FOXNews.com: Let's hold ObamaCare to this standard: First, do no harm

FOXNews.com FOX News Network - We Report. You Decide. // via fulltextrssfeed.com

Let's hold ObamaCare to this standard: First, do no harm Mar 28th 2013, 13:43 FILE - In this March 27, 2012, file photo, Amy Brighton of Medina, Ohio, who opposes health care reform, rallies in front of the Supreme Court in Washington. Health care was the defining political battle of President Barack Obamas first term, and _ after the economy_ it remains his most complicated policy challenge at home, central to his place in history.(AP Photo/Charles Dharapak, File) Last week, politicians who helped craft the Affordable Care Act celebrated in self-congratulatory style the third anniversary of that monstrosity, which will soon extinguish health care as we've known it. The president's promises about the ACA saving money and allowing you to keep your existing health plan are proving false, as many predicted. The Department of Health and Human Services maintains the law will make health care more affordable and accessible. The Wall Street Journal, reminding readers of that claim, reported last week that health insurers are privately warning brokers: "Premiums for many individuals and small businesses could increase sharply next year." "You will find only systems, ready to suck you up, give you a number, and provide you with federally approved accountable care in a sterile environment populated by highly regulated strangers." - Dr. John Curry, in an email to Cal Thomas The 2013 Deloitte Survey of U.S. Physicians, a survey of more than 600 physicians from the Deloitte Center for Health Solutions, found that "six in 10 physicians (62 percent) said it is likely many of their colleagues will retire earlier than planned in the next one to three years." Based on the survey results, Deloitte found that most U.S. physicians believe that, among other worries, under ObamaCare, "The future of the medical profession may be in jeopardy as it loses clinical autonomy and compensation" and "Medicaid and Medicare reimbursements may be problematic, prompting many physicians to limit or close their practices to these enrollees." Instead of the established doctor-patient relationship of old, "eight in 10 physicians agree "that the wave of the future in medicine ... involves interdisciplinary teams and care coordinators." One who thinks he's seen the future and doesn't like it, is my physician, Dr. John Curry, of Fairfax, Va. At my request, he sent me the following email: "Forty years ago, when I began practicing primary care medicine, medical decision-making and its funding were in the hands of patients and their physicians. The only protection patients had lay in the professional ethics of their doctors. In modern terms that sounds pretty skimpy, but think about it for a minute. The first precept was 'Do no harm'. Ask yourself: can you hold your government to that standard? The underlying principle was that the physician had to put his patients' interests ahead of his own. This was, of course, the Golden Rule, formalized into standards for professional care. It was also the reason I, and many in my class, applied to medical school. It was the reason my wife's older brother, who practiced medicine in a small town in West Texas, prided himself on the fact that much of the time he 'was paid in peas and pies'. Again, ask yourself, is there any health insurance company or government agency that you can count upon to put your health above their interests? The decades have rolled by, and the sea-changes have come. Costs have risen, and personalized care has faded. The monstrosity has been birthed, and soon you will look in vain if you are seeking a personal physician who knows you, cares about you, and to whom you have ready access. You will find only systems, ready to suck you up, give you a number, and provide you with federally approved accountable care in a sterile environment populated by highly regulated strangers. And it will cost you a lot! (Whatever anyone says, prepare for a future where your health costs will be higher and your choices fewer!) I am in my mid-70s and have both the capacity and willingness to care for patients for another decade. But I am retiring. I cannot stand it anymore. More than half of my time in the office is spent filling out forms, writing letters, responding to inquiries, and attending to 'urgent' matters that did not exist 10 years ago. And every year my income is less. At this point I would rather be paid nothing and have the freedom to decide what is right for my patients. ACA is only another straw, but for this tired camel, it will break my back." Neither I, nor the country, can afford to lose doctors like John Curry, but we are losing them, and we will lose them. Take two aspirin, but don't call in the morning, because Dr. Curry and many like him won't be there to answer the phone. Cal Thomas is America's most widely syndicated newspaper columnist and a Fox News contributor. Follow him on Twitter@CalThomas. Readers may e-mail Cal Thomas at tmseditors@tribune.com.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com. If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Read more »

