Demand Justice for Victim of Police Brutality
Excerpt: A woman walking along a highway was accosted and brutalized by a police officer in California. Demand that action be taken against the officer in question and that the police force be required to take responsibility for this action. Police officers wielding violence against non-violent citizens is a despicable crime that cannot be tolerated.
Target: California Highway Patrol Commissioner Joseph A. Farrow
Goal: Demand that charges be pressed against a police officer who brutalized a non-violent woman for walking along a highway.
Multiple news sources report that early in July, 2014, a woman was walking on interstate I-10 near Los Angeles when a California Highway Patrol (CHP) officer accosted her. According to CHP officials, the officer had responded to information that a woman was wandering the highway, endangering both herself also many other people driving on the highway.
However, a bystander with a camera was also present and caught nearly the entire incident, which shows the police officer brutally, repeatedly punching the woman, who was elderly. The Associated Press reports that the man who caught the incident on film, David Diaz, says that the officer "…just pounded her. If you look at the video, there are 15 hits. To the head, and not just simple jabs… He agitated the situation more than helped it."
_Business Insider_ reports that, according to the Center for Research on Globalization, about 500 innocent Americans are murdered by uniformed officers each year. Further, more Americans have been killed by police officers in the United States in the last ten years than were killed in total in the war in Iraq.
The officer in the Los Angeles incident has been put on leave while an investigation takes place. Join others in demanding that criminal charges be filed against the officer and that the CHP be required to take responsibility for their actions.
PETITION LETTER:
Dear Mr. Farrow,
Reports of police brutality against unarmed, innocent civilians continue to plague the news. Recently, a member of the California High Patrol accosted and repeatedly punched, up to fifteen times, a woman whose only crime was walking next to a highway. Non-violent incidents like this should never result in an unarmed civilian being brutalized.
I ask you to take action to ensure that this type of incident never happens again in the California Highway Patrol. Press charges against the officer in question, taking a firm stance that his behavior cannot and will not be tolerated. Further, provide training to other officers to make sure that turning to violence is not a choice against unarmed, non-violent civilians. Research puts estimates of civilian deaths by police hands at about five hundred per year for the past decade--a sum that, when totaled, equals more than the number of American deaths suffered during the war in Iraq.
Please help to end this madness and restore peace to American citizens. Press charges against the officers who was implicated in the Los Angeles highway incident and take measures to prevent similar incidents from happening in the future.
Sincerely,
[Your Name Here]
Photo Credit: Fibonacci Blue via Flickr
Sunday, July 6, 2014
Wednesday, July 2, 2014
Success: National Store Chain Blocks the Open Carrying of Firearms
Success: National Store Chain Blocks the Open Carrying of Firearms
Excerpt: The executive of a large corporation has requested that individuals leave their guns behind when shopping at their stores. Applaud the decision not to allow the threat of violence and to create a safe environment in these stores.
Target: John J. Mulligan, Target Interim President and CEO/CFO
Goal: Thank CEO of Target for enforcing a "no open carry" policy for firearms in Target stores
The national corporation Target has come under criticism for permitting open carry of guns in their stores. As a result, many demonstrations by groups condoning open-carry policies were carried out, particularly in states where gun laws are most lax. A recent ForceChange petition [link to: http://forcechange.com/127284/ban-the-open-carrying-of-firearms-in-store-chain/] called on the chief executive officer (CEO) of Target, John J. Mulligan, to enforce a policy against openly carrying firearms in Target.
The _Minneapolis Star Tribune_ reports that the executives at Target corporation have heard the voice of people who asked for a safer environment where families feel welcome. According to the _Tribune_, Mulligan has stated, "[S]tarting today we will… respectfully request that guests not bring firearms to Target, even in communities where it is permitted by law." To implement this request, Target will place signs at its stores asking that people not bring guns inside.
Please join us in thanking the CEO of Target for this acknowledgment that these gun demonstrations are disruptive and this request that individuals no longer openly carry firearms in the store.
