#CLAIMING HIS SHOW???? IS THE CAUSE OF RENEWED EXAMINATION OF THE EVIDENCE???? AND NOT DECADES' WORTH OF WORK BY ATTORNEYS AND ADVOCATES???

[shu-of-the-wind]

i

hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhate

ryan murphy

[emma-what-son]

How Sir Philip's son cast a spell on Emma Watson: The super-woke Harry Potter star and the playboy son of the disgraced Topshop tycoon - it's hard to think of a more unlikely romance, writes ALISON BOSHOFF

One can almost see her eyebrows raised in quizzical disdain. Hermione Granger would surely disapprove.

Pictures emerged this week of Emma Watson, the serious-minded Harry Potter actress and eco-warrior, hopping out of Sir Philip Green’s family helicopter in Battersea, South London. Curious, some would think, given Emma’s long-standing war against fast fashion, that she would accept a lift from the fallen King of the High Street.

More curious still, however, is that Emma, 31, has apparently been enchanted by Brandon Green, Sir Philip’s 28-year-old son, whose longest relationship to date seems to have been with a Belarusian bikini model. Could there be a more unlikely romance?

Aside from both being awash with money —Brandon is an heir to a £2 billion fortune, while Emma is said to be worth about £59 million —they appear to have almost nothing in common. Yet according to a friend, a certain magic is in the air.

‘Brandon has been wooing Emma,’ says one source. Another says: ‘They are an item, although she hasn’t met the family yet.’

Emma, who once mused about being ‘self-partnered’, has certainly had more suitors than her single status would have you believe.

At 17, an early boyfriend was rugby player Tom Ducker, but her most serious romance seems to have been with another rugby player — and fellow Oxford student — Matt Janney, with whom she broke up in 2015.

Then there was another Oxford student, Will Adamowicz. The relationship lasted from 2011 to 2013.

She was then seen out and about with actor/producer Roberto Aguire, whom she first met in 2005 on the set of Harry Potter And The Goblet Of Fire. She also seems to have a particularly weak spot for young tech millionaires, as she has dated at least three of them, most significantly U.S. entrepreneur William ‘Mack’ Knight, whom she split from in late 2017 following a two-year romance.

Then came a six-month love affair with handsome Glee actor Chord Overstreet. They broke up during the summer of 2018.

She was then spotted sharing cocktails with tech CEO Brendan Wallace, a New Yorker, now 38, who is co-founder of a venture capital fund. By summer 2019 she was rumoured to have moved on to another tech millionaire, Brendan Iribe, CEO of Oculus.

She most recently split from her boyfriend of two years, businessman Leo Robinton.

It’s a longer list of amours than you might expect for someone who claims to be ‘self-partnered’, but then Emma is a woman who solemnly examines her life.

‘The boyfriends or partners I’ve had have generally made me feel really cherished. They have built me up,’ she said.

Quite how Brandon — who featured in Tatler’s ‘most eligible’ list in 2014 and was once caught patting Kate Moss’s bottom — fits into Emma’s orbit of admirers, remains to be seen. Although, like Emma’s other admirers, he does have a job running a tech investments company.

So who is this handsome young man — and what does Emma see in him?

Born in 1992, he was raised in Monte Carlo with big sister Chloe. His mother, Tina, is resident in the tax haven and was the ultimate owner of the Arcadia group, which went into administration last year. He went to the principality of Monaco’s International School.

To say his was a gilded upbringing would be an understatement. A source in Monaco says: ‘All the time he was growing up, the Greens would never fly commercial, always in their private jet.

‘They have a private chauffeur and in the family penthouse at the Roccabella building in Monaco there are uniformed maids standing to attention in every room just in case someone needs something. That’s the lifestyle Brandon was born into and has always thought was completely normal.’

He and Chloe have the use of the 109ft yacht Lionchase — Sir Phil has the 295ft Lionheart —which is moored in Monaco in the winter and cruises around the Med all summer.

I’m informed that his mum will pick up ‘seven-figure’ boat bills for the pair of them at the end of the season without blanching.

Brandon’s 2005 Bar Mitzvah caused a stir. It was held at the Grand-Hotel du Cap-Ferrat, with entertainment provided by Beyonce, Destiny’s Child and Italian tenor Andrea Bocelli. There were 300 guests over three days, all hosted by Sir Phil, who was then the boss of Topshop, BHS and Dorothy Perkins, all part of the Arcadia group.

When he was younger, Brandon seemed to be happy to join Chloe in a celebrity-packed party lifestyle. Locals say he was ‘practically living in Monaco’s Sass Café and partying until dawn every morning with a bevy of models’ in his 20s.

Kate Moss — a friend of his father — spent much of her 2011 honeymoon break with Jamie Hince on board his yacht and they got on famously. In 2013 he was spotted playfully groping Moss’s bikini-clad bottom while on holiday in St Barth’s. At the time he was 21.

When she was 21, Emma Watson had been famous for a decade and had just finished making the Potter films.

While Brandon found life one long, joyful party, she was struggling introspectively with having money and acclaim. As she recently said: ‘I’ve often thought, I’m so wrong for this job because I’m too serious.’

She felt physically sick when she found out how much money she had earned from the Potter films, and considered not renewing her contract to complete them.

Following stellar A-levels, she took an English degree at Brown University in Rhode Island — over five years, due to disruption from filming.

Brandon Green doesn’t have a degree. There was some idea that he might buck the family trend and go to university, but Sir Phil told an interviewer at the time: ‘It’s up for discussion,’ and evidently it was decided that was not the right path.

Instead, he spent years learning the ropes of the fashion business with Sir Philip and working for Arcadia.

As the BHS scandal raged in 2016 — after Sir Philip sold the company to a bankrupt, with a hole in its pensions provisions — and the company went bust, Brandon was sent to host a table at the Met Gala Ball in New York in his father’s place.

For three years, he was also a regular at the Topshop show at London Fashion Week, sitting with model Jourdan Dunn and chatting to Vogue editor-in-chief Anna Wintour.

He began to go to Cannes, again as part of Topshop’s presence at the film festival, and to attend the Amfar charity gala on the arm of girlfriend Maryna Linchuk, a Victoria’s Secret model who towered over him.

But when Chloe became more involved in the family business and started designing shoes, Brandon stepped back from the spotlight.

They are a close family, all the more so since the woes that beset the Arcadia Group and Sir Philip before it collapsed. In fact, this seems to have acted as a wake-up call for Brandon.

A source said: ‘Once Philip fell from grace so badly, all the A-list celebrities and many of the world’s elite dropped the Green family completely. It really shook them up.

‘There was a party in Monaco that a family friend threw for them in the middle of the BHS pensions scandal. Brandon looked around aghast and said to Tina, “We don’t know anyone here!”

‘They felt the world hated them. Philip would fill his days doing laps of Monaco on foot with his bodyguard and personal trainer. Tina would busy herself in her art gallery or with her interior design business. There were a lot of tears; it was an awful atmosphere for the staff and for the family.

‘Brandon could see how transient popularity is and how big A-list stars had been using them for free holidays on their yachts for years. The whole experience sparked a “woke-over” in Brandon.

‘He got very interested in biodiversity and saving the oceans. He does a lot of charity and advocacy work with both Monaco’s Prince Albert’s Foundation and Princess Charlene’s Foundation. He is a trained deep-sea diver, he is very into fitness and gets involved with galas and charities that help the planet. He does frequent beach clean-ups and whatever he can to help.

‘It’s all very low-key, as he doesn’t want to be seen to be doing charity work for PR. But he’s been getting Tina to donate a hefty amount of money to charities that help save the planet too, saying they should do some good with their huge fortune.’

A second source says it is now Brandon, rather than Chloe, who is the apple of Tina’s eye, and he who is seen as the one who will eventually turn the family’s public reputation around.

A friend says: ‘He is very disciplined, intelligent and keen on study. He reads a lot, he travels a lot. He’s polite and well-mannered. Whatever he does, he embraces it fully. His parents are proud of him.’

His hobbies include skiing, at which he excels. He trains almost daily and took part in a gruelling cycling and swimming charity event last year for Princess Charlene of Monaco’s charity, going from Corsica to Monaco.

The friend adds: ‘He eats right and doesn’t drink or party — he is a very nice young man.’

How Brandon came to meet Emma, whose woke credentials may prove challenging for his family, is somewhat unclear, although it is believed his newfound interest in charitable ventures may have steered him her way.

Last year Miss Watson joined the sustainability committee at Kering, the owner of top fashion brands such as Gucci. She was labelled ‘Hollywood’s queen of ethical dressing’ by Vogue.

She has been taking a break from acting after appearing in the 2019 film Little Women but remains an active advocate for ‘race and gender justice’ via various charities. In 2014 she became a UN Women Goodwill ambassador, and she also ran a feminist book club, Our Shared Shelf, on Twitter.

She loves writing poetry, jigsaws, cats and nights in.

Her first purchase with the Potter millions was a ‘brick-like’ Toyota Prius. She said: ‘It’s sensible and boring, like me.’

Not that Emma is as staid as she says. In conversation with Gloria Steinem at an event in London in 2016, she revealed that she subscribes to a sex education website called OMGyes.

It’s a far remove from the days when she was cast in the Harry Potter films at nine years old, having been found via the theatre club she attended. She only completed filming the last Potter when she was 20, in June 2010.

Sources who knew her in the Potter days say her father Chris’s influence was paramount, even though she lived with her mother in Oxford.

The experience of growing up on Potter was so constricting and stressful, when the cast and crew held a ‘wrap party’ at Harry’s Bar after the final set of reshoots in 2010, she didn’t attend.

