KFC puts into it's chicken, and how, is already largely regulated by food safety standards. Moreover, no one is FORCED to eat the chicken or likely endangered by it's mere presence under normal circumstances.

Finally, the obvious risks and perils are on COMPLETELY different scales.



edit on 28-3-2012 by loam because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 11:02 AM
link   
reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks
 


Let's be clear. I'm not insensitive to the notion of protecting proprietary information to preserve competitive advantages.

But if that cover of protection serves to injure the health of individuals, I think that interest outweighs the commercial interest of keeping the information private.



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 11:28 AM
link   
I work in the oil industry, and actually used to work for an oilfield service company in their chemical department.

You guys would probably curl up in a ball and cry if you knew about half the stuff that went on, the amount of chemicals added to EVERY process in the oil industry.

If everything goes according to plan this stuff should never even come in contact with the surface, groundwater, or even close to people.

I think that the issue with fracing is with wellbore construction and companies cheeping out in this regard. The issues are with old abandoned wells that were not abandoned properly, in many cases this was done in the 60's and prior when they did not know any better.

So you take these old wells that have been improperly abandoned and drill a 1.6km long horizontal leg right close to it. Then you pump HUGE pressures downhole in multiple stages to fracture the formations. These fractures sometimes reach these old abandoned wells, that companies don’t always know even exist due to poor records keeping, and BLAMO! The well you just drilled and fraced has communication with a zone or wellbore that it was never supposed to come in contact with. This is the issue, and this is how groundwater is being contaminated.



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 11:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by TiredofControlFreaks
reply to post by loam
 


ok lets tone the rhetoric down just a little bit.

Obviously, the "recipe" for the fracking fluid is proprietary information. This is information, that if it were to be made public, would put the company at an economic disadvantage.

Just as obviously, if a person suspects this symptoms may be related to fracking fluid, a doctor would need to know the exact "recipe" to properly diagnose the patient.

What this law does is order the company to release the recipe to a doctor upon request but places the doctor responsible for not revealing the exact recipe.

There is NOTHING that stops the doctor from telling a patient that he has symptoms that appear to be related to exposure to fracking fluid and recommending treatment options. (or from telling the patient that his symptoms cannot be possibly caused by the fracking fluid used by a local company).

We really don't need the melodrama here.

Its like a doctor acquiring the recipe for fig newtons to be able to diagnose a patient who claims to be allergic to flour. The doctor needs to confirm that the company uses flour in the recipe but the patient has not need to know what the exact recipe is.

Tired of Control Freaks


The chemicals in fracking are what the real question is ... hell we don't know if just injecting fluid will do the same job or that they are just disposing of industrial waste at a creative level!

When society looks back they will wonder WTF were we thinking injecting million of gallons of toxic chemicals into the ground next to the aquifer.......



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 11:39 AM
link   
I live in Pennsylvania, so when I wake to find this, I become quite disturbed. To know that countless people could become ill and never be able to actually know why, just leaves a stale taste in my mouth. If they did, I bet fracking would be over quite quickly. My doc is a small town doctor though, I'm kind of hoping he still bends the rules slightly like he has in the past.
edit on 28/3/12 by Indecent because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 12:17 PM
link   
Big business are people now. The supreme court said so. This legislation just protects their privacy.




posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 12:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by TiredofControlFreaks
reply to post by loam
 


ok lets tone the rhetoric down just a little bit.

Obviously, the "recipe" for the fracking fluid is proprietary information. This is information, that if it were to be made public, would put the company at an economic disadvantage.

Just as obviously, if a person suspects this symptoms may be related to fracking fluid, a doctor would need to know the exact "recipe" to properly diagnose the patient.

What this law does is order the company to release the recipe to a doctor upon request but places the doctor responsible for not revealing the exact recipe.

There is NOTHING that stops the doctor from telling a patient that he has symptoms that appear to be related to exposure to fracking fluid and recommending treatment options. (or from telling the patient that his symptoms cannot be possibly caused by the fracking fluid used by a local company).

We really don't need the melodrama here.

Its like a doctor acquiring the recipe for fig newtons to be able to diagnose a patient who claims to be allergic to flour. The doctor needs to confirm that the company uses flour in the recipe but the patient has not need to know what the exact recipe is.

Tired of Control Freaks
They ate coveting their nutts
Against lawsuits when the stuff gets in groundwater...



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 01:11 PM
link   
Pennsylvania is my home state and I love it, and it always will be.
BUT
the chemcial nightmares that go on there are horrendous.

Stuff like this doesn't surprise me. I got one word:



Centralia
edit on 28-3-2012 by nixie_nox because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 01:24 PM
link   
Employees should have immediate access to the information on the chemicals they may be exposed to in the workplace. In the form of the OSHA required Material Safety Data Sheets that should be posted at every location these chemicals are stored.

Granted, those exposed that aren't employees would not have immediate access, but it wouldn't take much convincing of a county sheriff to obtain a search warrant of such a facility in order to obtain copies of the MSDS(s).

Local law (in the form of your sheriff) may trump any other law, especially when it comes down to the safety/health of a citizen.

A call to OSHA may also be a wild card in this scenario.

The EPA derived law The U.S. Emergency Planning and Community Right-To-Know Act (EPCRA) may also trump this BS legislation.

edit on 28-3-2012 by primus2012 because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
77
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join