Welcome

Created for Victims of Domestic Violence 

and anyone who knows one.

Because everyone should care.

Sheer Will

Before she knew he was a

Big Bully with tiny thoughts

the Petite Woman, full of heart

hired him to bring forth

her art.

But Big Bully Tiny Thoughts

and

Petite Woman Full of Heart

CLASHED.

He did not like her

strength and determination,

this mother of two young children,

and felt

threatened

by her loving nature.

So Big Bully Tiny Thoughts

tried to destroy

Petite Woman Full of Heart

by assaulting

her body

and desecrating 

her art.

But She will RISE

She will be SEEN

She will be HEARD.

She 

WILL.

For A Comprehensive Federal Declaration on Freedom From Domestic Violence As A Fundamental Human Right

################################################################################

    In 1948 the United Nations set forth a proclamation that guarantees the inalienable rights that we all possess simply for being human. This document, The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 

“…codifies various fundamental human rights, including the right to life, the right to non-discrimination, the right to freedom from torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, and the right to judicial remedies. Further, the United Nations has specifically deemed freedom from domestic violence to be a fundamental human right.”  

Freedom From Domestic Violence as a Fundamental Human Right

The University of Texas School of Law Human Rights Clinic in Association with  the Domestic Violence Clinic, the Legislative Lawyering Clinic, and the Austin/Travis County Family Violence Task Force

    While lawmakers in the United States have set forth proclamations during Domestic Violence Awareness Month acknowledging that the freedom from domestic violence is a fundamental human right, to date there is no stand alone federal act that addresses this very issue. It is my firm belief that the lack of tangible action on the subject is what keeps our nation from moving forward to the realization of a country where there truly is liberty, dignity and justice for all. If, as a nation we have adopted The Declaration of Human Rights and uphold its core values, then we must protect every person’s right to be free from domestic violence: 

    “Not only is the right to life violated by acts of domestic violence, but often such acts involve cruel and degrading treatment, not only in the form of physical abuse, but also through withholding of financial access, emotional abuse, and sexual abuse. Such treatment violates various other basic human rights. For instance, the UN Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment has drawn a parallel between domestic violence and acts of torture. The report emphasized the element of powerlessness, which is present in both domestic violence and torture. The Special Rapporteur defined powerlessness as “the intention to keep the victim in a permanent state of fear based on unpredictable violence by seeking to reduce the person to submission and destroy his/her capacity for resistance and autonomy . . .” 

(Ibid)

    Domestic violence cases require particular care and attention due to the fact that abuse occurs within the home, children are often involved, and abusers have easy access to victims. This issue has not been sufficiently addressed to adequately protect victims of abuse here in the United States.  A special national council or task force should be set up to focus specifically on these types of violations of basic human rights.  

    Furthermore, the invasion of unwanted pornography in the home promotes an environment of objectification, masculine dominance and hostility.  This has a detrimental effect on the emotional and psychological well being of domestic partners and falls under the prohibitions of Article 3 against “Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment.” 

    While no one can stop the proliferation of pornography, every person who does not want it in their home should have the right to be free of it, as it fuels violent emotions and promotes violent control over women: 

“Pornography contributes to violence against women by normalizing male dominance, fostering feelings of aggression in a sexual context, and creating a tool of abuse in intimate partner relationships.” 

Emily Gutierrez:Pornography and Violence Against Women Emory Undergraduate Research Journal, Spring 2013 

    As Mary Anne Layden, Phd, Director of the Sexual Trauma and Psychopathology Program Center for Cognitive Therapy Department of Psychiatry, University of Pennsylvania points out:

“Many psychologists call internet pornography the new “crack cocaine” when you note the combination of the power of pornography with the ready, 24/7 of pornography on any computer, much of it free, accessible in the privacy and anonymity of the home. ….Pornographic depictions of the sexuality of women and children distort the truth about desires of women and children, and legitimizes men’s sense of entitlement, and use of force, violence, and degrading acts by the male actors.” 

