Topic

Health and Safety

1,469 petitions

Update posted 1 day ago

Petition to Congress and the U.S. senate

Transforming Treatable Tragedies. Help us end the neglect of those with untreated serious mental illness. The time is now to change laws in our broken mental health care system. How many more tragedies must we tolerate ?

Many lives have been lost and families destroyed, because of this brain disease or mental illness . Science and research has proven that with treatment the illness is treatable, and this prevents tragedy. Because of the complexity of this brain disease many who suffer from this illness lack insight of their illness and are able to refuse treatment and this intensifies their psychotic symptoms and usually brings upon dier consequence and sometimes even death . Parents who know their loved ones history, are being excluded in the treatment and medication plan due to privacy laws . Families are unable to get treatment and long term residential care for our loved ones., Our jails have become flooded with our sick loved ones and are not receiving treatment. Our communities have become unsafe, all because our mental health system is broken. Our nation is experiencing a crisis. We as families affected have come together to support any legislative efforts that address this issue and will not cease until we have achieved an awareness and put a stop to the madness. ..join us, share with others and share your story as others have. Transforming Treatable Tragedies. A modern day movement....donations accepted.. Www.transformingtreatabletragedies.org

Anthony and Cynthia Hernandez
5,124 supporters
Update posted 2 days ago

Petition to Altha J. Stewart, Carlos Pena, Rosie Phillips Davis, U.S. Congress, American Medical Association, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, The Royal College of Psychiatrists, Dr. Georgina Zahirney, Irish Psychiatry, Australian Psychiatry, Paul Chrisp, The Committee on Electroconvulsive Therapy and Related Treatments, ECT Accreditation Service (ECTAS), National Association of Lead Nurses in ECT (NALNECT), The Scottish ECT Accreditation Network (SEAN), Juan José Lopez-Ibor

Standardize, Regulate & Audit Shock Treatments (Electroconvulsive therapy or ECT)

My doctor dropped the electrical force equivalent of a 73-pound weight onto my head 116 times. He continued treatment without routinely assessing for brain injury – with permission of more than 25 other doctors at the hospital – because Electroconvulsive therapy (also called electroshock therapy) is not regulated or audited by a third-party regulator.  I am not the only one. Thousands of patients like me are being treated with unregulated electroshock therapy right now. In 2017, the hospital that treated me reported that they gave 4,055 ECT treatments and collected $13.9M from ECT reimbursements alone. And that’s just one hospital. Today (a decade after I quit treatment), I live with the effects of a repetitive head injury much like those recognized in athletes. Now, I suffer from symptoms including 36 years of memory loss, migraines, early onset Dementia, and slurred speech due to motor neuron malfunction. Technically my symptoms fall "outside the scope of practice" for most neurologists in the area because no one specializes in repetitive electrical injury to the head. That’s because this type of treatment isn’t actually regulated or audited. Join me in demanding American Psychiatric Association improve patient care by creating a set of standards for shock therapy treatment by signing this petition. I'm also targeting other top international psychiatric associations in hopes that this will be a global outcry that will lead to a global solution. There needs to be official regulations to ensure that practitioners are properly trained to give appropriate treatment. People referred for Electroconvulsive therapy (and their family members) deserve complete information pertaining to risks of permanent brain damage now recognized by the device manufacturer. Patients deserve to understand that until the method of administration technique is standardized, regulated and audited to ensure protocols are followed, they cannot reasonably expect positive outcomes from this form of treatment. Patients and their family members must understand that doctors and device manufacturers cannot say that negative outcomes are "rare" because without standardized treatment, no one can understand how rare or common negative outcomes are. Patients and family members must understand that this treatment can potentially cause a repetitive head injury which doctors do not understand how to treat. Not telling patients and their family members about manufacturer recognized risks is negligence. Assuming a person (or their family member) does not need to fully understand the risks involved with treatment because of the severity of present mental health symptoms is discrimination. Humans have the right to choose whether or not they receive a treatment based on fully informed consent. Humans deserve appropriate follow-up care if/when they are injured. Doctors deserve to be fully informed of the risk of permanent brain damage to which they are exposing their patients and understand they are providing a treatment which can potentially cause symptoms that are outside their scope of practice to follow-up on and treat appropriately. This petition (outlined in the updates) prevents risk of brain damage, establishes protocols to identify if/when a patient is injured and provides rehabilitation when injured. 

