Overturn the Supreme Court's Discriminatory Ruling Against Women's Health
Target: US Supreme Court Chief Justice John G. Robert, Jr.
Goal: Overturn the Supreme Court ruling that religious leanings of employers enable them to restrict women's access to insurance coverage for medical care
In her beautiful autobiography, _I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings_, Maya Angelou writes, of being a black woman going through adolescence in the 1930s and '40s, "The Black female is assaulted in her tender years by all those common forces of nature at the same time she is caught in the tripartite crossfire of masculine prejudice, white illogical hate and Black lack of power."
The Supreme Court of the United State (SCOTUS) recently gave in to the perpetuation of masculine prejudice, illogical hate, and lack of power when they ruled that corporations have the ability to selectively discriminate against women by refusing that health insurance policies cover contraceptives.
In the case Burwell vs. Hobby Lobby, the Supreme Court ruled 5 to 4 in favor of Hobby Lobby, an American company owned by an evangelical Christian family from Oklahoma. This ruling means that a family-owned company may be exempt from guidelines set in place by the Affordable Care Act (ACA), including the fact that insurance providers must cover contraceptives, which some conservative Christians are incorrectly convinced is the same thing as abortion (science, on the other hand, correctly informs us that it is not).
Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader-Ginsberg stated in her dissent, "The court, I fear, has ventured into a minefield." These words reflect the apparent breadth of the ruling which essentially boils down to companies being able to exercise their "sincerely held religious beliefs" (even when these are NOT backed by science) and to "opt out of any law (saving only tax laws) they judge incompatible [with those beliefs]." The current coverage provided by the ACA "…helps safeguard the health of women for whom pregnancy may be hazardous, even life threatening. And the mandate secures benefits wholly unrelated to pregnancy, preventing certain cancers, menstrual disorders, and pelvic pain." Now, companies have the right to decide for women whether or not they would be insured in such ways.
Denounce the decision of SCOTUS and call on US Supreme Court Chief Justice John G. Robert, Jr. to recognize how these actions impact women. Let SCOTUS know that U.S. citizens do NOT approve of systematic discrimination towards women and that it is unconstitutional to allow the personal opinions of employers influence the rights to fair health care of their employees.
PETITION LETTER:
Dear Mr. Robert,
The recent Supreme Court ruling in Burwell vs. Hobby Lobby that companies can use their personal morals under the guise of religious freedom to control the lives of others is nothing less than absurd. This ruling opens the floodgates for health coverage decisions which "sincerely held religious beliefs" could influence regardless of state of the art medicine or scientific studies.
Not only is restricting coverage for women's health a heinous act of sexism, it is yet another example of corporations getting special privileges based on the nature of their existence as corporations. In this case, when the company won't shell out, the check bounces back to the government (i.e., to taxpayers) if the corporation refuses to pay.
The problem with this is that corporations are NOT people. The problem with this is that women ARE. The problem with this is that religious freedoms apply to PERSONAL decisions and cannot--and must not--be used by corporations to control the health outcomes of people.
I urge you to hear the people of American who are speaking. There are approximately 318 million people currently living in America. Approximately 164 million of them (that's over half, by the way) just witnessed a collapse of their health rights. Please overturn this discriminatory ruling which hurts American women and helps no one.
Sincerely,
[Your Name Here]
Monday, June 30, 2014
Overturn the Supreme Court's Discriminatory Ruling Against Women's Health Target: US Supreme Court Chief Justice John G. Robert, Jr. Goal: Overturn the Supreme Court ruling that religious leanings of employers enable them to restrict women's access to insurance coverage for medical care In her beautiful autobiography, _I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings_, Maya Angelou writes, of being a black woman going through adolescence in the 1930s and '40s, "The Black female is assaulted in her tender years by all those common forces of nature at the same time she is caught in the tripartite crossfire of masculine prejudice, white illogical hate and Black lack of power." The Supreme Court of the United State (SCOTUS) recently gave in to the perpetuation of masculine prejudice, illogical hate, and lack of power when they ruled that corporations have the ability to selectively discriminate against women by refusing that health insurance policies cover contraceptives. In the case Burwell vs. Hobby Lobby, the Supreme Court ruled 5 to 4 in favor of Hobby Lobby, an American company owned by an evangelical Christian family from Oklahoma. This ruling means that a family-owned company may be exempt from guidelines set in place by the Affordable Care Act (ACA), including the fact that insurance providers must cover contraceptives, which some conservative Christians are incorrectly convinced is the same thing as abortion (science, on the other hand, correctly informs us that it is not). Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader-Ginsberg stated in her dissent, "The court, I fear, has ventured into a minefield." These words reflect the apparent breadth of the ruling which essentially boils down to companies being able to exercise their "sincerely held religious beliefs" (even when these are NOT backed by science) and to "opt out of any law (saving only tax laws) they judge incompatible [with those beliefs]." The current coverage provided by the ACA "…helps safeguard the health of women for whom pregnancy may be hazardous, even life threatening. And the mandate secures benefits wholly unrelated to pregnancy, preventing certain cancers, menstrual disorders, and pelvic pain." Now, companies have the right to decide for women whether or not they would be insured in such ways. Denounce the decision of SCOTUS and call on US Supreme Court Chief Justice John G. Robert, Jr. to recognize how these actions impact women. Let SCOTUS know that U.S. citizens do NOT approve of systematic discrimination towards women and that it is unconstitutional to allow the personal opinions of employers influence the rights to fair health care of their employees. PETITION LETTER: Dear Mr. Robert, The recent Supreme Court ruling in Burwell vs. Hobby Lobby that companies can use their personal morals under the guise of religious freedom to control the lives of others is nothing less than absurd. This ruling opens the floodgates for health coverage decisions which "sincerely held religious beliefs" could influence regardless of state of the art medicine or scientific studies. Not only is restricting coverage for women's health a heinous act of sexism, it is yet another example of corporations getting special privileges based on the nature of their existence as corporations. In this case, when the company won't shell out, the check bounces back to the government (i.e., to taxpayers) if the corporation refuses to pay. The problem with this is that corporations are NOT people. The problem with this is that women ARE. The problem with this is that religious freedoms apply to PERSONAL decisions and cannot--and must not--be used by corporations to control the health outcomes of people. I urge you to hear the people of American who are speaking. There are approximately 318 million people currently living in America. Approximately 164 million of them (that's over half, by the way) just witnessed a collapse of their health rights. Please overturn this discriminatory ruling which hurts American women and helps no one. Sincerely, [Your Name Here]
Thursday, June 26, 2014
Demand that doctors learn to listen to patients
Demand that doctors learn to listen to patients
Excerpt: Limited time for doctor-patient visits may damage not only the doctor-patient relationship but also decrease effectiveness of treatment. Urge policymakers to require training in empathic communication practices for doctors.
