Monday, March 8, 2010
Sunday, March 7, 2010
Thursday, March 4, 2010
Must read: E.J. Dionne Jr. - The Republicans' big lie about reconciliation #tcot #hcr
Obama's critics have regularly accused him of not being as tough or wily or forceful as LBJ was in pushing through civil rights and the social programs of his Great Society. Obama seemed willing to let Congress go its own way and was so anxious to look bipartisan that he wouldn't even take his own side in arguments with Republicans.
Those days are over. On Wednesday, the president made clear what he wants in a health-care bill, and he urged Congress to pass it by the most expeditious means available.
He was also clear on what bipartisanship should mean -- and what it can't mean. Democrats, who happen to be in the majority, have already added Republican ideas to their proposals. Obama said he was open to four more that came up during the health-care summit. What he's (rightly) unwilling to do is give the minority veto power over a bill that has deliberately and painfully worked its way through the regular legislative process.
Republicans, however, don't want to talk much about the substance of health care. They want to discuss process, turn "reconciliation" into a four-letter word and maintain that Democrats are "ramming through" a health bill.
It is all, I am sorry to say, one big lie -- or, if you're sensitive, an astonishing exercise in hypocrisy.
In an op-ed in Tuesday's Post, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) offered an excellent example of this hypocrisy. Right off, the piece was wrong on a core fact. Hatch accused the Democrats of trying to, yes, "ram through the Senate a multitrillion-dollar health-care bill."
No. The health-care bill passed the Senate in December with 60 votes under the normal process. The only thing that would pass under a simple majority vote would be a series of amendments that fit comfortably under the "reconciliation" rules established to deal with money issues. Near the end of his column, Hatch conceded that reconciliation would be used for "only parts" of the bill. But why didn't he say that in the first place?
Hatch grandly cited "America's Founders" as wanting the Senate to be about "deliberation." But the Founders said nothing in the Constitution about the filibuster, let alone "reconciliation." Judging from what they put in the actual document, the Founders would be appalled at the idea that every major bill should need the votes of three-fifths of the Senate to pass.
Hatch quoted Sens. Robert Byrd and Kent Conrad, both Democrats, as opposing the use of reconciliation on health care. What he didn't say is that Byrd's comment from a year ago was about passing the entire bill under reconciliation, which no one is proposing. As for Conrad, he made clear to The Post's Ezra Klein this week that it's perfectly appropriate to use reconciliation "to improve or perfect the package," which is the only thing that Democrats have proposed doing through reconciliation.
Hatch said that reconciliation should not be used for "substantive legislation" unless the legislation has "significant bipartisan support." But surely the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts, which were passed under reconciliation and increased the deficit by $1.7 trillion during his presidency, were "substantive legislation." The 2003 dividends tax cut could muster only 50 votes. Vice President Dick Cheney had to break the tie. Talk about "ramming through."
The underlying "principle" here seems to be that it's fine to pass tax cuts for the wealthy on narrow votes but an outrage to use reconciliation to help middle-income and poor people get health insurance.
I'm disappointed in Hatch, co-sponsor of two of my favorite bills in recent years. One created the State Children's Health Insurance Program. The other, signed last year by Obama, broadly expanded service opportunities. Hatch worked on both with his dear friend, the late Edward M. Kennedy, after whom the service bill was named.
It was Kennedy, you'll recall, who insisted that health care was "a fundamental right and not a privilege." That's why it's not just legitimate to use reconciliation to complete the work on health reform. It would be immoral to do otherwise and thereby let a phony argument about process get in the way of health coverage for 30 million Americans.
It's really important that we share the FACTS about the mess in Washington with friends, neighbors, family, everyone. Let's get the debate back to substantive issues -- and stop the Obama-haters from spreading more lies and getting away with it.
Let's end the gridlock in Washington and get on with the business of making our nation better, stronger and healthier.
Another good reason to avoid processed foods: FDA warns of Salmonella risk from common flavor enhancer
FDA warns of Salmonella risk from common flavor enhancer
Thousands of types of processed foods -- including many varieties of soups, chips, hot dogs and salad dressings -- may pose a health threat because they contain a flavor enhancer that could be contaminated with Salmonella, the Food and Drug Administration said Thursday.