FOXNews.com: Hope for the dead

FOXNews.com FOX News Network - We Report. You Decide. // via fulltextrssfeed.com

Hope for the dead Mar 28th 2013, 10:00 What does freedom have to do with rising from the dead? When America was in its infancy and struggling to find a culture and frustrated at governance from Great Britain, the word most frequently uttered in speeches and pamphlets and letters was not safety or taxes or peace; it was freedom. Two acts of Parliament broke the bonds with the mother country irreparably. The first was the Stamp Act, which was enforced by British soldiers writing their own search warrants and rummaging through the personal possessions of colonists looking to see whether they had purchased the government's stamps. The second was the imposition of a tax to pay for the Church of England, which the colonists were forced to pay, no matter their religious beliefs. Today it seems the power of the government continues to expand and the freedom of the individual continues to shrink. The Stamp Act assaulted the right to be left alone in the home, and the tax for the Church of England assaulted the freedom to choose to support one's own means of worship. The two taxes together caused many colonists to realize they needed to secede from England and form their own country in which freedom would be protected by the government, not assaulted by it. Today it seems the power of the government continues to expand and the freedom of the individual continues to shrink. The loss of freedom comes in many forms. Sometimes it is direct and profound, as when the government stops you from doing what you formerly had the freedom to do -- like choose your own doctor and your own health care insurance or choose not to have health care insurance. Sometimes it is more subtle -- like when the government prints money to pay its bills and, as a result, all the money you already have loses much of its value. And sometimes the government steals freedom without you knowing it -- like when federal agents write their own search warrants, authorizing themselves to learn of your computer use or medical or banking records; and they never tell you what they've done. Freedom is the ability of every person to exercise his own free will, rather than be subject to the will of someone else. Free will is the essence of humanity, and humanity is God's greatest gift. When the government affirmatively takes away freedom, the government violates the natural law; it prevents us from having and utilizing the means to the truth. Your moral ability to exercise your free will to seek the truth is your natural right, and the government may only morally interfere with the exercise of that right when you have used fraud or force to interfere with the exercise of someone else's natural rights. We know from the events 2,000 years ago, which Christians commemorate and celebrate this week, that freedom is the essential means to discover and unite with the truth. And to Christians, the personification, the incarnation, the perfect manifestation of truth is the Son of God. On the first Holy Thursday, Jesus attended a traditional Jewish Passover Seder. Catholics believe that at that last supper, He performed two miracles so that we could stay united to Him. He transformed ordinary bread and wine into His own body, blood, soul and divinity, and He empowered His disciples and their successors to do the same. On the first Good Friday, the government executed Him for claiming to be the Son of God. He had the freedom to reject this horrific event, but He exercised His freedom so that we might know the truth. The truth He manifested is that His acceptance of the destruction of His body would demonstrate to us that we can liberate our souls from the slavery of sin and our free wills from the oppression of the government. Three days later, on Easter, that manifestation was complete when He triumphed over death by rising from the dead. Easter is the linchpin of human existence: With it, life is worth living, no matter its cost or pain. Without it, life is meaningless, no matter its fleeting joys or triumphs. Easter has a meaning that is both incomprehensible and simple. It is incomprehensible that a human being had the freedom to rise from the dead. It is simple because that human being was and is God. Easter means that there is hope for the dead. And if there's hope for the dead, there's hope for the living. But, like the colonists who fought the oppression of the king, we the living can only achieve our hopes if we have freedom. And that requires a government that protects freedom, not one that shrinks it. Do we have such a government today? Andrew P. Napolitano, a former judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey, is the senior judicial analyst at Fox News Channel. Judge Napolitano has written seven books on the U.S. Constitution. His latest is "Theodore and Woodrow: How Two American Presidents Destroyed Constitutional Freedom." Judge Andrew P. Napolitano

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com. If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Read more »