PETITION LETTER:
Thank you for listening to the voice of Americans who reject the open carry of guns in public stores like Target. Target stores have historically been environments where families gather to shop, and the presence of lethal weapons in such an arena is unacceptable. I sincerely appreciate your commitment to maintaining Target stores as safe environments for families.
In the future, I urge you to continue to stand firm on this issue and to request that individuals openly carrying guns not enter the store. This request sends an important message that the threat of violence will not be tolerated at Target stores.
Thank you again for your judgment in this matter.
Sincerely,
[Your Name Here]
Excerpt: The executive of a large corporation has requested that individuals leave their guns behind when shopping at their stores. Applaud the decision not to allow the threat of violence and to create a safe environment in these stores.
Target: John J. Mulligan, Target Interim President and CEO/CFO
Goal: Thank CEO of Target for enforcing a "no open carry" policy for firearms in Target stores
The national corporation Target has come under criticism for permitting open carry of guns in their stores. As a result, many demonstrations by groups condoning open-carry policies were carried out, particularly in states where gun laws are most lax. A recent ForceChange petition [link to: http://forcechange.com/127284/ban-the-open-carrying-of-firearms-in-store-chain/] called on the chief executive officer (CEO) of Target, John J. Mulligan, to enforce a policy against openly carrying firearms in Target.
The _Minneapolis Star Tribune_ reports that the executives at Target corporation have heard the voice of people who asked for a safer environment where families feel welcome. According to the _Tribune_, Mulligan has stated, "[S]tarting today we will… respectfully request that guests not bring firearms to Target, even in communities where it is permitted by law." To implement this request, Target will place signs at its stores asking that people not bring guns inside.
Please join us in thanking the CEO of Target for this acknowledgment that these gun demonstrations are disruptive and this request that individuals no longer openly carry firearms in the store.
PETITION LETTER:
Thank you for listening to the voice of Americans who reject the open carry of guns in public stores like Target. Target stores have historically been environments where families gather to shop, and the presence of lethal weapons in such an arena is unacceptable. I sincerely appreciate your commitment to maintaining Target stores as safe environments for families.
In the future, I urge you to continue to stand firm on this issue and to request that individuals openly carrying guns not enter the store. This request sends an important message that the threat of violence will not be tolerated at Target stores.
Thank you again for your judgment in this matter.
Sincerely,
[Your Name Here]
Tuesday, July 1, 2014
Applaud Indiana Lawmakers for Allowing One Same-Sex Marriage; Now, Make it Legal for All
Applaud Indiana Lawmakers for Allowing One Same-Sex Marriage; Now, Make it Legal for All
Target: Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals (Seventh Circuit) Diane Wood
Goal: Commend lawmakers for ruling that the marriage of one same-sex couple and urge them to rule that same-sex marriage should be upheld across the board
Excerpt: The state of Indiana has recently seen turmoil with regards to laws banning same-sex marriages. In the face of a stay ordering a freeze on new marriages, a federal appeals court has ordered for the recognition of the marriage of one same-sex couple. Commend lawmakers for this ruling and urge them to rule that same-sex marriage should be upheld across the board.
The state of Indiana has recently seen turmoil with regards to laws banning same-sex marriages. As of June 26, 2014, a federal judged ruled that the recent ban on same-sex marriages in the state of Indiana was unconstitutional. Many couples in Indiana immediately raced to the Marion County Clerk's office in Indianapolis to tie the knot.
However, a federal appeals court promptly called for an emergency stay, meaning that the enforcement of the prior court judgment to ban same-sex marriages is temporarily nullified. This means that couples who had previously been married prior to the stay may not be entitled to their newly-found (and somewhat limited) rights while the courts battle out the appeal.
Even if the appeal is upheld and the ban on same-sex marriage is overturned, gay couples in Indiana enjoy may not equal rights. _USA Today_ reports on several arenas where discrimination against same-sex couples exists. Health insurance providers, for example, may choose to cover spouses, but they have the right to refuse to provide coverage for same-sex couples. Tax rules and civil/social liberties related to hospital visitation rights, death certificates, and adoptions are also subject to interpretation of state and/or local rulings and may not ensure equal rights for same-sex couples.