Target: American Medical Association President Ardis Dee Hoven, MD
Goal: Increase patient visit time with physicians
Kaiser Health News recently reported that increasingly short doctor visits, often limited to only 15 to 20 minutes, are taking a toll on relationships between patients and doctors. For instance, shorter visits may lead to the increased prescribing of medication, rather than first attempting behavioral remedies, like diet and exercise change.
Long wait times to see doctors and long lists of patients to see per day certainly contribute to the limited time; but another issue may be that doctors don't engage in effective communication when they do see patients. For instance, doctors interrupting patients is a key concern. One study from the Journal of the American Medical Association reports that in a study of 29 family physicians, patients received only 23.1 seconds, on average, to voice their medical concerns before being interrupted by the physician.
An article published in the Journal of General Internal Medicine in 1999 stresses the importance of improving physicians' communication abilities. They point to several concrete ways that doctors can engage in patient-centered communication in order to increase the quality of visits. For instance, at the onset of a visit, patients might list an agenda so that the physician has prior knowledge of items to be discussed. Importantly, the group also encouraged physicians to use empathic statements to show understanding and to encourage the patient to suggest what she or he thinks might be going on.
A recent article published in the journal Medical Decision Making
used statistical models to investigate factors that predicted total length of patient-doctor visits. The authors suggest that the quality of visits could be improved if patients' needs and backgrounds were made available to physicians ahead of time and they encourage individual offices to build similar statistical models to better account for their particular needs.
Join us in affirming that Americans deserve more from their physicians, and that physicians deserve to give more to their patients. Encourage the American Medical Association to spend more time training future physicians to communicate effectively with their patients.
PETITION LETTER:
Dear Dr. Hoven,
Patients frequently leave the doctor's office feeling frustrated, having spent few minutes with physicians whom they have often been waiting to see for months. While time is always a precious commodity, there are many steps that can be taken to improve the quality of visits with physicians.
I write to ask that you encourage medical care providers to change the current conception of medical visits. Doctors must ensure that their attention is focused on the patient and that they are listening to the patient's concerns. Frequent interrupting not only means that doctor's don't hear all that patients have to say, but it may mean that patients feel marginalized and frustrated that their concerns are not being attended to.
Furthermore, if patients are seen by multiple providers within a single visit (such as a nurse practitioner followed by a physician), not only may patients lose time spent with the physician, but they may also lose time in voicing their concerns. It is therefore paramount that communication be effective within the staff of the doctor's office, as well as between patient and physician.
I urge you to use your influence to work with medical schools and other medical education programs to teach doctors how to listen to patients and how to effectively communicate within the doctor's office.
Sincerely,
[Your Name Here]
Excerpt: Limited time for doctor-patient visits may damage not only the doctor-patient relationship but also decrease effectiveness of treatment. Urge policymakers to require training in empathic communication practices for doctors.
Target: American Medical Association President Ardis Dee Hoven, MD
Goal: Increase patient visit time with physicians
Kaiser Health News recently reported that increasingly short doctor visits, often limited to only 15 to 20 minutes, are taking a toll on relationships between patients and doctors. For instance, shorter visits may lead to the increased prescribing of medication, rather than first attempting behavioral remedies, like diet and exercise change.
Long wait times to see doctors and long lists of patients to see per day certainly contribute to the limited time; but another issue may be that doctors don't engage in effective communication when they do see patients. For instance, doctors interrupting patients is a key concern. One study from the Journal of the American Medical Association reports that in a study of 29 family physicians, patients received only 23.1 seconds, on average, to voice their medical concerns before being interrupted by the physician.
An article published in the Journal of General Internal Medicine in 1999 stresses the importance of improving physicians' communication abilities. They point to several concrete ways that doctors can engage in patient-centered communication in order to increase the quality of visits. For instance, at the onset of a visit, patients might list an agenda so that the physician has prior knowledge of items to be discussed. Importantly, the group also encouraged physicians to use empathic statements to show understanding and to encourage the patient to suggest what she or he thinks might be going on.
A recent article published in the journal Medical Decision Making
used statistical models to investigate factors that predicted total length of patient-doctor visits. The authors suggest that the quality of visits could be improved if patients' needs and backgrounds were made available to physicians ahead of time and they encourage individual offices to build similar statistical models to better account for their particular needs.
Join us in affirming that Americans deserve more from their physicians, and that physicians deserve to give more to their patients. Encourage the American Medical Association to spend more time training future physicians to communicate effectively with their patients.
PETITION LETTER:
Dear Dr. Hoven,
Patients frequently leave the doctor's office feeling frustrated, having spent few minutes with physicians whom they have often been waiting to see for months. While time is always a precious commodity, there are many steps that can be taken to improve the quality of visits with physicians.
I write to ask that you encourage medical care providers to change the current conception of medical visits. Doctors must ensure that their attention is focused on the patient and that they are listening to the patient's concerns. Frequent interrupting not only means that doctor's don't hear all that patients have to say, but it may mean that patients feel marginalized and frustrated that their concerns are not being attended to.
Furthermore, if patients are seen by multiple providers within a single visit (such as a nurse practitioner followed by a physician), not only may patients lose time spent with the physician, but they may also lose time in voicing their concerns. It is therefore paramount that communication be effective within the staff of the doctor's office, as well as between patient and physician.
I urge you to use your influence to work with medical schools and other medical education programs to teach doctors how to listen to patients and how to effectively communicate within the doctor's office.
Sincerely,
[Your Name Here]
Tuesday, June 24, 2014
Abolish the Use of Paramilitary Weapons on Innocent Victims During Drug Raids
Abolish the Use of Paramilitary Weapons on Innocent Victims During Drug Raids
Target: Speaker of the House of Representatives, John Boehner
Goal: End the use of paramilitary weapons on innocent people by special weapons and tactics units during drug raids
Excerpt: The use of paramilitary weapons on innocent bystanders during raids of people's homes for drugs has recently escalated. Urge Congress to abolish such practices by ending incentives for local police forces and by stopping SWAT raids when police have only a search warrant for drugs.