FOXNews.com: Buyers, beware: UN Arms Trade Treaty will regulate individual gun ownership

FOXNews.com FOX News Network - We Report. You Decide. // via fulltextrssfeed.com

Buyers, beware: UN Arms Trade Treaty will regulate individual gun ownership Mar 28th 2013, 11:55 An activist from Amnesty, wearing a mask of U.S. President Barack Obama, holds flowers during a campaign in Seoul, South Korea, ahead of negotiations of the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty in New York, Monday, March 18, 2013. The activists demanded to stop selling weapons to corporate human rights abusers. (AP Photo/Lee Jin-man) The U.N.'s Arms Trade Treaty, which seemed dead last July, is beginning to wrap up negotiations.  The Obama administration is committed to getting it passed . Secretary of State John Kerry confirmed: "The United States is steadfast in its commitment to achieve a strong and effective Arms Trade Treaty." The treaty was resurrected on Nov. 8 – the very day after President Obama's re-election. Very conveniently, that the Obama administration delayed the U.N. vote in favor of renewing negotiations delayed until the president was no longer constrained by public opinion. The Arms Trade Treaty will regulate individual gun ownership all across the world. Each country will be obligated to "maintain a national control list that shall include [rifles and handguns]" and "to regulate brokering taking place under its jurisdiction for conventional arms."  In fact, the new background check rules approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee include just those rules -- a registration system and a record of all transfers of guns. The treaty pretends that individual weapons smugglers are the main problem. But nations themselves will be responsible for enforcing the rules. That means Iran, China, Russia – the leading countries for the truly troubling parts of the international arms trade – are supposed to curb it.  Does anyone actually believe these nations will actually enforce these regulations against themselves?   Democracies are a different story.  Many of their civilians have freedoms to lose. And they are much more transparent on whether they are actually honoring the rules that apply to their governments. Just like with gun control, in general, it is only the "good guys" who will obey the new rules. The U.N. Arms Trade Treaty, if passed, would only be effective against those countries that choose to obey them. The treaty pretends that individual weapons smugglers are the main problem. But governments, not private individuals, are the primary source of weapons. For example, the FARC guerrillas fighting in Colombia get their guns from the Venezuelan government. Unsurprisingly, the U.N. treaty provisions are the long-time favorites of American gun control advocates: registration and licensing of guns and ammunition, along with restrictions on the private gun transfers. Unfortunately, these expensive measures have a long history of failing to curb crime wherever they have been tried and primarily end up disarming law-abiding gun owners. The treaty pushes gun registration and licensing as a way to trace those who supply these illicit weapons. Yet, to see the problem with these regulations, one only needs to look at how ineffective they have been in solving crime. Canada just ended its long gun registry last year, as it was a colossal waste of money. Indeed, it is a costly scheme. Beginning in 1998, Canadians spent a whopping $2.7 billion on creating and running a registry just for long guns. With more people and more guns in the United States, the estimated costs for a similar registration scheme for 13 years would be about $67 billion. Gun control advocates have long claimed registration is a safety issue. Their reasoning is straightforward: If a gun is left at a crime scene, and it was registered to the person who committed the crime, the registry will link it back to the criminal.   Unfortunately, it rarely works out this way. Criminals are seldom stupid enough to leave behind crime guns that are registered to themselves. As to restrictions on the private transfers of guns, the most common type of regulation discussed in the U.S. today involves background checks. Yet, whether one is talking about the Brady Act or the so-called gun show loophole, economists and criminologists who have looked at this simply don't find evidence those regulations reduce crime.  It may even increase crime, as fewer would-be victims acquire guns. Unfortunately, just like criminal gangs in the U.S. obtaining guns, it is simply wishful thinking that a United Nations treaty – no matter how well intended – can do much to stop rebel groups from getting weapons. Obama likes to believe that his re-election gives him a mandate for sweeping changes. Well, he certainly lacks a mandate for these new gun restrictions, as he tried so hard to avoid the U.N. treaty until after the election. The good news is that even if President Obama signs the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty, it is unlikely to be ratified by the US Senate. Nonetheless, by promoting gun control elsewhere in the world, it might eventually lead to more pressure for gun control here at home. John R. Lott, Jr. is a  FoxNews.com contributor. An economist and former chief economist at the United States Sentencing Commission, he is also a leading expert on guns. He is the author of several books, including "More Guns, Less Crime." His latest book is "At the Brink: Will Obama Push Us Over the Edge? (Regnery Publishing 2013)." Follow him on Twitter@johnrlottjr.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com. If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Read more »

