Kansas Senate Bills Violate Informed Consent, Not Preserve It - Part II

Article posted with permission from the author, Suzanne Hamner.

In order to “uphold patients’ rights” and avoid the violations that occurred during the CONvid-1984 planned scam-demic, the Kansas Senate passed two bills (Senate Bills 352 and 391) that intend to “affirm the right of patients to direct their healthcare at medical facilities and would eliminate the state health secretary’s authority to issue directives amid outbreaks of infectious disease.”

In part I, Senate Bill 391 was covered. Part II focuses on Senate Bill 352. The Kansas Reflector article is being revisited, picking up with the sections concerning Senate Bill 352.

The Senate also was drawn to Senate Bill 352, which would honor the memory of people who were ill or died during the pandemic, but were forbidden by public health mandate or medical providers from having visits with family members or having a measure of influence over their care in a hospital.

The bill would articulate a series of patient rights, including a guarantee of access by visitors, the right to select a physician and the ability to control health care strategy.

The package would be named for Larned native John Springer, who died Dec. 2, 2021, at a medical center in Tulsa, Oklahoma. He was 59.

Peggy Springer, who was married to John Springer, said she was disappointed with Kansas government’s response to COVID-19. She urged passage of legislation to protect patients and their families from enduring the pain of knowing a loved one was isolated, confused and alone at a hospital. If the proposed Senate bill had been in place in Kansas, she said, her husband wouldn’t have been “treated like an animal” at an Oklahoma medical center.

Peggy Springer said her husband was criticized for requesting ivermectin, which she considered an essential and safe medication for humans. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration, however, hasn’t approved ivermectin for treatment of viral infections, including COVID-19.

Peggy Springer said her husband was given remdesivir, fentanyl and morphine without giving informed consent.

“I would have been allowed to be there to advocate for him with regard to treatment and care,” she said. “He would have been given the medications his family asked for without being mocked. We could have had the doctor removed who mocked him and told me, ‘Your husband is not a horse.’”

The death of Larned, Kansas native John Springer is certainly a tragedy. However, the answer is not to lobby for legislation to codify the rights of patients, which is what Senate Bill 352 does. The answer is to hold those accountable for violations of informed consent and the right to refuse, the right to direct one’s own healthcare, and those committing medical malpractice and negligence through lawsuits, which should also entail jail time for those found guilty.

• Activate Your Own Stem Cells & Reverse The Aging Process – Choose “Select & Save” OR Join, Brand Partner & Select Silver To Get Wholesale Prices
• Get your Vitamin B17 & Get 10% Off With Promo Code TIM
• How To Protect Yourself From 5G, EMF & RF Radiation
• Protect Your Income & Retirement Assets With Gold & Silver
• Grab This Bucket Of Heirloom Seeds & Get Free Shipping With Promo Code TIM
• Here’s A Way You Can Stockpile Food For The Future
• Stockpile Your Ammo & Save $15 On Your First Order
• Preparing Also Means Detoxifying – Here’s One Simple Way To Detoxify

The treatment of John Springer, described by his wife Peggy as “like an animal”, is a clear violation of medical ethics and morality.  The Kansas Senate was all too happy to step in to codify “patient rights.”

One of the most egregious portions of Senate Bill 352 is found in Section 2 (1).

The right to choose a personal attending physician, to be fully informed in advance about care and treatment, to be fully informed in advance of any changes in care or treatment that may affect the patient’s well-being and, except with respect to a patient adjudged incompetent, to participate in planning care and treatment or changes in care and treatment. Such right to participate shall include the right to refuse treatment or refuse transfer to another medical care facility if such refusal is made in writing by the patient or the patient’s legal representative.

The right to refuse treatment has always been accepted when verbal as well as the right to refuse transfer to another facility. Now, Senate Bill 352 has made it “legal” for facilities to disregard verbal refusal and require written refusal. Moreover, how long does the provider of services have to give individuals to compose a written refusal? This is egregious! Nowhere in the AMA guidelines on informed consent nor the NIH (National Institute of Health) paper on informed consent is verbal refusal considered inadequate. It is up to the provider to document full informed consent and refusal based on the verbal indications of the patient or the designated person responsible for providing informed consent.

The bill does not even address the right of every individual to obtain a second or third opinion before making any decision to consent or refuse based on received information. Moreover, it does not include any reference to the current ethical and moral standard of informed consent recognized by the AMA and expounded upon by a paper at the NIH. Remember, the rights of the individual are innumerable, but the Kansas Senate Bill has enumerated patients’ rights.

The bill does address visitation. It prohibits medical care facilities from limiting visitation when in an inpatient facility. However, when it comes to terminally ill individuals, this is what the bill states; “A medical facility shall not prohibit a patient who is terminally ill or receiving end-of-life care from receiving in-person visitation from two individuals at a time” – Section 1 (c) (2). Why only two individuals at a time?

When working as an RN on an oncology unit, which often cared for terminally ill patients receiving end-of-life care, it was not unusual to have a room full of family members, friends, and clergy providing support to the individual. Not once was there any difficulty providing any intervention to the patient when needed or ordered. Visitors would gladly make way for the nurse to do the job. No facility ever limited visitors to only two for any inpatient. Again, this denies the right of the individual to have as many support system members available when needed.

The bill requires medical facilities to require visitors adhere to infection control procedures, but those procedures cannot be more stringent than those for employees. It also allows medical facilities to require the use of personal protective equipment by visitors, without providing informed consent, which includes the right to refuse. Masks are medical devices that can cause harm. Senate bill 352 does not address this fact nor does it address the right to refuse regarding masks.