Layden, Mary Anne (2017) [online] “Pornography and Violence: A New Look at Research” 

Center for Cognitive Therapy Department of Psychiatry, University of Pennsylvania

http://www.socialcostsofpornography.com/Layden_Pornography_and_Violence.pdf 

    If we cannot feasibly regulate the incessant flow of internet pornography, we should at least be able to be free of it in our own homes. Ones’ right to be free from degradation trumps any other persons’ right to participate in an activity that promotes anothers' degradation, domination or humiliation.

Further bolstering this argument is Article 4 in PART II of the Additional Protocols to the Geneva Conventions relating to the protection of victims of non-international armed conflict.

This article states that: 

“All persons who do not take a direct part or who have ceased to take part in hostilities … are entitled to respect for their person, honor and convictions and….the following acts… shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever: 

….Violence to the life, health and physical or mental well-being of persons.”.

International Committee of the Red Cross (2004) [online] “Basic Rules of the Geneva Conventions and Their Additional Protocols, Section 5, Sanctions” (2015)

https://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/publications/icrc-002-0365.pdf

    Additionally, under the category of ‘Sanctions’ in the provisions to Protocol I of the Conventions is a listing of grave breaches of international law which constitute war crimes. As stated: 

“These articles lay before the conscience of the world the list of especially grave violations of the Conventions and the Protocol which, were they to remain unpunished, would signify the degradation of human values and regression of the entire concept of humanity. 

These grave breaches are those involving any of the following acts:… willful killing, torture or inhuman treatment… willfully causing suffering or serious injury to body or health, any willful omission seriously endangering the physical or mental health or integrity of a person in the power of a (hostile) party.” 

(Ibid)

    If the above actions are heinous to the international community, why is it not similarly heinous that the physical and mental health of so many women is willfully endangered every day in this country within the confines of their homes? Furthermore, Article 13 of the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War states that: 

“…prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity.” 

 Article 14 also includes the entitlement:

“…to respect for their persons and their honor. Women shall be treated with all the regard due to their sex and shall in all cases benefit by treatment as favorable as that granted to men.” 

    Therefore, it follows that the fundamental human right to be free from domestic violence should also include the following: 

"The right to be free from verbal abuse, (inclusive of but not limited to name calling, insulting, threats or intimidation) financial control and manipulation, public humiliation, degradation of personal dignity, the unwanted presence or use of pornography in the home, and emotional or mental cruelty of any kind."

    These rights, if not upheld, constitute grave breaches of the international human rights standards that refer to any individual in the power or control of another, and must be addressed and firmly enforced. It is my sincerest hope that policy in the United States will soon reflect these values that we, as signatories to the Geneva Conventions, purport to uphold. 

"Request"

When she leaves

White Collar, Coat and FIST

please help her.

When she reports 

White Collar, Coat and FIST

she will be in danger.

White Collar, Coat and FIST 

is

angry

manipulative

and 

connected.

He will sway

family

friends

colleagues 

and

judges.

Her life could end

Abruptly.

If she lives she is lucky.

Please help keep

White Collar, Coat and FIST

at bay

Why Physicians Should Be Legally Barred From Treating Family Members

#################################################################################

    There are many professional privileges associated with working as a physician in the United States.  These physician related privileges and courtesies include perks like professional discounts and the ability to see other doctors or receive care without a wait, but one thing that should never be allowed is for any physician to medically treat their own family. The “AMA Principles of Medical Ethics” states that, “In general, physicians should not treat themselves or members of their own families”, with the exception of emergency situations or for short-term, minor problems. The details  of  section ‘1.2.1 Treating Self or Family’ include the many reasons why this should be avoided. But physicians are not legally bound to these principles, and this is a problem.  A big problem.  Because physicians routinely treat their own family members in this country, often to the detriment of the long term health of the family member.  

    The dangers of treating family members include not just the harmful results of potentially inappropriate treatment when working outside of one’s specialty, but the great likelihood of the family member not having the benefit of a second opinion and of the home treatment not being included in their medical record, resulting in conflicting or overlapping treatment.