FOXNews.com: Obama's incredible shrinking clout

FOXNews.com FOX News Network - We Report. You Decide. // via fulltextrssfeed.com

Obama's incredible shrinking clout Mar 28th 2013, 13:15 By Karl Rove Published March 28, 2013 The Wall Street Journal Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., speaks with reporters about the federal budget on Capitol Hill in Washington, Thursday, March 14, 2013. (AP Photo/Cliff Owen)20122012 Maybe Majority Leader Harry Reid didn't want a lot of attention as the United States Senate voted on a budget resolution for the first time in four years. Or maybe he's a Las Vegas night owl. Whatever the reason, it was 5 a.m. last Saturday when the Senate approved a budget resolution for fiscal year 2014 by a razor thin 50-49 vote. Both houses of Congress have now passed resolutions setting the overall level of outlays for the fiscal year that starts Oct. 1, as well as subtotals for the budget's major areas. As Reid feared, bringing up a Senate budget resolution put congressional Democrats on record as favoring new taxes and continued deficits. Click to read Karl Rove's column in the Wall Street Journal Karl Rove is a Fox News political analyst and a former senior adviser and deputy chief of staff to President George W. Bush. He is the author of "Courage and Consequence: My Life as a Conservative in the Fight" (Threshold Editions, 2010) and helped organize the political action committee American Crossroads.   Karl Rove

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com. If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Read more »

FOXNews.com: Budget banquet needs some humble pie

FOXNews.com FOX News Network - We Report. You Decide. // via fulltextrssfeed.com

Budget banquet needs some humble pie Mar 27th 2013, 18:02 In this video image from Senate Television, senators speak on the floor of the U.S. Senate during voting on an amendment to the budget resolution at the Capitol on Washington, Friday, March 22, 2013. (AP Photo/Senate Television)AP2013 The Senate did something this past weekend it hasn't done in four years: passed a budget. The law requires the Senate to pass a budget, but Congress often ignores its own laws. For most of Barack Obama's presidency, a series of continuing resolutions kept the money -- your money -- flowing. Now the Senate wants to add a trillion dollars of new taxes, even more than President Obama seeks. Despite our growing debt, the Senate wants to fund things like the Senate barbershop, which loses a third of a million dollars every year. It's like they live in a private bubble. Politicians say, "I'm going to Washington to serve others." Maybe they mean to. But after most "serve," they never leave. When I visit Washington, I see politicians and bureaucrats serving themselves. As long as Washington spends other people's money, there will be little incentive for them to be prudent -- or humble. When the housing bubble burst, home prices dropped in most of America, but not in Washington. Our capital feeds off federal spending, and politicians won't allow that bubble to burst. One result is that, today, for the first time, most of America's richest counties are in the Washington area. About 43 percent of "the 1 percent" -- the top earners leftists say they hate -- now live in 14 counties that surround the District of Columbia. Nick Sorrentino, creator of AgainstCronyCapitalism.org, notes that average total compensation for a federal employee is now about $120,000, and the gap between government pay and private pay has been growing. It's not that Washingtonians are smarter or more productive than the rest of us. It's that as government grows, more money flows to lobbyists, trade groups and others who live close to those who pass out your money. Government is a parasite -- but a parasite that helps its friends. The way people get rich in Washington is not by inventing things, but by being good at schmoozing and manipulating the bureaucrats who control your money. Tourists visit Washington and admire the beautiful buildings. All that marble once made me feel patriotic, too, but now I get angry. Unions claim workers are "under"-paid. But today's union headquarters resemble palaces. The biggest teachers union, the National Education Association, built a $100 million Washington headquarters that it calls "an environmental oasis." The AFL-CIO's beautiful lobby features a giant mosaic made of marble, glass and gold. When I tried to take pictures, so TV viewers could see the elegance, I was told to leave. Government buildings are grand, too, even new ones like the Reagan office building. "It's very much like Versailles before the French Revolution," says historian John Steele Gordon. Washingtonians have become like the French nobility, who spent their lives in the palace at Versailles "and didn't know much about what went on outside that world."  "But the real royalty is not in Washington, D.C.," Rep. Alan Grayson, D-Fla., tells me. "It's on Wall Street." It's true that there's more wealth on Wall Street, but Gordon points out that there's a big difference between those fat cats and Washingtonians. "In the private sector, if you find a way to cut costs, you're a hero. If you find a way to cut costs in the (government) bureaucracy, you're a goat." You're a "goat" because cutting waste hurts the lobbyists who feed off taxpayers. With trillions of dollars at stake, corporations and special interests would be crazy not to lobby. Lobbyists and taxpayer-funded special privilege won't go away unless big government does. We could improve America's future just by recognizing what so-called "public choice" economists started to realize around the time of World War II: that government isn't just a "public servant." It's not a demon, either. But government and its employees are selfish,   like anyone else. That explains most of their behavior better than occasional shifts to the political left or right. We all tend to overspend and act lazy when we can get away with it. In the private sector, though, that eventually means that you get fired or realize you're depleting your bank account. In Washington, the Fed just prints more money. As long as Washington spends other people's money, there will be little incentive for them to be prudent -- or humble. John Stossel is host of "Stossel" on the Fox Business Network. He's the author of  "No, They Can't: Why Government Fails-But Individuals Succeed," "Give Me a Break" and of "Myth, Lies, and Downright Stupidity." To find out more about John Stossel, visit his website at johnstossel.com.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com. If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Read more »