Sarah P. Hancock
3,789 supporters
Update posted 2 days ago

Petition to U.S. Senate, Dan Brown, Kathy J. Byron, Lee Ware, Mike Cunningham, Timothy Hugo, Bill Eigel, Jason Holsman, Daniel Marshall, III, Jacob W Hummel, Robert B. Bell, Israel D. O'Quinn, Jamilah Nasheed, Bob Onder, Ron Richard, David E. Yancey, John Joseph Rizzo, Caleb Rowden, Margaret B. Ransone, Dave Schatz, Scott Sifton, Wayne Wallingford, Michael J. Webert, Paul Wieland, Tony O. Wilt, Christopher T. Head, Jeion A. Ward, Mark L. Keam, Eileen Filler-Corn, Kaye Kory, Joseph C. Lindsey, Lamont Bagby, David J. Toscano, Steve E. Heretick, Michael P. Mullin, Jeffrey M. Bourne, President of the United States, Maria Chappelle-Nadal, U.S. House of Representatives

Stop Forcing Mail-Order Pharmacy as the Only Option of Coverage

Patients' lives depend on choice. **Since starting the petition, I have realized that there are many issues other than temperatures with forced mail-order pharmacy.  Mail-order pharmacy is very loosely regulated. There are life-threatening delays, lack of face-to-face relationships with pharmacists for people with chronic conditions, and rapid closures of our independent pharmacies; although, a recent study showed people prefer independent pharmacy (2018, Gill).  *************Our Story************* Our son received a life-saving liver transplant at the age of 2 from a 3-year-old little girl. His life depends on the potency and effectiveness of chemotherapy or immune suppression medications every 12 hours to prevent his body's immune system from fighting off his transplanted liver. In the past mail-order pharmacy delivered his liquid oral medications in nothing but a plastic envelope on a 102-degree day on a hot enclosed non-temperature controlled UPS truck. Shortly after, he went into liver rejection which could have resulted in complete liver failure or death. I speculated that the medication could have been too weak after the delivery of medications in high heat. I vowed to never again risk his life with mail-order pharmacy. Recently, we were mandated or forced to only use mail-order pharmacy in order to receive coverage for his life-saving medications.  The package arrived in only a bag on a hot day without an ice pack. I now know that the hot non-temperature controlled enclosed delivery truck and mailboxes can reach temperatures up to 120-170 degrees. His labs elevated again afterward. My son wants to know, "Why would they do that?" I contacted the manufacturer, who performs the testing, who informed me that both of my son's medications should be discarded and considered less potent once stored above 86 degrees as higher temperatures and freezing could both result in lower potency.  I contacted the mail-order pharmacy who refused to replace or take back the medication. They said the law & USP Pharmacopoeia allows them to ship up to 104 degrees, although the manufacturer states it is not proven safe at these temperatures. However, I have received communication from USP Pharmacopoeia who writes guidelines for storage, and they also said that the mail order pharmacy should follow the manufacturer's guidelines of 59-86 degrees for storage. Again, the trucks reach up to 170 degrees which is much hotter than 104.  I contacted the FDA, who states that the mail order pharmacy should be using the manufacturer's guidelines that have been proven safe. Since the mail-order pharmacies are regulated loosely by the State Board of Pharmacy, not the FDA, there was nothing that the FDA could do.  I made over 30 calls to the insurance company begging for them to please let us pick my son's medications up at the local pharmacy at which they are filled. My son's physician wrote an appeal and his transplant team has stated that they have tried to voice their concerns about this issue with their pediatric/child patients and no one is listening! The insurance company still denied the doctor's appeal for us to pick up my son's medications in the safest way. It was not until the Media became evolved that the insurance company budged.  I felt helpless and have united with many other pharmacists, physicians, patients, mothers and fathers, and caregivers who feel the same way. Helpless. Mail-order of prescription drugs should be a choice, not the only option of coverage.  Mail-order pharmacies may appear to save money, but when my son ended up in the hospital after taking medications that could have been compromised by having lower potency, the cost of the rejection was thousands of dollars. If his liver would have fully failed, the cost of his liver transplant for just 5 days (he was in the hospital for 5 weeks) was over $1,000,000. The lax regulation and oversight may save money on prescription drug plans but may come at an increased cost to the health plan itself. Also, keep in mind the endless waste of medications that automatically are sent regardless of whether or not patients need them. Also, people with chronic, complex conditions, should always have the option of face to face interaction with a pharmacist who knows their complex needs and medical history. The pharmacist and patient relationships are crucial to the successful outcome of the patient's overall health. Taking this away is harmful to patients and be more costly to our already stressed healthcare system. Only allowing mail-order pharmacy for coverage is unethical and irresponsible. I share stories on my social media sites every day of patients who are suffering from a lack of choice.  We need your help to make mandatory mail-order an option, not a mandate.  YOUR URGENT SUPPORT WILL SAVE LIVES! THANK YOU!! WE APPRECIATE ALL OF THE SUPPORTERS, CAREGIVERS, & PATIENTS.  Thank you,  Loretta Boesing, Founder of Unite for Safe Medications You may make a tax-deductible contribution to support our advocacy here Email: loretta@uniteforsafemeds.com Facebook Page: Issues with Mail Order Pharmacy @justamomwholovesherson Twitter: @BoesingLoretta The greatest way that you can help is by sharing this petition & gathering 2-3 people in your community who are having issues and speak to your legislatures.    Reference: Gill, Lisa L. “Consumers Still Prefer Independent Pharmacies, CR's Ratings Show.” Product Reviews and Ratings - Consumer Reports, 7 Dec. 2018, www.consumerreports.org/pharmacies/consumers-still-prefer-independent-pharmacies-consumer-reports-ratings-show/

