I read this article "State Laws Are Reaching Into The Exam Room.." The article has a link to a new multi-organization report "Politics In the Exam Room A Growing Threat." The report is authored by four organizations:
The following organizations contributed to this report: National Partnership for Women & Families, National Physicians Alliance, Natural Resources Defense Council, and Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. Each organization authored the section related to their subject matter expertise and is responsible solely for that section
This report had input from women's groups, physician groups, environmental groups, and gun safety groups.
I guess it isn't just reproductive health anymore. The NRA and the fracking industry are also trying to push their way into the exam room and interfering with what doctors can tell their patients.
We all know the Christian Right and anti-abortion groups have pushed their way further and further into the exam room for 40 years now. The anti-abortion movement has been successful at getting Republican state legislatures to pass misinformed consent laws that mandate abortion providers give specific and often false information prior to performing an abortion. The Guttmacher Institute has a document listing examples. For example, in some states abortion providers must misinform patients an abortion leads to an increased risk of psychological problems, breast cancer, and that a fetus is able to feel pain. Since the 2010 mid terms, Republican state legislatures have passed 205 abortion restricting laws. The report highlights some of them:
In 12 states, an unfounded assertion that fetuses can feel pain, despite the lack of scientific evidence.
In nine states, content emphasizing negative emotional responses to abortion.
In four states, erroneous statements about the impact of abortion on future fertility.
In five states, false links between abortion and breast cancer.
In six states, assertions that personhood begins at conception.
In two states, the claim that medication abortion is “reversible,” which medical experts
have deemed unsubstantiated, inappropriate and non-scientific.
Doesn't this violate professional ethics and undermine the physician-patient relationship something all health care consumers need and value? Shouldn't what information is given to patients prior to any medical procedure be up to the medical providers and be based on medical science, not on someone else's religious beliefs or whether that information is a threat to corporate profits? Why should rich and powerful organizations or corporations who don't give a shit about patients only their agenda have more influence than medical providers and medical science itself?
In a Rolling Stone article, The Stealth War on Abortion a Planned Parenthood VP is quoted as saying these laws are:
"It's a brilliant strategy to package these laws as just making sure abortion is 'safe,' [and] in many states, they've been able to sell it that way"
He goes on to say that statistically abortion is safer than a colonoscopy yet patients nor clinics are subjected to the same medically unnecessary burdensome laws.
What's really shocking about the Rolling Stone article is how anti-abortion groups have virtually complete control over many Republican state legislatures. A former Michigan state representative told Rolling Stone:
"As far back as the early 1990s, recalls former Republican legislator Shirley Johnson, Listing (President of Michigan's Right to Life) would show up in the gallery and tell pro-life legislators how to vote. "We'd be voting on an amendment, something that those members who vote Right to Life did not have the opportunity to read, and they would look right up there and she'd give them a thumbs up or thumbs down," says Johnson. "Most of us were shocked, but we got used to it."
The Christian Right, anti-abortion groups, and the Republican Party should never have been allowed into the exam room. A doctor should be able to discuss reproductive health issues including abortion just as easily and freely as any other health topic. And abortion services should be just as easy to obtain as any other outpatient medical procedure.
I've had a few outpatient medical procedures. I've had a renal angiogram, multiple eye surgeries, and a colonoscopy. In every case, I was able to give my informed consent the day of the procedure. That process was so automatic I didn't even think about it. There was never a waiting period between the consent and the actual procedure designed to inconvenience me into not going through with it. And no Republicans were allowed into the exam room to misinform me of false risks in order to scare and manipulate me into not having the procedure done. No medically unnecessary roadblocks were thrown up to inconvenience me or the health care provider. There was no shortage of providers or clinics that performed the procedure. And nobody tried to shame me.
The experience of scheduling and obtaining an abortion should be no different than what I experienced to have the above outpatient medical procedures.
I guess a precedent has been set the past 40 years and especially since 2010 that it is possible for the rich and powerful to pass manipulative, irrelevant, unnecessary laws that have no basis in medical science and interfere with the doctor-patient relationship?
So now the NRA and the chemical fracking industry want in the exam room? Who will be next? The tobacco industry? The fast food industry? The fossil fuel industry?
THE NRA IS NOW TRYING TO PUSH ITS WAY INTO THE EXAM ROOM
The report correctly notes that gun violence hurts people and medical providers do treat gun violence victims:
Each year in the United States, more than 100,000 people are victims of gunshot wounds
and more than 30,000 of those victims lose their lives. Having a gun in the home is strongly correlated with three main risks: 1) accidental shootings, particularly among children; 2) suicide; and 3) fatal intimate partner violence.