Salmonella was detected in one lot of hydrolyzed vegetable protein made by Basic Food Flavors Inc. as well as inside the company's Nevada manufacturing facility, according to the FDA. Basic Food Flavors Inc. is one of only a handful of companies that makes hydrolyzed vegetable protein, but its customer list is extensive
The FDA has posted on its Web site a list of products that are being recalled by their manufacturers. The list contained 56 products as of midafternoon and is expected to balloon. It can be found at http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/HVPCP/.
Hydrolyzed vegetable protein is widely used by food processors to boost flavor in ways similar to monosodium glutamate. A company that bought the tainted protein from Basic Food Flavors notified the FDA after it found Salmonella in the lot, according to federal officials.
Federal officials say they have no evidence that anyone has fallen ill from tainted hydrolyzed vegetable protein. Most healthy people recover from Salmonella infection, but it can cause serious problems and even death in the young and elderly and those with compromised immune systems.
Basic Food Flavors Inc. did not immediately return a call for comment.
Thursday, March 4, 2010; 4:26 PM
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Calif. Lawmakers: Cut The Foul Language, Please - @KTVU San Francisco
Calif. Lawmakers: Cut The Foul Language, Please
Posted: 3:25 pm PST February 25, 2010
SACRAMENTO -- Californians had better start watching their mouths. The state Assembly passed a resolution Thursday that would establish the first week of March as "Cuss Free Week" throughout the state. If approved by the Senate next week, the measure would take effect immediately. The resolution includes no enforcement mechanism and is simply meant to promote greater harmony and connectedness, said Assemblyman Anthony Portantino, a Democrat from La Canada Flintridge and co-author of the measure. "I've always wondered why we behave differently when grandma is watching than when we're on our own," said Portantino, who owned up to his share of four-letter words. Portantino said the California Legislature -- known for imposing strict clean air and clean water laws -- is the first state legislative body in the nation to consider a statewide profanity-free week. The resolution was inspired by a South Pasadena teenager, McKay Hatch, who started a No Cussing Club at his junior high school in 2007. Similar clubs have since cropped up in every state and 20 countries. Hatch, who traveled to Sacramento with his family to support the resolution, said he sees a link between foul-mouthed incivility and other forms of problem behavior, such as drug use and bullying. Next up for the 16-year-old? Promoting no-cussing measures in other states and internationally. "Next year I want to do a world tour," he said. "Cussing is a hard habit to break, but anyone can do it."Copyright 2010 by The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Interesting idea. Could it work?
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Good on McCain for calling out "birthers" in campaign spot
CBS News' Political Hot Sheet Blog reports that Arizona Sen. John McCain's latest video spot takes on his opponent and "birther" J.D. Hayworth for focusing on "conspiracies" instead of the serious issues facing the nation. (Birthers are people who deny that President Obama is a United States citizen, despite what the CBS blog calls "copious" evidence that he is.)
More at http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2010/02/24/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry6239856.shtml.>
Captive whale in this week's trainer death implicated in 1991, 1999 deaths
The nude body of a man was found at SeaWorld Orlando on Tuesday lying across the back of an 11,000-pound killer whale that was moved to Florida after it was involved in the death of a trainer.
Police were still trying to contact relatives of the 27-year-old Miami victim, whose name was not disclosed.
One expert said the 22-foot whale named Tillikum, the largest killer whale in captivity, could have mistaken the man for a toy.
If this article is true, and another one that I found indicating this same whale had issues when in a Canadian facility, I would hope that operators of aquatic zoos like this will reconsider holding animals like this in captivity.
More detail on the whale's past is now at http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/breakingnews/os-seaworld-orlando-shamu-injury-20100224,0,942688.story.
It's on a slightly different subject, but if you haven't seen The Cove, please do. The massive slaughter of marine mammals occurs as a direct result of our desire to see them perform on command in captivity.
Friday, February 19, 2010
Thursday, February 18, 2010
NIH stem cell guidelines should be modified, UCSF team reports
From UCSF (my former employer):
A UCSF team, led by bioethicist Bernard Lo, MD, recommends that the National Institutes of Health ethics guidelines for embryonic stem cell research be modified to better protect the rights of individuals donating egg or sperm to patients undergoing in vitro fertilization.
The recommendation is reported in the February 19, 2010 issue of Science.
Third parties frequently donate sperm and egg, or "gametes," for patients attempting to create embryos in the in vitro fertilization clinic.
