It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 5
77
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 03:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash
Who is going to reverse engineer a toxic cesspool called "fracking fluid" anyways? That is so absurd...


BUT, with laws like this coming out, there will be no way to get compensation for the victims now will there?


Nobody, the reason they do not want to publicize the contents of the fluid is because
even the most diehard corporate toes suckers will question the wisdom of pumping
that stuff into the water table. It's simple , it is a guise...

There will be no helping the victims I suspect because it will be nearly impossible to
link disease with the industry. People simply don't have millions of dollars to invest
in the research and scientific testing and evidence gathering. They can do this because
in order to oppose it you need to think and if you can erect enough barriers to thought,
you can get away with a lot...
edit on 28-3-2012 by braindeadconservatives because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 03:48 PM
link   
Directly from the bill.



(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, a vendor, service company or operator shall not be required to disclose trade secrets or confidential proprietary information to the chemical disclosure registry. (2) The following shall apply: (i) If the specific identity of a chemical, the concentration of a chemical or both the specific identity and concentration of a chemical are claimed to be a trade secret or confidential proprietary information, the vendor, service provider or operator may withhold the specific identity, the concentration, or both the specific identity and concentration, of the chemical from the information provided to the chemical disclosure registry. (ii) Nothing under this paragraph shall prohibit any of the following from obtaining from a vendor, service provider or operator information that may be needed to respond to a spill or release: (A) The department. (B) A public health official. (C) An emergency manager. (D) A responder to a spill, release or a complaint from a person who may have been directly and adversely affected or aggrieved by the spill or release. (iii) Upon receipt of a written statement of need for the information under subparagraph (ii), the information shall be disclosed by the vendor, service provider or operator to the requesting official or entity authorized under subparagraph (ii) and shall not be a public record. (e) Disclosure prevented.--The department shall prevent disclosure of trade secrets or confidential proprietary information under this section pursuant to the requirements of the Right-to-Know Law or other applicable State law.


If you notice section (ii) part (D)

This would clearly state that a person directly effected has a right to know. Also please take note of section (e).

This is the directly from the law. So do you still state the the patient, the person affected, is barred from this knowledge by the law?

sb


edit on 28-3-2012 by safetyblack because: removed "can"



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 03:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by safetyblack
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?


The point is, lose dose ingestion fracking chemicals mixed in the water table do not create
symptoms indicative of emergency medical procedures. So the point is, if there is no
emergency, how are patients and doctors able to treat toxicity or resulting terminal conditions
if they do not know what compound are present in the body? This law bars that information
because the nature of illnesses caused by slow poisoning do not typically constitute medical
emergencies until toxicity levels are systemic and likely fatal.

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.


The law prevents the doctor, how does it not?



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 03:56 PM
link   
reply to post by braindeadconservatives
 


Please read the entirety of the pertinent section of the law. sec 3222.1.

I posted most of the relevant info above. This clearly shows that multiple entities are entitled to the information.

sb



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 03:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by safetyblack
Directly from the bill.



(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, a vendor, service company or operator shall not be required to disclose trade secrets or confidential proprietary information to the chemical disclosure registry. (2) The following shall apply: (i) If the specific identity of a chemical, the concentration of a chemical or both the specific identity and concentration of a chemical are claimed to be a trade secret or confidential proprietary information, the vendor, service provider or operator may withhold the specific identity, the concentration, or both the specific identity and concentration, of the chemical from the information provided to the chemical disclosure registry. (ii) Nothing under this paragraph shall prohibit any of the following from obtaining from a vendor, service provider or operator information that may be needed to respond to a spill or release: (A) The department. (B) A public health official. (C) An emergency manager. (D) A responder to a spill, release or a complaint from a person who may have been directly and adversely affected or aggrieved by the spill or release. (iii) Upon receipt of a written statement of need for the information under subparagraph (ii), the information shall be disclosed by the vendor, service provider or operator to the requesting official or entity authorized under subparagraph (ii) and shall not be a public record. (e) Disclosure prevented.--The department shall prevent disclosure of trade secrets or confidential proprietary information under this section pursuant to the requirements of the Right-to-Know Law or other applicable State law.