FOXNews.com: Pew's social media study pushes all the wrong buttons

FOXNews.com FOX News Network - We Report. You Decide. // via fulltextrssfeed.com

Pew's social media study pushes all the wrong buttons Mar 27th 2013, 19:13 HOLD FOR RELEASE UNTIL 12:01 A.M. EDT. THIS STORY MAY NOT BE PUBLISHED, BROADCAST OR POSTED ONLINE BEFORE 12:01 A.M. EDT - Donald Conkey, 15, checks his smartphone while doing homework in his bedroom on Monday, March 11, 2013, in Wilmette, Ill. A new report from the Pew Internet & American Life Project says more teens are using smartphones as a main means of accessing the Internet -- moreso than adults. (AP Photo/Martha Irvine) Most Americans like to poke fun of just how tech savvy Asian-Americans are. The stereotypical assumption is often accurate when it comes to finding the coolest social app or digital designer.  Experienced business travelers know that if you want to find the latest generation gadget, go to Seoul or Hong Kong or Tokyo. This fact, however, seems to be lost on the well-respected Pew Research Center.  How else can you explain their latest work, "The State of Social Media Users," which remarkably excludes Asian-Americans from the study? The February 2013 report of social media users has either forgot about Asian-Americans, lumped them in with their white counterparts or refused to score them. Why would Pew publish a comparison of social media users that doesn't track Asian-Americans?  Perhaps it might be that Asians' social media habits score so high against other races that it might not be an interesting or alarming comparison. Why wouldn't Pew want to compare Asians to the other minority groups? Demographic research shows the rapid growth of Asian-Americans – an increase of 46 percent between the 2000 and 2010 Census. And even though Asian-Americans comprise a smaller part of the population than other groups, their growth rate is four times that of the general population. So why wouldn't Pew want to compare Asians to the other minority groups? It's not the first time policy makers, the mainstream media, advertisers, think tanks or influential research groups have forgotten about Asian-Americans.  Sadly, it probably won't be the last. The studies that ignore the rise of Asian-Americans and the Asian impact on American culture not only deprive Asians a seat at the table, but it denies our society as a whole valuable information.  Dismissing Asian-Americans when it comes to social media is a particularly bad idea.  According to the most recent Nielsen Social Media Report, Asian-Americans are the most likely group to have visited a social network, interacted with social media advertising and made purchases through social media.  So why are we ignoring the leaders' habits? There are far greater consequences for those minorities left behind in studies like Pew's latest.  Government and non-profit funding for social, health and economic programs use these studies to make grant decisions. While national organizations like Pew marginalize Asian-Americans in their studies, critical research is left to smaller, regional groups and universities that don't have the same clout. If an audience isn't counted, it doesn't get any attention, funding or support for pressing issues. Consequently, myths about Asian-Americans as the "model minority" prevail.  In the U.S., the common perception holds that Asians are harder working, more educated, higher earning and more successful than other ethnic groups. Stereotypes like this, however positive they may seem, are detrimental in that they gloss over the serious problems facing Asian-Americans.  Pew's refusal to include Asians in their social media study creates an over-hyped distraction that diverts attention from the threats and problems facing Asian-Americans.  Every ethnic group has unique and inherent problems that should not be overlooked by false narratives.  For example, black Americans have diabetes at nearly twice the rate of whites and nearly half the Hispanic population considers access to affordable health care a "very serious" problem. The successful Asian stereotype also means less than 1-in-3 Asian-American children receive mental health care treatment when parents determine there's a need, but fear the stigma attached to seeking treatment. Are Asian-Americans perceived as non-existent, unimportant or maybe just honorary Caucasian? The problems facing researchers in counting smaller groups is understandably an inconvenience.  Asian-Americans are frequently undercounted because of linguistic and cultural barriers -- the result of grouping together dozens of peoples from diverse ancestries that sometimes share little more than a common region of the world. But the invisibility created by being left out also creates countless problems.  Health needs are not met.  Funds for social services are unfairly distributed. Politicians and policy makers ignore the problems they don't even know exist.  Entrepreneurs, particularly social entrepreneurs, miss opportunities to generate business, jobs and tax revenues. Studies that omit key groups are a waste of time and lack credibility because their conclusions are based on only part of the picture.  It seems to me, Pew should want to study the social media habits of those leading the digital revolution. Julia Y. Huang, CEO of interTrend Communications - a national advertising agency connecting FORTUNE 500 companies with Asian-American audiences.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com. If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Read more »

FOXNews.com: Does America need its own Schindler's List?