    So how big problem is this, despite the AMA’s position that this practice is unethical? According to the New England Journal of Medicine, in their 1991 survey of 465 physicians, the problem is massive:

“ Eighty-three percent prescribed medications for a family member, 80% diagnosed medical illnesses, 72% performed physical examinations, 15% acted as a family member’s primary doctor, and 9% performed surgery on a family member” 

http://thechart.blogs.cnn.com/2012/01/09/why-doctors-shouldnt-treat-family-members/

    A 2001 abstract detailing confidential interviews with eight chairs of family medicine departments further highlights the commonality of this abuse of medical privilege:

 “In a profession that emphasizes detached objectivity and scientific inquiry, the illness of a family member engenders an emotional involvement that can cloud critical thinking and sound judgment…in one survey, a third of physicians reported observing another physician “inappropriately involved” in a family member's care.”

https://iths.pure.elsevier.com/en/publications/role-conflicts-of-physicians-and-their-family-members-rules-but-no rulebook

    As astounding as these numbers are, what is more astounding are the reasons citied for this unethical behavior; arrogance, cost and convenience. Dr. Youn, a plastic surgeon writing for CNN, explains the following:

“…as surgeons, we are supremely confident in our training and skills and worry that another surgeon might not do as good a job as we would. Second, performing the surgery ourselves can save a lot of money. Third, and most disturbing, some plastic surgeons use their spouses as living billboards for their work.”

http://thechart.blogs.cnn.com/2012/01/09/why-doctors-shouldnt-treat-family-members/

    In accord, Edward J. Krall, in his 2008 essay ‘Doctors Who Doctor Self, Family, and Colleagues’ printed in the Wisconsin Journal of Medicine, writes that:

“Convenience is most often citied as the reason for physicians to address a problem themselves, with confidence in their own diagnostic and treatment skills … and cost also factoring into the decision.”

Continuing on, Mr. Krall reports that the detrimental effects are evident in the available data on families of physicians which reveals the following: 

“(family members) were seen less often for acute illness, had incomplete exams, incomplete or absent medical records, and incomplete documentation of immunizations.”

    The lax attitude regarding these dangerous facts must be addressed.  Family members of physicians are a particularly vulnerable subset of the public.  They are the most likely to be improperly treated due to their level of trust in the physician, the physicians’ unfettered accessibility to that individual in the home and their de facto control of the situation related to physical isolation.

In Ontario, Canada, governmental prohibitions have been wisely instituted to specifically address the treatment of physicians’ sexual partners, including spouses.  Physicians can, and sometimes do, act with malevolence. Their occupation does not set them apart from other human beings.  The potential for abuse of sexual partners (spouses or others) in Canada has been addressed thusly:

“Physicians must not provide treatment to a spouse, partner, or anyone else with whom they are sexually or romantically involved, beyond the circumstances of a minor condition or emergency, and where no other qualified health care professional is readily available… providing treatment that exceeds the circumstances set out in this policy ….may give rise to a physician-patient relationship, and, as a result, the sexual abuse provisions of the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991 would apply.”

    The RHPA is governmental legislation created under the ‘Medicine Act, 1991’ in Ontario.  Common sense principles in this document point out that; 

“Sexual activity and ‘romantic interactions’ ….obscure the physician’s objective judgment concerning the patient’s health care”,

and that;

“Patients must be protected from sexual abuse by physicians.”

http://www.cpso.on.ca/uploadedFiles/downloads/cpsodocuments/policies/policies/sexual_abuse_boundaries.pdf

    Therefore, in Ontario, a physician may neither provide treatment nor administer drugs or prescribe medications to a spouse.  Patients need to be protected from potential abuse.  Family members should never be patients, and this applies especially to children. Children are unaware of the detrimental effects any substandard care will have on their long term health and are inhibited or unable to object to parental authority.  This is the default position of the American Medical Association, which warns against treating one’s own child, “…who may not feel free to refuse care from a parent. “ (AMA Principles of Medical Ethics: I.2.1)

As John Henning Schumann, M.D. writes in   ‘What could go wrong when doctors treat their own kids?’:

“It’s a dark corner of medicine. Nobody I know talks about it much. Still, nearly all medical parents treat their kids. There are many reasons, though it's usually for the convenience of not having to put up with what regular folks do: sitting on the phone, making appointments, dealing with copays and deductibles, waiting and missing work or school..One doctor told me about sewing up his young son's heel after it had been cut on some glass. …."Why did I do it myself?" he asked "I could. It would save time and money…He prescribed an antibiotic for both children to treat (a) bacterial infection, but he didn't test them for pertussis first. His curiosity got the better of him, so he tested the older kid, figuring if one had it, they both did. It came back positive. Oops.”