Under current practice in the United States, gamete donors sign a form giving the IVF patient unrestricted legal authority to determine how to dispose of any embryos that may be leftover following fertility treatments. Donor banks and IVF clinics are not required to brief gamete donors about the various options for disposition, which include donating the embryos for stem cell research, thereby enabling scientists to derive new human embryonic stem cell lines; discarding the embryos, or donating them to other IVF patients.
While many state, national, and international scientific committees and agencies have recommended that third-party gamete donors give formal "informed consent" for stem cell research with embryos remaining after infertility treatment, the NIH did not stipulate this requirement in its guidelines issued in March 2009. As these guidelines determine which human embryonic stem cell (hESC) lines may be studied under NIH research grants – which are expected to play a growing role in funding stem cell research – the ethical implications are significant, says Lo, chair of the UCSF Gamete, Embryonic Stem Cell Research Committee, members of which published the Science paper.
"We urge the NIH to revise its guidelines to require that gamete donors be advised that embryos containing their sperm or egg could be used for embryonic stem cell research, before they grant dispositional authority over embryos to the IVF patient," he says. "Because some gamete donors may not approve of embryonic stem cell research, we consider this the ethically appropriate position."
In their paper, the team recommends a process that is less complex than the detailed "informed consent" process carried out when IVF patients donate embryos for research. They suggest the disclosure to gamete donors may be made through oral discussion or brochures before donors sign a form authorizing the IVF patient to determine the disposition of embryos.
Importantly, says Lo, the gamete donors' instructions would not disrupt the IVF process. IVF patients would learn of a gamete donor's restrictions in advance of selecting embryos for IVF treatment, and could select other gamete donors if not satisfied with the donors' disposition restrictions.
The recommendation is consistent with that of the National Academy of Sciences and the International Society for Stem Cell Research says Lo, a member of the ethics committee of the ISSCR, and the co-chair of the Standards Working Group of the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine.
"It would be highly desirable to have consistency among standards and regulations," he says. "If such harmonization were achieved, many university Institutional Review Boards and other research oversight bodies would likely allow NIH-eligible human embryonic stem cell lines to be used for any otherwise acceptable hESC research."
"It's critical that we consider all parties involved in the creation of embryos and honor their wishes," says co-author Arnold Kriegstein, MD, PhD, director of the Eli and Edythe Broad Center of Regeneration Medicine and Stem Cell Research at UCSF.
"The field of human embryonic stem cell research offers enormous promise for patients suffering from devastating diseases. We want to build this field on an ethical foundation of which we can be proud."
Exceptions to the guideline could be justified for hESC lines already in existence if there were strong scientific reasons to use the cell lines and the third-party gamete donor had granted rights to the IVF patient to determine disposition of the embryos.
Other co-authors of the study were other members of the UCSF Gamete, Embryonic Stem Cell Research Committee: Lindsay Parham, an analyst in the Program in Bioethics; Marcelle Cedars, MD, professor of obstetrics, gynecology and reproductive health and director of the Division of Reproductive Endocrinology; Susan Fisher PhD, professor of obstetrics, gynecology and reproductive sciences and director of the UCSF Human Embryonic Stem Cell Center; Elena Gates MD, professor of obstetrics, gynecology and reproductive sciences, and director of the IVF Tissue Bank; Linda Giudice, MD, PhD, chair of the Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences; Dina Gould Halme, PhD, formerly of the UCSF School of Medicine Dean's Office; William Hershon JD, Disability Rights California; Radhika Rao JD, University of California, Hastings College of the Law; Clifford Roberts, DVM, interim associate vice-chancellor for research; and Richard Wagner MA, associate director, Human Research Protection Program.
UCSF is a leading university dedicated to promoting health worldwide through advanced biomedical research, graduate-level education in the life sciences and health professions, and excellence in patient care.
Related links:
Eli and Edythe Broad Center of Regeneration Medicine and Stem Cell Research at UCSF http://stemcell.ucsf.edu/
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Baptist Pastors to Pray for Barack Obama's Death on Presidents Day.
I had thought the extremists had already sunken to the lowest possible point, but apparently I am wrong. Praying for anyone's death is a sin, as far as I am concerned.