Slate and other news sources report that in a recent drug-raid-gone-bad, members of a Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) team nightmarishly interrupted the slumber of a family with a flashbang grenade, which landed in the crib of a sleeping baby. The SWAT team was conducting a raid for drugs ostensibly belonging to the nephew of the couple sleeping inside. Note that this nephew did not actually reside at the home.
After hours of being neglected the privilege of holding and caring for her wounded son, the baby's mother was finally able to take him to the hospital, where the child was taken to the intensive burn unit and placed in a medically induced coma.
In another case in January 2008, the ACLU reports that SWAT members raided a young woman's home due to suspecting her boyfriend (who was not home) of possessing drugs. Ms. Tarika Wilson was holding her 14-month-old son when she opened the door, which is when the fire opened and she was mortally wounded.
These stories are perhaps some of the most gruesome and stomach-churning examples of what a police force with too much power can bring about, but they are not isolated incidents. Studies conducted by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) estimate that up to 80% of SWAT raids in the United States are conducted to serve search warrants, typically for drugs. What's more, the ACLU reports that, mirroring the "War on Drugs" itself, such searches disproportionately affect minorities and individuals of low socio-economic status.
Join Americans who are disgusted by this brutalization of innocent citizens. Urge Congress members to create laws to ban SWAT teams from entering civilians' homes on search warrants for minor drug offenses with weapons that were created for battlefields.
PETITION LETTER:
Dear Mr. Boehner,
The use of paramilitary force against civilians sounds like a sad story we might read in the newspaper about people in a poor, developing country. But the truth is, it's a story that is playing out on American ground, right now. SWAT teams have the power to conduct raids at night in citizens' homes to serve search warrants, often for minor drug offenses. Many times, the individuals who are being served no longer reside at the residence, or there are innocent people present, often children and the elderly.
Too often, local police force officials are presented with incentives, in the form of weapons, vehicles, and other equipment, in exchange for more arrests--often for minor drug offenses. In a recent report entitled, "The Excessive Militarization of American Policing," the ACLUe describes the mindset of SWAT officers as having been militarized and encouraged to "…adopt a 'warrior' mentality and think of the people they are supposed to serve as enemies."
I urge you to use your power to put an end to this militarization of U.S. police force members and to the brutalization of citizens. Stop incentivizing local police forces with weapons, vehicles, and other equipment that leads to the brutalization of American citizens; and stop equating the putative presence of drugs with the possible threat of violence from innocent people.
Sincerely,
[Your Name Here]
Photo Credit:
Target: Speaker of the House of Representatives, John Boehner
Goal: End the use of paramilitary weapons on innocent people by special weapons and tactics units during drug raids
Excerpt: The use of paramilitary weapons on innocent bystanders during raids of people's homes for drugs has recently escalated. Urge Congress to abolish such practices by ending incentives for local police forces and by stopping SWAT raids when police have only a search warrant for drugs.
Slate and other news sources report that in a recent drug-raid-gone-bad, members of a Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) team nightmarishly interrupted the slumber of a family with a flashbang grenade, which landed in the crib of a sleeping baby. The SWAT team was conducting a raid for drugs ostensibly belonging to the nephew of the couple sleeping inside. Note that this nephew did not actually reside at the home.
After hours of being neglected the privilege of holding and caring for her wounded son, the baby's mother was finally able to take him to the hospital, where the child was taken to the intensive burn unit and placed in a medically induced coma.
In another case in January 2008, the ACLU reports that SWAT members raided a young woman's home due to suspecting her boyfriend (who was not home) of possessing drugs. Ms. Tarika Wilson was holding her 14-month-old son when she opened the door, which is when the fire opened and she was mortally wounded.
These stories are perhaps some of the most gruesome and stomach-churning examples of what a police force with too much power can bring about, but they are not isolated incidents. Studies conducted by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) estimate that up to 80% of SWAT raids in the United States are conducted to serve search warrants, typically for drugs. What's more, the ACLU reports that, mirroring the "War on Drugs" itself, such searches disproportionately affect minorities and individuals of low socio-economic status.
Join Americans who are disgusted by this brutalization of innocent citizens. Urge Congress members to create laws to ban SWAT teams from entering civilians' homes on search warrants for minor drug offenses with weapons that were created for battlefields.
PETITION LETTER:
Dear Mr. Boehner,
The use of paramilitary force against civilians sounds like a sad story we might read in the newspaper about people in a poor, developing country. But the truth is, it's a story that is playing out on American ground, right now. SWAT teams have the power to conduct raids at night in citizens' homes to serve search warrants, often for minor drug offenses. Many times, the individuals who are being served no longer reside at the residence, or there are innocent people present, often children and the elderly.
Too often, local police force officials are presented with incentives, in the form of weapons, vehicles, and other equipment, in exchange for more arrests--often for minor drug offenses. In a recent report entitled, "The Excessive Militarization of American Policing," the ACLUe describes the mindset of SWAT officers as having been militarized and encouraged to "…adopt a 'warrior' mentality and think of the people they are supposed to serve as enemies."
I urge you to use your power to put an end to this militarization of U.S. police force members and to the brutalization of citizens. Stop incentivizing local police forces with weapons, vehicles, and other equipment that leads to the brutalization of American citizens; and stop equating the putative presence of drugs with the possible threat of violence from innocent people.
Sincerely,
[Your Name Here]
Photo Credit:
Sunday, June 22, 2014
Demand Free Flow of Information on the Internet
Demand Free Flow of Information on the Internet
Target: Speaker of the House of Representatives, John Boehner
Goal: Ensure that the Internet retains free flow of information for all
Summary: Large Internet service provides are fighting for paid prioritization for limited content on the Internet. This causes potential for a two-tiered system which would discriminate against small companies and limit freedom of speech on the Internet. Join us in urging Congress to fight for net neutrality in principles to ensure that the Internet retains free flow of information for all.
The advent of the Internet marked the beginning of an era where anyone, regardless of socio-economic status, skin color, age, or any other demographic variable, could in theory have access to an infinite supply of information. Of course, access to the Internet is still prone to barriers tied up in some of these factors (for instance, the World Bank reports that you are up to 10 times less likely to have access to a computer in a developing country like Eritrea compared to the United States). However, the potential for free access to information and therefore education has never been so promising.
