Informed Consent = Much Better Healthcare For All

I spoke with a wise journalist who's been around the block for awhile and he said to me, "People have a short attention span. It's just that way. So, make sure you can express your idea succinctly, in five paragraphs or less...even better, focus on talking points."

I thought for a moment and replied, "It's the hook. We'll still reel the fish in with a long fishing line, but we have to set the hook. So, a talking point is just the beginning of the conversation. It's meant to catch their attention and, if it works, they'll begin to ask you for more information. And that’s where we’ll find the good solutions...in the conversation.”

Tuesday, March 17th - Karen & March (and their children) head to Olympia to share ideas & proposals with Representatives, Senators, Advisors to the Governor and Officials at the WA State Dept. of Public Health in Tumwater. 

We have several goals, but one is to insert the concept and guarantee of "Informed Consent" into our state law. Why? Because, for the following reasons...this alone will immediately improve public health from the ground up, one patient at a time.

Ten Ways Informed Consent Benefits Us All

1.  With no consent, there is no reason to get informed. Public health benefits from an informed citizenry.

2.  Patient feedback is vitally important for the continual improvement of our medical knowledge. Patients are more inclined to give feedback about adverse reactions to drugs or interventions if they know they have alternative options. 

3.  Without informed consent, patients are less involved in their care and pay less attention to details. Doctors make mistakes in vaccine identification, timing and records. Involved patients are more likely to catch these errors before a harm occurs. 

4.  Consent creates a natural control group for scientific study. No human ethics board will approve a placebo study in which patients are given a placebo instead of an existing approved vaccine. However, it is perfectly ethical to study people who have voluntarily chosen to exempt themselves. This creates opportunities that can increase our understanding and benefit public health.

5.  Every serious vaccine injury scares many patients away from vaccines and traumatizes doctors. Minimizing these injuries is in everyone’s best interest. Informed consent leads to patients who are more likely to share pre-existing conditions & history before consenting to vaccination.  

6.  Doctors are being forced to spend less and less time with patients. Informed consent creates a legal mandate that pushes back against this trend, increases the time that doctors can spend with patients, and improves public health.

7.  Informed consent tends to allow people who are nervous about vaccines to become more confident about vaccines. Coercion, on the other hand, tends to increase anxiety and result in a backlash effect that reduces overall confidence in vaccines.

8.  Informed patients demand that vaccines meet their minimum standards. By doing so, patient choices create a market that supports higher quality vaccines.

9.  Informed patients are more likely to recognize early symptoms and seek diagnosis and testing which leads to earlier treatment and this is good for all.

10.  Informed patients have a better understanding of how vaccines work and don’t work. Over-confidence in vaccine efficacy can lead to carelessness in vaccinated individuals which is bad for public health. 

11.  And now it's your turn. Share with us a story of how Informed Consent improved your medical experience. If you've given birth, had any surgery (minor or major), if you've been prescribed a medication or have utilized any medical testing...your doctor was required to make sure you understood the options, the possible side effects, and other available alternatives...and your doctor waited while you decided whether or not to "consent" to one option or the other or wait and research it further before making your decision. Please consider sharing your experience!

Sunday, March 8th 2015 - HB 2009 Information & Activism Meeting

Here's our poster about an event we are offering in our community.

HB 2009 represents the best intentions of a few legislators who believe that,

to improve public health, we must lose civil rights and medical flexibility.

We disagree that these sacrifices are necessary. We reason that HB 2009 

will, in fact, lead to myriad unintended consequences & harm public health.

For these reasons:

We Oppose HB 2009.

Radio Interview w/ Sarah Collins Honenberger

When you come to Vaccines and Beyond, you mostly find blog posts that have been co-written by March Twisdale and Karen Crisalli Winter. This blog post is just from March Twisdale.

-------------------------------------------------

In my other life, I am an actopian fiction writer and local radio show host. 

The focus of my show, Prose, Poetry & Purpose is interviewing authors who inspire positive social change in the world...one reader at a time.

