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: 8
77
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 08:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by dagann
reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks
 

You have a lot of nerve to state such an opinion. Not only does the patient have a right to know the exact chemicals involved in threatening his health, but also society has the right to know when these "flagged" chemicals are used within the environment. "Chemical recipes" in products used in commercial applications are protected by Patents. Although it's apparent you think private interests outweigh Public Health concerns, I'm here to tell you that past court decisions state otherwise. Whether there is risks associated with radiation of cell phones or chemicals that breach the safety of the Environment, everyone has a vested interest in these "recipes". It's obvious that the Law in question is a ruse to derail possible litigation and deny compensation to victims, rather than safeguarding private "proprietary" interests.


and yet the corporations still keep these "trade secrets" private even if they do hurt the health of real people.

so, it's obvious the public HAS NO RIGHT TO KNOW...or...this info would already be disclosed.




posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 08:18 AM
link   
reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks
 


Your entire post is wasted electronic space.

You have been answered repeatedly, and rather than addressing the answers, you continue to simply repeat the same erroneous dribble and pointless questions.

Save yourself some time and step away from the keyboard. If you really feel the need to continue this 'discussion', just talk to yourself. It's what you are doing here anyways, you might as well skip the keystrokes.


Next.



posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 08:31 AM
link   
reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks
 

Hi tocf

Please! in the name of sanity. Stop!
People who pollute the enviorment are criminals and should not have civil rights.
Fracking is pure evil.
I think what folks here have been trying to tell you is that,
the recipe argument is moot. STOP fracking no recipe needed.
thanks ljb



posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 10:13 AM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


This is true and you make a good point. I don't know what the regs were at that time but since mining companies rule pennsylvania, I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of safety factors are skirted.

Heck, in some parts of PA, you only own your property to ten feet down. Because anything underneath is leased to mining companies.

Also I have had so many stories of houses having to be bought out because of subsidence (sp?) IN fact, one relatives house will be taken over by a hill that moves a foot a year, the house will be toast in like 2018.



posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 10:27 AM
link   
reply to post by longjohnbritches
 


To logjohbritches

I will stand true behind civil rights. You opinions and your emotions do NOT make a wrong into a right.

Look again at the posting "These people are criminals and have no rights" No proof of any criminal activity is offered. Corporations you don't like just are criminals, its assumed. And yes - criminals do have civil rights!
We all have civil rights or none of us have civil rights.

You do not have any right to know proprietary information. No one yet has offered any reason why they need proprietary information.

If someone were to put poison in a can of coke - would you need to know the proprietary information of the original coke recipe or would you need to know exactly what was in the can you drank from? How did the coke chemically react with the poison?

Even if the whole world stands against me - I will refuse to stand down. This type of emotional reaction is what allows TSA to get away with personal searchs in order to "protect" us from terrorism. Civil rights are always suspended when fears and emotions become out of control

You all say you don't want fracking - so which of you has forsaken the use of oil? Still drive a car? Still use plastic products made from oil?

These people are not criminals - they are trying to recover oil from the ground in order that you can maintain your lifestyle. If you don't want the oil - then reject the lifestyle it supports. That will make less demand and they won't need to frack to recover oil

But as long as you demand oil to maintain your lifestyle, how dare call these companies criminals for supplying your demand?

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 02:52 PM
link   
I can clearly see I'm wasting my breath on this thread. Cheerio lads!



posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 04:35 PM
link   
reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks
 


Well I do admire a person that sticks to thier guns.
I just hope you are not addicted to THE RECIPE.
It must taste pretty barffie.
take care



posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 07:50 PM
link   
reply to post by longjohnbritches
 


Tastes better than mob tyranny!

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 10:51 PM
link   
reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks
 


I think the reason why your argument about protecting the "civil rights" of a companies "secret ingredients" is being met with such distain, is because it's sidetracking the heart of this issue. As other's have pointed out it's possible to access info. on fracking practices, and REALLY, is there a bunch of competition out there just waiting to get thier hands on the "secret" fracking process? It's silly.