Now large companies which act as Internet service providers are fighting for an end free access to information by offering faster access to content for large companies who will pay for it. Congress is currently sitting on a bill that would require the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to ban such "fast lane" practices. Such a change in how we construe access to information on the Internet would overhaul principles of net neutrality--but what's all the fuss about?
Proponents of net neutrality support the notion that content on the Internet deserves equal treatment--that is, Internet service providers should not be allowed to selectively promote some content but not other content. According to a poll conducted on Consumerist.com, a majority of the U.S. population supports principles of net neutrality. Along with them, tech companies ranging from giants like Google to tiny start-up companies recognize the perils of neglecting principles of net neutrality. As the tech website SFGate reports, "The tech world says that abolishing net neutrality would make it more difficult for disruptive companies to challenge entrenched competitors… (and) the change would create a two-tiered Internet with a fast lane for those who can pay more and a slow lane for everyone else."
Join concerned Americans in their plea for net neutrality and thereby an assurance of free content, and free speech, on the Internet. Urge Congressman members to keep the Internet a fair and free place where information can be exchanged without obscene privilege.
PETITION LETTER:
In a letter to the House Judiciary Committee, members of the Consumers Union write, "With the Internet becoming ever-more central to American life, it is essential that we not devolve into a two-tiered society where some get special preference over others." They also note that net neutrality may not always be protected by a class of "antitrust laws" which are put in place to protect consumers and ban or restrict certain business practices (for instance, they may ban monopolies in some situations, so that one company doesn't have all the power over a certain type of commerce). That is, additional measures are necessary to ensure that net neutrality, and freedom of information flow, is upheld.
The Internet is currently a place for opportunity. Start-up companies may receive funding by crowd-sourcing, a technique which has never been so accessible to individuals as now. An end to net neutrality could mean an end to this venue for young companies to fundraise and spread the word, leading to an increase in power for already-powerful large companies.
I urge you to consider how such "fast lane" access to content for large companies would affect Americans. Please use your power to encourage others to uphold bills put in place to ban such "fast lane" paid prioritization agreements.
Sincerely,
[Your name here]
Image source: M3Li55@ via Flickr
Target: Speaker of the House of Representatives, John Boehner
Goal: Ensure that the Internet retains free flow of information for all
Summary: Large Internet service provides are fighting for paid prioritization for limited content on the Internet. This causes potential for a two-tiered system which would discriminate against small companies and limit freedom of speech on the Internet. Join us in urging Congress to fight for net neutrality in principles to ensure that the Internet retains free flow of information for all.
The advent of the Internet marked the beginning of an era where anyone, regardless of socio-economic status, skin color, age, or any other demographic variable, could in theory have access to an infinite supply of information. Of course, access to the Internet is still prone to barriers tied up in some of these factors (for instance, the World Bank reports that you are up to 10 times less likely to have access to a computer in a developing country like Eritrea compared to the United States). However, the potential for free access to information and therefore education has never been so promising.
Now large companies which act as Internet service providers are fighting for an end free access to information by offering faster access to content for large companies who will pay for it. Congress is currently sitting on a bill that would require the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to ban such "fast lane" practices. Such a change in how we construe access to information on the Internet would overhaul principles of net neutrality--but what's all the fuss about?
Proponents of net neutrality support the notion that content on the Internet deserves equal treatment--that is, Internet service providers should not be allowed to selectively promote some content but not other content. According to a poll conducted on Consumerist.com, a majority of the U.S. population supports principles of net neutrality. Along with them, tech companies ranging from giants like Google to tiny start-up companies recognize the perils of neglecting principles of net neutrality. As the tech website SFGate reports, "The tech world says that abolishing net neutrality would make it more difficult for disruptive companies to challenge entrenched competitors… (and) the change would create a two-tiered Internet with a fast lane for those who can pay more and a slow lane for everyone else."
Join concerned Americans in their plea for net neutrality and thereby an assurance of free content, and free speech, on the Internet. Urge Congressman members to keep the Internet a fair and free place where information can be exchanged without obscene privilege.
PETITION LETTER:
In a letter to the House Judiciary Committee, members of the Consumers Union write, "With the Internet becoming ever-more central to American life, it is essential that we not devolve into a two-tiered society where some get special preference over others." They also note that net neutrality may not always be protected by a class of "antitrust laws" which are put in place to protect consumers and ban or restrict certain business practices (for instance, they may ban monopolies in some situations, so that one company doesn't have all the power over a certain type of commerce). That is, additional measures are necessary to ensure that net neutrality, and freedom of information flow, is upheld.
The Internet is currently a place for opportunity. Start-up companies may receive funding by crowd-sourcing, a technique which has never been so accessible to individuals as now. An end to net neutrality could mean an end to this venue for young companies to fundraise and spread the word, leading to an increase in power for already-powerful large companies.
I urge you to consider how such "fast lane" access to content for large companies would affect Americans. Please use your power to encourage others to uphold bills put in place to ban such "fast lane" paid prioritization agreements.
Sincerely,
[Your name here]
Image source: M3Li55@ via Flickr
Tuesday, June 17, 2014
Support an increase in federal taxes on gas
Support an increase in federal taxes on gas
Excerpt: Scientific studies show that the emissions released from traffic can be deadly to humans on the planet and also contribute to global warming. Urge members of Congress to support proposals to increase federal taxes on gas in order to decrease gas consumption.
Goal: Raise taxes on gas in order to improve roads and simultaneously encourage individuals to seek environmentally-friendly alternatives for transportation.
Target: Speaker of the House of Representatives, John Boehner
Forbes Magazine reports that Democratic Senator Chris Murphy has proposed a federal gas tax increase of 12 cents over 2015-16. Forbes goes on to list many good reasons for this increase. First, there hasn't been a federal gas tax increase in over two decades. Raising taxes on gas by 12% would roughly bring these taxes up to date in terms of inflation over the past 20 years. Second, there are, of course, many areas of the U.S. where roads could use a makeover, and the increase in the tax could help improve the transportation system.
Interestingly, the Forbes article neglected to mention the single most compelling reason to raise taxes on fuel: raising taxes on gas raises prices on gas, which means that people will consume less gas. In fact, a review paper published by the Economic and Social Research Council suggests that at 10% increase in prices on gas would result in (1) a 1% reduction in traffic congestion within a year and up to 3% over approximately five years and (2) a 2.5% decrease in fuel consumption within a year and a 6% reduction over a longer period.
