Susan said: "you have misinterpreted the bill's intent with regard to medication and screening. [...] As you correctly state, the bill requests funding for research to assess the value of screening, not screening itself[...]
The part of the bill that you refer to comes under:
SEC. 101.
EXPANSION AND INTENSIFICATION OF ACTIVITIES.
[...]
3) The development of improved screening and diagnostic techniques.
(4) Clinical research for the development and evaluation of new treatments.
The key words: "Expansion and intensification of activities", "improved screening" and "new treatments", do not support your statement that "The bill encourages the funding of ALL services related to postpartum recovery." What New Jersey's law has shown is that it DOES support the PREVAILING services - the definition of prevailing being "predominant, generally current". And surveys show that the prevailing services are treatment with anti-depressants.
The language of this bill is vague and uncertain.
It does not promote "ALL" services as the word "services" are not defined in the bill. It DOES say "the delivery of essential services". Your definition of "essential services" and mine may differ. Your doctor's definiton of "essential services" may include AD's - mine might not. There's where it gets "covert" and "sinister".
Ask mother's in New Jersey who reached out for help after NJ passed their version of the Mother's Act and were treated like criminals, scooped up by the police and involunarily transported to the nearest hospital in a squad car.
State authorities there have said they: "heard the "horror stories" [but] we have to err on the side of being conservative" with an illness in which a small percentage of women have killed their children. What was not being said was the women who have committed these unspeakable horrors were on psychotropic medication - the same medication that the FDA has given the strongest Black Box warnings on for suicidiality and homicidal thoughts.
Doctor's in New Jersey have major concerns on the added responsibility and their vunerability to malpractice suits, fearing to discharge women from the hospital after birth.
The Melanie Stokes bill fails to provide for full informed consent. Proper consent should be express, written, voluntary and informed. The bill contains no wording concerning full information about risks and benefits of "essential services". No wording on providing an explicit option to decline services. No wording on the need to provide information on alternatives to prevailing services.
Therefore I will NOT be supporting this bill! And I am doing everything possible to alert others on the potential dangers of individuals in power over MY body/family to interpret this bill their way - without regards to MY consent!
go to:
http://uniteforlife.wordpress.com/2009/02/24/the-mothers-act%E2%80%94fruit-of-the-poisoned-tree/
Comment Reply
Susan said: "you have misinterpreted the bill's intent with regard to medication and screening. [...] As you correctly state, the bill requests funding for research to assess the value of screening, not screening itself[...]
The part of the bill that you refer to comes under:
SEC. 101.
EXPANSION AND INTENSIFICATION OF ACTIVITIES.
[...]
3) The development of improved screening and diagnostic techniques.
(4) Clinical research for the development and evaluation of new treatments.
The key words: "Expansion and intensification of activities", "improved screening" and "new treatments", do not support your statement that "The bill encourages the funding of ALL services related to postpartum recovery." What New Jersey's law has shown is that it DOES support the PREVAILING services - the definition of prevailing being "predominant, generally current". And surveys show that the prevailing services are treatment with anti-depressants.
The language of this bill is vague and uncertain.
It does not promote "ALL" services as the word "services" are not defined in the bill. It DOES say "the delivery of essential services". Your definition of "essential services" and mine may differ. Your doctor's definiton of "essential services" may include AD's - mine might not. There's where it gets "covert" and "sinister".
Ask mother's in New Jersey who reached out for help after NJ passed their version of the Mother's Act and were treated like criminals, scooped up by the police and involunarily transported to the nearest hospital in a squad car.
State authorities there have said they: "heard the "horror stories" [but] we have to err on the side of being conservative" with an illness in which a small percentage of women have killed their children. What was not being said was the women who have committed these unspeakable horrors were on psychotropic medication - the same medication that the FDA has given the strongest Black Box warnings on for suicidiality and homicidal thoughts.
Doctor's in New Jersey have major concerns on the added responsibility and their vunerability to malpractice suits, fearing to discharge women from the hospital after birth.
The Melanie Stokes bill fails to provide for full informed consent. Proper consent should be express, written, voluntary and informed. The bill contains no wording concerning full information about risks and benefits of "essential services". No wording on providing an explicit option to decline services. No wording on the need to provide information on alternatives to prevailing services.
Therefore I will NOT be supporting this bill! And I am doing everything possible to alert others on the potential dangers of individuals in power over MY body/family to interpret this bill their way - without regards to MY consent!
go to:
April 13, 2009 - 8:07pmhttp://uniteforlife.wordpress.com/2009/02/24/the-mothers-act%E2%80%94fruit-of-the-poisoned-tree/
This Comment
Reply