(Newser) – While a handful of Americans might have taken a few minutes to reflect favorably on George Washington and Abe Lincoln on Presidents Day, some evangelical leaders devoted their time to praying for Barack Obama's death. The "Imprecatory Prayer" is a favorite of Arizona’s Baptist preacher Steven L. Anderson and Orange County's Wiley Drake, who told supporters in an email over the weekend that the supplication is "now your DUTY."
If "you have an evil leader above you, you pray that Satan will stand by his side and you ask God to make his children fatherless and his wife a widow and that his time in office be short," Drake told Daily Beast columnist John Avlon. Anderson has said he hopes Obama dies of brain cancer "today." To those offended by the sentiments, Wiley responds: "I’m praying the word of God. I didn’t write it. Don’t get mad at me.”
Reporter At 'The New York Times' Plagiarized From Competitors - The Two-Way - Breaking News, Analysis Blog : NPR
By David Gura
Editors at The New York Times have acknowledged that one of the newspaper's business reporters, Zachery Kouwe, plagiarized material from The Wall Street Journal, Reuters and other news sources, "without attribution or acknowledgment."
Yesterday, The Times ran an editor's note:
In a number of business articles in The Times over the past year, and in posts on the DealBook blog on NYTimes.com, a Times reporter appears to have improperly appropriated wording and passages published by other news organizations.The Times has not made a formal announcement about what will happen to Kouwe, if anything. But the tone and content of the editor's note indicates the newspaper isn't taking the ethical transgression lightly:
Copying language directly from other news organizations without providing attribution -- even if the facts are independently verified -- is a serious violation of Times policy and basic journalistic standards. It should not have occurred. The matter remains under investigation by The Times, which will take appropriate action consistent with our standards to protect the integrity of our journalism.
I just don't understand how someone who purports to be a journalist can even think about doing something as stupid as this. Another sad day for journalism. Another black eye for mainstream media.
SF Chronicle reports star chef exits Napa's innovative Ubuntu
Inside Scoop alert: Sources tell The Inside Scoop that as of 3 a.m. chef
Jeremy Fox and most of the staff came to the agonizing decision to leave
Ubuntu, Napa's acclaimed vegetarian restaurant (1140 Main Street).
Apparently, pastry chef Deanie Fox left last month. It's unclear what has
prompted the exodus.
Jeremy Fox has been lauded by The Chronicle, the New York Times and others
for his innovative and sophisticated approach to vegetarian cooking.
Although the restaurant, with its quirky yoga studio, had become a media
darling, the concept didn't seem to catch on with the general dining
public, as evidenced by an often empty dining room.
Fox declined to comment, and owner Sandy Lawrence could not be reached. We
suspect that in the next day or so Scoop will get the full story, so tune
in tomorrow. -- Stacy Finz ( sfinz@sfchronicle.com) and Amanda Gold (agold@sfchronicle.com)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright 2010 SF Chronicle
Sunday, February 14, 2010
Monday, February 8, 2010
Texas Nurse to Stand Trial for Reporting Doctor
KERMIT, Tex. — It occurred to Anne Mitchell as she was writing the letter that she might lose her job, which is why she chose not to sign it. But it was beyond her conception that she would be indicted and threatened with 10 years in prison for doing what she knew a nurse must: inform state regulators that a doctor at her rural hospital was practicing bad medicine.
Skip to next paragraph
Michael Stravato for The New York TimesAnne Mitchell, left, and Vickilyn Galle, right, wrote the letter to regulators that drew felony charges.
Michael Stravato for The New York TimesSheriff Robert L. Roberts Jr., who investigated the case against the nurses, voiced confidence in it.
When she was fingerprinted and photographed at the jail here last June, it felt as if she had entered a parallel universe, albeit one situated in this barren scrap of West Texas oil patch.
“It was surreal,” said Mrs. Mitchell, 52, the wife of an oil field mechanic and mother of a teenage son. “I said how can this be? You can’t go to prison for doing the right thing.”
But in what may be an unprecedented prosecution, Mrs. Mitchell is scheduled to stand trial in state court on Monday for “misuse of official information,” a third-degree felony in Texas.
The prosecutor said he would show that Mrs. Mitchell had a history of making “inflammatory” statements about Dr. Rolando G. Arafiles Jr. and intended to damage his reputation when she reported him last April to the Texas Medical Board, which licenses and disciplines doctors.