The second-highest cause of accidental deaths in the United States by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is traffic accidents (second only to poisoning). Recently, a report from MIT scientists published in the journal Atmospheric Environment used an air quality model to predict how many individuals die due to road pollution (approximately 53,000 for the year 2005, according to the article). This number is close to double the number of people dying from traffic-related accidents (approximately 34,000 in 2010, according to the CDC).
According to the Union of Concerned Scientists (a group of concerned citizens and scientist which was formed at MIT in 1969), a single gallon of gas leads to the release of 24 pounds of carbon dioxide (and other gases that are dangerous for the environment) into the air. This means that in one year, the average U.S. personal vehicle sends 6 tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere (to put this into perspective, the average car weighs about 2 tons, or 4,000 pounds).
Raising taxes on gasoline is a first step toward reducing fuel consumption in the U.S. It would also serve to raise awareness of the crucial need to reduce carbon dioxide and other emissions. Join in applauding Senator Chris Murphy and asking Congress to stand behind the proposal to raise taxes on gas.
PETITION LETTER:
Dear Mr. Boehner,
Scientific studies show that the emissions released from traffic can be deadly to humans on the planet and also contribute to global warming. We have the knowledge and technology to make a huge change in the future of our planet, but to do that, we must reduce the number of cars on the roads.
In addition to the devastatingly negative impacts that scientists now know that carbon dioxide and other emissions have on climate, there are also severe immediate consequences for personal heath. Scientists estimate that there are more deaths per year based on traffic pollution alone compared to accidental deaths caused by traffic collisions.
Although inflation has skyrocketed in recent years, taxes on gas have not been raised since 1993, nearly two decades ago (currently, the federal tax is only 18 cents per gallon, which is only about 5% if you're paying around $3.50 for a gallon of gas). Senator Chris Murphy has proposed a federal tax increase on gas of 6 cents for 2015 and an additional 6 cents for 2016, which would help bring gas taxes up to date with inflation.
Furthermore, an increase in gas prices would likely decrease consumption. Economists' models suggest that if gas prices were increased by 10% (a somewhat larger increase than Senator Murphy's proposal), fuel consumption would decrease by 6% over a five-year period. The takeaway message is: raising taxes reduces consumption, which reduces emissions.
I urge you to consider the positive influence such a change could have on both personal health and on our planet. Please use your influence to support proposals that federal tax be increased on gasoline and encourage party members to vote for such proposals.
Sincerely,
[Your Name Here]
Excerpt: Scientific studies show that the emissions released from traffic can be deadly to humans on the planet and also contribute to global warming. Urge members of Congress to support proposals to increase federal taxes on gas in order to decrease gas consumption.
Goal: Raise taxes on gas in order to improve roads and simultaneously encourage individuals to seek environmentally-friendly alternatives for transportation.
Target: Speaker of the House of Representatives, John Boehner
Forbes Magazine reports that Democratic Senator Chris Murphy has proposed a federal gas tax increase of 12 cents over 2015-16. Forbes goes on to list many good reasons for this increase. First, there hasn't been a federal gas tax increase in over two decades. Raising taxes on gas by 12% would roughly bring these taxes up to date in terms of inflation over the past 20 years. Second, there are, of course, many areas of the U.S. where roads could use a makeover, and the increase in the tax could help improve the transportation system.
Interestingly, the Forbes article neglected to mention the single most compelling reason to raise taxes on fuel: raising taxes on gas raises prices on gas, which means that people will consume less gas. In fact, a review paper published by the Economic and Social Research Council suggests that at 10% increase in prices on gas would result in (1) a 1% reduction in traffic congestion within a year and up to 3% over approximately five years and (2) a 2.5% decrease in fuel consumption within a year and a 6% reduction over a longer period.
The second-highest cause of accidental deaths in the United States by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is traffic accidents (second only to poisoning). Recently, a report from MIT scientists published in the journal Atmospheric Environment used an air quality model to predict how many individuals die due to road pollution (approximately 53,000 for the year 2005, according to the article). This number is close to double the number of people dying from traffic-related accidents (approximately 34,000 in 2010, according to the CDC).
According to the Union of Concerned Scientists (a group of concerned citizens and scientist which was formed at MIT in 1969), a single gallon of gas leads to the release of 24 pounds of carbon dioxide (and other gases that are dangerous for the environment) into the air. This means that in one year, the average U.S. personal vehicle sends 6 tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere (to put this into perspective, the average car weighs about 2 tons, or 4,000 pounds).
Raising taxes on gasoline is a first step toward reducing fuel consumption in the U.S. It would also serve to raise awareness of the crucial need to reduce carbon dioxide and other emissions. Join in applauding Senator Chris Murphy and asking Congress to stand behind the proposal to raise taxes on gas.
PETITION LETTER:
Dear Mr. Boehner,
Scientific studies show that the emissions released from traffic can be deadly to humans on the planet and also contribute to global warming. We have the knowledge and technology to make a huge change in the future of our planet, but to do that, we must reduce the number of cars on the roads.
In addition to the devastatingly negative impacts that scientists now know that carbon dioxide and other emissions have on climate, there are also severe immediate consequences for personal heath. Scientists estimate that there are more deaths per year based on traffic pollution alone compared to accidental deaths caused by traffic collisions.
Although inflation has skyrocketed in recent years, taxes on gas have not been raised since 1993, nearly two decades ago (currently, the federal tax is only 18 cents per gallon, which is only about 5% if you're paying around $3.50 for a gallon of gas). Senator Chris Murphy has proposed a federal tax increase on gas of 6 cents for 2015 and an additional 6 cents for 2016, which would help bring gas taxes up to date with inflation.
Furthermore, an increase in gas prices would likely decrease consumption. Economists' models suggest that if gas prices were increased by 10% (a somewhat larger increase than Senator Murphy's proposal), fuel consumption would decrease by 6% over a five-year period. The takeaway message is: raising taxes reduces consumption, which reduces emissions.
I urge you to consider the positive influence such a change could have on both personal health and on our planet. Please use your influence to support proposals that federal tax be increased on gasoline and encourage party members to vote for such proposals.