Last year, I had the opportunity to interview Sarah Collins Honenburger about her novel, White Lies. Previously a lawyer, Sarah based White Lies upon her real life experience representing a family with a vaccine injured child...and the three years it took for them to win a dispensation from the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.

As Sarah and her husband fully vaccinated their child & had no problems, she brings to the conversation a lawyer’s remarkably clear-sighted perspective, unmarred by personal tragedy or strong bias. 

I encourage you to give the show a listen: 

                                                  Sarah Collins Honenberger

http://www.voiceofvashon.org/user-content/prose-poetry-and-purpose-1

~ March Twisdale

Karen & March Discuss Vaccines & HB 2009 w/ Anita Kissee on The Impact

This week, we were pleased to meet with Anita Kissee, producer and host of The Impact, a televised show focused on what's happening in Olympia and how legislation "impacts" the rest of the state.

You can watch our interview here:
http://www.tvw.org/index.php?option=com_tvwplayer&eventID=2015020156

Karen Crisalli Winter's Letter to WA State Legislators re: HB 2009

To whom it should concern,

I am strongly opposed to HB 2009, but perhaps not for the reason you think. I believe HB 2009 will drive people away from vaccines.

HB 2009 would maintain the freedom to refuse all vaccines. It would take away the freedom to accept some vaccines. This is bad for public health.

Right now, the state of Washington has three exemptions: medical, religious, and philosophical/personal.

The medical exemption is hard to access. There is a tremendous amount of pressure on doctors not to offer medical exemptions. This leaves parents with medical concerns in a dilemma. They must try to locate one of the few doctors who offers custom vaccine schedules ... or they can easily find a genuinely anti-vaccine doctor.

The religious exemption is easy to access. You just have to join the religion that forbids all vaccinations. If you want some vaccinations, though, you're out of luck. To the best of my knowledge, there is no religion that has an individualized vaccine schedule as part of the creed.

The Philosophical/Personal exemption is the only exemption that truly protects freedom of choice. It gives the parents the right to say no. It also gives the parents the right to say yes. It also gives the parents the right to say maybe. It protects informed consent and protects the rights of parents to change their minds.

My children are vaccinated against measles because of the Philosophical/Personal Exemption. If we had not had access to the Philosophical/Personal Exemption, my children would probably not be vaccinated against measles. Freedom of choice allowed us to choose the MMR despite concerns about some of the other vaccines.

For the sake of public health, we need an option that allows parents to selectively vaccinate.

Don't push parents away from vaccines. Vote NO on HB 2009.

March Twisdale's Letter to WA Legislators re: HB 2009

Dear ____________________________,

While you may not directly represent my district, in your role as a member of the Health & Wellness Committee, you represent me as a resident of Washington State. 

As such, I am writing to explain why I believe HB 2009 is a phenomenal step in the wrong direction with regard to improving public health in our state.

To begin with, wanting to force people to do the “right thing” is as understandable as it is misguided. In this case, coercing medical choices is absolutely unethical, as it prevents patients from being able to give “informed consent,” which all medical practitioners are required to obtain prior to performing a medical procedure. Consent can only occur in a non-coercive environment, and threatening individuals’ livelihoods or their access to education introduces a persistent and inherent coercive force.

From the medical perspective, we cannot avoid the fact that every vaccine is different, every disease is different, every person is different and every situation is different. This is why good medicine requires flexibility. HB 2009 will tie medical practitioners’ hands, eliminating their ability to fully engage in the practice of medicine. Fundamentally, mandates (without readily available exemption options) significantly interfere with the doctor/patient relationship and undermine the growing trend in cooperative health care. 

It is true that we all have a responsibility to minimize the spread of disease within our communities, whether vaccinated or not.  If you're going to legislate something, legislate paid sick leave for all workers. For most contagious illnesses, we have no vaccine. Imagine the tremendous public health benefits of making it economically possible for every resident of Washington State to stay home when sick, or to care for a sick child! 

On the political side of things, HB 2009 sends a clear message that our temporarily elected officials believe doctors and patients are incapable of making good medical decisions. This is wrong and dangerous thinking.