She said in 2017: ‘It’s something I’ve really wrestled with. I’ve gone back and quizzed my parents. When I was younger, I just did it. I just acted, it was just there.

‘I was finding this fame thing was getting to a point of no return. I sensed that if this was something I was ever going to step away from, it was now or never.’

Post-Potter, her films have been generally low-key. It is said she turned down the La La Land role that brought Emma Stone an Oscar.

Her £3 million London home was selected after she viewed it over Skype, because she can come and go unobserved.

That’s not to say her life is in any way normal: her social circle includes fashion figures such as Antoine Arnault of the LVMH dynasty, she has been the face of Lancome perfume and launched a collection with the ethical fashion label People Tree.

The question now is, will Emma finally find lasting love with a most unlikely Green?

[mellowgelo]

Misconceptions about Walter White and Grey Matter

Everytime I see a post/video about Walter White’s backstory before the events of Breaking Bad, there’s always dozens of comments from people slagging off his former business partners, Gretchen and Elliott Schwartz. As far as I can see, a lot of the criticisms are completely unfounded. After finishing my 2nd rewatch of the series, I feel compelled to talk about and examine some of these criticisms

1: “Gretchen dumped Walt to fuck his best friend!!”

I mean, I don’t even know why I need to refute this one? In the restaurant scene with Walt and Gretchen, (’Peekaboo,’ 2.06) she clearly describes the events of their breakup: they were both staying at her family home one weekend until Gretchen caught him secretly packing his bags. She asked him what he was doing but he refused to explain and then simply left. 

In the scene, Gretchen asks 'did I dream all of that?!’ and Walt does not dispute her version of events. Pretty clearly, he was the one who ended their relationship.

2: “Gretchen was cheating on Walt with Elliott!!”

Again, I’m not sure why this has become such a prevalent idea? At no point does Walt accuse Gretchen of cheating on him (and you don’t think that if she had, he wouldn’t have brought it up during their argument?) and although he talks about Gretchen and Elliott bitterly several times in the series, the fact that they became a couple is never mentioned as the cause of his anger. It’s not specified when Gretchen and Elliott first became a couple or when they got married. Potentially, their relationship might have started years after Walt left the company. 

So...it’s not impossible? But there’s no facts to support this idea and Walt’s reactions to the couple don’t suggest that any infidelity took place.

3: “Gretchen and Elliot made their billion dollar company by stealing Walt’s ideas and cutting him out of the business!”

Okay, so this is the big one! The main cause of Walter’s grudge against his former colleagues! The first betrayal that set him on the path to eventually becoming Heisenberg!

And...it’s kind of bullshit.

He first accuses Gretchen of ‘cutting him out’ in Season 2, implying that some shady business deal took place which forced Walt out of the company and denied him his fair share of the profits. However, in ’Buyout’ (5.06) Walt seems to contradict this by telling Jesse that he chose to leave Grey Matter for ‘personal reasons’ and sold his share in the company for $5000. 

Now, with the benefit of hindsight, this was clearly a bad financial decision! But there’s no evidence of coercion or manipulation being used against Walt in this situation and as seen in point 1, he’d already begun severing ties to the company by breaking up with Gretchen. Much as he came to regret this choice later, it was a choice that he made freely.

But! What about Walter’s grand contributions to Grey Matter Technologies while he was there? He seems very eager to claim responsibility for the company’s success, telling Gretchen that they built their empire on his work. And in the penultimate episode ’Granite State’ (5.15) watching Gretchen and Elliott claim that his sole contribution to Grey Matter was providing the company name makes Walt furious. He clearly wants to be given the credit as the man who’s research turned a small grad school company into a billion dollar organisation.

But....is he really? 

Walt’s status as a brilliant chemist cannot be denied. Neither can the fact that before co-founding Grey Matter, he was a contributor to a Nobel Prize winning experiment! However, when he tells Jesse about his time with the company, he only mentions ‘potential’ and a few insignificant pending patents. Walt gives no specific examples of his achievements at Grey Matter, only vague references to ‘my work’ and ‘my research.’ What exactly is he taking credit for?

Moreover, by the time the series begins, it’s been approximately 20 years since Walter left Grey Matter. Is it really possible that a company this successful would still be riding the coattails of a man who hasn’t worked there in two decades?

None of this is to say that Walt didn’t provide crucial research during his time at Grey Matter, only that we have no idea what this work was. This missing information could just be a case of the writers not wanting to bog the show down with scientific jargon etc, but I think the lack of specific detail was a clue about Walt being an unreliable narrator.

4: “They only offered him the job because they feel bad for ripping him off!”

This is often linked with the previous argument, making the claim that they must have ripped him off back in the day because that’s why they offer him the job in Season 1, out of guilt. 

Walt certainly seems to think that this is their motivation. He describes Elliott’s job offer as ‘face-saving bullshit’ in ’Grey Matter’ (1.05) and directly accuses Gretchen of ‘waving her chequebook around like a magic wand’ to make amends for stealing his work. In both instances, he makes these accusations in a fit of anger, showing how much inner resentment he holds towards them both. However, as mentioned above, when he makes his speech to Jesse in ‘Buyout’ he places the blame on himself for leaving the company. In this scene, he is calm, suggesting that he is talking about his past more objectively than in his previous statements.

And then we have how Gretchen and Elliott react to him throughout the series.  When he attends Elliot’s birthday party, the atmosphere during their conversations is slightly awkward....but this is all coming from Walt’s end. When Walt and Skylar first arrive, Walt’s pleasantries are clearly forced but the Schwartzes look genuinely pleased to see him again. Walt is embarrassed by his cheap present of a Yum Good Ramen packet but Elliott is visibly moved by the momento of their college days. And when Walt and Elliott are alone reminiscing about their old professors, they’re both laughing enthusiastically and it’s the first time Walt looks comfortable ...until Elliott suggests that Walt come back to Grey Matter.

You would expect that if the Schwartzes had knowingly ripped off Walter’s research, or had an affair behind his back, there would be some embarrassment/shame from both of them upon seeing the man they screwed over at their party. In fact, you’d imagine they’d want to keep as much distance from him as possible! Why would they invite this man, this innocent victim of their manipulations, to their house where he could tell all their guests about how they ripped him off? 

As well as their behaviour, Walt’s reactions to Gretchen and Elliott don’t make sense either. After arriving at Elliott’s party, it’s clear that Skylar has met them both before, showing that the two couples have maintained contact throughout the years, and Skylar seems unaware of any bad blood between the trio. When Walt bumps into another former classmate, he introduces Walt to his friends as a co-founder of Grey Matter and encourages him to describe his role in the company. However, upon getting this perfect opportunity to brag, Walt only mentions how he came up with the company name. And although his cheery facade at the party is not very convincing, he still accepted the invitation to a party he knew he wouldn’t enjoy and does his level best to appear happy. Why would he bother to do all this for a couple who ripped him off so badly? Why did he not completely sever contact with them as soon as he left the company?

Walt’s resentment towards his college friends is clear to the viewer but Elliott and Gretchen seem oblivious to his anger. When Elliott floats the idea of working together, he asks ‘why not?’ and ‘what’s stopping us?’ When Gretchen calls Walt at the end of 1.05 encouraging him to take their offer, she assumes that his reluctance is due to their former romantic relationship, not because of any professional jealousy. And when Walt argues with her in 2.05, she is completely shocked to hear his version of events, furiously responding ‘that cannot be how you see it!’

Walter seems to hold Gretchen and Elliott responsible for ruining his life but they never show signs of guilty behaviour towards their former partner. Perhaps they are sociopaths who are incapable of feeling remorse...or perhaps they’ve done nothing to feel guilty about.

Conclusion

Apart from one flashback where Walt and Gretchen discuss the elements of a human body, we don’t see any of the events regarding the early days of Grey Matter firsthand. It’s all conveyed by characters discussing the past through their own potentially biased perspective and it’s impossible to regard either Walt, Gretchen or Elliott as a definitive source. However, as you can see from this post and my conclusions, a lot of information can be gleamed from reading between the lines and paying attention to what is not being said.

Given the lack of direct evidence, a lot of this debate comes down to whose perspective is more reliable and the series demonstrates over and over again that Walt is not a trustworthy person. I think you’d be hard-pressed to find a single episode of the show that doesn’t show Walt telling at least one lie. Despite this, many fans who identify with Walt take his version of events at face value, without really examining how his arrogance and sense of victimhood have clouded his perspective.

After rewatching the show and getting a very different perspective on several characters a second time round, I’d encourage any fan of the show who strongly identified with Walter White to rewatch the series and this time, focus on getting into the heads of the characters he comes into conflict with. You might come away with a very different opinion. And a renewed sympathy.

Thanks for reading, this is my 1st post so any constructive criticism is welcome and any likes/reblogs would be very much appreciated :) 

[rcardamone]

Midterm Part 1: The Problem of Solutions

Quoted on the title page of Chapter One in “Living in the Environment,” are dire words from environmental policy expert Lester R. Brown: “No civilization has survived the destruction of its natural support system…nor will ours.” 1 As the chapter and other readings make clear, the destruction of the natural support system for all of humanity is well underway. And it is accelerating.