FOXNews.com FOX News Network - We Report. You Decide. // via fulltextrssfeed.com

Does America need its own Schindler's List? Mar 27th 2013, 15:57 Every age needs courageous individuals to stand up for those who have no voice. Steven Spielberg's movie, "Schindler's List," made the world aware of the heroic efforts of a German businessman, Oskar Schindler, who saved more than 1,200 Jews during the Holocaust. By placing them on his employment list, Schindler was able to prevent them from being sent to the concentration camps. Another businessman and Swedish ambassador, Raoul Wallenberg, is celebrated worldwide for his efforts to save up to 100,000 Jews in Nazi-occupied Hungary from the Holocaust by issuing protective passports and designating local buildings as Swedish territory in which Jews could be sheltered. At the end of WWII, Ambassador Wallenberg was detained by the Soviet Union and eventually died in a Moscow prison. Both Oskar Schindler and Raoul Wallenberg were designated as Righteous Among The Nations by Israel for their efforts to save Jews during the Holocaust. One of Raoul Wallenberg's closest aides was a 22-year-old Romanian Jew named Martin Preisler. Preisler joined the underground resistance group as a teenager in Hungary.  Working closely with Raoul, he smuggled people, food, clothes and medicine while wearing an SS-uniform.  His efforts saved thousands of fellow Jews from the Holocaust.  Martin Preisler is believed to be the last person to see Wallenberg before his imprisonment by the Soviets. What would Martin Preisler think? After WWII, Martin Preisler moved to the United States, married Dr. Sylvia Yvette March, and together they raised five children – Shoshanna, Thomas, Daniel, Rebecca and Nicholas.  Upon his death in 2009 at the age of 86, Preisler and his wife had five grandchildren and one great-grandchild. Less than a year after his death, Preisler's family faced a challenge too many American families face.  At the age of 29, the Preislers' son, Daniel, sustained an anoxic brain injury, and his brain was deprived of oxygen.  Daniel was in perfect physical condition at the time; an athlete all of his life, he never drank or smoked and always ate healthy.  Before his brain injury, he was planning to become a veterinarian. Dr. Sylvia Preisler was told by the medical experts that Daniel would either die or be in a vegetative state. Due to the state laws, anyone over 21 years of age who has not recovered to full consciousness is ineligible to receive acute rehabilitation treatment. Daniel defied the odds and, without any medical intervention, within a few months began to speak a few words.  However, six months after the injury, Daniel was non-responsive again. Due to the red tape, Daniel was bounced across the state from one hospital to another to another and, after 15 months, he ended up six hours from the initial hospital. Throughout this time period, Daniel never received any anti-seizure medications, and not until a full-blown seizure was observed almost a year later did the doctors realize he had been seizing ever since his initial brain injury. Eventually, Dr. Preisler found a rehab facility in another state willing to admit Daniel.  She transferred him to a nearby nursing home only to be told afterward the rehab facility could not accept him since the transfer took too long.  