|
|
|
||||||||
Missouri Citizens Coalition
For Freedom In Health Care
Summer 1994 Newsletter
"All too, will bear in mind this sacred principal,...that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression." -Thomas Jefferson
Inside this Issue:
Religious Exemption to Compulsory Vaccination Restored in Missouri! Health Department Withdraws Restrictive Rule!
What Does the New Religious Exemption Rule Mean?
Two New Mainstream Studies Find Vaccine Efficacy Wanting
Vaccinations - Why Parents Should Freely Participate in the Decision
HB1030 Fails to Pass Missouri Senate - Nutritionists' Independence Preserved
Missouri Midwifery Allowed to Die Again
Midwifery and Health Care Reform: A Call to Action
Oklahoma HB2123 Signed into
Law -
Protects Alternative Physicians from Unjust Persecution
S784 (Hatch-Harkin bill) Close
to Passing but Still Needs Help in U.S. Senate;
Would Exempt Health Food Supplements from FDA Regulation
"Access to Medical
Treatment Act" (S 2140) Introduced in U.S. Congress.
Hearings Held
How to Contact Your Legislators
Next Public Meeting
Wednesday, Sept. 7, 1994, 7:30 p.m. at Olive Garden Restaurant in Des Peres (St. Louis area). Take I-270 to Manchester Road exit; go west on Manchester for about two blocks; Olive Garden will be on your left. The purpose of the meeting will be to discuss the future direction of our coalition and set goals and purposes for the upcoming year and the new legislative session beginning in January 1995. We would like to hear where your pressing concerns are and invite you to attend or send us your wishes and ideas.
Religious Exemption to Compulsory Vaccination Restored in Missouri! Health Department Withdraws Restrictive Rule!
On April 27, 1994, a hearing was held before the Joint Committee on Administrative Rules of the Missouri General Assembly to discuss the legality of Health Department rule 19 CSR 20-28.010, which had restricted the religious exemption to "commonly held tenets or beliefs of an organized religion of which the parent or guardian is a member". This meeting came about after approximately eight months of intense effort on the part of our organization to get our views heard.
Five MCC-FHC members testified that the rule (a) went beyond the intent of Missouri immunization law, (b) exceeded the statutory authority of the Health department and (c) violated the constitutional Separation of Church and State. Mr. Bert Malone of the Mo. Dept. of Health stated that the rule was necessary to maintain immunization rates. A spirited but polite debate ensued. Crucial testimony came from State Rep. Thomas MacDonald, M.D., known as a statewide supporter of pro-immunization legislation. He testified that the Health Dept. had "gone too far" and that the immunization law he had authored did not intend to remove or restrict the religious exemption.
On May 3, preempting a vote by the Committee, the Dept. of Health filed an "emergency amendment" "in order to bring the rule into compliance with the immunization law: "A child shall be exempted from the immunization requirements of this rule...if one parent or guardian objects in writing to the school administrator that immunization of that child violates his or her religious beliefs".
What Does the New Religious Exemption Rule Mean?
All religious beliefs are honored, whether personally held or part of some religious organization. We commend the Health Dept. for honoring these freedoms as set forth in the U.S. Constitution.
Parents cannot be required to declare to school authorities what their religious beliefs are.
No statement from clergy etc. can be required; a simple note from the parent is enough.
The old religious exemption form will be replaced. If schools still have it, parents should not be required to fill in the box for "name of organized religion".
Two New Mainstream Studies Find Vaccine Efficacy Wanting
An article in the January 1994 issue of The Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal examines the efficacy of the second measles vaccination which had in recent years become mandatory in most states. The finding is that of those people who fail to develop positive antibody titers after the first shot, "only 58% developed and maintained positive antibody titer" after revaccination. This is considerably less than the "95% efficacy" usually claimed by health authorities. The article also admits that "women lacking protective titers" (ie. ones who did not respond to the vaccine) "will provide little or no measles-specific antibody transplacentally to their infants. these children will be susceptible to measles infection virtually from birth and are at much higher risk for complications when infected at younger ages....Clearly the live attenuated vaccine is not as effective at inducing long-lasting immunity as is natural infection." (Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal, 1994; 13:34-8).
In another article, the prestigous "New England Journal of Medicine (1994;331:16-24) examines a recent (352 cases, no deaths) outbreak of pertussis (whooping cough) in cincinnati, Ohio and finds that 79% of affected children ages 19 months to 12 years and 82% of affected children age 7 to 71 months old were fully vaccinated. There was also "a dramatic shift in the age distribution of patients from infants to older immunized children, adolescents and adults. Most distrurbing was the occurrence of epidemic pertussis among children who were appropriately immunized for their age." The article concludes: "Since the 1993 pertussis epidemic in Cincinnati occurred primarily among children who had been appropriately immunized, it is clear that the whole-cell pertussis vaccine failed to give full protection against the disease." The study also admits that the "disease was not severe". It casts serious doubt on the appropriateness of continued forced vaccination campaign.
