View previous stories
	Tell the NRA: Stay Out of Doctor''s Offices by Think Progress, Daily Kos, agencies USA   Tell the NRA: Stay Out of Our Doctor''s Offices   This year, gun deaths are set to surpass car accidents as the leading cause of death of young people for the first time ever. But even so, the gun lobby claims that gun violence isn''t a public health issue — and they''re going so far as to push legislation to make it illegal for doctors and pediatricians to ask their patients about gun ownership.   It''s a doctor''s duty to ask questions about things that affect their patients'' health and well-being. That''s why the medical community considers talking to parents about safe firearm storage just as important as discussing the risks associated with swimming pools, second-hand smoking, and riding without car seats or seat belts.   NRA-backed bills have been introduced all over the country to punish pediatricians who ask parents whether they have guns in their homes and to prohibit doctors from recording this information in medical files. The American Medical Association, the country’s biggest association of physicians, has come out against these “gag order” laws because research has shown that parents who talk about gun storage with their children’s pediatricians are more likely to adopt safe and responsible gun storage practices.   http://www.dailykos.com/campaigns/1160   July 2014   Court Upholds Florida Law that Punishes Doctors for Talking About Guns, by Nicole Flatow. (Think Progress)   Several years ago, the American Medical Association advised doctors to ask their patients about firearms and “educate patients to the dangers of firearms to children” in the name of public health. But doctors in Florida may be suppressed from giving this medical advice, now that a federal appeals court upheld a Florida law that became known as the “physician gag rule” because it punishes doctors for talking about guns.   The ruling could have major implications as policymakers examine gun violence as a public health issue. The National Rifle Association-backed law it upheld imposes severe limits on when doctors can ask their patients about guns or keep records in their patients’ charts about firearm safety. Doctors who are found to have violated the provision risk sanctions or loss of their license.   At least ten medical associations and the American Bar Association argued that the law should be struck down because doctors must be able to discuss safety topics freely in engaging in preventive care.   In an American Bar Association resolution opposing Florida’s law, the organization reasons, “Preventive care through safety counseling is a pillar of modern medicine, and is vitally important to the health and welfare of patients.” Among other public health topics doctors may discuss with adult patients are alcohol and drug use, wearing bicycle helmets and seat belts, and storage of household toxins. Discussions of gun violence, also, may come into play, both for doctors advising parents on keeping their children safe, and psychiatrists concerned about the psychological well-being of their patients.   The American Psychiatric Association has recommended that “health professionals and health systems should ask about firearm ownership whenever clinically appropriate in the judgment of the physician.”   The doctor plaintiffs in this case had argued that they have a First Amendment right to discuss these issues with their patients, and a federal trial court agreed, reasoning that the Firearm Owners Privacy Act “chills practitioners’ speech in a way that impairs the provision of medical care and may ultimately harm the patient.”   But a two-judge majority on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reversed that ruling and upheld the law, concluding that this speech is “professional in nature” and only has an “incidental” impact on free speech. The majority judges — appointees of Nixon and Bush — reason that the law is limited to “harassing” or “unnecessary” speech, so the law shouldn’t limit doctor remarks that are directly related to patients’ health.   Dissenting Judge Charles R. Wilson vehemently disagreed, dubbing the law a “a gag order that prevents doctors from even asking the first question in a conversation about firearms.”   “As a result of the Act, there is no doubt that many doctors in Florida will significantly curtail, if not altogether cease, discussions with patients about firearms and firearm safety,” Wilson wrote, noting that interpretations of what is “harassing” or “unnecessary” vary dramatically, and that doctors must have the discretion to decide when gun conversations are relevant.   Now that the law has been upheld by the highest court short of the U.S. Supreme Court, other states may seek to adopt similar laws. Policymakers have sought to address guns as a public health issues, as guns threaten to surpass car accidents as the leading cause of deaths among young people, and studies link the presence of guns in the home to suicide. But funding for public health research on gun violence has been thwarted by gun rights lobbying. In fact, the National Rifle Association opposed President Obama’s nomination of Vivek Murthy to become Surgeon General because he stated publicly that he views guns as a public health issue.   If the ruling is not invalidated on rehearing or by the U.S. Supreme Court, Judge Wilson warns it could also have other implications for doctor speech on issues disfavored by legislators, such as the Affordable Care Act or Medicare.   http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/07/29/3464945/court-upholds-florida-law-that-punishes-doctors-for-talking-about-guns/ http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/news/news/2014/2014-07-28-ama-response-court-ruling-florida-gun-gag-law.page http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/advocacy/topics/violence-prevention.page Visit the related web page