If you notice section (ii) part (D)

This would clearly state that a person directly effected has a right to know.


How can you prove that there is a correlation between the chemical and the symptoms
or illness? There is a burden of proof upon the parties trying to seek out the information,
even though they have no say in the matter of which chemicals they will be exposed to
and they will have to prove they have been exposed to chemicals that they have no
knowledge of in the first place.
edit on 28-3-2012 by braindeadconservatives because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 04:06 PM
link   
reply to post by braindeadconservatives
 


What you are describing is covered under other laws. Whether or not they are enforced is irrelevant to this topic.

Will you concede that the doctor is allowed to inform the patient?

I will concede that this law is an attempt to scare people into believing they don't have a right to know. It is also an attempt to use economies of scale to prevent people with limited resources from achieving justice.

sb



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 04:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by loam





For Pennsylvania's Doctors, a Gag Order on Fracking Chemicals

Under a new law, doctors in Pennsylvania can access information about chemicals used in natural gas extraction -- but they won't be able to share it with their patients...

...

The...law states that companies must disclose the identity and amount of any chemicals used in fracking fluids to any health professional that requests that information in order to diagnosis or treat a patient that may have been exposed to a hazardous chemical. But the provision in the new bill requires those health professionals to sign a confidentiality agreement stating that they will not disclose that information to anyone else -- not even the person they're trying to treat.





What a dysfunctional nation we have become! :shk:

It appears we are so far down the rabbit hole, it's hard to see how we will ever make our way out.



See also: The Conspiracy Before Your Nose: A Fracking Disaster in the Making!


edit on 27-3-2012 by loam because: (no reason given)


The worst part is that huge amounts of right-wingers will be cheering this as a grand victory over all those snobby, elitist, doctors and their cause-and-effect relationships.



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 04:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by safetyblack
reply to post by braindeadconservatives
 


What you are describing is covered under other laws. Whether or not they are enforced is irrelevant to this topic.

Will you concede that the doctor is allowed to inform the patient?

I will concede that this law is an attempt to scare people into believing they don't have a right to know. It is also an attempt to use economies of scale to prevent people with limited resources from achieving justice.

sb


I am not convinced that the doctor can access the full range of chemical compounds used.
I am not even sure the mixtures are uniform and I am also not convinced that two or three
separate compounds do not mix (in the water table) and create new compounds.

All of which can change treatment and have some weight upon the outcome.

I have a lot of reservations obviously



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 04:17 PM
link   
reply to post by braindeadconservatives
 


In the context of treating someone who was exposed. This law does not prevent disclosure to said person. I am not certain but I believe you are mixing the issue of lawsuits and criminal charges with disclosure to the patient.

Unless your going to have lab work done every day to see what you have been exposed to chances are you will never know. Although related, it is not pertinent to the discussion of a doctor being barred from disclosing to the patient.

There are many other laws that cover this. Federal and state laws. These issues are not addressed in this law because they are covered by other ones. That is why it specifically mentions that the ability for them to not disclose is subject to the Right To know law

I'm purposefully not discussing every broad implication of toxic chemicals because that is another topic. This topic is whether or not the Dr. can disclose to the patient. They can.

sb


edit on 28-3-2012 by safetyblack because: changed "I" to "I'm"



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 04:31 PM
link   
reply to post by safetyblack
 



Originally posted by safetyblack
Directly from the bill.



