Bill in Olympia would give emergency Standing Order powers permanently to the DOH; Dr. Ryan Cole testifies for 3rd time in DC; New VAERS reports of WA deaths; Radio show links - Measles vs. MMR vax
This bill would jeopardize patients' truly informed consent because standing orders become presumptive in the minds and practices of providers. Note the liability shield for SOH for any harms done due to the law that is proposed. In any event, the scope is far too broad for one person--it would allow any drug, device test, treatment, or vaccine for any reason any time. This one-size-fits-all approach is detrimental to the doctor-patient relationship, to doctors' reputations, and to the poor uninformed patient who doesn't have the ability or knowledge to decline an intervention. Please vote no.
These comments are being submitted under protest that I was only allowed to read 1:30 minutes of this testimony when the requesting agency head Dr. Shah was given more than 3 minutes.
Note:
Committee Count registering PRO: 19, ALL professionally employed by pharma or state
Let’s be honest: SB 6095 is about infectious disease and vaccines, not opioids and naloxone. This bill would bypass those pesky emergency declaration safeguards to mandate. Perhaps more alarming or even sneaky, this bill would allow limitations on prescriptions of possibly effective alternate treatments that federal public health agencies didn’t like – because alternatives would have interfered with the Emergency Use Authorization status eventually enjoyed by rushed, ineffective vaccines.
SB 6095 is a flawed bill that would grant emergency-like powers to the Secretary and DoH in times of non-emergency. We think that emergency powers were overused and too restrictive during the pandemic, violating basic rights, obscuring facts and violating informed consent. We cannot deny that vaccine mandates for employees were discriminatory, as employers clumsily kicked out workers for declining the risky injections which are now known to be much less than safe and effective. This abuse of emergency powers and duress that the requesting department took part in and promoted, should be reason enough to kill this bill.
Public health actors consistently recommend standing orders for vaccines as a way to overcome those pesky patients who are hesitant.
https://medicine.utah.edu/documents/evidence-based-strategies-overcoming-vaccine-hesitancy-1pdf. While this practice might be good from a public health perspective, it often bypasses informed consent by creating an environment of presumed safety or so-safe-the-doctor-doesn’t-even-need-to-see-you. We think standing orders are offensive to the practice of medicine, where prescriptions should be indicated for an individual case, not generally prescribed as a one-size-fits-all solution. Informed consent requires that risks are communicated to, understood by and accepted by a patient without coercion. If issued in the environment of a perceived emergency, informed consent is often sacrificed for urgency. These are shortcomings at the root of standing orders which should not be added to the weaponry of a department that is already granted broad power during emergencies.
This bill is unnecessary. With or without an emergency, the department can always send out advisories. They must have really big mailing lists.
Now onto the bill language:
• In Section 1.1/p1/Line11. I’m really glad to see the wording: “Any such prescription or standing order is issued for a legitimate medical purpose.” We need to constrain the secretary to legitimate purposes? Doesn’t that statement right there show this power can’t be trusted in the hands of the Secretary?
The bill’s flaws and suggested amendments:
• Many want to limit emergency powers after the pandemic. They were overused and abused. The power to issue standing orders this broad should not be granted outside of a declared emergency.
• Section 1.3/p2/Line4-8. If this power is granted, the issuance of a standing order should create a private right of action, and public health actors SHOULD be held liable for civil or criminal damages, so remove that wording.
• Section 1.4/p2/Line9. Remove, starting with “the secretary may place limitations on the use of a prescription…” This is an important point hidden by the bills title and again interferes with the practice of medicine.
• Section 1.6/p2/Line28. This is too open-ended: “Other persons may acquire… and administer a biological product, device, or drug pursuant to a prescription or standing order issued…”Standing orders further remove drug administration away from a primary care physician, and along with that, properly obtained informed consent.
Please oppose SB 6095 on its basic premise. Given the Department’s inability to do their own research (even with a budget of hundreds of millions), their deferral to federal policies will continue to cede state sovereignty and the ability to differ from bad federal policy. If it really must go forward, it must include pre-conditions of a declared emergency and not be so open-ended. And most importantly, we ask that it specify that standing orders still require fully informed consent and the right to decline.
I appreciate getting weekly updates that pertain specifically to Washington. I may not always have time to *read* these posts, but I can always find time to *listen* to them via the Substack app's "Play Now" feature. Thank you for your faithful and timely reports.