Vaccinations-
Why Parents Should Freely Participate in the Decision
by Christian Wessling, M.D.
As a family physician, I am often asked, "Doctor, what do you think about immunizations? Should I have my child vaccinated?" This question has become more frequent since Missouri's new immunization law removed parents' option to exempt their child from vaccination because they do not think it is the right thing to do. Children can now be exempted only for "medical contraindication" or "religious belief". This created a situation where immunizations were no longer voluntary in Missouri (even though they still were in about twenty other states), and parents who chose not to vaccinate found themselves outside the law.
I found the whole issue troubling, so I investigated. What I learned made me ponder the future of health care, the decisions my wife and I will make as parents of three young children, and, most of all, my role as a physician and healer, firmly believing in the ancient maxim of medical ethics, "First do No Harm".
I found that in 1986, Congress was alarmed enough about serious reactions to common childhood vaccines to enact the National Childhood Vaccination Injury Act, establishing the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. This federal program has thus far paid $394 million to vaccine injured children and their families. The federal government receives about 1,000 reports of vaccine-associated injuries or deaths every month!
I found that other countries do not share the same enthusiasm for vaccines as our U.S. health authorities. The governments of Sweden, Great Britain and Taiwan have withdrawn DPT (diphtheria-pertussis-tetanus) from general usage because of concerns about its safety; Japan restricts its use to children over two years of age. In Germany, Switzerland and Austria, where participation in vaccination campaigns is voluntary, the acceptance of MMR (measles-mumps-rubella) vaccine by the public is declining. A well-recognized concern is that widespread measles immunization has altered the epidemiological pattern: since the artificial immunity acquired through vaccination is inferior to the lifelong 100% immunity conferred by having gone through the illness, more cases are now seen in older children and young adults as well as infants who can are no longer protected by their mothers' antibodies. In both these groups, complication rates are much higher than they were when measles was a naturally occurring illness affecting mostly grade-school age children.
I also found that the efficacy of commonly used childhood vaccines is far less than the public realizes. Of the 120 cases of pertussis (whooping cough) that occurred in Missouri in 1992, 48% of the victims were fully vaccinated. Nationwide, about half the cases of whooping cough and measles have occurred in vaccinated individuals.
It concerns me that public debate does not give the whole picture. We are told that the drop in death rates from polio, lockjaw, measles and other dreaded edidemics is due to immunization programs when, in fact, most of this drop had already occurred prior to their implementation, mainly as a result of improved sanitation and other factors. A rosy, optimistic picture is painted of humanity, soon-forever-freed from these "old scourges". But even the World Health Organization has conceded that its "war on measles" is not about to be won and that worldwide eradication of measles is an unrealistic goal in the near future. Even the term "vaccine-preventable illness" is a misnomer because it ignores the high percentage of illnesses occurring in vaccinated persons.
This is not to imply that vaccines should not be given. Vaccines occupy an important place in our nation's health care system. But should vaccines be forced on people against their will? This is an issue that cuts to the core of how public health policy should relate to the individual citizen's rights in a free and democratic state.
The concept of publicly enforced vaccination campaigns stems from a time when smallpox epidemics were threatening and, at times, wiping out large populations. Things have changed since then. In 1994, what are the real threats to the health of our children: measles or poor dietary habits? Whooping cough or lack of exercise and childhood obesity? Chickenpox or domestic violence? Government child advocacy that focuses on the 2% of Missouri's children not immunized by first grade, by aiming to restrict parents' right to determine their children's medical treatment, does little to improve the more serious current threats to children's health.
Therefore, my answer to the question "Should children be vaccinated?" would be: "Let the physician advise, but let the parents make the ultimate decision. Let us have true informed consent, after balanced consideration of risks and benefits as we do for other medical procedures." We now have a schizophrenic situation where federal law requires parents to sign that they understand these risks and benefits before any vaccination can be given, yet the state makes it "unlawful" for any child not to be vaccinated.
More vaccines are on the horizon, some already in use, though not yet required by law. Soon states will be required to track each child's immunizations from birth in a government computer using the child's social security number. This represents an Orwellian vision of "Big Brother" invading children's private medical records.
Democracy assumes that individuals are competent to make their own decisions, including those regarding health care. It is totalitarian to assume that citizens are incompetent and that the government must make their decisions for them. Behind the new zeal to "get every child vaccinated" lurks a worrisome trend away from basic democratic values. While it is reasonable for public health authorities to offer vaccines to the public, even at government expense, we must not use intimidation and force to mandate medical treatment for children against their parents' will.