This claim is not radical or new, but rather a reality that has been evident to mainstream scientists for decades. In 1992, more than 1700 of the world’s leading scientists signed “A Warning to Humanity.” Though the letter details dangerous human effects on numerous elements of the natural environment, the crucial message is made clear in the introduction: “If not checked, many of our current practices put at serious risk the future that we wish for human society and the plant and animal kingdoms, and may so alter the living world that it will be unable to sustain life in the manner that we know. Fundamental changes are urgent if we are to avoid the collision our present course will bring about.” 2 It was important enough twenty-eight years ago that scientists were willing to call for “fundamental changes” in our relationship to the natural world, not just mild adjustment of resource use. Unsurprisingly, they only wade into the highly political, yet critical territory of what those fundamental changes might be in generalizations (more on this below). From the update to “A Warning to Humanity,” (titled “A Second Notice”) published in 2017, it is clear that the change on the scale needed to mitigate or even slow the collision with the natural world foretold in the original is absent. In summarizing their findings, the writers of the update are direct: “Since 1992, with the exception of stabilizing the stratospheric ozone layer, humanity has failed to make sufficient progress in generally solving these foreseen environmental challenges, and alarmingly, most of them are getting far worse” 3​

Figure 1, Chart Showing the Trends since 1960 for the issues identified in the 1992 “ Warning to Humanity”. 4

If we are to survive, Miller and Spoolman assert that we must understand and implement the principles of sustainability which have allowed the planet to sustain life for billions of years. They define three components essential to a relationship of sustainability between humanity and the planet. First, natural capital, or “the natural resources and ecosystem services that keep humans and other species alive and that support human economies”, must be preserved at all costs.5 Second, we must understand that human activities can degrade natural capital by “using renewable resources faster than nature can restore them and by overloading the earth’s normally renewable air, water, and soil with pollution and wastes.” 6  Similar to “A Warning to Humanity,” the authors of the text have pointed out a truth that should be self-evident and non-controversial: natural capital is the basis of human economies, and if we wish to see these economies continue to function, then natural capital must not be catastrophically depleted. Second, they correctly point out that the first step in reducing and reversing natural capital depletion is understanding how human activities cause and in many cases depend on it. Without this knowledge, it is impossible to know what must change.

The effects of human activities on ecosystems has been well researched. The Millennium Assessment, compiled by the UN from 2001-2005, demonstrates the complex relationships currently existing between ecosystem services and human wellbeing. In the introduction to its five page “Summary for Decision Makers,” the report states that “[t]his transformation of the planet has contributed to substantial net gains in human well-being and economic development. But not all regions and groups of people have benefited from this process—in fact, many have been harmed. Moreover, the full costs associated with these gains are only now becoming apparent.”7  Although it is hard to argue the claim that the planetary transformation has led to “substantial net gains in human well-being and economic development” in the short term, by not using language to suggest how devastating these “full costs” will be without significant action (on par with the “fundamental change” called for in “A Warning to Humanity”), the large print introduction has painted too rosy a picture of its own findings. Further on in the summary, in smaller font, the truth is told more directly: “[T]hese gains have been achieved at growing costs in the form of the degradation of many ecosystem services, increased risks of nonlinear changes, and the exacerbation of poverty for some groups of people. These problems, unless addressed, will substantially diminish the benefits that future generations obtain from ecosystems.”8 In essence, the economic development and the gains in human wellbeing it has led to have come at a cost that is not simply “now becoming apparent,” but also actively growing as natural capital depletion accelerates and its effects have more time to manifest. While some (largely those already impoverished) are suffering the effects now, the full effects will be felt by future generations without action.

Figure 2, Chart showing relationship between ecosystem services, human wellbeing, and drivers of change 9

There is a telling commonality between “A Warning to Humanity,” the Summary for Decision Makers in “The Millenium Ecosystem Assessment,” and Chapter One of “Living in the Environment: They all agree on the nature of the problem and acknowledge the absolute necessity of addressing it, but their calls for change are either vague or insufficient.  In “A Warning to Humanity,” five points of action are outlined. Their problem of vagueness becomes apparent in examining the first point, which is the most specific of the five. The warning states that, “[w]e must bring environmentally damaging activities under control to restore and protect the integrity of the earth’s systems we depend on.” More specifically, “[w]e must move away from fossil fuels to more benign, inexhaustible energy sources…Priority must be given to the development of energy sources matched to Third World needs—small-scale and relatively easy to implement.” 10

The repeated use of “we must” is successful in driving home that these are not suggestions but non-negotiable steps for the long term survival of human civilization. However, poorly defined and oft-repeated calls for “[moving] away from fossil fuels” to “inexhaustible energy sources,” and giving priority to the development of “energy sources matched to third world needs” do not speak to the changes in social, political, and economic realities their successful implementation would entail. This is not to say that specifying the necessary actions further should be the sole job of scientists. They are, of course, not policy makers. However, as evidenced by the lack of progress at the time of the 2017 update, these vague calls for change were ineffective in catalyzing significant action on the parts of governments, organizations, or individuals. With more specific direction, it is likely these entities would be capable of more effective action. Of course, the problem with specificity is that it quickly divides people along political and ideological lines. That does not make them less necessary.

The language of the UN Millennium Assessment is more pessimistic. The fourth major finding of the report is summarized as thus, “The challenge of reversing the degradation of ecosystems while meeting increasing demands for their services can be partially met under some scenarios that the MA has considered, but these involve significant changes in policies, institutions, and practices that are not currently under way.”The Assessment goes on to state that “[m]any options exist to conserve or enhance specific ecosystem services in ways that reduce negative trade-offs or that provide positive synergies with other.” 11

To be fair, the UN Millenium Assessment does offer much more specificity than “A Warning to Humanity” in suggestions for protecting and revitalizing some specific ecosystem services. However, their appraisal of possibilities for dealing with the more fundamental problem, “reversing the degradation of ecosystems while meeting increasing demands for their services,” does not exactly inspire hope. The report suggests that even to “partially” meet the challenge in “some” scenarios, we would have to commit to “significant changes in policies, institutions, and practices.” The message seems to be that the writers of the assessment cannot envision any scenario in which vital ecosystem services are not irreversibly lost. This is not to say that fundamental changes are pointless. They could still make a significant difference. However, as long as demands are increasing for ecosystem services, change–even if it is fundamental–will largely serve to slow ecological damage, not reverse it.

“Living in the Environment” points to a similar reality as the UN Millennium Assessment, acknowledging that the rapid economic growth seen in recent times has improved the quality of life for many, but is built on an unsustainable foundation of perpetual growth. Miller and Spoolman point out that “about 1.4 billion affluent consumers put immense pressure on the earth’s renewable and nonrenewable natural capital.” Furthermore, they again quote Lester R. Brown regarding the rapidly growing consumer economies of the developing world. He asserts that, “The western economic model–the fossil fuel–based automobile-centered, throwaway economy–is not going to work for China…or for the other 3 billion people in developing countries who are also dreaming the ‘American dream.’”11 The point Brown is illustrating is that the amount of affluent consumers in the world is growing rapidly, and thus so is the amount of consumption. Increased consumption, given current practices and technologies, entails entails accelerating depletion of natural capital.

The solution suggested in the textbook is a “sustainability revolution” to follow the first three major revolutions in human history (agricultural, industrial-medical, and information-globalization) which would involve “avoiding degradation and depletion of the natural capital that supports all life and our economies and restoring the natural capital we have already depleted.”12 The authors are correct that a revolution that changes the fundamental way that humans live is necessary. If this idea were better expounded upon, perhaps it would be stirring, especially in its connection to moments in history where humanity has changed their way of life dramatically. However, the technologies cited to give hope that such a revolution may be possible are almost laughably underwhelming. Miller and Spoolman cite “energy-efficient LED light bulbs and energy-efficient cars and buildings,”as evidence that an extraordinary technological leap is possible.”13  The technologies needed to move humanity into a state of sustainability are orders of magnitude more significant. Furthermore, Miller and Spoolman fail to say anything notable about how the accelerating growth of affluent consumers and accompanying exhaustion of natural capital could be slowed, much less reversed. Additionally, any kind of revolution of this scale would require an immense amount of public will. There is also no discussion of the dramatic cultural change that would be required to bring about this type of revolution.

It is clear from the readings that there is widespread awareness and agreement among those who care to look that humanity is facing a colossal problem: the inevitable depletion of natural capital that allows our economy to function and enables the growth of affluence across the world. What can be done? Of course, no solution could be perfect for such a complex problem. However, those suggested in the readings are either lack in specificity or not far reaching enough. Perhaps even more than the unprecedented problem we face, that should worry us.

Word Count: 1857

Question:

Why does the UN Millennium Report make references to changes in “regional” climate but not global climate? Is this something to read into or not?                                    

1​ Miller, G. Tyler, and Scott Spoolman. 2018. ​Living in the Environment.​ (Boston, MA: Cengage Learning), 3

2Kendall, Henry. “1992 World Scientists’ Warning to Humanity.” Union of Concerned Scientists. Accessed January 27, 2020. https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/1992-world-scientists-warning-humanity.

3​ William, Wolf, Christopher, Thomas M., Mauro, Alamgir, Mohammed, et al. “World Scientists’ Warning to Humanity: A Second Notice.” OUP Academic. Narnia, November 13, 2017. https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/67/12/1026/4605229.

4William, Wolf, Christopher, Thomas M., Mauro, Alamgir, Mohammed, et al. “World Scientists’ Warning to Humanity: A Second Notice.” OUP Academic. Narnia, November 13, 2017. https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/67/12/1026/4605229.

5Miller and Spoolman, 6

6Miller and Spoolman, 8

7Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis. Island Press, Washington, DC, 1.

8Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis. Island Press, Washington, DC, 1.

9Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis. Island Press, Washington, DC, vii.

10Kendall, Henry. “1992 World Scientists’ Warning to Humanity.” Union of Concerned Scientists. Accessed January 27, 2020. https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/1992-world-scientists-warning-humanity.