Sincerely,
[Your Name Here]
Monday, June 16, 2014
Enforce a maximum salary for CEOs
Enforce a maximum salary for CEOs
Excerpt: Disparities in wages paid to CEOs and to average workers in large companies are an atrocious example of the wealth gap in the United States. Urge members of U.S. Congress to enforce a cap on salaries for CEOs as one step in fighting the battle against poverty.
Target: Speaker of the House of Representatives John Boehner
Goal: Create policies to set a maximum salary for CEOs of large companies.
According to the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organization (AFL-CIO), Fortune 500 CEOs made $12 million on average in 2012, approximately 350 times the overall workers' average of $34,645. This difference in income is one of the most devastating examples of injustice in the United States, and it's not getting better: recent research from Berkeley published in Pathways Magazine suggests that from 2009 to 2011, the wealthiest 1% of Americans had incomes growing by 11.2%. In contrast, income for all other Americans decreased by .4%.
Placing a cap on the amount of money made by CEOs of large corporations is an essential step toward reducing income disparity. One set of proposals for how to cap top earning salaries is to set the ceiling at a certain multiple of the lowest earners' wages of that company. For instance, Switzerland recently voted (in the negative) on a referendum to impose a "maximum wage" which would cap earnings at 12x the amount of the lowest earners.
Some opponents argue that a maximum waged based on the earnings of workers on a company-by-company basis would create unfair disadvantages for companies who have a larger range of employee income levels. As one writer for Marketplace.org notes, the average worker at a software company will make a great deal more than the average worker at another type of company, such as a hotel chain, where bottom-rung workers are likely to be paid much less, leading to the possibility that Company A, paying some employees less than Company B but generating more revenue than Company B, might end up paying its CEO less (or that some of Company A's employees might end up making more money than CEOs, if the cap is restricted to them). These are paltry complaints and worries bout discrepancies in millionaires' salaries pale in comparison to economic hardships experienced by average-salary workers (not to mention those in the bottom rungs).
Of course, capping CEO salaries represents one step in a series of events that is needed to reduce the gap in income disparity. According to AFL-CIO, CEOs make the majority of their money from sources other than salary, including bonuses (average: $200k), stocks and options (over $6.5 million, on average), pensions (over $1.5 million), non-equity incentive plans (about $2.3 million), and more. Taken together, the average total hourly earnings of a CEO is near $6,000. Meanwhile, minimum wage in some states remains as low as $5.15 per hour. The system is broken.
Urge members of Congress to help reverse this disparity in income. Ask Speaker John Boehner for help in creating a law that restricts outrageous wages for CEOs.
PETITION:
Dear Mr. Boehner,
Differences in wealth plague our country. The American Dream of equal opportunity for all citizens has been displaced by an extreme un-equalizer: a huge disparity in pay for the poorest and wealthiest.
In order to begin to reduce the gap in wealth, I urge you to consider laws that cap the earnings of CEOs of large corporations. Whether the cap be a set number or a sliding ceiling based on a percentage of the average or minimum worker earnings, either option is a better alternative than allowing some individuals to make order of magnitude more money than their employees.
Placing a cap on CEOs' salaries is just one step in a large battle toward reducing large disparity in incomes. CEOs currently make a large amount of their income not from salary but from other sources, such as stocks, options, and pension plans. In total CEOs on average make about $6,000 an hour, which is more than one thousand times the minimum wage in place in states like Wyoming and Georgia.
I urge you to use your power to help to reverse these disparities. Consider setting a maximum wage cap in order to make the United States a place where justice can prevail and individuals may pursue their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Sincerely,
[Your Name Here]
Excerpt: Disparities in wages paid to CEOs and to average workers in large companies are an atrocious example of the wealth gap in the United States. Urge members of U.S. Congress to enforce a cap on salaries for CEOs as one step in fighting the battle against poverty.
Target: Speaker of the House of Representatives John Boehner
Goal: Create policies to set a maximum salary for CEOs of large companies.
According to the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organization (AFL-CIO), Fortune 500 CEOs made $12 million on average in 2012, approximately 350 times the overall workers' average of $34,645. This difference in income is one of the most devastating examples of injustice in the United States, and it's not getting better: recent research from Berkeley published in Pathways Magazine suggests that from 2009 to 2011, the wealthiest 1% of Americans had incomes growing by 11.2%. In contrast, income for all other Americans decreased by .4%.
Placing a cap on the amount of money made by CEOs of large corporations is an essential step toward reducing income disparity. One set of proposals for how to cap top earning salaries is to set the ceiling at a certain multiple of the lowest earners' wages of that company. For instance, Switzerland recently voted (in the negative) on a referendum to impose a "maximum wage" which would cap earnings at 12x the amount of the lowest earners.
Some opponents argue that a maximum waged based on the earnings of workers on a company-by-company basis would create unfair disadvantages for companies who have a larger range of employee income levels. As one writer for Marketplace.org notes, the average worker at a software company will make a great deal more than the average worker at another type of company, such as a hotel chain, where bottom-rung workers are likely to be paid much less, leading to the possibility that Company A, paying some employees less than Company B but generating more revenue than Company B, might end up paying its CEO less (or that some of Company A's employees might end up making more money than CEOs, if the cap is restricted to them). These are paltry complaints and worries bout discrepancies in millionaires' salaries pale in comparison to economic hardships experienced by average-salary workers (not to mention those in the bottom rungs).
Of course, capping CEO salaries represents one step in a series of events that is needed to reduce the gap in income disparity. According to AFL-CIO, CEOs make the majority of their money from sources other than salary, including bonuses (average: $200k), stocks and options (over $6.5 million, on average), pensions (over $1.5 million), non-equity incentive plans (about $2.3 million), and more. Taken together, the average total hourly earnings of a CEO is near $6,000. Meanwhile, minimum wage in some states remains as low as $5.15 per hour. The system is broken.
Urge members of Congress to help reverse this disparity in income. Ask Speaker John Boehner for help in creating a law that restricts outrageous wages for CEOs.
PETITION:
Dear Mr. Boehner,
Differences in wealth plague our country. The American Dream of equal opportunity for all citizens has been displaced by an extreme un-equalizer: a huge disparity in pay for the poorest and wealthiest.
In order to begin to reduce the gap in wealth, I urge you to consider laws that cap the earnings of CEOs of large corporations. Whether the cap be a set number or a sliding ceiling based on a percentage of the average or minimum worker earnings, either option is a better alternative than allowing some individuals to make order of magnitude more money than their employees.
