« Books I Read in 2005 | Main | Basic Human Needs - Freedom »
April 27, 2005
Commentary - The Schiavo Distraction*
The controversial legal events leading up to the removal of Terry Schiavo's feeding tube has created an unprecedented interest in living wills, documents that specify the type of medical care people want to receive if they become unable to communicate their own wishes. While the importance of living wills should not be underestimated, the media frenzy over Schiavo's death obscures a larger truth: we would be more effective in protecting our collective health by turning our attention to the causes of long-term debilitating illnesses rather than unlikely end-of-life scenarios. Unfortunately, Congress and the Bush Administration are doing precisely nothing to change this focus.
According to scientists, we are far more likely to suffer long-term health problems from environmental contaminants and carcinogens than ever before. As the Collaborative on Health and the Environment notes, "Chronic diseases and disabilities have reached epidemic proportions in the United States, affecting more than 100 million men, women and children, which is more than one-third of our population. Asthma, autism, birth defects, cancers, developmental disabilities, diabetes, endometriosis, infertility, Parkinson's disease and other diseases and disabilities are causing increased suffering and concern."
These chronic and often terminal illnesses can be traced back to chemicals used by industry and manufacturing. Multiple studies have shown that lab animals and humans exposed to these toxins develop birth defects, gene mutations, nervous system damage and liver and kidney disease. Other long-term health problems include impaired immune systems, damaged motor skills, and cancer-causing shifts in hormone levels.
Take mercury for example, just one of the hundreds of deadly chemicals currently released into our local air and water supply. Working its way up the food chain, high levels of mercury exposure can harm the brain, heart, kidneys, lungs, and immune systems of people of all ages. In particular, mercury compounds in the bloodstream of fetuses and young children can result in severe learning disabilities. The effects of mercury poisoning are not limited to a few unlucky families either. A National Research Council study commissioned by Congress estimated that each year about 60,000 children born in the United States could have neurological problems because they were exposed to mercury before birth.
Back in 2000, the EPA determined that mercury from coal-burning power plants, accounting for about 40 percent of all domestic mercury emissions, was a risk to public health. Although supported by numerous scientific studies, the government failed to act until last month, when the EPA issued a long-awaited Clear Air Mercury Rule to "permanently cap and reduce mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants for the first time ever."
The Bush Administration hailed the new regulation as a major step forward, but in fact, the Clean Air Mercury Rule is fundamentally flawed. Not only did the EPA ignore research findings by the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis that showed mercury could be controlled better and faster, but the new regulation even allows some states to increase these dangerous emissions up to ten times their current levels by 2010.
Regrettably, criticism of the new mercury regulation can be more broadly applied to the government's attitude towards all environmental contaminants. Instead of placing the burden of proof on companies, the EPA currently allows chemicals to be used until they are proven dangerous. Because of the persistent and accumulative effects of these compounds, the EPA's reactionary policy threatens public health, especially for women and children, long after identified toxins have been removed from industrial use.
One of the many groups fighting to emphasize the connection between the environment and public health, the Saratoga Foundation for Women Worldwide, is archiving a list of studies of environmental health effects on women of pesticides, herbicides and chemicals applied in various countries. The aim of the program is to propose alternative measures which may be substituted and employed to avert environmental contamination and injury to health and to educate the public about why they are getting sick.
Even with this information, however, the public is still at a disadvantage. The sad truth is that until our government begins to proactively address the danger of environmental contaminants, we are likely to see a continued increase in chronic illness and death for years to come.
Given that the government appears unwilling to address this emerging health crisis that results in long-term chronic and debilitating illnesses, perhaps the recent attention on living wills is not so misplaced. So while you wait in your lawyer's front office, consider the following question: Which should be more important to Congress and our President, prolonging the life of a single brain-dead woman, or preventing toxic pollutants from affecting thousands of Americans? Unless your brain has already been damaged by mercury pollution, the answer should be obvious.
*This is the op-ed I wrote that was politely rejected by every conceivable newspaper. I personally believe that the writing is brilliant, just that the timing was off. Damn that Pope for dying and stealing the spotlight!!
Comments
"Damn that Pope"
I bet if you write an oped with that in it it will be published by all the papers you send it to.
The only constructive criticism I would give you (and I have no right to considering I can't write more than three pages of anything) is regarding your phrase:
"prolonging the life of a single brain-dead woman"
"brain-dead", though you meant it literally, sounds bad... we use it as an insult. It sounds like you are insulting her, and there is surely no reason to insult her. Although I support you if you call congress and the president, calling them "brain-dead".
Posted by: kevin at April 27, 2005 09:48 PM