Please share Public Comments sent on SB 6095 by replying to this comment.
From another ICWA officer.
This bill would jeopardize patients' truly informed consent because standing orders become presumptive in the minds and practices of providers. Note the liability shield for SOH for any harms done due to the law that is proposed. In any event, the scope is far too broad for one person--it would allow any drug, device test, treatment, or vaccine for any reason any time. This one-size-fits-all approach is detrimental to the doctor-patient relationship, to doctors' reputations, and to the poor uninformed patient who doesn't have the ability or knowledge to decline an intervention. Please vote no.
To the Senate Health Committee:
These comments are being submitted under protest that I was only allowed to read 1:30 minutes of this testimony when the requesting agency head Dr. Shah was given more than 3 minutes.
Note:
Committee Count registering PRO: 19, ALL professionally employed by pharma or state
Committee Count registering CON: 560, concerned citizens
Let’s be honest: SB 6095 is about infectious disease and vaccines, not opioids and naloxone. This bill would bypass those pesky emergency declaration safeguards to mandate. Perhaps more alarming or even sneaky, this bill would allow limitations on prescriptions of possibly effective alternate treatments that federal public health agencies didn’t like – because alternatives would have interfered with the Emergency Use Authorization status eventually enjoyed by rushed, ineffective vaccines.
SB 6095 is a flawed bill that would grant emergency-like powers to the Secretary and DoH in times of non-emergency. We think that emergency powers were overused and too restrictive during the pandemic, violating basic rights, obscuring facts and violating informed consent. We cannot deny that vaccine mandates for employees were discriminatory, as employers clumsily kicked out workers for declining the risky injections which are now known to be much less than safe and effective. This abuse of emergency powers and duress that the requesting department took part in and promoted, should be reason enough to kill this bill.
Public health actors consistently recommend standing orders for vaccines as a way to overcome those pesky patients who are hesitant.
https://medicine.utah.edu/documents/evidence-based-strategies-overcoming-vaccine-hesitancy-1pdf. While this practice might be good from a public health perspective, it often bypasses informed consent by creating an environment of presumed safety or so-safe-the-doctor-doesn’t-even-need-to-see-you. We think standing orders are offensive to the practice of medicine, where prescriptions should be indicated for an individual case, not generally prescribed as a one-size-fits-all solution. Informed consent requires that risks are communicated to, understood by and accepted by a patient without coercion. If issued in the environment of a perceived emergency, informed consent is often sacrificed for urgency. These are shortcomings at the root of standing orders which should not be added to the weaponry of a department that is already granted broad power during emergencies.
This bill is unnecessary. With or without an emergency, the department can always send out advisories. They must have really big mailing lists.
Now onto the bill language:
• In Section 1.1/p1/Line11. I’m really glad to see the wording: “Any such prescription or standing order is issued for a legitimate medical purpose.” We need to constrain the secretary to legitimate purposes? Doesn’t that statement right there show this power can’t be trusted in the hands of the Secretary?
The bill’s flaws and suggested amendments:
• Many want to limit emergency powers after the pandemic. They were overused and abused. The power to issue standing orders this broad should not be granted outside of a declared emergency.
• Section 1.3/p2/Line4-8. If this power is granted, the issuance of a standing order should create a private right of action, and public health actors SHOULD be held liable for civil or criminal damages, so remove that wording.
• Section 1.4/p2/Line9. Remove, starting with “the secretary may place limitations on the use of a prescription…” This is an important point hidden by the bills title and again interferes with the practice of medicine.
• Section 1.6/p2/Line28. This is too open-ended: “Other persons may acquire… and administer a biological product, device, or drug pursuant to a prescription or standing order issued…”Standing orders further remove drug administration away from a primary care physician, and along with that, properly obtained informed consent.
Please oppose SB 6095 on its basic premise. Given the Department’s inability to do their own research (even with a budget of hundreds of millions), their deferral to federal policies will continue to cede state sovereignty and the ability to differ from bad federal policy. If it really must go forward, it must include pre-conditions of a declared emergency and not be so open-ended. And most importantly, we ask that it specify that standing orders still require fully informed consent and the right to decline.
I appreciate getting weekly updates that pertain specifically to Washington. I may not always have time to *read* these posts, but I can always find time to *listen* to them via the Substack app's "Play Now" feature. Thank you for your faithful and timely reports.