http://ripr.org/post/what-could-go-wrong-when-doctors-treat-their-own-kids#stream/0

    As a former spouse of a surgeon and privy to the familial habits of the local medical community for 14 years, I can tell you that if a particular physician isn’t prescribing  medication for his/her own family, that doctor certainly knows dozens who are.  The practice is rampant.  And everyone looks the other way.  I complained for years about my ex-husband and his over-medication of our son, and while the pediatrician listened, and later school health officials listened, no one ever tried to stop it.  His immune system has been compromised, he gets sick much too frequently and takes longer and longer to get well.  This is directly related to the pediatrician prescribing one thing, and then his father (an orthopedic surgeon) prescribing additional medications, unneeded medication or inappropriate mediation, and even doling out his own left over medication on a regular basis for over 15 years.  I have been written off as overly emotional on the subject.  I am not.  This is not just for the sake of my child and the children of other physicians, but for all children.  Here’s why:

“Unfortunately, antibiotics are excessively prescribed, especially to children. The Center for Disease Control estimates that of the 235 million doses of antibiotics given each year, between 20 and 50 percent are unnecessary. Tragically, this overuse of antibiotics can cause devastating health consequences to children. Antibiotics do not just go after the pathogenic or “bad” bacteria. They also indiscriminately destroy the beneficial bacteria necessary and vital to good health… (that) help protect the body against infection. Depleting these organisms can disrupt the balance of the body, suppress immunity, and lead to increased susceptibility to infections by fungi, bacteria, viruses and parasites…

When your child is continually treated with antibiotics, the bacteria in his or her body may eventually be able to survive the drugs, making it much harder to cure an infection.

Antibiotic resistance can affect the whole family and everyone around the child with a history of frequent antibiotic use. If the child develops resistant bacteria, he or she can pass them along to others [this can include playmates and friends] through coughing, sneezing, and kissing…

A truly disturbing practice is the prescribing of antibiotics by some doctors to treat colds, coughs, runny noses or flu. Most upper respiratory infections are viral. Treating them with antibiotics is clear and blatant misuse, since the drugs kill only bacteria and are of no value at all in treating viral infections.”

Healthy child.com, Jane Sheppard, October 15, 2008

    That this practice continues unabated is shocking in light of the CDC’s stance on antibiotic resistance:

“Antibiotic resistance is one of the most serious public health problems in the United States and threatens to return us to the time when simple infections were often fatal.(1)… At least 80 million antibiotic prescriptions each year are unnecessary, which makes improving antibiotic prescribing and use a national priority.”(2)

(1)https://www.cdc.gov/antibiotic-use/stewardship-report/pdf/stewardship-report.pdf (2) https://www.cdc.gov/antibiotic-use/index.html

    How can we even begin to make progress when physicians themselves are a core part of the problem?  The CDC promotes the notion of antibiotic stewardship as a potential answer:

“Stopping even some of the inappropriate and unnecessary use of antibiotics in people and animals would help greatly in slowing down the spread of resistant bacteria.  This commitment to always use antibiotics appropriately and safely - only when they are needed to treat disease, and to choose the right antibiotics and to administer them in the right way in every case - is know as antibiotic stewardship” 

www.cdc.gov/drugresistance/about.html

    The CDC’s notion of stewardship assumes doctors are automatically onboard as a matter of ethical course.  Yet the physicians interviewed admit to skirting ethical standards on a regular basis sheerly for convenience and cost.  This is with full knowledge of the adverse affects of this practice on the publics’ health and well-being as antibiotic resistance spreads.  It’s almost as if the CDC is afraid to firmly address the issue with physicians themselves.  In their community campaign targeting antibiotic resistance they inform the public that:

“The most important modifiable risk factor for antibiotic resistance is inappropriate prescribing of antibiotics. Approximately half of outpatient antibiotic prescribing in humans might be inappropriate, including antibiotic selection, dosing, or duration, in addition to unnecessary antibiotic prescribing”.