11

Miller and Spoolman, 14

12 Miller and Spoolman, 15

13Miller and Spoolman, 15

[sallysklar]

Learning Policy Institute: The Power of Educational Justice Movements

Learning Policy Institute: The Power of Educational Justice Movements

This blog is part of the series, Education and the Path to Equity, examining issues of education and equity 5 decades after the Kerner Commission issued its seminal report on racial division and disparities in the United States.

Fifty years after the release of the report of the Kerner Commission, our nation remains profoundly divided and unequal along racial and class lines. Nowhere is this clearer than in the education and life chances of our children and young people. The civil rights movement of the 1950s and ’60s spawned a war on poverty and a broad set of social reforms that led to significant progress in educational attainment and well-being of African Americans and Latinos through the 1970s and ’80s. Yet a conservative retrenchment halted progress in closing the racial “gap” in educational outcomes. By the early 2000s, a new system of racial inequality had established itself, in which large proportions of Black and Latino children live in areas of concentrated poverty, attend under-resourced schools, and face discriminatory policing and mass incarceration.

Challenging this “New Jim Crow” system requires a renewed educational justice movement that is connected to a broader movement to address poverty and racial inequities across schools and communities. Social movements mobilize those most affected by injustice and build larger alliances with multiple stakeholders. Through these processes, they build the political power to push change in deep-seated systems of injustice and also create a moral force to win over hearts and minds to their cause.

For the past several years, my colleagues and I have been conducting research on one of the nation’s most successful educational justice movements, that is, grassroots organizing and movement building to combat the school-to-prison pipeline. The movement has focused on ending zero-tolerance and exclusionary discipline policies and implementing more humane alternatives, such as restorative justice. Scores of community-organizing groups work with parents and secondary school students to advocate for these policy changes at the local and state level. The Dignity in Schools Campaign (DSC) brings these groups together with civil rights advocates, lawyers, and researchers at the national level in ways that provide resources to strengthen local and state campaigns.

In our research, we have found that this new movement is winning policy victories through the combination of research-based evidence and the personal stories of parents and students who are directly impacted by injustice, and by building broader alliances to bring more resources and clout to lobbying efforts. For example, Voices of Youth in Chicago Education (VOYCE), a coalition of organizing groups that mobilize youth—primarily youth of color from low-income families—who are attending secondary schools in Chicago, helped push the district to revise its student code of conduct to move away from zero-tolerance approaches.

In 2011, the coalition launched a state-level campaign to pass a bill in the Illinois legislature that VOYCE wrote with assistance from the Advancement Project, a national civil rights advocacy group. VOYCE recruited a key ally to sponsor the bill—the chair of the Illinois Senate Education Committee, Kimberly Lightford. The bill, SB100, promised to be the strongest anti-zero tolerance legislation in the country, banning, among other things, automatic suspensions or expulsions unless the student poses a risk to safety, and requiring alternatives to be tried.

VOYCE assembled and analyzed data from the Civil Rights Data Collection and other research to back its claim that exclusionary discipline was a widespread problem across the state, caused unnecessary loss of instructional time, and disproportionately impacted students of color. In fact, VOYCE showed that Illinois had some of the highest racial disparities in suspension rates in the country. It also assembled a larger coalition, the Campaign for Common Sense Discipline, to mobilize sympathetic educator, legal, and advocacy groups to lobby the legislature and demonstrate broad support. Nevertheless, VOYCE had to address the narrative that zero tolerance is necessary to remove the “bad” students so that the “good” students can learn.

For several months, scores of students from VOYCE made the three-hour drive to the state capital on a weekly basis to speak personally to legislators and tell their stories of disciplinary injustice. This was a huge commitment on the part of students and a big investment of organizing time and resources. Carlil Pittman, an African American young man, told his story of being expelled from school because he overstayed the lunch period when his girlfriend told him she was pregnant. He lost a semester of school, but eventually graduated and became a youth organizer for VOYCE. Through these personal stories, students put a human face on the school-to-prison pipeline and gave legislators a sense of moral urgency to act. These were not dangerous, “bad” students, but rather civically engaged, model young people. Students took selfies with legislators when they agreed to support the bill and posted the smiling photos on social media. Legislators reported that the personal connection to impacted students who had become leaders in the school made them want to be on the “right side” of this issue.

A broad majority of legislators voted to pass SB100 in 2015, and it went into effect at the start of the 2016 school year. According to reported data from the Illinois State Board of Education, expulsions without services decreased by more than 28% and out-of-school suspensions fell by 21% over the first year. Some schools have seen dramatic changes when they aggressively implement the restorative justice programs supported by SB100. For example, Sullivan High School on the north side of Chicago saw suspensions fall from 700 (out of a student body of 800) in 2012 to 50 in 2016 through the systemic implementation of peace circles.

Community organizing groups are repeating this strategy of combining evidence, stories, and broad alliances in localities across the country. Through national alliances such as DSC, they share the specifics of these campaigns and adapt to particular local contexts. The result has been a series of policy victories across the country, with new policies often building on their predecessors elsewhere in the country. As Kavitha Mediratta shows, a similar strategy was used to push the U.S. Departments of Education and Justice to issue new guidance to school districts warning against harsh and racially inequitable school discipline and encourage positive and restorative alternatives.

This research has important implications for researchers and policy advocates trying to address racial inequities in schools and communities. Evidence-based policy expertise is necessary but insufficient on its own to move policymakers. It needs to be combined with two key contributions that come from grassroots organizing by parents and young people and their allies; that is, the political power to influence policymakers and the moral force to win over hearts and minds. All those who care about educational justice have a stake in supporting and finding ways to partner with grassroots groups to build a strong and effective movement supporting the success of all of our children.

elaine November 27, 2018

Source

Learning Policy Institute

Learning Policy Institute: The Power of Educational Justice Movements published first on https://buyessayscheapservice.tumblr.com/

[titheguerrero]

Make Asbestos Great Again? - Trump Once Claimed "Movement Against by Asbestos was Led by the Mob," Now is EPA Wants to Relax Asbestos Regulation

Introduction:  An Old Public Health Menace This is somewhat personal.  In the early 1980s, as a general internal medicine fellow, I gave a series of talks about important medical problems that generalist physicians often missed.  One was asbestos related disease.  Although asbestos had been heavily regulated since 1973, there were stilll large numbers of people exposed to it alive in the 1980s.  One of my primitive slides, seemingly a picture of type writing, stated that around then, 2 to 4 million people who had histories of significant asbestos exposure were likely alive.  Asbestos is known to cause several cancers.  It is likely the nearly exclusive cause of mesothelioma.  It also causes lung cancer, and may act synergistically with smoking, and likely gastrointestinal and head and neck cancer.  It causes asbestosis, which can lead to respiratory failure. In 2018, the evidence that asbestos is a major health hazard is quite clear. (See summaries by The National Cancer Institute, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, the Occupational Safety and Health Adminstration.)  Note that the rates of death from mesothelioma per capita are declining, but still substantial (look here).  The application of asbestos can be very hazardous, but once applied it can still endanger not only those who remove it, but firefighters, other first responders, etc.  People can be exposed indirectly, e.g., from asbestos on the clothes of people who work directly with it.  Unlike other countries, the US never banned asbestos outright.  However, per the NCI report, 

In the late 1970s, the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) banned the use of asbestos in wallboard patching compounds and gas fireplaces because the asbestos fibers in these products could be released into the environment during use. In addition, manufacturers of electric hairdryers voluntarily stopped using asbestos in their products in 1979. In 1989, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) banned all new uses of asbestos; however, uses developed before 1989 are still allowed.

Trump Called the Movement Against Asbestos a Plot by Organized Crime As we discussed in 2016, Donald Trump has pooh poohed all that.  Per Mother Jones,

In his 1997 book, The Art of the Comeback, Trump warned America not to buy the crusade against 'the greatest fire-proofing material ever used.' He claimed the movement to remove asbestos—a known carcinogen—was actually the handiwork of the mafia: 'I believe that the movement against asbestos was led by the mob, because it was often mob-related companies that would do the asbestos removal. Great pressure was put on politicians, and as usual, the politicians relented. Millions of truckloads of this incredible fire-proofing material were taken to special 'dump sites' and asbestos was replaced by materials that were supposedly safe but couldn’t hold a candle to asbestos in limiting the ravages of fire.' Trump claimed asbestos is '100 percent safe, once applied,' and that it just 'got a bad rap.'

This year, Rolling Stone revealed,

Trump has also on multiple occasions blamed the collapse of the two World Trade Center towers on the absence of asbestos. In June, All in With Chris Hayes aired a clip of Trump defending the material before Congress in 2005. 'A lot of people say that if the World Trade Center had asbestos is wouldn’t have burned down, it’s wouldn’t have melted. OK?,' he said. 'A lot of people in my industry think asbestos is the greatest fireproofing material ever made.' Trump went on to compare asbestos to a 'heavyweight champion' compared to other building material, which he likened to a 'light-weight from high school.'

The article also stated that

As Hayes notes, Trump’s penchant for asbestos is almost certainly due to the cost of having it removed, which was undoubtedly a nuisance to a man known for stiffing contractors and cutting every regulatory corner imaginable.

Trump's beliefs, not to put too fine a point on it, to be nonsense, albeit somewhat consistent nonsense. In 2016, I wrote,

It is disturbing when one candidate for the most powerful political office in the US repeatedly disregards the best clinical and public health evidence, and offers ill considered opinions about public health that could potentially harm patients.

