Oppose SB6095 giving permanent emergency powers for DOH to prescribe drugs and 'biologics'(?)

Washington's proposed SB 6095 would give the Secretary of Health the ability to issue standing order prescriptions for drugs and vaccines - at will. Do you like how they hide vaccines behind biologic?

Jan 18, 2024

SB 6095 is one of many bills that conveniently aligns with big pHARMa interests. It is unnecessary, too open ended, and continues to interfere with a doctor’s practice of medicine.

First public hearing is January 18th.

As one of my colleagues said:

Many kept saying the governor didn't have the authority to mandate masks or shots or anything. So the fix is to give the Secretary of Health the authority to issue standing orders, bringing Washington one step closer to a police "show me your papers-hold you down and strap on a mask" state.

Here are my comments to the Senate Health Committee on January 18.

Video of Committee Hearing - my comments are toward the end of the segment, at around the 27 minute mark.

These comments are being submitted under protest that I was only allowed to read 1:30 minutes of this testimony when the requesting agency head Dr. Shah was given more than 3 minutes.

Committee Count of PRO: 19, ALL professionally employed by pharma or state

Committee Count of CON: 560, concerned citizens

Let’s be honest: SB 6095 is about infectious disease and vaccines. This bill would bypass those pesky emergency declaration safeguards to mandate. Perhaps more alarming or even sneaky, this bill would allow limitations on prescriptions of possibly effective alternate treatments that federal public health agencies didn’t like – because alternatives would have interfered with the Emergency Use Authorization status eventually enjoyed by rushed, ineffective vaccines.

SB 6095 is a flawed bill

SB 6059 is a flawed bill that would grant emergency-like powers to the Secretary and DoH in times of non-emergency. We think that emergency powers were overused and too restrictive during the pandemic, violating basic rights, obscuring facts and violating informed consent. We cannot deny that vaccine mandates for employees were discriminatory, as employers clumsily kicked out workers for declining the risky injections which are now known to be much less than safe and effective. This abuse of emergency powers and duress that the requesting department took part in and promoted, should be reason enough to kill this bill.

Public health actors consistently recommend standing orders for vaccines as a way to overcome those pesky patients who are hesitant.

https://medicine.utah.edu/documents/evidence-based-strategies-overcoming-vaccine-hesitancy-1pdf.

While this practice might be good from a public health perspective, it often bypasses informed consent by creating an environment of presumed safety or so-safe-the-doctor-doesn’t-even-need-to-see-you. We think standing orders are offensive to the practice of medicine, where prescriptions should be indicated for an individual case, not generally prescribed as a one-size-fits-all solution. Informed consent requires that risks are communicated to, understood by and accepted by a patient without coercion. If issued in the environment of a perceived emergency, informed consent is often sacrificed for urgency. These are shortcomings at the root of standing orders which should not be added to the weaponry of a department that is already granted broad power during emergencies. With or without an emergency, the department can always send out advisories. They must have really big mailing lists.

Now onto the bill language:

In Section 1.1/p1/Line11. I’m really glad to see the wording: “Any such prescription or standing order is issued for a legitimate medical purpose.” We need to constrain the secretary to legitimate purposes? Doesn’t that statement right there show this power can’t be trusted in the hands of the Secretary?

The bill’s flaws and suggested amendments:

(As a rule, I don’t negotiate with the devil. But, this bill will likely move forward, so it needs some amendments as guardrails).

Many want to limit emergency powers after the pandemic. They were overused and abused. The power to issue standing orders this broad should not be granted outside of a declared emergency.
Section 1.3/p2/Line4-8. If this power is granted, the issuance of a standing order should create a private right of action, and public health actors SHOULD be held liable for civil or criminal damages, so remove that wording.
Section 1.4/p2/Line9. Remove, starting with “the secretary may place limitations on the use of a prescription…” This is an important point hidden by the bills title and again interferes with the practice of medicine.
Section 1.6/p2/Line28. This is too open-ended: “Other persons may acquire… and administer a biological product, device, or drug pursuant to a prescription or standing order issued…”Standing orders further remove drug administration away from a primary care physician, and along with that, properly obtained informed consent.

Please oppose SB 6095 on its basic premise. If it really must go forward, it must include pre-conditions of a declared emergency and not be so open-ended. And most importantly, we ask that it specify that standing orders still require fully informed consent and the right to decline.

For Reference: SB 6095