For example, research shows (1) accidental shootings are much more likely in homes with firearms and that safe storage counseling is an important part of preventative care. (2) The research also shows homes with a suicide were 4.8 times more likely to have a gun.
A person who attempts suicide by another method is also much more likely to survive it.
(3) Finally, gun ownership poses additional risk for people in abusive relationships. If you are in an abusive relationship, you are 8 times more likely to be killed if there is a gun in the house.
That's why some medical organizations consider inquiring about gun ownership part of preventative health care. Yes, buckling your seat belt makes a person less likely to be hurt or killed in an accident. Similarly, gun ownership carries health and safety risks. The report goes on:
Restricting dialogue on gun access in the home limits the opportunities for
providers to fully assess patients’ level of risk and provide meaningful support. Medical gag rules inhibit providers’ ability to fulfill their professional and ethical obligations to provide their patients with preventive care.
The NRA and the Republican Party don't see it that way. They see the physician role as a threat to gun sales. What if someone reconsiders bringing a gun into the home because they have a family member with depression? What if someone rethinks buying a gun or more guns due to safety? That would hurt gun manufacturer profits!
In 2011, Florida Gov. Rick Scott signed a bill sponsored by the NRA prohibiting medical providers from asking patients about guns. The law was later struck down by a district court only to be upheld by the Appeals Court. The New York Times wrote about it here. The article correctly notes medical providers routinely ask questions such as if you smoke cigarettes, drink alcohol, use a bike helmet, have multiple sexual partners, etc. They aren't asking to be intrusive. They are asking because they consider these questions part of preventative care. I don't like all the questions I've been asked either. I used to hate it when doctors brought up my weight before I lost weight. Why? I didn't want to talk about it.
The report goes on to say:
Since Florida’s gag rule passed, various forms of physician gag rule legislation have been introduced in 14 other states. Although watered-down versions were enacted in Minnesota, Missouri and Montana, Florida’s gag law remains the most restrictive in the country. Similar bills are expected to be introduced in multiple states for the 2016 legislative session
.
I understand that some people may have issues with this diary as gun rights can be a hot topic on Daily Kos. I've never participated in gun debates here because I didn't have any strong feelings on the issue. I've never owned a gun. I don't want to own one. I've never had a fear of being a victim of gun violence. But this report has given me something to think about.
THE FRACKING INDUSTRY ALSO WANTS IN THE EXAM ROOM
The report notes:
More than 15 million people in the United States now live within a mile of a well that was recently drilled.
And
In many states, fracking companies have influenced the passage of legislation that interferes with the identification and treatment of associated health problems.
The chemicals used in fracking are an environmental and human health hazard. They also have the potential to contaminate water supplies.
In 2012, Pennsylvania passed a law some refer to as a doctor's "gag order" on fracking chemicals. The law does require fracking companies to disclose these chemicals to health professionals who request them to treat a patient, but the same law also forces health professionals to sign a confidentiality agreement not to disclose those chemicals to anyone including the patient.
The Atlantic articles goes on to say the fracking industry is exempt from the EPA's requirement that companies inform communities what chemicals they are releasing. The fracking industry also lobbied for and received exemption from the Safe Water Drinking Act.
Other states have passed similar laws. In North Carolina, emergency first responders may receive information about fracking chemicals, but it against the law for them to disclose that information to anyone - here.
Mother Jones also reported police, firefighters, and other emergency responders could face charges from disclosing fracking chemicals.
Ohio has similar laws.
The fracking industry says its chemical formulas represent a trade secret- they shouldn't have to disclose it anymore than Coca-Cola discloses its formula. Shouldn't the rules be different for environmental toxins?
Why is the fracking industry so desperate to prevent people from knowing the chemicals they use? Would that suggest those chemicals are safe or hazardous?
If big business was as powerful in the 1960's as it is today, how long would it have taken to convince the public cigarette smoking was hazardous to your health and increases the risk of heart disease and cancer? Would the tobacco industry have been able to regulate what doctors could or could not tell patients?
Hasn't Exxon-Mobil and other fossil fuel companies spent millions upon millions of dollars to convince the public that climate science is a lie even though their own scientists knew otherwise - here. The Republican Party and the fossil fuel industry got into the science lab.
And where does this end?