This campaign recommends that members of the public;

“Require explicit written justification in the medical record for non-recommended antibiotic prescribing.”  

It is the CDC’s belief that;

“This technique has reduced inappropriate prescribing by holding physicians accountable in the medical record for their decisions.”

https://www.cdc.gov/antibiotic-use/community/pdfs/16_268900-A_CoreElementsOutpatient_508.pdf 

    Should the public bear so much responsibility for the actions of the many physicians who clearly can not be entrusted as proper stewards of the antibiotic resistance awareness campaign?  I think not.  Empowering the public by setting forth the proper information is a wonderful thing.  But the outpatient community will not change the behavior of these doctors any more than the spouse of such an individual can change their behavior.  They do what they want, for convenience, for cost, and in their arrogance.  

    It is of utmost urgency that going forward medical practitioners be mandated to comply with government standards of prescribing as outlined by the CDC.  Unfortunately the CDC is not a regulating body. Medical boards regulate, but do not mandate.  In order to enforce compliance, oversight must be handled by a regulatory body that advocates for patients’ rights and not the rights of physicians.  The Medical Board of Massachusetts comes closest to advocating for patient protections over physicians’ rights by curtailing irresponsible prescribing in their ‘Prescribing Practices, Policy and Guidelines’:

“Part I, Section 1: Basic Requirements of Acceptable Medical Practice: 

To be valid, a prescription must be issued in the usual course of the physician’s professional practice, and within a physician-patient relationship that is for the purpose of maintaining the patient’s well-being.  In addition, the physician must conform to certain minimum standards of patient care, such as taking an adequate medical history, doing a physical and/or mental status examination and documenting the findings. This rule applies to any prescription, issued by any means, including the Internet or other electronic process.  Prescribing that does not meet these requirements is unlawful.”

    While this is definitely a step in the right direction, it will take too long to lobby for changes state by state.  Establishing clear legal codes at the federal level now that define what is unacceptable is the only way to truly hold physicians responsible for their behavior and to safeguard the publics’ health. Doctors are just people like the rest of us.  Their occupation doesn’t make them statistically better human beings. By allowing them to continually breach the boundaries of ethical practice with vulnerable family members, and through their excessive prescribing which can affect entire townships and municipalities, we have enabled arrogant, permissive attitudes to take hold of the medical community and thrive, to the detriment of the public good.

Poem for the Fourth of July

***************************************************************************************************

You can 

speak truth to power

in numbers, together, in droves.

but if you dare to 

speak truth to power 

in solo or go it alone,

they will follow, harass, denigrate you

disappear you for weeks

right from your very own home.

pay off cops, 

backroom talks,

corrupt judges 

seal your fate wink 

nod,

handshake. 

There, 

now you can go back

to your home.

They’ll rewrite 
your entire existence

change your present,

crush your future

so I want you to know, 

don’t ever,

please never,

try to 

speak truth to power alone.

Domestic Violence Is Not A 'Women's Issue'

*********************************************************************************

Domestic violence is not a women’s issue; it is a societal one.  While many people believe that DV is not their problem, that it happens to ‘other people’, or for those who simply would rather not be bothered, there is an unavoidable truth that has become abundantly clear:  Second hand DV kills. While the majority of domestic abuse does occur within the home, if a woman leaves or even strongly indicates that she will, angry and controlling men often go in search of their victims and take the violence into the public sphere.  

Co-workers can become victims, fellow congregants can become victims, and yes, even children at an elementary school.  In a widely shared analysis of F.B.I. data on mass shootings, in 2017 Every Town for Gun Safety reported that “57 percent of the cases included a spouse, former spouse or other family member among the victims — and that 16 percent of the attackers had previously been charged with domestic violence”. (Jane Mayer, ‘The Link Between Domestic Violence and Mass Shootings’ ; [2017] The New Yorker)

Domestic violence is not just a women’s issue.  It’s a societal problem that must be addressed, not put on a back burner or dismissed. Find out more and how you can help at:

https://nnedv.org/content/frequently-asked-questions-about-domestic-violence/