Placing a cap on CEOs' salaries is just one step in a large battle toward reducing large disparity in incomes. CEOs currently make a large amount of their income not from salary but from other sources, such as stocks, options, and pension plans. In total CEOs on average make about $6,000 an hour, which is more than one thousand times the minimum wage in place in states like Wyoming and Georgia.
I urge you to use your power to help to reverse these disparities. Consider setting a maximum wage cap in order to make the United States a place where justice can prevail and individuals may pursue their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Sincerely,
[Your Name Here]
Thursday, June 12, 2014
Pattern separation gone awry: the dentate gyrus and schizophrenia
Reblogged from NeuWriteSD.org:
Since the discovery of patient H.M. in the 1950s (see this post from October 2013), scientists have known that the hippocampus, a seahorse-shaped structure located in the medial temporal lobe, is crucial for the successful formation of new memories. The mammalian hippocampus is characterized by several distinct regions, each with a different function, including areas called the cornu ammonis fields (CA1, CA2, CA3) and the dentate gyrus...
Read more on NeuWriteSD.org.
Sunday, June 8, 2014
Ban Open Carry of Firearms from Target
Ban Open Carry of Firearms from Target
Excerpt: Open-carry demonstrations in nationwide Target stores are unnecessarily threatening. Urge Target executives to ban open carry of firearms in stores to keep citizens safe.
Target: John J. Mulligan, Target Interim President and CEO/CFO
Goal: Enforce a "no open carry" policy for firearms in Target stores
USA Today reports that Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, a national mothers' group, has called for Target stores to change their policies on the open carrying of guns. Advocates for stricter laws on guns claim that Target chain stores in many states have recently been used as the site of demonstrations by groups condoning open-carry policies. In particular, the state of Texas has lax guns laws which permits individuals to carry rifles openly and has been the site of may such open-carry demonstrations in Target stores.
Members of the mothers' advocacy group have argued that Target is a place where many families shop and where many teens work. The group heartily condemns the demonstrations of individuals who flaunt open-carry laws. The Wall Street Journal reports that the National Rifle Association has put forth conflicting responses to the demonstrations. Initially, a spokesperson called the Target demonstration "…downright weird… and downright scary," but the group has since rescinded this perspective. Rather, they continue to support open-carry laws. As executive director Chris W. Cox put it, "…our job isn't to criticize the lawful behavior of fellow gun owners."
Demonstrations using guns in public arenas _is_ "downright scary". Intimidation tactics using guns in public areas where children are often present is despicable. That lawful protections of the right to carry a deadly weapon should supersede an individual's right to feel secure in a public place is a travesty.
The Moms Demand Action coalition has already effected change in several national chain stores, including Chipotle, Starbucks, Chili's, Sonic Drive-In, and Jack in the Box. Join us in urging Target to change their policies to enforce a no-open-carry policy.
PETITION LETTER:
Dear Mr. Mulligan,
American citizens have the right to feel safe in public environments. Recently, demonstrations by individuals openly carrying large firearms, such as rifles, have taken away part of that securities. The rise of such demonstration in Target stores has unfortunately been a part of the movement to showcase open-carry freedoms.
In part, the demonstrations at Target show what we already know: gun laws are lax in many areas of the United States. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the number of unintentional deaths due to firearms from 2000 to 2010 was 7515 (an incidence rate of .23%). However, the demonstrations at Target also intimate that there is an implicit acceptance of violence in our culture.
Banning open carry of guns in Target stores is an important step toward making this national chain a safer environment where families can shop and employees can work. It also sends an important message: we cannot back down to intimidation using firearms.
I join others in affirming that no one should feel threatened during daily activities in this country. I urge you to immediately ban the open carry of fire arms in Target stores and to use your influence to encourage other prominent business officials to do the same. Let us promote an atmosphere of safety and peace where we can.
Sincerely,
[Your Name Here]
Photo credit: Gobonobo via Wikipedia
Excerpt: Open-carry demonstrations in nationwide Target stores are unnecessarily threatening. Urge Target executives to ban open carry of firearms in stores to keep citizens safe.
Target: John J. Mulligan, Target Interim President and CEO/CFO
Goal: Enforce a "no open carry" policy for firearms in Target stores
USA Today reports that Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, a national mothers' group, has called for Target stores to change their policies on the open carrying of guns. Advocates for stricter laws on guns claim that Target chain stores in many states have recently been used as the site of demonstrations by groups condoning open-carry policies. In particular, the state of Texas has lax guns laws which permits individuals to carry rifles openly and has been the site of may such open-carry demonstrations in Target stores.
Members of the mothers' advocacy group have argued that Target is a place where many families shop and where many teens work. The group heartily condemns the demonstrations of individuals who flaunt open-carry laws. The Wall Street Journal reports that the National Rifle Association has put forth conflicting responses to the demonstrations. Initially, a spokesperson called the Target demonstration "…downright weird… and downright scary," but the group has since rescinded this perspective. Rather, they continue to support open-carry laws. As executive director Chris W. Cox put it, "…our job isn't to criticize the lawful behavior of fellow gun owners."
Demonstrations using guns in public arenas _is_ "downright scary". Intimidation tactics using guns in public areas where children are often present is despicable. That lawful protections of the right to carry a deadly weapon should supersede an individual's right to feel secure in a public place is a travesty.
The Moms Demand Action coalition has already effected change in several national chain stores, including Chipotle, Starbucks, Chili's, Sonic Drive-In, and Jack in the Box. Join us in urging Target to change their policies to enforce a no-open-carry policy.
PETITION LETTER:
Dear Mr. Mulligan,
American citizens have the right to feel safe in public environments. Recently, demonstrations by individuals openly carrying large firearms, such as rifles, have taken away part of that securities. The rise of such demonstration in Target stores has unfortunately been a part of the movement to showcase open-carry freedoms.
In part, the demonstrations at Target show what we already know: gun laws are lax in many areas of the United States. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the number of unintentional deaths due to firearms from 2000 to 2010 was 7515 (an incidence rate of .23%). However, the demonstrations at Target also intimate that there is an implicit acceptance of violence in our culture.
Banning open carry of guns in Target stores is an important step toward making this national chain a safer environment where families can shop and employees can work. It also sends an important message: we cannot back down to intimidation using firearms.
I join others in affirming that no one should feel threatened during daily activities in this country. I urge you to immediately ban the open carry of fire arms in Target stores and to use your influence to encourage other prominent business officials to do the same. Let us promote an atmosphere of safety and peace where we can.