Three is one beacon of hope in this tumultuous story, which is the recognition of one particular same-sex marriage of Amy Sandler and Niki Quasney, who has is in a life-threatening battle with ovarian cancer. On July 1, the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the state must recognize the marriage of this couple, irrespective of the stay.
Join the fight for equal rights for all Americans and applaud Chief Judge Wood for the recognition of this marriage. Further urge Indiana lawmakers to fight to keep the ban on same-sex marriage overturned.
PETITION LETTER:
Dear Judge Wood,
The state of Indiana is in a state of turmoil with respective to same-sex marriage and equal rights for all people who reside there. With the recent overturning of the ban on same-sex marriage followed by the stay limiting new couples from getting married, many individuals in Indiana are hurting. What's more, even if the overturning of the ban is upheld, gay couples in Indiana may not enjoy the same rights as others, including limitations on tax laws benefiting couples and limitations on other civil and social liberties.
I applaud your judgment in the case brought to the courts by Amy Sandler and Niki Quasney, who were able to protect their right to remain married. I urge you to use your influence and character to explain to others why it is so important that equal rights in marriage and civil liberties be extended to all individuals in Indiana, without discrimination.
Yours Sincerely,
[Your name here]
Photo credit: Tom Morris via Wikimedia Commons
Target: Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals (Seventh Circuit) Diane Wood
Goal: Commend lawmakers for ruling that the marriage of one same-sex couple and urge them to rule that same-sex marriage should be upheld across the board
Excerpt: The state of Indiana has recently seen turmoil with regards to laws banning same-sex marriages. In the face of a stay ordering a freeze on new marriages, a federal appeals court has ordered for the recognition of the marriage of one same-sex couple. Commend lawmakers for this ruling and urge them to rule that same-sex marriage should be upheld across the board.
The state of Indiana has recently seen turmoil with regards to laws banning same-sex marriages. As of June 26, 2014, a federal judged ruled that the recent ban on same-sex marriages in the state of Indiana was unconstitutional. Many couples in Indiana immediately raced to the Marion County Clerk's office in Indianapolis to tie the knot.
However, a federal appeals court promptly called for an emergency stay, meaning that the enforcement of the prior court judgment to ban same-sex marriages is temporarily nullified. This means that couples who had previously been married prior to the stay may not be entitled to their newly-found (and somewhat limited) rights while the courts battle out the appeal.
Even if the appeal is upheld and the ban on same-sex marriage is overturned, gay couples in Indiana enjoy may not equal rights. _USA Today_ reports on several arenas where discrimination against same-sex couples exists. Health insurance providers, for example, may choose to cover spouses, but they have the right to refuse to provide coverage for same-sex couples. Tax rules and civil/social liberties related to hospital visitation rights, death certificates, and adoptions are also subject to interpretation of state and/or local rulings and may not ensure equal rights for same-sex couples.
Three is one beacon of hope in this tumultuous story, which is the recognition of one particular same-sex marriage of Amy Sandler and Niki Quasney, who has is in a life-threatening battle with ovarian cancer. On July 1, the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the state must recognize the marriage of this couple, irrespective of the stay.
Join the fight for equal rights for all Americans and applaud Chief Judge Wood for the recognition of this marriage. Further urge Indiana lawmakers to fight to keep the ban on same-sex marriage overturned.
PETITION LETTER:
Dear Judge Wood,
The state of Indiana is in a state of turmoil with respective to same-sex marriage and equal rights for all people who reside there. With the recent overturning of the ban on same-sex marriage followed by the stay limiting new couples from getting married, many individuals in Indiana are hurting. What's more, even if the overturning of the ban is upheld, gay couples in Indiana may not enjoy the same rights as others, including limitations on tax laws benefiting couples and limitations on other civil and social liberties.
I applaud your judgment in the case brought to the courts by Amy Sandler and Niki Quasney, who were able to protect their right to remain married. I urge you to use your influence and character to explain to others why it is so important that equal rights in marriage and civil liberties be extended to all individuals in Indiana, without discrimination.
Yours Sincerely,
[Your name here]
Photo credit: Tom Morris via Wikimedia Commons
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]
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]
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)