Now in another state in another nursing home, things continued to get worse for Martin Preisler's son.  Daniel was assigned a roommate who yelled and screamed 24 hours a day, and after being exposed to this non-stop overstimulation, Daniel had a massive seizure that sent him back to the hospital. Upon discharge from the hospital with explicit instructions for a quiet environment, the nursing home put him back into the same noisy room and within a week he had another massive tonic-clonic seizure. These seizures set him back again from the progress he had been making since being placed on medications. Dr. Preisler moved Daniel to yet another nursing home in another state with the hopes of improved care and support. She couldn't even get the nursing home to provide him with Omega-3 vita-nutrients. The current nursing home couldn't even maintain a normal temperature in Daniel's room and as the room overheated, it caused more seizures and Daniel headed back to the hospital. According to Dr. Preisler, "My son has never received the care he should have and I am so appalled there is no care for the brain injured in this country.  Daniel continues to fight every day and as his mom I will continue to fight for him." Dr. Nathan Zasler is one of the foremost experts in the United States in the treatment of individuals with brain injuries who have a disorder of consciousness (whether vegetative state or minimally conscious state).  According to Dr. Zasler, "Daniel's situation is not unique and there are many examples of such cases in our health care system. There is a lack of funding for specialized programs that understand assessment and treatment of these individuals." Brain injury is the leading cause of death and disability for American youth. More than 765,000 enter an emergency department every year with a new brain injury, more than 80,000 are hospitalized and more than 11,000 die each year. It is estimated that there may be as many as 15,000 patients in the United States who are in a persistent vegetative state and more than 100,000 others who are in a minimally conscious state. This is one of the reasons the Sarah Jane Brain Foundation established the National Pediatric Acquired Brain Injury Plan (PABI Plan) whose mission is to develop a seamless, standardized, evidence-based system of care for the millions of families that have a child with a brain injury. Eight years ago this week, America watched as Terri Schiavo's feeding tube was disconnected, resulting in her death.  Another Schindler was thrust into the arena to give a voice for the voiceless. Terri's brother, Bobby Schindler, continues to fight for the lives of the medically vulnerable and disabled as the executive director of the Terri Schiavo Life and Hope Network. As Jews prepare for Passover, Christians observe Easter Week and Persians celebrate Nowruz, perhaps we can spend a few minutes thinking about Martin Preisler's son, Daniel, and wonder if America needs its own Schindler's List to protect our most vulnerable population.  What would Martin Preisler think? Patrick B. Donohue, is founder of the The Sarah Jane Brain Foundation. For more, visit: www.TheBrainProject.org.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com. If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Read more »