Sincerely,
[Your Name Here]
Photo credit: Gobonobo via Wikipedia
Wednesday, June 4, 2014
Medicine and disabilities
From June to August, 2014, I wrote a series of articles on a website called forcechange.com. Since then, to the extent I can tell, that website persists, but these articles do not. I therefore post them here, as on the date they were penned.
Demand that medical professionals receive education in the treatment of patients with disabilities
Excerpt: Studies report discrimination against patients with obvious physical disabilities, including those confined to a wheelchair and those who are obese. Urge policymakers to create laws and guidelines for medical educators to ensure equal treatment of patients with disabilities.
Target: American Medical Association President Ardis Dee Hoven, MD
Goal: Ensure that disabled patients are provided with equal treatment in medical environments by requiring training for medical providers.
Patients with disabilities are discriminated against in medical environments. They are often made to wait longer for treatment or may simply be denied access to treatment outright. One study reports that when researchers contacted hospitals across four cities to ask for treatment for fictional patients who were obese and who used a wheelchair, over a fifth of the facilities responded that accommodating the patient would be impossible.
The Americans with Disabilities Act was put in place in 1990 to eliminate discrimination against individuals due to physical or mental disabilities in activities and situations ranging from housing to public transportation to medical treatment. The Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice clearly states that this includes providing accessible examination rooms, necessary equipment for assisting patients when they require physical aid in moving to examination tables, and staff who are provided with the educational training required to treat patients with disabilities.
Studies show that deans at a majority of U.S. medical schools report that including a curriculum for patients with disabilities is not a priority, and many medical students never see any inclusion of treating patients with mental disabilities on the curriculum at all.
Join those who believe in equal treatment for all and urge members of the AMA to suggest policy changes aimed toward equal treatment for patients with disabilities by requiring that students in medical fields receiving training in responding to the needs of individuals with physical and mental impairments.
PETITION LETTER:
Dear AMA President Ardis Dee Hoven,
Individuals with physical and mental disabilities deserve the right to the same access to medical care as all other individuals. However, the current state of medicine often leaves disabled individuals waiting longer for care or denies access to these individuals outright.
The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 was put in place to ensure that individuals with disabilities do not undergo discrimination. I write to ask that you encourage policymakers and medical care providers to ensure that the aims of this act are upheld. Medical facilities should be properly equipped to accommodate all individuals, and medical staff should be provided with the training that is required to treat persons who may suffer from disabilities.
Critically, staff training should go beyond knowledge of appropriate regulations for accessible rooms and knowledge of relevant equipment. It should also be designed to inform medical professionals about the implicit discrimination that often goes along with treating patients with disabilities. This training should start early in the medical educational system. Currently, only a minority of medical schools place focus on this critical topic for aspiring physicians and medical professionals.
A recent study showed that by showing an educational video only 90 minutes in length to medical students had a significantly positive impact on medical students' attitudes and beliefs toward individuals with medical disabilities. Education is crucial to providing the context and understanding for medical care providers to do their jobs: caring for patients, regardless of background.
I join others in affirming that we cannot accept discrimination from health care providers. I ask that you use your influence to encourage policymakers to ensure that the Americans with Disabilities Act is upheld and that medical educators provide students with information on how to eliminate such discrimination.
Sincerely,
[Your Name Here]
Photo credit: openclipart.org
Demand that medical professionals receive education in the treatment of patients with disabilities
Excerpt: Studies report discrimination against patients with obvious physical disabilities, including those confined to a wheelchair and those who are obese. Urge policymakers to create laws and guidelines for medical educators to ensure equal treatment of patients with disabilities.
Target: American Medical Association President Ardis Dee Hoven, MD
Goal: Ensure that disabled patients are provided with equal treatment in medical environments by requiring training for medical providers.
Patients with disabilities are discriminated against in medical environments. They are often made to wait longer for treatment or may simply be denied access to treatment outright. One study reports that when researchers contacted hospitals across four cities to ask for treatment for fictional patients who were obese and who used a wheelchair, over a fifth of the facilities responded that accommodating the patient would be impossible.
The Americans with Disabilities Act was put in place in 1990 to eliminate discrimination against individuals due to physical or mental disabilities in activities and situations ranging from housing to public transportation to medical treatment. The Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice clearly states that this includes providing accessible examination rooms, necessary equipment for assisting patients when they require physical aid in moving to examination tables, and staff who are provided with the educational training required to treat patients with disabilities.
Studies show that deans at a majority of U.S. medical schools report that including a curriculum for patients with disabilities is not a priority, and many medical students never see any inclusion of treating patients with mental disabilities on the curriculum at all.
Join those who believe in equal treatment for all and urge members of the AMA to suggest policy changes aimed toward equal treatment for patients with disabilities by requiring that students in medical fields receiving training in responding to the needs of individuals with physical and mental impairments.
PETITION LETTER:
Dear AMA President Ardis Dee Hoven,
Individuals with physical and mental disabilities deserve the right to the same access to medical care as all other individuals. However, the current state of medicine often leaves disabled individuals waiting longer for care or denies access to these individuals outright.
The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 was put in place to ensure that individuals with disabilities do not undergo discrimination. I write to ask that you encourage policymakers and medical care providers to ensure that the aims of this act are upheld. Medical facilities should be properly equipped to accommodate all individuals, and medical staff should be provided with the training that is required to treat persons who may suffer from disabilities.
Critically, staff training should go beyond knowledge of appropriate regulations for accessible rooms and knowledge of relevant equipment. It should also be designed to inform medical professionals about the implicit discrimination that often goes along with treating patients with disabilities. This training should start early in the medical educational system. Currently, only a minority of medical schools place focus on this critical topic for aspiring physicians and medical professionals.
A recent study showed that by showing an educational video only 90 minutes in length to medical students had a significantly positive impact on medical students' attitudes and beliefs toward individuals with medical disabilities. Education is crucial to providing the context and understanding for medical care providers to do their jobs: caring for patients, regardless of background.
I join others in affirming that we cannot accept discrimination from health care providers. I ask that you use your influence to encourage policymakers to ensure that the Americans with Disabilities Act is upheld and that medical educators provide students with information on how to eliminate such discrimination.
Sincerely,
[Your Name Here]
Photo credit: openclipart.org
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)