The physician and signer of the Declaration of Independence, Benjamin Rush, once warned: "Unless we put Medical Freedom into the constitution, the time will come when medicine will organize itself into an undercover dictatorship." The time has come to think about this once again.
Quote of the Month
"The whole theory (of vaccinations) is rooted in a belief in the immunity conferred by a non-fatal attack of a disease. The idea arises from the habit of regarding a disease as an entity, a definite thing, instead of a disordered condition due to complex causes; the germ theory, in particular, being the unconscious offspring of the ancient faith in specific demons, each possessing its own special weapon of mailgnity."
-Ethyl Douglas Hume, "Bechamp or Pasteur", 1923; quoted from Townsend Letter for Doctors, February/March 1994.
Other Legislative Developments in Missouri:
HB1030 Fails to
Pass Missouri Senate -
Nutritionists' Independence Preserved
Fortunately for Missouri's independent nutritionists, Registered Dieticians, a separate profession, failed to obtain the desired monopoly over the right to dispense nutritional advice and use the name "nutritionist". However, HB1030 was part of a long-term strategy on the part of dieticians, backed by powerful organized interests, and is most certain to resurface in some form or other in the next legislative session. Unfortunately, similar bills have already been passed in a number of other states. In Missouri, due to the valiant efforts of interested individuals, it has been successfully fought back for several years in a row, but this year was the first time it cleared the House. For further information, contact Concerned Missouri Citizens for Natural Nutrition, c/o Geoff Beal, N.D., 314-361-4214.
Missouri Midwifery Allowed to Die Again
by Mary E. Hart, M.P. (Nurse Practitioner)
House Bill 985 sponsored by Rep. Carol Jean Mays (D-Dansas City), which proposed licensing of skilled, direct-entry midwives, passed the House unanimously. It was heard in Senate committee but never voted on. This is the fourth year in a row that the Committee Chair has not allowed this important bill to go to the Senate floor.
Direct entry midwives attain their skill through midwifery school, apprenticeships and other approved routes and are licensed by the State once their competency is established. Direct entry midwives are licensed by several states in the U.S. Most midwives licensed in European countries fall under this category.
Another year is passing where Missouri's families are denied access to skilled, legal midwives. Missouri citizens don't even know how their Senators feel about licensing direct entry midwives. Many senators tell voters that they support the bill, but they have not been given a chance to vote. Most counties in Missouri do not have a physician providing obstetrical services. As a result, many babies are born at distant hospitals with little or no prenatal care. Midwives licensed under HB985 could greatly alleviate this situation.
Midwifery and Health Care Reform: A Call to Action
The Clinton Administration's health care reform bill proposes three types of health care plans: Health Maintenance Organizations (HMO's), Preferred Provider Organizations (PPO's), and the traditional fee-for-service plans (FFS). equal access by all categories of health professions is required of fee-for-service plans only. Thus HMO's and PPO's may choose not to deal with any particular category of health provider, such as Certified Nurse-Midwives or Licensed Midwives. This can potentially deny large numbers of consumers access to midwifery care.
It has already been the experience of the American College of Nurse-Midwives' (ACNM) membership that a large majority of managed-care plans across the country refuse to contract with Certified Nurse-Midwives (CNM's) to become participating providers. The Administration's bill not only lacks any equal access requirement itself but compounds the problem by deliberately overriding existing state legislation that allows consumbers' freedom of choice or otherwise prohibits health plans or insurers from discriminating against midwives or other non-M.D.'s.
There is a proviso to ensure that "essential community providers" cannot be discriminated against by any health plans, so those midwives who meet the criteria by providing health care services for significant numbers of rural or inner-city women may be protected.
The proposal makes no provision for birth centers to qualify as essential community facilities. Unless the final version not only provides that birth centers must be compensated by all health plans, but that their essentail role in community-based health care also be recognized, birth centers will be unable to compete with hospitals because they will not be reimbursed by the plans.
You are urged to work legislatively at the state level for inclusion of birth centers and Midwives in Health Care Reform.
Oklahoma HB
2123 Signed into Law -
Protects Alternative Physicians from Unjust Persecution
By this law, the Board of Healing Arts can no longer revoke a physician's license solely because his practice is "alternative" or "nontraditional". In recent years other states like Alaska, Arizona, New Mexico and North Carolina have passed similar bills which are major advances for medical freedom. They are an essential defense against arbitrariness and prejudice on the part of licensing boards who wish to curtail citizens' rights to choose their own therapies. Missouri, at this time, lacks such provisions.
We also just heard that a similar bill (Alternative Medical Practice Act) bacame law in New York State on July 27.