The heart of this issue is about forcing doctors to "jump through hoops" ( submit request in writting to get information needed to treat a patient) AND also have to sign a GAG order which prevents them from ever going to court and saying " my patient suffered from x, y, z" ,if it is part of the "secret formula" they no longer can testify.

It's diabolical, genius in a twisted way, because the exact argument you keep making is exactly how and why they keep getting away with it, but the intent has NOTHING to do with protecting trade secrets, and EVERYTHING to do with preventing people from having a voice in the judicial system, and the timing of this law, in a specific state that has recently had accidents/problems that may have caused serious health risks to the people living there is very dubious.

Nope, this is not about protecting trade secrets IMHO...
edit on 29-3-2012 by MountainLaurel because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 12:23 AM
link   
reply to post by MountainLaurel
 


MountainLaurel

I am having very hard time with the arguement the companies are trying to prevent lawsuits.

A doctor can still testify that patient suffered adverse effect. What is stopping him? Doctors testify as expert witnesses. It is sufficient for a Doctor to say - I have reviewed the fracking recipe. In my opinion, patient X suffered skin irritation due to exposure to the spilled material.

Do you really need to know the exact recipe to determine that the environment has suffered harm?

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 01:00 AM
link   
reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks
 


It seems our understanding of this law is different. You are claiming a doctor can still testify after signing a gag order? that is not my understanding of this law, and if you are not willing to look at the bigger implications beyond trade rights, then all I can say is ....



posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 06:20 AM
link   
reply to post by MountainLaurel
 


Why wouldn't a doctor be able testify to what his profession and education allows him to be an expert on?

Why would anyone want a doctor to testify about a specific fracking recipe - is he an expert witness in fracking fluids. As a doctor, he would be limited in his expert testimony to health effects, not fracking recipes

Look - the fact is that without this law - a doctor can request proprietary information until the cows come home. He won't get it! The company is under no obligation to share the information with him. With this law, a doctor can get the recipe and use it to diagnose the patient and come up with a treatment option. Then he can testify in court, saying I treated so and so for exposure to fracking fluid because it caused x medical problem.

So which situation is better - a doctor who can get information he needs to diagnose and treat a patient OR a doctor who can't!

Tired of Control Freaks
TIRED



posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 08:49 AM
link   
reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks
 



Originally posted by TiredofControlFreaks
reply to post by MountainLaurel
 


Why wouldn't a doctor be able testify to what his profession and education allows him to be an expert on?

Why would anyone want a doctor to testify about a specific fracking recipe - is he an expert witness in fracking fluids. As a doctor, he would be limited in his expert testimony to health effects, not fracking recipes

Look - the fact is that without this law - a doctor can request proprietary information until the cows come home. He won't get it!


Despite the tangent some have been arguing with you, the EXACT recipe is still available in a litigation context through subpoena by the victim/plaintiff. So that point is mute.

But I think we already know the legal stuff isn't your strong suit.


The medical stuff isn't your strong suit either, as the following point too has already been made, which you continue to fail to address:


Originally posted by TiredofControlFreaks
...a doctor who can get information he needs to diagnose and treat a patient...


The quantities and combinations are relevant to the injury and treatment. Simply knowing a chemical is present isn't helpful in diagnosis or treatment, when QUANTITY plays a significant role in health impacts. Moreover, reactions to individual chemicals can be substantially different from reactions to certain combinations and quantities of chemicals. If the physician only knows the presence of a laundry list of chemicals, precious time could be wasted chasing remedial options not relevant to the patient's specific exposure.

And because of this ridiculous gag order preventing disclosure to the patient, the physician can't instruct the patient for preventative care with respect to future exposures, which could be life threatening.

If you add a patient disclosure option to this law, and permit communications to the insurance carrier, then that would go a long way to fixing the problem most have with this thing.
edit on 30-3-2012 by loam because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 10:10 AM
link   
reply to post by loam
 


Explain this oh so carefully

The doctor needs the exact recipe - the doctor can get the exact recipe but has to sign a disclosure agreement.

The doctor does NOT need to tell the patient the exact recipe but has the knowledge necessary to develop a preventive measures plan (the patient needs the preventive measures plan but what good does it do the patient to have the exact recipe - he doesn't have the knowledge for it to be useful for him_

You say the company is doing this to prevent litigation then you say the recipe can be obtained anyway under subpoena

You say that there is no big competative market for the recipe.