	The global challenge of inequality by Save the Children, agencies   Leaders at Davos must address the critical issues the world face – Call from civil society leaders. (Save the Children, agencies)   As representatives of civil society organisations attending the World Economic Forum, we are writing to urge you to ensure that the following issues of critical global importance are central to discussions at the forum and that, as per its stated purpose, the forum helps to deliver the insights, initiatives and actions necessary to respond to them.   1. Securing a safer world: As the forum takes place thousands of innocent people in Syria, including many children, continue to die. As vital peace talks kick off in Geneva, the crisis in Syria emphasises why we must work together to guarantee both immediate humanitarian access and aid, as well as secure long-term solutions to end crises – especially in Syria, South Sudan, the Central African Republic and Afghanistan - and find ways to prevent future outbreaks of conflict and violence.   2. Picking up the pace on development and setting ambitious goals for the future: In 2000, the world agreed the Millennium Development Goals with the aim of reducing extreme poverty by 2015. We have witnessed significant progress, but, with less than 800 days to go to the 2015 deadline many goals are off track. Failure to achieve the goals translates into children and women dying from preventable causes and in childbirth, and millions of people living in poverty without enough food or water. We need the leaders at Davos to get behind efforts to finish the job on the MDGs and engage fully in discussions around the next set of development goals in order to help eradicate extreme poverty for good.   3. Tackling inequality: In this changing world, rising inequality is a potent challenge. The top 5% of the world’s population is understood to have over 37% of global income, whilst the bottom 5% has less than 0.2%. As the IMF and the World Economic Forum itself have highlighted inequality is a fundamental obstacle to sustained economic growth. Leaders at Davos must recognise the importance of addressing inequality and ensure it is at the heart of future development efforts.   4. Creating a liveable climate for all: We cannot eradicate poverty without addressing climate change, which is hitting the poorest and most vulnerable the hardest. 2014 will be a crucial year to mobilize action ahead of global climate negotiations in 2015. Leaders at Davos should be clear in their commitment to ensuring a bold climate deal is delivered. The private sector leaders at Davos have a particularly critical role to play in leading the way to a low-carbon, climate-change resilient future. The new climate partnerships expected to be launched at Davos must also drive action at scale and have governments at their heart.   5. Investing in young people’s potential: Young people are shaping our world but they need support to ensure they have the education, training and opportunities to do so and a safe environment to thrive in. The Forum is an opportunity for leaders to identify new ways of working together to create the jobs and opportunities needed and help deliver a world where every young person is protected from violence, gender discrimination and the absence of opportunity.   To deliver all the above, we need responsible government, responsible business and new ideas where old ones have failed.   (Fazle Hasan Abed, Founder and Chairperson, BRAC, BRAC International and BRAC University; Mohamed Ashmawey, CEO, Islamic Relief Worldwide; Winnie Byanyima, Executive Director Oxfam International; Nigel Chapman, Chief Executive Officer, Plan International; Kumi Naidoo, Executive Director, Greenpeace International; Dhananjayan Sriskandarajah, Secretary-General, Civicus: World Alliance for Citizen Participation; Jasmine Whitbread, CEO, Save the Children International)   http://www.savethechildren.net/news   The global challenge of inequality, by Antonio Walker, Manuel Muniz.   Of the many challenges the world faces to stability and good governance, that which has received the least attention up until now is that of ever widening income disparities.   It’s a problem that used to belong to the realm of development economics, but is now so widespread and of such a scale that it has become a concern in terms of political stability. Increases in inequality have been so great that it is time to acknowledge there is a societal pandemic on a global scale. Until we do so, we won’t be able to tailor a global response.   