Now Trump is President, and in a position to act on nonsense. Trump's EPA Appears Ready to Relax Asbestos Regulation This week, the distinguished occupational health journal Rolling Stone reported,

On June 1st, the EPA enacted the Significant New Use Rule, which allows the government to evaluate asbestos use on a case-by-case basis. Around the same time, the EPA released a new framework for how it evaluates chemical risk. Not included in the evaluation process are the potential effects of exposure to chemicals in the air, ground or water. It’s as absurd as it sounds. It is ridiculous,' Wendy Cleland-Hamnett, who recently retired after four decades at the EPA, told the New York Times. 'You can’t determine if there is an unreasonable risk without doing a comprehensive risk evaluation.' The new evaluation framework is a nifty way for the EPA to circumvent an Obama-era law requiring the EPA to evaluate hundreds of potentially dangerous chemicals. Asbestos is among the first batch of 10 chemicals the EPA will examine, and also one of the most blatantly dangerous to public health.

Quartz explained further,

On July 1, the US Environmental Protection Agency issued a 'significant new use rule,' which invites manufacturers to petition the EPA to seek approval of any new asbestos product on a case-by-case basis. The rule says that the EPA will evaluate new asbestos products as 'new use' if they’ve determined they aren’t currently being manufactured. The categories the EPA says it will consider as new uses include 'adhesives, sealants, and roof and non-roof coatings; arc chutes; beater-add gaskets; extruded sealant tape and other tape; filler for acetylene cylinders; high-grade electrical paper; millboard; missile liner; pipeline wrap; reinforced plastics; roofing felt; separators in fuel cells and batteries; vinyl-asbestos floor tile; and any other building material (other than cement).'

Today, the New York Times reported that the EPA's new approach was launched by Trump political appointees over the objections of career, professional staff.

Top officials at the Environmental Protection Agency pushed through a measure to review applications for using asbestos in consumer products, and did so over the objections of E.P.A.’s in-house scientists and attorneys, internal agency emails show.

So it looks like these top officials are trying to operationalize Trump's enthusiasm for asbestos despite the absence of any new evidence that asbestos is less dangerous than previously thought, and despite the suggestion that Trump's enthusiasm may be self-interested. On No, Russians Too Two years ago, it seemed that one could attribute all of Trump's bias against asbestos regulation had to do with his real estate development background.  However, Rolling Stone found another possible influence on him.

As with many of his more insidious actions as president, there’s a Russia connection. As the Washington Post points out, until recently, 95 percent of asbestos used in the United States came from Brazil, while the rest came from Russia. But the South American nation recently banned the mining and sale of the toxic substance, opening the door for Russia to fill the gap, which will be even larger if the U.S. resumes using the carcinogen in building materials. Russian asbestos manufacturers are thrilled. In July, the Russian company Uralasbest posted an image of its asbestos packaging, which features a smirking President Trump.

The NY Times verified that 

the Russian firm Uralasbest posted on Facebook an image of its asbestos packaging that featured President Donald J. Trump’s face along with the words: 'Approved by Donald Trump, 45th president of the United States.' 

So it appears that the push by EPA political appointees to make asbestos regulation lax again would benefit Russia, a country for which Trump seems to feel great affection.  Summary Donald Trump long has had strong opinions on all sorts of topics.  His opinions about the public health hazards of asbestos seemed more informed by his self-interest as a real estate developer than anything resembling clinical or epidemiological evidence.  When he was just a rich real estate developer these seemingly misinformed opinions were of little consequence. Now he is US President and his misinformed decisions could have major consequences, including eventually lethal ones.  Unfortunately, he seems to make such decisions so rapidly that no one can keep up.  And few of the people he has appointed to top leadership positions, particularly in health care and public health, seem inclined to stand up for more logical, evidence-based, and unconflicted and uncorrupted decision making.  Obscure parts of asbestos regulation may not get a lot of attention, and may not be as dangerous as decisions about, say, nuclear weapons, but they still could be quite dangerous.  I hope those who care about medicine, health care, and public health will speak out against any new laxity in asbestos regulation.  In 2016 we had an opportunity to prevent a regime of the conflicted and uninformed.  Now we must challenge its bad decisions more directly.  Musical Interlude The immortal Warren Zevon, Lawyers Guns and Money: "how was I to know she was with the Russians too?" - Live Version

Article source:Health Care Renewal

[ierosolymitissa-blog]

Textual Interpolations in Damasine and Gennadian Texts in Favour of the Filioque

Introduction

A question that has not seen much public discussion is: “To what extent are the texts we have of the Latin Fathers interpolated in favour of later Filioquist teachings?”  It seems that the standard reply of some Orthodox in recent decades has been to simply concede that what we have is exactly what we get. Yet, this is contrary to the very fierce, no retreat, attitude of great Orthodox apologists of the past, such as Adam von Zoernikav. Zoernikav, in his massive 1000 page tome, “A Tract of Orthodox Theology Concerning the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father Alone,” takes to task the massive amount of interpolations in not only the Greek Fathers but in the Latin Fathers.  In many cases he seems to make educated guesses, which, later seem to be borne out by manuscript research; after all, living in the late 1600s, his access to actual manuscripts was relatively limited, and he could only go off of different printed texts. Even doing the latter he was able to show significant discrepancies in the works of figures like St. Augustine and St. Damasus, textual wise. In fact, Zoernikav’s attitude simply seems to follow that of St. Mark of Ephesus, and St. Photius before him, that is, that we should show significant doubt about such claims about Fathers and their errors before making any concession.

We seem to forget that at the council of Florence, the RC strategy was to inundate the Orthodox with a massive amount of patristic texts and quotations. It kept the Orthodox on the defensive and having to examine and answer a massive amount of material, and painstakingly debate every detail. This was a strategy to wear them down. St. Mark and others (like Metropolitan Anthony of Heraclea, etc) had to spend the time saying, “that doesn’t sound right about what you are saying about St. Chrysostom / St. Basil / etc, etc”. They showed that a tremendous amount of forged and interpolated Greek texts were being put forth by the RC’s [such as the famous forged acts of the Seventh Ecumenical Council which supposedly had St. Tarasius say that the Holy Ghost “proceeds from the Father and the Son” [!], as opposed to what the genuine acts say, i.e. from the Father through the Son, and so on and so forth for other material]. It was painstaking and exhausting work. Then the RC’s brought forth strings of Latin Fathers. Only a few of the Greek Orthodox could say anything, since many were not very familiar with the Latin Fathers; St. Mark and a few others did seem to be familiar with St. Augustine and St. Gregory the Great in Greek translations, and to put up a fight. But, St. Mark of Ephesus, for one, simply believed that the majority of the text that the RC’s were bringing from the Latin Fathers were just forgeries or interpolations into the texts. He had seen how they handled the Greek Fathers, and he had no trust that they would not likewise corrupt the Latin Fathers. He is being proven more and more right every single day.

Even very limited research into this question itself is a massive endeavour, and before the age of digitized manuscripts would have been near impossible for the amateur [such as the author] to show anything, other than what one could purchase via microfilms, or the hopefully accurate editions of critical manuscript studies [which both could prove very expensive, and to accumulate dozens of manuscripts would be cost prohibitive for many]; the only other alternative would have been to scour ancient medieval libraries across Europe, praying and hoping that one would be given access, which would most likely not be the case if you didn’t have degree letters behind your name.  Yet, thankfully, we have some digitized manuscripts, which turns a near impossible task into something far less daunting, even for the amateur. So, let us begin with a few examples.

There are just two examples I would like to briefly address in this very short and preliminary piece.  Just so people are aware, I have no degree in higher education or any field.

Pope St. Damasus of Rome [+384] and the Filioque

In popular and scholarly book presentations, we find it stated that Pope St. Damasus taught the Filioque.  A. E. Siecienski’s in his book, “The Filioque: History of a Doctrinal Controversy” states:

“Among the earliest known references to the filioque in the Roman Church is the so-called creed of Pope Damasus (sometimes known as the twenty-four Anathematism).  Scholars have traditionally been divided on its origins, some believing it was composed by Damasus himself in reply to a treatise by Priscillian of Avila, while Kunstle argued that it was the work of the Synod of Saragossa held in 380, an anti-Priscillian gathering whose work was sent to the pope for approval. Modern scholarship has argued for an earlier dating (late 377 or early 378) and that it was probably a “compiled work” based on the proceedings of a Roman council. Regardless of its origins, its apparent purpose was to refute certain christological and trinitarian errors, including the belief that the Spirit was somehow a work or creation of the Son. It stated, ‘We believe . . . in the Holy Spirit, not begotten nor unbegotten, nor created nor made, but proceeding from the Father and the Son, always co-eternal with the Father and the Son.’  Here the intention was simply to acknowledge the equality of the Spirit rather than to delve into the question of the procession proper. “The Decretum Gelasianum (Explanatio fidei), or at least the first three chapters, is thought by some to be the work of the Roman Synod of 382 also held under Damasus.  Others, including Bernd Oberdorfer, think that the trinitarian language (which reflects Augustine’s thinking in the Tractates on the Gospel of John) argues for a later dating or the recognition that some portions of the work were added by a later editor.”

The relevant portion of the Decretum Gelasianum (as well as the whole text) can be found here

.  With the Decretum stating:

For the Holy Spirit is not of the Father only or of the Son only, but of the Father and the Son; for it is written: ‘He who delights in the world, the Spirit of the Father is not in him”; and against it is written, ‘However anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ, does not belong to Him.’  So the Holy Spirit is understood to be called of the Father and the Son, [and] of Whom the Son Himself in the Gospel says that the Holy Spirit ‘proceeds from the Father’ and ‘He will receive from Me and He will make known to you.’

