When we last talked I had left off with my personal thoughts re: the PDers
Registration Act, so let me continue......
I don't agree with the Registry Act because it is, in my opinion,
discriminatory, that it picks out one group of people who are, in the
majority, powerless.As best as I can understand the NE Dept of Health won't
go very far afield to confirm that an individual's name has been placed in
a Registry. And why should they say you? Simply because you can be sure, if
Ms.Week's opinion about Neuros in NE is accurate, that the MD. will not
notify their patients that they [The MD] will be submitting their [The
patient's] specifics to a Registry. This is of course assumming that the
MDs and other mandated reporters decide to follow the law. By the way the
NE Dept of Health plans to hire one "staff assistant" to manage what they
think will be 16,000 individals and 48,000 reports.[They figure on 16,000 x
3 to account for the "requirement of multiple reporters". Their draft 2
year budget calls for about $120,000 in expenditures.
I don't agree with the Registry ACT because the law does little to protect
individuals. A fine of $500 or 6 months in the pokie will not deter those
with serious intent. And it comes at a time when many states are
centralizing their computers to save money and to "better coordinate
services" I heard a statistic the other day [I think it was the Boston
Globe--local newspaper] that as many as 5000
"hackers" are trying to work their way into someone elses computer data
banks EVERY DAY. And what of the mean-spirited public servents like Mr
Bush and Mr. Reagan who simply cut off the SSDI checks to several hundred
thousands of people with out notice or due process back in the 80ies. These
people were simply chosen because their names were on a list...
I don't agree with the Registry Act because there is the notion that the
money to fix the problem will follow. WE all have heard of the hundreds of
toxic waste sites that still sit without attention
while various forces fight over who is responsiable for the clean-up. Lets
say that Nebraska discovers
a site that shows a much higher incidents of PD than might well be
expected and lets say that those responsable are found but can not come up
with the necessary money to correct the problem. Or, what is going to
happen if there is no one responsiable;it's an act of nature. The law as I
understand it has no teeth to correct any thing. Perhaps some other law in
Nebraska has something to say about those kinds of problems. I don't know.
I don't like the law because it requires an annual registration.
I don't like the law because it makes no mention of collaborating with
other data collection agencies like the CDC or the medical establishments
own files it currently holds on most of us. I mean if you are going to take
away a persons right to privacy and due process you may as well get
something more out of it.
Two more thoughts and I'll put away the pinkie that types this stuff.
First, I appreciate the efforts that those in Nebraska have put into
this issue. It is not a simple matter.
Second, I'm going to turn my attentions to my own backyard. So far I've
identifed which agency is responsiable for Registries in Mass.but I can't
seem to get the employee that I spoke with to acknowledge that fact!! And
the Govennor aide that I spoke with gave me nothing but outdated
information and has failed to send me some requested materials.Shades of
Nebraska there Rita. I never did get the materal from N-PAIN...........I do
wish you the best of luck.
My Very Best
GEORGE [[log in to unmask]]
[log in to unmask]