Mrs. Mitchell counters that as an administrative nurse, she had a professional obligation to protect patients from what she saw as a pattern of improper prescribing and surgical procedures — including a failed skin graft that Dr. Arafiles performed in the emergency room, without surgical privileges. He also sutured a rubber tip to a patient’s crushed finger for protection, an unconventional remedy that was later flagged as inappropriate by the Texas Department of State Health Services.
Charges against a second nurse, Vickilyn Galle, who helped Mrs. Mitchell write the letter, were dismissed at the prosecutor’s discretion last week.
The case has been infused with the small-town politics of this wind-whipped city of 5,200 in the heart of the Permian Basin, 10 miles from the New Mexico border. The seeming conflicts of interest are as abundant as the cattle grazing among the pump jacks and mesquite.
When the medical board notified Dr. Arafiles of the anonymous complaint, he protested to his friend, the Winkler County sheriff, that he was being harassed. The sheriff, an admiring patient who credits the doctor with saving him after a heart attack, obtained a search warrant to seize the two nurses’ work computers and found the letter.
Both sides acknowledge that the case has polarized the community, and the judge has moved the trial to a neighboring county.
The state and national nurses associations have called the prosecution an outrage and raised $40,000 for the defense. Legal experts argue that in a civil context, Mrs. Mitchell would seem to be protected by Texas whistle-blower laws.
“To me, this is completely over the top,” said Louis A. Clark, president of the Government Accountability Project, a group that promotes the defense of whistle-blowers. “It seems really, really unique.”
Until they were fired without explanation on June 1, Mrs. Mitchell and Mrs. Galle had worked a combined 47 years at Winkler County Memorial Hospital here, most recently as its compliance and quality improvement officers.
The nurses, who are highly regarded even by the administrator who dismissed them, said the case had stained their reputations and drained their savings. With felony charges pending, neither has been able to find work. They said they could feel heads turn when they walked into local lunch spots like El Joey’s Mexican restaurant.
“It has derailed our careers, and we’re probably not going to be able to get them back on track again,” said Mrs. Galle, 54, a grandmother who is depicted around town as the soft-spoken Thelma to Mrs. Mitchell’s straight-shooting Louise. “We’re just in disbelief that you could be arrested for doing something you had been told your whole career was an obligation.”
It was not long after the public hospital hired Dr. Arafiles in 2008 that the nurses said they began to worry. They sounded internal alarms but felt they were not being heeded by administrators.
Frustrated and fearing for patients, they directed the medical board to six cases “of concern” that were identified by file numbers but not by patient names. The letter also mentioned that Dr. Arafiles was sending e-mail messages to patients about an herbal supplement he sold on the side.
Mrs. Mitchell typed the letter and mailed it with a separate complaint signed by a third nurse, who wrote that she had resigned because of similar concerns about Dr. Arafiles. That nurse was not charged.
To convict Mrs. Mitchell, the prosecution must prove that she used her position to disseminate confidential information for a “nongovernmental purpose” with intent to harm Dr. Arafiles.
Mari E. Robinson, executive director of the Texas Medical Board, has warned in a blistering letter to prosecutors that the case will have “a significant chilling effect” on the reporting of malpractice.
The nurses’ lawyers, John H. Cook IV and Brian Carney, have filed a civil lawsuit in federal court charging the county, hospital, sheriff, doctor and prosecutor with vindictive prosecution and denial of the nurses’ First Amendment rights.
Nonetheless, the sheriff, Robert L. Roberts Jr., and the prosecutor, Scott M. Tidwell, express confidence in their case.
Next Page »
- 1
- 2
A picture caption with an earlier version of this article reversed the identification of Vickilyn Galle and Anne Mitchell.
Recommend More Articles in US » A version of this article appeared in print on February 7, 2010, on page A18 of the New York edition.
When I reported for USA Today, I wrote about health care workers prosecuted for providing pain medication to dying patients, questionable civil suits between physicians fighting over hospital privileges, and laws, policies or regulations that thwarted reporting of patient safety risks.
Never would I have imagined that a prosecution like this would happen. Read the story and let me know what you think -- and what you think we can do about it. Patient safety is possible only when health care workers of all levels and in all professions are able to make good-faith reports about potential problems without fear of losing their jobs -- or going to jail.
Your thoughts?