Before moving on to the “Creed of Damasus”, I think it should be noted that the above text in the Decretum Gelasianum, whether it be genuine, an early interpolation, or a late interpolation, is itself not definitive on the question of the eternal Hypostatic Origination of the Holy Ghost in regards to making the Son an Eternal Co-Cause with the Father.  Simply stating that the Holy Ghost is the “Spirit of the Father and the Son” is itself not indicative of Filioquism. For example, St. John of Damascus in

Book I, Chapter IX of the “Exact Exposition” states:

“Further, it should be understood that we do not speak of the Father as derived from any one, but we speak of Him as the Father of the Son.  And we do not speak of the Son as Cause or Father, but we speak of Him both as from the Father, and as the Son of the Father. And we speak likewise of the Holy Spirit as from the Father, and call Him the Spirit of the Father. And we do not speak of the Spirit as from the Son: but yet we call Him the Spirit of the Son. For if any one hath not the Spirit of Christ, he is not of His, said the divine apostle.  And we confess that He is manifested and imparted to us through the Son.  For He breathed upon His Disciples, says he, and said, “Receive ye the Holy Spirit.”  It is just the same as in the case of the sun from which come both the ray and the radiance, and it is through the ray that the radiance is imparted to us, and it is the radiance itself by which we are lightened and in which we participate. Further, we do not speak of the Son of  the Spirit, or of the Son as derived from the Spirit.”

Thus speaking of the Spirit as “of the Son” is no more than to repeat the Scriptural phrase, and it cannot be interpreted to mean something it is not, namely, that the Son is to be made a Cause of the Spirit’s Hypostasis.

But, what of the “Creed of Damasus”, surely this provides more evidence?  Not at all. In fact, I am unsure exactly why, but, the manuscript tradition on this point is totally other than what many mainstream writers imply. It is true that some manuscripts have ‘proceeding from the Father and the Son,” but, many others do not.  So, in the face of manuscripts which have an addition and ones which don’t, about a disputed question, it seems more reasonable to believe that the addition is not part of the authentic manuscript tradition. Let us give a few examples of the manuscripts of the “Creed of Damasus” without the Filioque.

First, let us turn to A.E. Burn’s

“The Athanasian Creed and Its Early Commentaries, Issues 1-3, page 63,”

wherein we find the following:

“Spiritum vero Sanctum, non genitum neque ingenitum, non creatum neque factum, sed de Patre Procedentem, Patre et Filio Coaeternum et Coaequalem et Cooperatorem, quia scriptum est: ‘Verbo Dominie caeli firmati sunt,’ id est, a Filio Dei, et ‘Spiritu oris eius omnis virtus eorum,’ et alibi: ‘Emitte Spiritum Tuum et creabuntur et renovabis faciem terre.'”

Which, in English is:

“In truth the Holy Ghost, not begotten nor unbegotten, not created nor made, but from the Father Proceeding, to the Father and the Son Co-Eternal and Co-Equal and Co-Worker, for it was written: ‘By the Word of the Lord were the heavens made,’ that is, by the Son of God, and ‘by the Spirit of His Mouth all the power of them,’ [Ps. 32:6] and elsewhere: ‘Send forth Thy Spirit and they shall be created and Thou shalt renew the face of the earth.'” [Ps. 103:30] (Transcribed by Mr. Ommanney (E. Ch. p. 401) from Paris B. n. 1684, saec Xi ex., Creed of Damasus)

Yet, if we look in Denzinger’s “Enchiridion Symbolorum” we find that St. Damasus is made to say

“sed de Patre et Filio [!] procedentem.” Well, at least they put the text in parenthesis and a bracketed exclamation mark [that wasn’t me who did that!].  I have to rely on google translate for the German notation at the top, but, it seems to say that this ‘et Filio’ is missing in some text, it says: “Einige Teile scheinen anfangs gefehlt zu haben, vor allem die Worte ‘et Filio’, die sich auf das Hervorgehen des Hl. Geistes beziehen;” which google translate renders as:  “Some parts at first seem to have been missing, especially the words ‘et Filio’, which refers to the Procession of the Holy Spirit: cf. A. E. Burn.”  And they refer, of course, back to A.E. Burn!

Burn, relying on Ommaney mentions the 11th century Paris manuscript, BNF Lat. 1684.  So, let us turn to that and see what it reads. Here is a

link to the manuscript image, digitized

. Scrolling down to the bottom we see the familiar text in not too difficult to read writing. It simply says in the relevant section: “sed de Patre procedentem.” No “et Filio” found.

In Codex Sangallensis 159

[10th century], we find it as well. It simply says: “sed de Patre procedentem.” No “et Filio”, etc. Though, in this case, the text is labelled the “Creed of St. Jerome” sent to Pope Damasus. But, the same text.  On a side note, in the same codex,

you see some later hand

came in and added to a separate Letter of St. Jerome to St. Damasus. Someone actually wrote in ‘et Filio’ into the letter to ‘correct’ St. Jerome!I cannot find it online, but, C.A. Swanson mentions that a Vienna MSS. of the Creed of Damasus also does not have the Filioque present. “In the Vienna manuscript 2223, which contains the Creed of Damasus, fol. 75 verso, Filioque is omitted.” [C.A. Swanson, “The Nicene and Apostles’ Creeds”, pg. 437, l. 12]

In the Anathemas of the Synod of Rome that Pope St. Damasus had dispatched to Bishop Paulinus of Antioch we simply read of the Spirit

“If any one deny that the Holy Spirit is truly and absolutely of the Father, and that the Son is of the divine substance and very God of God, let him be anathema.” [Ecclesiastical History of St. Theodoret, Book V, Ch. 11]

It would not be correct to blameA. E. Siecienski for intentional distortion. Like many, from scholarly books to wikipedia, it is matter of factly stated that St. Damasus taught the Filioque, though, at least Siecienski qualifies this by stating in regards to the interpolated and corrupted text: “Here the intention was simply to acknowledge the equality of the Spirit rather than to delve into the question of the procession proper.”

However, this seems to be something that will continue to be bandied about, as an ‘early proof’ of the Filioque.

Gennadius of Massalia [+496] and the Filioque

Just as we heard of Pope St. Damasus, we have heard much of Gennadius of Massalia [Marseille] and his teaching the Filioque. But, what about this in terms of text and manuscripts?  Again, this is an example of later interpolation.The corrupted text of “De Ecclesiasticis Dogamtibus” as found in the

Patrologia Latin states:

“Credimus unum esse Deum Patrem et Filium et Spiritum Sanctum. Patrem, eo quod Filium habeat: Filium, eo quod Patre habeat: Spiritum Sanctum, eo quod sit ex Patre et Filio.  Pater ergo principium deitatis; qui sicut nunquam fuit non Deus, ita nunquam fuit non Pater: a quo Filius natus: a quo Spiritus Sanctus non natus, quia non est Filius; neque ingenitus, quia non est Pater; neque factus, quia non est ex nihilo, sed ex Deo Patre et Deo Filio Deus procedens.”

From the PL text it looks pretty evident that Gennadius taught the Filioque. However, before we turn to some MSS, let us look at two manuscript scholars. First, we can look at Marie Joseph Rouet de Journel’s “Enchiridion Patristicum” [this is not the Denzinger “Enchiridion”],

which gives a different text:

“Credimus unum esse Deum, Patrem et Filium et Spiritum Sanctum: Patrem, eo quod habeat filium; Filium, eo quod habbeat patrem; Spiritum Sanctum, eo quod sit ex Patre procedens, Patri et Filio coaternus.  Pater erog principium deitatis; qui, sicut numquam fuit non Deus, ita numquam fuit non Pater, a quo Filius natus, a quo Spiritus Sanctus non natus, quia non est Filius, neque ingenitus, quia non est Pater, nec factus, sed ex Deo Patre Deus Procedens.”

Notice the differences? Instead of the Spirit being “ex Patre et Filio” He is “ex Patre procedens.”  Instead of “sed ex Deo Patre et Deo Filio Deus procedens” the Spirit is simply “sed ex Deo Patre Deus Procedens.” The Spirit is not ‘from the Father and the Son” but “from the Father Proceeding”, i.e. someone tampered with the text.  Instead of “but from God the Father and God the Son  God Proceeding” the Spirit is “but from God the Father God Proceeding.”

Again, in C.H. Turner’s printing we have the same form with no Filioque.In the Vatican manuscript Reg. Lat. 1127

, on page 98 we have Gennadius’ treatise.  It say of the Holy Ghost that “Spiritum Sanctum: eo quod sit ex Patre cum Filio,” that is, that the Holy Ghost is from the Father with the Son. It then, of course, clarified this by saying, like all the above, “Pater ergo principium deitatis,” that is, the Father therefore is the Origin of the Godhead.  Then it says a little further on, again, “a quo Spiritus Sanctus non natus quia non est filius, neque ingenitus quia non est pater; nec factus sed ex Deo Patre Deus Procedens,” that is, from Whom the Holy Ghost is not born [begotten] for He is not a son, neither is He Unbegotten for He is not a father; nor made, but from God the Father [He is] God Proceeding.”

The manuscript Reg. Lat. 1127, which the Vatican holds, is originally a manuscript of French derivation

, with material from the early 9th century, having been made at the Abbey of St. Cybar, with additional material from Angolueme in the 11th century.

We have other manuscripts of Gennadius as well.  For example, the Vatican manuscript Bibliotheca Apostolica Vatican, Barb. Lat. 671 which is dated to the 700s

and is of Italian origination.  On folio pages 150v-157 we find the text, and there, again, we simply find it saying: “Credimus unum esse Deum, Patre et Filium et Spiritum Sanctum: Patrem, eo quod habeat filium; Filium, eo quod habeat patrem; Spiritum Sanctum, eo quod sit ex Patre procedens.” And if you look further down you can just make out the same as Turner and de Journal give in their editions, with “sed ex Deo Patre Deus Procedens.”