Loretta Boesing
166,499 supporters
Update posted 2 days ago

Petition to Johnson & Johnson

Demand Johnson & Johnson add an ovarian cancer warning label to talcum powder products

The Issue More than 40 years ago, scientists identified a link between talcum powder and ovarian cancer. Despite these findings, Johnson & Johnson continues to deny a harrowing fact: the risk of developing ovarian cancer. Specifically advertised for women to apply to their genital region and onto their babies, the company’s family-friendly ads aim to obliterate any accusation that their product is unsafe. In fact, one of their better-known slogans describes the products as “the kindest powder in the world.” The truth, however, is not so kind. Currently, Johnson & Johnson faces more than 11,700 claims that its baby powder causes cancer. Following media reports of internal documents indicating company knowledge of the dangers of their powder, thousands of plaintiffs now accuse J&J of hiding the cancer risk to protect their business. The Data In 1971, The Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology of the British Commonwealth published research that found talcum particles “deeply embedded” in 10 of 13 ovarian tumors. In 1982, the link between talcum powder use and ovarian cancer was statistically proven and published as fact in the medical journal, Cancer. Since then, multiple studies have identified a connection between talcum powder and ovarian cancer. The research has emerged from organizations and publications like Obstetrics & Gynecology, The National Toxicology Program, Jersey Journal, American Journal of Epidemiology and Health Canada. Since 1994, the Cancer Prevention Coalition has requested consumer labels warning users about the link between talc and cancer. No warning labels were granted. As recently as this year, Reproductive Sciences published findings of the link between genital use of talcum powder and increased ovarian cancer risk at a molecular level. One of the major issues with the research is whether or not the association is "statistically significant" enough. Johnson & Johnson can try to poke holes in the data, but we believe the facts speak for themselves. Why We Need Your Help According to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, about 20,000 U.S. women are diagnosed with ovarian cancer each year. An estimated 14,000 of them will die from it. Researchers estimate that talcum powder could be the cause of about 10 percent of ovarian cancer cases in the United States. This issue may also potentially impact childrens' health as asbestos has been found in talc-based cosmetics sold at Claire's and Justice as recently as 2017. Unfortunately, gaining federal regulation on talcum powder is no simple task. Since talcum products are classified as cosmetics, they technically aren’t subject to FDA review. The FDA allows the manufacturer to test their products before introducing them to market, making it the manufacturer’s responsibility to properly warn consumers and label products as safe for use. Despite this obstacle, juries have awarded plaintiffs significant settlements in recent years. In July 2018, a group of women was awarded $4.7 billion after being diagnosed with ovarian cancer as a consequence of the asbestos in Johnson & Johnson's baby powder and other talc products. These legislative victories have generated attention surrounding the risks of talc products, but resolution of the issue will require widespread effort to yield increased transparency from Johnson & Johnson. We fight for adequate warning labels so that consumers may be aware of the health risks they’re exposed to when using Johnson & Johnson’s talcum powder products. Let the consumer decide.  *Editor’s note: Johnson & Johnson’s Baby Powder product has also been linked to a rare and aggressive cancer called mesothelioma, caused by asbestos contamination. Make Your Voice Heard  Take a stand for all the victims and their loved ones who have been diagnosed with ovarian cancer caused by the use of talcum powder. Please join us in demanding that Johnson & Johnson add warning labels to their talcum powder products.   

MedTruth
3,014 supporters