What we have been seeing, in the past few decades, is a shift in decision-making methods. In the past, most people were Delegators. They left decision-making up to the experts. “Hey doc, tell me what to do and I’ll do it.” Today, in the highly educated and well-informed state of Washington, we see a significant increase in Questioners. These are people who seek out expert advice to supplement their own research on the way to making their own decision.

Unfortunately, public health messaging hasn’t kept up with this shift. What works well for a Delegator (who is seeking someone to trust) does not work well for a Questioner (who is seeking detailed information and scientific data). In our advancing society, over-simplified public health messaging is old school and has weakened the credibility of public health authorities. Additionally, the five year plan put in place by our legislature roughly six years ago has substantially (and intentionally) increased the hostility and rancor between residents of our state, further reducing credibility. 

In order to recover the good will and trust that has been lost over the past six years, we need a better education campaign, not an attack on our basic human liberties.

Sincerely,

March Twisdale

Philosophical Exemption Threatened - Talking Points

In the state of Washington, vaccination is mandatory for entrance into school or licensed child care, unless parents choose an exemption. At present, there are three possible exemptions: Medical, Religious, or Philosophical/Personal.

There is currently a bill being considered in the Washington State House of Representatives which would eliminate the Philosophical/Personal exemption.

You can learn more about HB 2009 at this link:

http://app.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=2009&year=2015

We are contacting our legislators to express why we think this bill would damage public health in Washington state. Here are some concise talking points. Feel free to share at will. 

---------------------------------------

Talking Point #1 

Every vaccine is different, every disease is different, every person is different, every situation is different. This is why good medicine requires flexibility. 

Talking Point #2  

Informed consent is to medical ethics what freedom of speech is to democracy.  These are core freedoms that protect us all. 

Talking Point #3 

The trouble with mandates is that they interfere with the doctor/patient relationship and prevent cooperative healthcare. HB 2009 sends the message that our legislators think doctors and patients are incapable of making their own medical decisions.

Talking Point #4  

Vaccines are powerful medicine. But overconfidence can cause as much harm as underconfidence. As such, good medicine depends upon both critical thinking and informed consent. 

Talking Point #5 

We all have a responsibility to our community to minimize the spread of disease, whether vaccinated or not.  If we're going to legislate something, let's legislate paid sick leave for all workers.

Talking Point #6  

We are seeing a general shift toward patients and doctors working as a team to sort through the complex decisions involved in all forms of healthcare, not just vaccines. As such, we need to strengthen trust and cooperation between patients and their doctors. Mandates assume that doctors and patients cannot be trusted. This is a bad precident to set.

Talking Point #7  

In America, we value our inherent right to decide what happens to our body. 

Talking Point #8  

State law is clear on four points:

1. The state must make ample provisions for education.
2. Education is compulsory for all children.
3. Medical providers are required to obtain informed consent.
4. Education at public and private schools is conditional upon proof of vaccination. 

These four requirements don’t conflict because of the philosophical exemption. However, if the philosophical exemption is removed, medical & educational rights come into direct conflict. This is unacceptable, because rights are rights. They aren’t bargaining chips.  You can’t demand that citizens trade one right for another.

Talking Point #9  

The important thing to consider is not what people decide, but how they decide.  Some people want to find a trustworthy expert and follow instructions.  Let’s call those folks Delegators.  Some people want to make their own decisions, after taking expert advice into account.  Let’s call those folks Questioners.  Over the past few decades, there has been a notable shift from Delegators to Questioners, as education levels have increased. Because most of our public health messaging is aimed at Delegators we now have a problem.  Questioners want a lot more data and current public health messaging is just not meeting that need.

Talking Point #10  

Sometimes when we try to fix one problem we create a dozen more. This bill will do exactly that. Coercing family medical choices should not be a public health strategy. Vaccines are useful, but they are not our only tool when it comes to disease management. Promoting trust and building understanding are far more powerful and need to be better utilized. 

Talking Point #11  

The philosophical exemption is important because it provides flexibility for doctors and patients to work together to craft an individually appropriate vaccine schedule.