SO WHO EXACTLY WANTS THIS RECIPE BUT CAN'T GET THEIR HANDS ON IT?

1. The doctor can get it
2. The plaintiff and the courts can get it
3. The government has it

Why there is just one group of people left - environmental activists.

Could it be that this newspaper story is being spun by an activist group? Pehaps the activist group that originally posted the article, perhaps members of the activist group who pose as trolls and called companies "evil" and "criminal" , that insisted they had the "right to know". And who funds these activists and what is their (oh probably not so pure) intent? Activists who have never hesitated to arouse fear in the public in order to get support and donations.

If everyone who needs it, can actually get it? Then why do we need to override civil rights to protect proprietary information?

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 10:23 AM
link   
reply to post by loam
 


Loam

I would like to draw your attention to the following link

www.huffingtonpost.com...

It is quite obvious from this article that Halliburton (and no I don't particularly care for this company) has gone through a great deal of research and development to develop a food grade, biodegradable fracking fluid.

Its obvious that other companies would love to get their hands on this recipe. Are you seriously saying that Halliburton has no civil right to protect their intellectual property.

If you are - please state your reasons for why Halliburton must forgo their civil rights?

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 11:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by TiredofControlFreaks
reply to post by loam
 


Loam

I would like to draw your attention to the following link

www.huffingtonpost.com...

It is quite obvious from this article that Halliburton (and no I don't particularly care for this company) has gone through a great deal of research and development to develop a food grade, biodegradable fracking fluid.

Its obvious that other companies would love to get their hands on this recipe. Are you seriously saying that Halliburton has no civil right to protect their intellectual property.

If you are - please state your reasons for why Halliburton must forgo their civil rights?

Tired of Control Freaks


Yes, I would say Halliburton absolutely deserves no civil rights and protection under law at this point. I know your not a big fan of You Tube videos but humor me and watch the this one, it answers the question you asked very well I think.

www.youtube.com...

This one goes into more depth about Halliburton's "ethical" business practices you seem to think should be protected.

www.youtube.com...
edit on 30-3-2012 by MountainLaurel because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 11:17 AM
link   
reply to post by MountainLaurel
 


Ok Mountain Laurel

You have exactly made my point. You wish to deny a company their civil rights simply based on the fact that you don't like what they do.

That is mob tyranny.

So if you personally happen to like a company - then ok - they get civil rights.

So what are we going to do here - are we going to enact laws that say something like "if you can get 51 % of the popular vote - then you have civil rights" But if you do something that is unpopular - you get your civil rights stripped away from you?

Can you not understand that either everyone has civil rights or nobody has civil rights.

Tired of Control Freaks.



posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 11:25 AM
link   
reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks
 


Loam

Apparently, you are mistaken. There is a competition to see who can get who's fracking recipe.

online.wsj.com...

But as the article points out - the ones who want it most are activist groups!

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 02:45 PM
link   
reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks
 


I asked that you watch the videos I posted, it's not clear to me if you did or didn't, and hey that is absolutely your right to not watch them or respond to the content and information they contain. If you still believe that "justice" is achieved any longer through the courts, and through what I would loosly call "law" then I would say your faith is misplaced in a system that is VERY broken, and unjust. To insist "we" respect "laws" that are imposed with total disreguard for the "law" by the POWERS and influence of corporations who CREATED them for THIER benefit, is shortsighted and outright dangerous to humanity, liberty, truth and freedom....

Did you watch the videos I posted? If you did, your still sure your position is honorable?



posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 06:58 PM
link   
reply to post by MountainLaurel
 


I actually followed the haliburton story pretty closely when it was breaking. Nope - do not consider them moral at all. That is the test though isn't it? If you take away civil rights from people you don't like, then you have nothing to complain about when they take yours!

But still - the law applies.

So MountainLaurel - I asked you a question - do we now put it to a vote whether civil rights apply to a particular person or company. If you are not popular - too bad your screwed!

Are you suggesting mob rule is better than the broken system of justice that we have?

Tired of Control Freaks.



new topics

top topics



 
77
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join