(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, a vendor, service company or operator shall not be required to disclose trade secrets or confidential proprietary information to the chemical disclosure registry. (2) The following shall apply: (i) If the specific identity of a chemical, the concentration of a chemical or both the specific identity and concentration of a chemical are claimed to be a trade secret or confidential proprietary information, the vendor, service provider or operator may withhold the specific identity, the concentration, or both the specific identity and concentration, of the chemical from the information provided to the chemical disclosure registry. (ii) Nothing under this paragraph shall prohibit any of the following from obtaining from a vendor, service provider or operator information that may be needed to respond to a spill or release: (A) The department. (B) A public health official. (C) An emergency manager. (D) A responder to a spill, release or a complaint from a person who may have been directly and adversely affected or aggrieved by the spill or release. (iii) Upon receipt of a written statement of need for the information under subparagraph (ii), the information shall be disclosed by the vendor, service provider or operator to the requesting official or entity authorized under subparagraph (ii) and shall not be a public record. (e) Disclosure prevented.--The department shall prevent disclosure of trade secrets or confidential proprietary information under this section pursuant to the requirements of the Right-to-Know Law or other applicable State law.


If you notice section (ii) part (D)

This would clearly state that a person directly effected has a right to know. Also please take note of section (e).

This is the directly from the law. So do you still state the the patient, the person affected, is barred from this knowledge by the law?


Yes.

In defense of your problem with this statute, it's often hard to read these things and get what is written, unless you spend a lot of time with them. So I don't fault you for your confusion.

Let me walk you through this one.

You aren't reading the (ii)(D) section correctly.

The section identifies who has a right to disclosure of the 'information' in spill or release scenarios. They are:

(A) The department.

(B) A public health official.

(C) An emergency manager.

or

(D) A RESPONDER to a spill, release or a complaint FROM a person who may have been directly and adversely affected or aggrieved by the spill or release.

In other words, only to a RESPONDER to a spill...release....or complaint. NOT the complainant, himself. There is a BIG difference there.

Is that clearer to you?
edit on 28-3-2012 by loam because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 04:34 PM
link   
reply to post by safetyblack
 


Okay ...this looks like it will be going on forever.



Parker Waichman LLP, a national law firm dedicated to protecting the victims of toxic exposures, has called on the Pennsylvania State Legislature to immediately repeal a provision included in a new law that acts as a "gag order" on the state's doctors,




Parker Waichman LLP believes that preventing doctors from sharing vital information with their patients interferes with a physician’s ability to provide care.


I am no expert on the law , however when a National law firm ..who is probably drooling over the fracking industry for potential lawsuits; is demanding this little law to be repealed and sees it as an interference of Doctor patient teaching, I would seriously look at this differently.




the gag order provision was not included in the version of the bill that was publicly debated by the Pennsylvania House and Senate last month. Rather, it was added during negotiations between the two chambers, and many legislators who voted in favor of the law were not even aware of the addition of the physician gag order


Everything about this bill stinks if your not sure how to interpret this particular segment than read in what context the entire Bill was written..so far It is not some innocent, protect my "precious" revision. It was done in secrecy and coincided with the rest of this corrupt Bill .




Act 13 does many things to elevate the rights of gas companies above the civil rights of people and communities. To start, it revokes local zoning authority to discourage oil and gas development, stating, “this section pre-empts and supersedes the local regulation of oil and gas operations” (page 162). Municipalities can adopt some rules on how drilling is to be done, but they cannot say no to drilling. Moreover, the law tells municipalities that they must revise their local ordinances to allow drilling if they want to receive payment under the new per-well impact fee. But pre-empting local zoning is only the start of Act 13’s heavy-handed approach. The law empowers the state’s Public Utilities Commission—a body of appointed, not elected officials—to overturn local zoning, and to determine if a community is eligible to share in impact fee revenues. Moreover, if a gas company or any individual does not like a local law that affects drilling, that “aggrieved” party can go to the PUC and the board will be required to “determine whether it violates” the new state oil and gas law (page 167).
LINK

Furthermore ...take a look at the map of fracking accidents in the last few years in PA ...and the countless of whistle-blowers that have come out and just utter scandal from the very beginning. Do you still see this as an innocent revision?

FRACCIDENTS MAP

History of fracking corruption in PA



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 04:44 PM
link   
Well I give up! Obviously, people WANT to get all emotional and to deliberately try to interpret the law with their own special brand of outrageous alarm.

The same people who demand privacy for themselves are unwilling to recognize the companies also need privacy on certain things.