The World Economic Forum’s “Outlook on the Global Agenda 2014” suggests that widening income disparities will, in the coming 12 to 18 months, be the greatest source of instability in the world, second only to tensions in the Middle East and North Africa. The reason inequality is so disruptive is that it is leading lower and middle classes around the world to mistrust the economic systems under which they live, and therefore, to demand radical change. This shouldn’t be at all surprising.   A recent Oxfam report called “Working for the Few” highlighted such shocking statistics as the fact that 1% of the world’s population owns almost half its wealth, and that the 85 richest individuals in the world have as much wealth as the bottom 50% of the global population.   Many people still talk of a North-South or East-West wealth divide. Although differences in income tend to be greater across borders than within them, with inequality greatest between developed and developing nations, it is also the case that most developed states have in recent decades seen a marked worsening of domestic inequalities. This is true of most of Europe, and especially in the United States, where inequality is now at a level not seen since the late 1920s and the onset of the Great Depression.   The financial crisis has accentuated this trend, as since 2009, some 95% of the wealth generated in the U.S. has gone to the top 1%. In 2011, that small group owned 40% of America’s total wealth and earned almost a quarter of the country’s aggregate annual income. It seems hard to argue that this isn’t a case of systemic exploitation of national wealth by a tiny elite.   There are many reasons to question the appropriateness of so much wealth being concentrated in the hands of so few. First and foremost, there is the obvious one that after an individual reaches a certain level of income, there is little increase in life expectancy or personal happiness.   It seems right, therefore, to question the wisdom of philosophies (and policies) that call for such an accumulation of wealth in the hands of a few and the need for a more balanced distribution within society.   There is growing evidence that inequality is tightly linked to falling levels of trust in social structures, as well as to increasing levels of violence and criminality, and to falling rates of social mobility. This last point is perhaps the most significant because the accumulation of wealth in the hands of a few has enabled to them to systematically capture the social and political levers of power, resulting ultimately in the erosion of one of liberal democracy’s central principles: equal opportunity.   Data on the family background of those elected to public office, or those who gain admission to some of the world’s best universities corroborates that the scions of the wealthy tend to be over-represented on the social ladder and the places it takes you to. These are particularly worrisome trends in the case of Europe because equality of opportunity and rewards based on merit are two of the most important elements in what could be described as the European social compact.   Of the many possible causes of this pathology, ranging from those of personal philosophy to education to the nature of capitalism, we believe the most significant is globalisation and the way it has limited the power of states.   In an environment where the wealthy can move resources across borders and avoid accountability and taxation, governments are left with little leverage on the distribution of wealth within their societies.   States’ powers are today most effective when implementing redistributive policies that chiefly affect the lower and middle classes who tend to live off fully-declared and, therefore, easily taxable salaries.   The top 1% are able to establish tax residence in Luxembourg or one of the Gulf States and so avoid almost all income tax. They can also construct complicated legal structures that avoid or minimise corporate taxation.   In other instances, and regularly using the effective threat of outsourcing, they have managed to lobby their governments into establishing regressive tax systems.   The overall effect has been the creation of a global elite capable of avoiding its fair contribution to common affairs, and able therefore to direct resources into perpetuating its position of privilege.   This is a problem that can only be tackled globally, and through the increase of international governance. Recent discussions by the G8 and the G20 to crack down on corporate tax avoidance are only the tip of the iceberg in terms of what is needed.   A determined push to shut down all tax havens, a marked convergence of real corporate tax rates around the world, and a concerted international effort to share information and decrease tax fraud are among the measures that should be tabled without delay.   States that profit from current arrangements should be put under heavy pressure to comply. A supranational actor like the EU, born as it was out of the desire (or need) to better manage cross-border interdependence, should play a prominent role in tackling this challenge.   Only through effective traction on these matters can we hope to give governments the ability to tackle inequality and guarantee equality of opportunity within their own borders. The current state of affairs, with a clear lack of governance on global taxation, is playing to the hand of the wealthy and enabling the few to profit from the many.   http://inequalitywatch.eu/ Visit the related web page
	View more stories