S784
(Hatch-Harkin bill) Close to Passing but
Still Needs Help in U.S. Senate;
Would Exempt Health Food Supplements from FDA Regulation
We have just learned that an important compromise has just been drafted in the U.S. Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee. Pressure needs now to be brought upon the Majority leader, Sen. George Mitchell, to move it out onto the Senate floor for a vote before the August recess. With 65 co-sponsors currently, its chances for passage should be excellent. This bill is a must for any kind of therapeutic freedom in this country in the future on a federal level. Call your State Senators, Kit bond and John Danforth, as well as the Majority and Minority leaders to emphasize the urgent importance of moving this bill out of committe onto the Senate floor.
"Access to
Medical Treatment Act" (S 2140)
Introduced in U.S. Congress. Hearings Held
Responding to America's health care system that limits the availability of alternative medical treatments, Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-OR) and Sen. Tom Daschle (D-SD) introduced a bill that would give individuals more options in choosing their health care.
The Access to Medical Treatments Act gives patients the right to obtain non-harmful alternative treatments without going through the Food and Drug Administration's lengthy and expensive approval process. DeFazio is responding to the public's demand to make non-harmful and potentially life-saving alternative treatments available to consumers.
Individual scientists, practitioners and smaller companies often lack the financial resources and expertise to confront the arduous and costly FDA approval process. "Our current health care system discourages innovation", DeFazio said. "Today, multi-billion dollar companies are the only ones who can tackle the bureaucracy of the FDA. In the meantime, many non-FDA approved alternative treatments are gathering dust on a shelf somewhere or can only be found overseas - many of which may provide a cure where traditional medical treatments have failed. I want to get the thousand-pound gorilla known as the FDA off the backs of people who want access to beneficial alternative medical treatments."
The bill requires full disclosure to patients of the contents and possible side effects of treatments. to protect against unbridled quackery, it strictly regulates how claims can be made on treatment efficacy. If passed, it would be a major advance for therapeutic freedom in this country. We need to contact our U.S. Senators and Representatives to emphasize the importance of this matter and urge them to sign on as co-sponsors.
How to Contact Your Legislators
by Dennis Baker, D.C.
Many times I have been asked how one goes about contacting one's elected representatives. The best way I have found is to call them and arrange for a lunch or informal dinner meeting. This gives you the opportunity to share forty-five to ninety minutes of time. Usually, they are quite busy, and their time is limited. So, by having a meal together you can have a lot more conversation.
During your meeting, make sure to cover all the points you have in mind. First, try to find out where your legislator stands on the issues that are important to you. If he or she is in opposition to your position, try to explain what your reasons are. By providing them with enough supporting facts and figures, you may be able to get them to change their position, or at least explore the issue more deeply.
Be prepared. List the topics you want to cover several days before your meeting. Make sure your facts are correct and offer to supply written material that will back up your claims.
Try to be relaxed. Complement your legislator on positive things he or she has done or been involved with. If there is a difference of opinion, do not get into an argument. Argumentativeness would alienate quickly.
Above all, be courteous and polite. Thank your legislator for his time and try to establish a follow-up meeting. Regular contact every month or so can build good rapport.
If I can answer any specific questions, please feel free to contact me at 314-671-5512. Good Luck!
Educating People
by Fran Norton, R.N.
Educating people is a challenging task but necessary to secure your right to choose your options in health care in the future. Last summer I did not even know who my State Representative was. Then I learned about the loss of vaccine exemptions in Missouri.
I met with my Representative with ideas and emotions in hand. She respected my strong feelings about the issue but admitted to having voted for the removal of the philosophical exemption. I felt that she was willing to listen. This is what I did: I wrote her a thank you note, sent her a gift subscription to Mothering Magazine (a leading wholistic parenting publication), an MCC-FHC "vaccination information packet" as well as a copy of my letter to Hillary Clinton which expressed by concerns about health care reform and included a lengthy bibliography.
This was followed by several more visits. Over the course of the year, her understanding of the issues grew, enabling her to see extended perspectives. I feel that it is our responsibility to educate our elected representatvies before they vote on our behalf, just as it is important to educate your friends and family.
Another important point: Looking up vaccination at my local library, I was shocked to find nothing that would help a person make a balanced decision. Libraries are storehouses of information on many issues which people frequently tap. We should ask that good vaccine and other health resource books be purchased for our local libraries. this would provide many more people with access to accurate, balanced and up-to-date information. A list of suggested titles is included with this newsletter.
Please feel free to share your ideas and suggestions through the MCC-FHC telephone line, mailbox, e-mail, and/or subscribe to our free e-mail list. We encourage all of you to continue to support our Coalition so our work for freedom in health care in Missouri can continue.
MCC-FHC, P.O. Box 190138, St. Louis,
MO 63119-0318
Phone: 314-968-8755, FAX: 314-332-3148
Home Page | Upcoming Events | Legislation | Newsletter Archives
Resources and Support
Organizations | What Can I Do? |
Email | Join MCC-FHC!