Healthcare worker protection: Protecting healthcare workers against the discrimination, literal psychological abuse, and retaliation
Physicians should be free to discuss treatment protocols and to offer treatments that are in the best interests of patients and not in the best interest of healthcare organization bottom lines
This week I haven’t made much progress on my major technical effort: Blood Donation legislation, but we’ve made a lot of progress identify an organization strategy to coordinate the networks of citizen and political local groups so that they will be attacking from multiple directions to push through legislation we already have submitted and to write legislation that needs to be written.
Tom Renz today described an Ohio bill that attempts to protect public health workers in general and physicians in particular from the obscene management actions that were seen during the Covid era: doctors and healthcare workers not allowed to discuss alternative treatment strategies for a patient; doctors not being able to presecribe treatments that are in the best interest and the consistent with the best scientific knowledge available; doctors not being able to speak out when existing hospital dictated protocols are detrimental to the patient, etc. All these issues were and are being driven by the healthcare organization’s interest on the bottom line, where they, in turn are being blackmailed* and fraudulantly coerced by the federal government based on … well, I can’t even find the words to describe the motivation of the federal government regarding the forced protocols of the Covid era. The Covid era excesses are a warning to all citizens of the abuses that can easily be applied to healthcare by governments and their deep state and political operatives.
Tom’s post is:
As a substack devoted to providing guidance and “handbook” knowledge on legislation and political action at the state level, this bill is worth evaluating for application to each state. I am going to list, in modified form so it fits any state, not just Ohio, the major elements of the bill:
Protects against licensing boards and state and local health departments pursuing a disciplinary action against a prescriber, hospital or skilled nursing facility, for prescribing an off-label drug, or a pharmacist who dispenses it, unless there is gross negligence.
Says patients are not required to be tested or screened for or exposed to a particular disease, illness, or infection in order to get the off-label prescription from their prescriber filled for home or prophylactic use.
Requires a pharmacist, hospital, or inpatient facility to dispense the prescribed off-label drug, unless there is a religious/ethical objection or a life-threatening contraindication.
This legislation does NOT in any way prevent conversations regarding drug concerns between pharmacists and prescribers (I would extend this to conversations within any healthcare organization, of the benefits and risks of any treatment protocol, regardless of hospital or healthcare organization “official policy” regarding any protocol. This is kind of the statement on FREE SPEECH provided later in this list, but it needs to be stated in multiple ways, because the administrators of these healthcare organizations will want to fine an “out” in order to avoid losing federal or other funds where conditions contrary to the FREE SPEECH clause are attached.)
In cases where a pharmacist, hospital, or inpatient facility has to fill a prescription that they are not religiously opposed to, and there is no life-threatening reason not to give it, but they have a good faith scientific objection to filling the drug prescribed by the doctor…. then the pharmacist, hospital or inpatient facility is immune from any harm that may come from the use of the drug, so long as the objection is documented in the patient’s record and also submitted by the pharmacist to the Board of Pharmacy or by the hospital or inpatient facility to the Ohio Department of Health. This provides documentation for lawyers to reference to see if immunity is in place for a particular off label drug when a patient or entity is considering a suit.
In cases where the hospital or inpatient facility doesn’t have the drug in stock, they have to attempt to locate it and offer to let the patient pay for it up front, out of pocket. If the hospital or facility cannot get the prescription, and the patient either has an outpatient pharmacy where they can get it, or they have it at home, then the hospital or inpatient facility must allow them to bring it to be identified by the in-house pharmacist as being the drug prescribed, properly labeled and not expired, so it can be given to the patient.
If a patient is too sick to safely transfer out of a hospital and there is NO prescriber in the hospital or inpatient facility that is willing to prescribe a particular off label drug that the patient wants and that patient has an outpatient doctor willing to prescribe, then the hospital will have a prompt team meeting with that doctor to review all meds and treatments and start the application process for “temporary privileges” with oversight so the outpatient provider can participate in patient’s care regarding the specific off label drug being prescribed. The hospital or inpatient facility, as well as their pharmacist and the doctor in charge of the patients care, will be granted liability immunity for any harm from the specific drug that the patient and outpatient doctor are using as treatment during the remainder of the patients’ time in that facility. The temporary privileges will remain instated until the patient is able to safely transfer to a hospital facility where their outpatient physician is credentialed.
Donate SubscriptionsEnsures a hospital or inpatient facility does not deny nutrition or fluids to a patient except for brief cases where patient is consenting to a procedure or test requiring nothing by mouth and in cases where it is part of their end-of-life health directive. This happened numerous times during COVID damaging the health of many patients.
FREE SPEECH: Prohibits disciplinary action against ANY licensed health care professional for expressing a medical opinion that does not align with those of the licensing board, a local board of health, or the state public health organizations.
FEDERAL DRUG BAN PROTECTION: Prohibits a political subdivision, public official, or state agency from enforcing any rule or order issued by a federal agency that prohibits the use of an off-label drug.
One more bullet I would add, which I didn’t see in the bill is this:
Any organization that receives state and/or federal funds cannot terminate employees without cause and a dispute between the employee and the organization that is covered by this bill cannot go to arbitration. Any dispute must go before a trial jury if there is no settlement. (I would appreciate input on what the penalty should be if the organization loses the case, in addition to legal costs, backpayment of all salaries and benefits, and removal of any negative comments in the plaintiff’s records. It seems to me, with the deep pockets of the larger hospital systems, some of which are partly state supported, that the penalty should be much worse; such as the administrator is held personally liable and is fired, with a permanent record and a felony charge.)
Some people and media personalities consider Tom Renz as an ambulance chaser, but it is important to follow his substack. There is good work being done there, with good ideas regarding state legislation.
*blackmailed: The use of this word goes to motivation. I could have used the word “coerced.” That seems to me to imply less criminal intent on the part of the federal government. At this point, with the facts I have gathered, I can’t give them that. But “blackmailed” also implies that the state public health organizations and the administrators of the healthcare organizations were victims. “coerced” implies the same thing. Knowing some of the inside workings of hospitals, I hold the administrators and the public health organizations culpible at a “manslaughter” level for the deaths of hundreds in my state and for the obviously larger number of deaths worldwide. They were eager for the money, and they were ruthless in enforcing gage orders and dangerous medical procedures. This was criminal. Readers, and especially Tom Renz, what is the correct legal word to replace “blackmailed?” Given all the links to the fact that the &psi.mRNA bioweapons countermeasure is covered by all kinds of DOD and NSC protections, how do we prosecute this?
Attached is an analysis of the full bill for our legislators to copy:
And the bill:
One line of the bill caught my eye:
(E) A political subdivision, public official, or state agency shall not enforce any rule or order issued by a federal agency that prohibits issuing a prescription for or dispensing an off-label drug.
It is my understanding that the large Pharmacy companies issued the rules that their pharmacists could not fulfill a prescription for Ivermectin if its use appeared to be for Covid-19. It is also my understanding that the reason is that the government gave them the contracts for administering the Covid-19 vaccines on condition that they did not fulfill such prescriptions. There should be a specific line in the billl forbidding this arrangement and levying heavy fines that would counteract any funding the government might provide on condition.