medical

Hear Kavanaugh Out or Get Out

~ wheelhelmina ~ Leave a comment

I am exceedingly disappointed in disability community leaders. They are engaging in what Senator Ben Sasse recently referred to as “theatrics.” While theatrics may, admittedly, serve a purpose in some advocacy pursuits, the theatrics prompting interruptions of Brett Kavanaugh’s hearings are meritless. Beyond that, they reveal a fundamental misunderstanding about the role of the Supreme Court. I’m embarrassed that disability community leaders have hijacked the Kavanaugh hearings to reveal, at best, ignorance, and at worst, manipulation by Democratic Party operatives.

Yesterday I was having a conversation with two friends who also advocate within the disability community. One friend shared that she had written letters oppositing Kavanaugh’s nomination. I asked why she disagreed with Kavanaugh’s pending appointment to the Supreme Court, and she was surprised I did not know that he is “against” people with disabilities. How so, I asked. My friend said that he had made statements revealing his bias against people with disabilities. Yet, when I asked for further details, she could not seem to remember the words he used. Round and round we went, but my friend either could not or would not specifically identify what actions Kavanagh had taken that offended her so deeply.

My other friend jumped in, telling me Kavanagh forced two women with disabilities to have abortions against their will. I said I found that highly unlikely, as Judge Kavanaugh is a self-identified Catholic. I suggested, instead, that he had upheld a surrogate decision-making policy in the Doe Tarlow v. D.C. decision. Surrogate decision-making policies were at issue because the women had been deemed unable to give consent. Importantly, this decision tells us nothing about Judge Kavanaugh’s personal thoughts about people with disabilities. Instead, the decision reveals only that the surrogate decision-making  policies at issue in the decision were constitutional and appropriately applied.

Now, I’m not saying that I agree with the underlying policy Kavanaugh upheld. And we don’t know whether Kavanaugh did, either. Critically, the role of a judge is to interpret the law – not to determine whether a law is “good” or “bad,” and most certainly not to make it. Indeed, I believe these are the fundamental facts that leaders within the disability community fail to grasp. By coming out so strongly against Kavanaugh, and by insinuating that he is a less-than-honorable man, they look rather foolish.

I am concerned that when the disability community needs to advocate for or against a particular piece of legislation – as it should do – too many bridges will have been burned on the Republican side of the aisle. I’ve never witnessed the disability community come out en force against pro-“choice” judicial nominees who think nothing of a woman engaging in her right to selectively abort a fetus on the basis of its disability. Similarly, I’ve not seen disability community leaders interrupt hearings of judicial nominees that support creating a judicially-recognized right to physician-assisted suicide. So why all the fuss about a Supreme Court candidate nominated by a Republican president?

Even worse, I am concerned that the disability rights movement will have lost some of its credibility, demonstrating its fundamental misunderstanding of balance of power between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government. Simply, the judiciary does not create law. People with disabilities would be better-served if more attention spent getting focusing on the legislative branch and its ability to create law – that is where the community can have real, lasting influence in improving conditions for all people with disabilities.

When Who Attacks?!

~ wheelhelmina ~ Leave a comment

My sister and I were terribly bored yesterday, and wanted to find something to watch while bujoing. Because I can’t remember my Amazon password, finishing our The Americans binge was not an option. We were left with Netflix, and ultimately decided on A & E: When Patients Attack. The single episode of the show is billed as a documentary showcasing the tough work of private security at Queen Elizabeth Hospital.

In short, my sister and I were horrified. The first patient Security is called upon to deal with is an ambulatory patient who needs to go to the restroom, but refuses to use the bedpan provided by the hospital. In what appears to be a matter of minutes (although one can never really tell, given editing), the man is on the floor, pinned down by guards until police come. Seriously?! Why wouldn’t anyone permit this poor man to piss in a manner he found more conducive to the need – let alone give him any options? And why did hospital staff call on Security, who immediately escalated the situation?

Then we see a series of individuals seeking entrance to the hospital, but whose prior complaints and frequent-flyer status lead Security to believe no treatment is needed. Instead, these individuals are hanging out at the hospital because they are homeless and have nothing better to do. I could not understand why the first individual, Dean, was never offered some kind of volunteer position at the hospital. He clearly enjoyed being there and had no intention of leaving; why not give him a purpose and a sense of productivity while he is there? Queen Elizabeth Hospital went so far as to forbid one frequent-flyer, Frank, from returning for one year. In the updates at the end of the documentary, a caption revealed Frank died months after being banned. Do hospital staff still claim that he was not in need of treatment?

The final case that bugged my sister and I was a drunk woman with foot pain. Based on interviews from involved parties, it was easy to deduce that a nurse had done a brief interview with the patient. Because the patient was noisy and began to complain about wait times, Security was called to kick the patient out. The patient complained that no one had actually examined her foot, but staff claimed the examination was completed during the course of the interview. Really? No need for x-rays? No need to even take off the patient’s shoe and look at her foot? This vignette really illustrated the “merits” of socialized medicine!

If I were the attorney for Queen Elizabeth Hospital, I would never agree to the release of this documentary! And if I were a member of the staff, I would be absolutely mortified and ashamed!

Review: An American Sickness

~ wheelhelmina ~ Leave a comment

You know by now that I love reading and sharing information that I learn from a good book. Elisabeth Rosenthal‘s An American Sickness: How Healthcare Became Big Business and How You Can Take It Back is truly one of the most interesting books I’ve read all year! Especially now, as Senators discuss repealing and/or amending the Affordable Care Act, read this book!!!

410kNvpsHYL._SX327_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg

Rosenthal, a former journalist and physician, begins by thoroughly describing how the medical-industrial complex takes advantage of patients and legal loopholes. She devotes a chapter each to the ills of insurers, hospitals, physicians, pharmaceutical companies, medical device companies, ancillary service providers, billing and coding contractors, medical researchers, conglomerations, and patient complacency. The facts presented are fascinating: for example, “[t]he average hospital cost per day in the United States was $4,300 in 2013,” more than triple “the cost in Australia and about ten times the cost in Spain”!

The concept that irked me the most is “venture philanthropy.” Of it, Rosenthal writes:

The problem is that many charitable foundations no longer see themselves as funders of research for knowledge propelled by donor dollars to cure a disease, but instead as inventors in new treatments.

When insulin was developed in the 1920s, researchers did not stand by patent protection to reap income, but instead shared their knowledge with the community. When the March of Dimes helped fund vaccination research, it did not bill children or their families for inoculation. Now, medical charities are investing money in research. Because any successful discovery will likely result in royalties to the charity shareholder, the charity has no financial incentive to advocate for the cost of that discovery to be accessible to those served by the charity. Talk about conflict of interest!

Rosenthal devotes the second portion of the book to offering both systemic reform, as well as individualized, methods to save money on medical treatment. Again, this section was disturbing, given that neither Republicans nor Democrats are proposing many of the reforms proposed by Rosenthal. Although concepts like tort reform have been initiated in states like Indiana, contemporary federal reform efforts appear completely off the mark.

Last, but most certainly not least, the end of the book contains multiple appendices patients can use to arm themselves in price negotiation. Although options for comparison shopping for medical procedures are limited, Rosenthal provides links to those options that are available. She also includes template letters patients can use when objecting to healthcare charges.

This book contains good stuff, all around. I’ve been bugging my coworkers about it all week long, eager to share stories about how we are all getting ripped off. This book, however, is not a ripoff, but a real gem for the bookshelf!