One of Ms. Springer’s complaints was she could not remove the doctor who mocked her husband for requesting Ivermectin. It is obvious Ms. Springer is not aware of rights when it comes to medical treatment. Any inpatient or family member can dismiss a physician and request another if the patient or family member is mistreated in any way by the physician. It also includes nurses. However, Senate Bill 352 does not provide any “right” of the patient or family members to do so. This is the problem with government codifying rights – they always leave out plenty.

Section 2 (a) of Senate Bill 352, states, “Each patient being cared for in a medical care facility has rights that the medical care facility shall protect and promote. Such rights include: …” followed by a listing of rights. The phrase “but not limited to” is missing meaning these are the rights legislation has established patients have, which limits patient rights to those listed. In another slap in the face for informed consent, violations are subject to reimbursement of actual damages or $25,000, whichever is greater, and the cost of the lawsuit and “reasonable” attorney fees. The violation of informed consent can result in damages that are unmeasurable in monetary value. How do you determine actual damages when a violation results in death?

In the supplement to Senate Bill 352, is the provision for immunity of medical facilities in civil liability cases when complying with the bill.

The bill would provide medical care facilities immunity from civil liability for damages for acts taken in compliance with the bill unless the act constituted gross negligence or willful, wanton, or reckless conduct.

This is contained in Section 1 (h) of Senate Bill 352.

The Kansas Reflector reported:

Under the bill approved 26-13 and transferred to the Kansas House, medical care facilities would not be able to take action to prevent a patient from receiving in-person visits from immediate family members, domestic partners, significant others, a person granted durable power of attorney, an essential caregiver or a minister, priest and rabbi. If the patient was terminally ill or receiving end-of-life care, a person could receive visits from two people at a time.

For a patient under 18 years of age, the bill would allow a parent or guardian to accompany the minor at all times at a medical facility. The bill would mandate KDHE document complaints alleging violations of the statute. The bill would enable a person to file a lawsuit against a medical facility for alleged infraction of this law and a plaintiff would receive a minimum of $25,000 if able to prove the offense occurred.

Sen. Kristin O’Shea, R-Topeka, won majority support for an amendment requiring the state government to compensate hospitals that adhered to provisions of a Kansas patient bill of rights when those provisions conflicted with federal obligations tied to billions of dollars in Medicaid and Medicare funding.

“We need to think about how this bill affects hospitals,” O’Shea said. “If the state is going … to require these hospitals lose money, then we need to stand behind them so that they can still operate.”

She pointed to reports showing 73% of Kansas hospitals had a negative operating margin going into 2023 and estimates that 60 hospitals in Kansas were at risk of closing.

Steffen, the Hutchinson-area senator, said it would be folly to allow federal regulations to supersede rights of patients.

“What we know for a fact is that all across the country hospitals shut out visitors, took decision making out of the hands of patients and their families and let people die alone,” he said.

As reported, facilities would be reimbursed by the State for following this piece of legislation in violation of federal “regulations”. Obamacare basically put the federal government in charge of insurance, healthcare provision, and facilities, which has resulted in the facilities and personnel participating in egregious violations against patients and families as policy, not just during the CONvid-1984 planned scam-demic. Unfortunately, this legislation fails to protect all patient rights where medical treatment is concerned.

Hospitals were losing revenue due to Obamacare legislation and enactment before 2020 and the scam-demic. This piece of legislation allows the State to supplement for losses while hospitals claim denial of following federal “regulations”.

No one appears to have read or relayed this tidbit of Senate Bill 352.

“ … the right to be free from physical or mental abuse, corporal punishment, and any physical or chemical restraints imposed for purposes of discipline or convenience and not required to treat the patient’s medical symptoms.”

“Restraints and involuntary seclusion may only be imposed to manage harmful behaviors or ensure the physical safety of the patient, staff members or other patients and upon the written order of a physician that specifies the duration and circumstances under which the restraints are to be used, except in emergency circumstances until such order could reasonably be obtained; and the use of restraint or seclusion in a treatment facility shall not exceed three hours without medical reevaluation, except that such medical reevaluation shall not be required, unless necessary, between the hours of 12:00 midnight and 8:00 a.m.”

This legislation allows for physical or mental abuse, corporal punishment and any physical or chemical restraints when required to treat the patient’s medical condition. Technically, these tactics can be used for eight hours (12 midnight to 8 AM) without medical reevaluation “unless necessary”. So, who determines when it is necessary between those hours to reevaluate? Could not a facility or physician implement these tactics and determine reevaluation is not necessary during those hours for “convenience”, while documenting it as unnecessary?

Nowhere in the bill does it speak to medical kidnapping of individuals – the unlawful holding of patients in a facility by the facility staff when patients desire to leave known as leaving against medical advice. The bill contains no right to leave against medical advice, recognized as a right of the individual to refuse care based upon informed consent or desire to receive care elsewhere.

Proponents for rights that were violated during CONvid-1984 planned scam-demic did not fully examine what they were asking legislators to do. Their focus was narrow and ill-defined. It signals a group of individuals who do not understand God-given unalienable rights, much less the right to informed consent and refusal of treatment.

Each of these bills now heads to the Kansas House. Residents of Kansas should seriously review these bills and not rely on talking heads, Senate proponents, group proponents, or individual proponents to convey what is in these bills. Should this pass the Kansas House, residents of Kansas can expect a restriction on their patient rights as well as the right to informed consent and refusal. Kansans beware!

Article posted with permission from Sons of Liberty Media