Here is the Codex. Sang. 911, dated to around 790, of German derivation, which contains Gennadius’ work without the Filioque.  There is also Cod. Sang. 230, originally from the Abbey of St. Dionysius near Paris, composed around 800 AD, again without the Filioque interpolations into Gennadius.

Do you see the difference between the version in the PL as opposed to the manuscripts plus Turner and de Journal?  Notice how they say, “ex Patre procedens,” or in the 9th century French manuscript “ex Patre cum Filiio” instead of in the other simply as “ex Patre procedens [even then the Spirit is ‘from the Father with the Son’, since the Father is the Fount of Deity].  These certainly paint a different picture than the popular presentation of Gennadius as an early Filioquist.

Of course, you will find some manuscripts with an interpolation. For example, the  9th century Codex Restitutus 1 from Fulda monastery,

Basel, Universitätsbibliothek, F III 15l, f. 15r – Isidorus Hispalensis, Differentiarum liber . If you go to 15r you will read the following form:

“Credimus unum esse Deum, Patrem et Filium et Spiritum Sanctum: Patrem, eo quod habeat filium; Filium, eo quod habeat patrem; Spiritum Sanctum, eo quod sit a Patre procedens et ex Filio.”

However, if you read further down, they still do not have the much later interpolation one finds in the PL and other sources, but the traditional:

“sed ex Deo Patre Deus Procedens.”

Obviously, for manuscripts of the same century to be so close, but, to have this difference, it means a change was beginning.  Yet, again, it is far more reasonable to say that “Spiritum Sanctum, eo quod sit ex Patre procedens” [or possibly ‘a Patre procedens’] is the original reading.  It seems, to some degree, odd, that the Fulda text has ‘et ex Filio’ tacked on there, seemingly out of nowhere.  Analogous to the pseudo-Bonifician sermon “De Recta Fidei” which has the same thing done to it, yet also follows with the strong assertion of the Spirit as “ex Deo Patre Deus Procedens.”

ConclusionThe Orthodox apologetic on many of these questions for the past several hundred years has been to recognize that interpolations were added to the Fathers, especially the Latin Fathers, on several disputed points.  Yet, in the past century, with the rise of modernism and ecumenism, this argument has gone by the wayside.  It was falsely encouraged to surrender any research into this subject, and simply ‘concede.’  The results have been disastrous, and have played into the hands of not only the modernist-ecumenists, but other modernists, such as the so-called ‘renovationists from the right’, who seek to present a narrative that the West was ‘never really Orthodox’, even if they do not so publicly phrase it like that always.

Orthodox should have not conceded anything, until they had done their own research.  With thousands of medieval Latin digitized manuscripts now available, it certainly means that we have no excuse; even the learning of the Latin language, in a very basic way, will prove tremendously profitable for those who deign to undertake such research.  We must step away from Denzinger and the Patrologia Latin [or Graeca] as anything more than a guide; it does not, of course, have to mean that 100% of the texts are corrupted, or even that 95% of them are.  Often, interpolators need only add a phrase here or there (such as ‘et Filio’ or ‘Filioque’!) to result in dramatic changes in a manuscript tradition within only a few decades.  Trying to completely abolish existing material, or completely re-writing texts on a large scale would not go unnoticed, and would create massive resistance; however, small scale tampering in different places and at different times, probably proved a far more effective tool.

One need only look at such things as the manuscript corruption in Epistle 170 of St. Augustine and St. Alypius [as Zoernikav pointed out], which resulted in a change from “The Holy Ghost is not, as a creature, made of nothing; but thus Proceeds from the Father, as not to be made by the Father nor the Son,” to what we now read in the CUA edition which has “proceeds from the Father and the Son”.  Every now and again, you will find non-Orthodox scholars pointing these things out, such as

J.M. Neale

“In his sixty-sixth Epistle [number 170 in some text-NFTU]: “The Holy Ghost is not, as a creature, made of nothing; but thus Proceeds from the Father and the Son, as not to be made by the Son.” But this, which does not in itself seem to have much sense, is not the reading of the best MSS.  The best MSS. are divided between, ‘but thus proceeds from the Father, as not to be made by the Father nor the Son,’ and the total omission of the clause.  Under these circumstances the evidence is manifestly worth nothing.”

Yet, the great Orthodox apologist, and German Lutheran convert to Orthodox, Adam von Zoernikav, who reposed in 1691 as an Orthodox monk, in his “Tractatus Theologici Orthodoxi de Processione Spiritus Sancti a Solo Patre” (“A Tract of Orthodox Theology Concerning the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father Alone”) brought this up 150 years before Neale, in

Corruptela XIII of Tract III

. And there he shows the same thing as Neale.  Yet, except for a respectful mention by Fr. Michael Pomazansky in “Orthodox Dogmatic Theology”, we see so little mention of von Zoernikav.  Of course, von Zoernikav was far from ‘ecumenically friendly’, and his polemical attitude would not sit well with modernists and ecumenists.

So, instead of throwing everything overboard, and conceding, perhaps we should give this another try, that is Orthodox Apologetics which involves actual primary source research [including manuscripts]. Do not believe that because you have no degree or letters behind your name that you can’t make valuable contributions to Orthodox Christian apologetics; nor should you believe that because you have degrees or letters behind your name that all you say is inherently worth more (a degree should be an opportunity to help, not to harm or be haughty).

–Hieromonk Enoch

Source: NTFU

[legalseat]

Opioid Use Causes Increase in Medical Malpractice Litigation

It is no secret that opioid use (and abuse) has reached an all-time high in the United States over the past decade. Over 92 million individuals were prescribed opioid pain medication in 2015, representing 38% of the total U.S. population. Despite no overall change in the amount of pain reported by Americans, the sales of prescription opioids quadrupled from 1999 to 2014. With approximately two million reporting that they struggle with an addiction to pain medication, the opioid epidemic in this country has also resulted in an increasingly alarming number of deaths.

The Center for Disease Control reported 22,000 prescription opioid-related deaths in 2015, the equivalent to about 62 deaths each day, and an increase from 19,000 deaths reported in 2014. As the number of prescriptions has increased, so has the number of medical malpractice claims. If recent trends are any indication, lawsuits against medical providers, pharmaceutical companies, and drug wholesalers will likely increase as the opioid epidemic in the United States shows no sign of waning.

A History of Pain Medication Litigation

When it comes to opioid use, pharmaceutical companies are no stranger to lawsuits and have predated the eventual claims against the prescribing doctor themselves. Back in 2003, Purdue Pharma, the maker of OxyContin, was sued for its failure to warn patients against the risk of addiction in its medications. Four years later, the company eventually settled with its 5,000 pain patients for $75 million. At the same time, the company and three of its executives pled guilty to federal criminal charges for misleading patients and physicians and covering up clinical evidence about their medication’s addictive properties.

Since then, the same attorney in the Purdue suit filed claims against opioid manufacturers on behalf of cities and counties in five states that have suffered what has been described as a “public health and safety crisis,” costing hundreds of millions of dollars. Governmental officials from all over the country have filed suits against drug manufacturers and distributers, seeking to hold the companies responsible for “the strain on public services that drug addiction has caused.” Lawsuits allege that the companies engaged in deceptive marketing practices, including rewarding doctors for writing prescriptions. In addition, this past June a bipartisan coalition of 35 state attorney generals launched a multi-state investigation into opioid manufacturers. Many have compared the recent surge of lawsuits and investigations to the infamous movement against Big Tobacco, which resulted in cigarette companies paying out a $248 billion civil settlement.

A Doctor’s Responsibility: Medical Malpractice Claims

 The pharmaceutical companies are but one entity in the supply chain of opioid medication, as the lawsuits have also trickled down to the prescribing doctors. Over the past four years, medication-related claims have been cited as the fourth most common medical malpractice cause of action, ahead of obstetrics-related complications. Forty-two percent of the alleged errors occurred in an office or clinic, with thirty-one percent related to inadequate patient monitoring, according to a study conducted by the medical liability insurer, Coverys. Thirty-eight percent of the claims involve the death of a patient.

In the same study, prescription computation was found to be the leading cause of medication errors, followed by the management of the medication. The majority of medication-related errors occurred within general medicine practices, opposed to other specialties. Opioid prescriptions make up almost twenty-five percent of such claims, making pain medication the most frequent root cause of medical malpractice actions involving prescriptions.

The claims often involve overdoses, with alleged medical errors occurring during the patient’s follow-up visit. According to Robert Hanscom, M.D., the Vice President of Coverys and co-author of the study: “Physicians continued to renew prescriptions without monitoring patients to see if they were getting better or not, if there were any changes in their clinical status…If patients are still in pain, that’s a red flag. It’s not helpful to keep prescribing the same opioid if they’re not improving.”  When treating a patient with any kind of medication, there are risks involved at every stage, particularly during the initial clinical assessment and prescription.

Likewise, responsibly dispensing, administering, and monitoring are critical in determining whether a patient is on the right medication, at the right dosage, and for the right amount of time. Researchers point to patient mismanagement as a possible cause of such medical malpractice actions, while noting that doctors sometimes renew a patient’s prescription without reevaluating their current health status. Another cause of medical malpractice is physicians failing to properly advise patients of other treatment options.

However, proper care is not given when patients obtain such prescriptions through “pill mills,” where doctors perfunctorily write opioid prescriptions without first examining the patient. In July 2016, a Missouri jury awarded a plaintiff $17.6 million in a medical malpractice case against his primary care doctor after the patient was routinely prescribed pain medication that exceeded the recommended amount. The plaintiff, who was suffering from back pain at the time, ended up battling a drug addiction. The verdict was thought to send a strong message to doctors about the need for opioid reform.