I can't wait until one of them invents something and then has to share the recipe with the world for free!

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 04:44 PM
link   
reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks
 



Originally posted by TiredofControlFreaks
Well I give up! Obviously, people WANT to get all emotional and to deliberately try to interpret the law with their own special brand of outrageous alarm.

The same people who demand privacy for themselves are unwilling to recognize the companies also need privacy on certain things.

I can't wait until one of them invents something and then has to share the recipe with the world for free!

Tired of Control Freaks


Like I said in a previous post, I'm not insensitive to the notion of protecting proprietary information to preserve competitive advantages. I think my posting history on these boards sufficiently backs me up on this.


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.

Plain and simple. No special brand of outrageous alarm required.


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



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 04:56 PM
link   
reply to post by loam
 





(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.


You would have me believe that the diagnosis and treatment of an individual does not include informing them what they were exposed to?

sb



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 05:11 PM
link   
reply to post by safetyblack
 



Originally posted by safetyblack


(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.


You would have me believe that the diagnosis and treatment of an individual does not include informing them what they were exposed to?


Once again, you are not reading the statute properly.

Section 10 applies to non-emergency situations and is in some respects even worse, depending upon the terms of the confidentiality agreement the physician is asked to sign.

Section 10 only requires the company to (1) disclose the information....IF and ONLY IF....(2) the doctor submits to the company in writing those three things (i-iii).....AND....(3) executes the confidentiality agreement offered by the company.

It's highly unlikely that any confidentiality agreement offered by the company will permit disclosure to the patient, so the practical effect is still the same.

Understand?


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



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 05:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by TiredofControlFreaks

The same people who demand privacy for themselves are unwilling to recognize the companies also need privacy on certain things.



But you are placing corporate privacy over the vital health of people. This is why I think
your priorities are really eschewed. Plus, disclosing the compounds in the toxic sludge
does not mean disclosing the formulation of portion, which is just as vital component
in proprietary recipes.
edit on 28-3-2012 by braindeadconservatives because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 05:33 PM
link   
reply to post by loam
 


So once again it is your position that a health care provider is blocked from disclosing to the patient during the treatment and diagnosis of their condition? Informed consent? You do not appear to understand the doctor patient relationship. In the context of this relationship the patient is not considered the public, which is who the NDA will prevent disclosure to. We will agree to disagree.

What would you consider treatment and diagnosis? Run tests, take pill, go home, no questions!
Its laughable. I as a patient can not give my informed consent to anything without all the facts. Its called malpractice.

sb



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 05:39 PM
link   
reply to post by safetyblack
 



Originally posted by safetyblack
So once again it is your position that a health care provider is blocked from disclosing to the patient during the treatment and diagnosis of their condition? Informed consent? You do not appear to understand the doctor patient relationship. In the context of this relationship the patient is not considered the public, which is who the NDA will prevent disclosure to. We will agree to disagree.

What would you consider treatment and diagnosis? Run tests, take pill, go home, no questions!
Its laughable. I as a patient can not give my informed consent to anything without all the facts. Its called malpractice.


You seem surprised that laws could be written that make no sense.

Why?

Bad laws are written nearly everyday.



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



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 05:56 PM
link   
reply to post by loam
 


Oh I'm not surprised by it.

I also want to make clear that I am not defending this law. I just see it being misrepresented as something that in my opinion it is not. I also think I have done a decent job of presenting my case. As is often the case the definition of the language used can substantially alter the meaning of the law. I am confidant that mine are accurate.

I will admit that in the request for the information the Dr. may receive more information than he needs. The Dr. may receive information like manufacturing techniques that he would not need to disclose. The Dr. would not be barred from stating what chemicals and additives are used.

It was a nice discussion though.

sb



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 06:00 PM
link   
reply to post by safetyblack
 


Well, you know what they say about horses being led to water...


Fair enough. We can respectfully disagree.

I enjoyed our discussion as well.

See you elsewhere on the boards.



new topics

top topics



 
77
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join