One particularly egregious example of abuse is former doctor, Robert Rand. In 2015, the Nevada Board of Medical Examiners charged Rand with 74 counts of medical malpractice, alleging that he “violated the standards of practice in regard to opioid prescribing, practiced medicine beyond the scope of training and competence, engaged in unsafe and unprofessional conduct and maintained substandard medical records.” The complaint alleged that Rand prescribed massive amounts of opioids to his patients which were several times more than the high dose threshold. One such patient subsequently died from alcohol oxycodone intoxication.

Rand was also found guilty in federal criminal court for involuntary manslaughter and distribution of controlled substances, to which he was sentenced eight and ten years concurrently.

Like the lawsuits filed against the pharmaceutical companies, cities and states are taking action against doctors as well. Dozens of medical malpractice lawsuits have been filed by West Virginia (the state with the highest overdose death rate) and McDowell County (the county with a death rate three times higher), alleging that doctors overprescribed pain medication and flooded the market with substances that led to the plaintiffs’ uncontrollable addiction and subsequent deaths.

The future of opioid-related medical malpractice claims will likely depend on the accepted standard of care established by researchers and experts in the field. All agree that no doctor should be prescribing opioid medication to patients without first examining them, and to do so would be an obvious deviation from the acceptable standard of care. As established by the Drug Enforcement Administration, medical providers must first apply for and be granted a DEA number, which is connected to each of the provider’s prescriptions. In conjunction, the doctor must maintain a record of the patient’s examination that substantiates the prescription.

Likewise, a full medical history (including any history of addiction) should be taken by the doctor. While pain medication is ideally a short-term solution, sometimes a patient’s pain cannot be relieved. In which case, the patient can be referred to a pain management doctor who specializes in the management of chronic pain. Such a referral avoids a general practitioner from treating a pain that is beyond his scope of practice.

While most medical experts would attest to the above practices, as the opioid epidemic continues to pervade, recommendations and standards of care are continually being reevaluated and revised. Some medical professionals have proposed urine screening to ensure patients are taking the correct dosage of medication. The advent of computer tracking of prescriptions can make it easier to hold doctors and pharmacists accountable. Also, some states, such as Pennsylvania, are passing legislation that limits the amount of opioids that can be described at any given time but for certain exceptions.

As long as humans experience pain, there will always be a need for pain medication. In which case, the regulation of opioid prescriptions needs to be closely monitored and constantly reevaluated in light of the current drug use trends.

The post Opioid Use Causes Increase in Medical Malpractice Litigation appeared first on The Expert Institute.

Opioid Use Causes Increase in Medical Malpractice Litigation published first on http://ift.tt/2vSFQ3P

[legalroll]

Opioid Use Causes Increase in Medical Malpractice Litigation

It is no secret that opioid use (and abuse) has reached an all-time high in the United States over the past decade. Over 92 million individuals were prescribed opioid pain medication in 2015, representing 38% of the total U.S. population. Despite no overall change in the amount of pain reported by Americans, the sales of prescription opioids quadrupled from 1999 to 2014. With approximately two million reporting that they struggle with an addiction to pain medication, the opioid epidemic in this country has also resulted in an increasingly alarming number of deaths.

The Center for Disease Control reported 22,000 prescription opioid-related deaths in 2015, the equivalent to about 62 deaths each day, and an increase from 19,000 deaths reported in 2014. As the number of prescriptions has increased, so has the number of medical malpractice claims. If recent trends are any indication, lawsuits against medical providers, pharmaceutical companies, and drug wholesalers will likely increase as the opioid epidemic in the United States shows no sign of waning.

A History of Pain Medication Litigation

When it comes to opioid use, pharmaceutical companies are no stranger to lawsuits and have predated the eventual claims against the prescribing doctor themselves. Back in 2003, Purdue Pharma, the maker of OxyContin, was sued for its failure to warn patients against the risk of addiction in its medications. Four years later, the company eventually settled with its 5,000 pain patients for $75 million. At the same time, the company and three of its executives pled guilty to federal criminal charges for misleading patients and physicians and covering up clinical evidence about their medication’s addictive properties.

Since then, the same attorney in the Purdue suit filed claims against opioid manufacturers on behalf of cities and counties in five states that have suffered what has been described as a “public health and safety crisis,” costing hundreds of millions of dollars. Governmental officials from all over the country have filed suits against drug manufacturers and distributers, seeking to hold the companies responsible for “the strain on public services that drug addiction has caused.” Lawsuits allege that the companies engaged in deceptive marketing practices, including rewarding doctors for writing prescriptions. In addition, this past June a bipartisan coalition of 35 state attorney generals launched a multi-state investigation into opioid manufacturers. Many have compared the recent surge of lawsuits and investigations to the infamous movement against Big Tobacco, which resulted in cigarette companies paying out a $248 billion civil settlement.

A Doctor’s Responsibility: Medical Malpractice Claims

 The pharmaceutical companies are but one entity in the supply chain of opioid medication, as the lawsuits have also trickled down to the prescribing doctors. Over the past four years, medication-related claims have been cited as the fourth most common medical malpractice cause of action, ahead of obstetrics-related complications. Forty-two percent of the alleged errors occurred in an office or clinic, with thirty-one percent related to inadequate patient monitoring, according to a study conducted by the medical liability insurer, Coverys. Thirty-eight percent of the claims involve the death of a patient.

In the same study, prescription computation was found to be the leading cause of medication errors, followed by the management of the medication. The majority of medication-related errors occurred within general medicine practices, opposed to other specialties. Opioid prescriptions make up almost twenty-five percent of such claims, making pain medication the most frequent root cause of medical malpractice actions involving prescriptions.

The claims often involve overdoses, with alleged medical errors occurring during the patient’s follow-up visit. According to Robert Hanscom, M.D., the Vice President of Coverys and co-author of the study: “Physicians continued to renew prescriptions without monitoring patients to see if they were getting better or not, if there were any changes in their clinical status…If patients are still in pain, that’s a red flag. It’s not helpful to keep prescribing the same opioid if they’re not improving.”  When treating a patient with any kind of medication, there are risks involved at every stage, particularly during the initial clinical assessment and prescription.

Likewise, responsibly dispensing, administering, and monitoring are critical in determining whether a patient is on the right medication, at the right dosage, and for the right amount of time. Researchers point to patient mismanagement as a possible cause of such medical malpractice actions, while noting that doctors sometimes renew a patient’s prescription without reevaluating their current health status. Another cause of medical malpractice is physicians failing to properly advise patients of other treatment options.

However, proper care is not given when patients obtain such prescriptions through “pill mills,” where doctors perfunctorily write opioid prescriptions without first examining the patient. In July 2016, a Missouri jury awarded a plaintiff $17.6 million in a medical malpractice case against his primary care doctor after the patient was routinely prescribed pain medication that exceeded the recommended amount. The plaintiff, who was suffering from back pain at the time, ended up battling a drug addiction. The verdict was thought to send a strong message to doctors about the need for opioid reform.

One particularly egregious example of abuse is former doctor, Robert Rand. In 2015, the Nevada Board of Medical Examiners charged Rand with 74 counts of medical malpractice, alleging that he “violated the standards of practice in regard to opioid prescribing, practiced medicine beyond the scope of training and competence, engaged in unsafe and unprofessional conduct and maintained substandard medical records.” The complaint alleged that Rand prescribed massive amounts of opioids to his patients which were several times more than the high dose threshold. One such patient subsequently died from alcohol oxycodone intoxication.

Rand was also found guilty in federal criminal court for involuntary manslaughter and distribution of controlled substances, to which he was sentenced eight and ten years concurrently.

Like the lawsuits filed against the pharmaceutical companies, cities and states are taking action against doctors as well. Dozens of medical malpractice lawsuits have been filed by West Virginia (the state with the highest overdose death rate) and McDowell County (the county with a death rate three times higher), alleging that doctors overprescribed pain medication and flooded the market with substances that led to the plaintiffs’ uncontrollable addiction and subsequent deaths.

The future of opioid-related medical malpractice claims will likely depend on the accepted standard of care established by researchers and experts in the field. All agree that no doctor should be prescribing opioid medication to patients without first examining them, and to do so would be an obvious deviation from the acceptable standard of care. As established by the Drug Enforcement Administration, medical providers must first apply for and be granted a DEA number, which is connected to each of the provider’s prescriptions. In conjunction, the doctor must maintain a record of the patient’s examination that substantiates the prescription.

Likewise, a full medical history (including any history of addiction) should be taken by the doctor. While pain medication is ideally a short-term solution, sometimes a patient’s pain cannot be relieved. In which case, the patient can be referred to a pain management doctor who specializes in the management of chronic pain. Such a referral avoids a general practitioner from treating a pain that is beyond his scope of practice.

While most medical experts would attest to the above practices, as the opioid epidemic continues to pervade, recommendations and standards of care are continually being reevaluated and revised. Some medical professionals have proposed urine screening to ensure patients are taking the correct dosage of medication. The advent of computer tracking of prescriptions can make it easier to hold doctors and pharmacists accountable. Also, some states, such as Pennsylvania, are passing legislation that limits the amount of opioids that can be described at any given time but for certain exceptions.

As long as humans experience pain, there will always be a need for pain medication. In which case, the regulation of opioid prescriptions needs to be closely monitored and constantly reevaluated in light of the current drug use trends.

The post Opioid Use Causes Increase in Medical Malpractice Litigation appeared first on The Expert Institute.

Opioid Use Causes Increase in Medical Malpractice Litigation published first on http://ift.tt/2fPSFkQ