Or so I thought.
Two weeks after our trip, The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) sent a delegation of doctors to Albany to lobby against the life-saving legislation--and the mood was quite different. This is how ACOG described it in their newsletter:
ACOG LOBBY DAY 2012: SUCCESS, SURPRISES & SMILES(Not hard to imagine the shock. You see, we had been there two weeks prior explaining to the same legislators how the Connecticut law this bill is modeled on had doubled the cancer detection rate for women with dense breasts who received follow-up screenings. Why would ACOG oppose this?)
...Lobby Day 2012 also provided a few surprises – and a lot of smiles. Assembly members and senators were more than happy to discuss proposed “dense breast” legislation (S.6769-A/A.9586-A) – but you should have seen the shocked look on their faces when our members explained that we were opposed to the bill....
Later, the newsletter continues:
There was clearly a Lobby Day 'camaraderie' shared by our members. In fact, during lunch, the laughter from one of our tables could be heard throughout the Capitol Deli."Wow. These doctors lack even a basic sense of decorum, let alone empathy. They made no attempt to contain their merriment as they lobbied for the right to continue harming patients by withholding material medical information. They even bragged about what an uproarious time they had lobbying against a bill spearheaded by late stage breast cancer survivors and their surviving family members that ACOG members had harmed by withholding information. It did not even occur to their communications manager that writing about it this way would be inappropriate.
For ACOG, Lobby Day was like a field trip to to Disneyland.
Could there be a more literal example of adding insult to injury?
ACOG's talking points against the legislation are here. I already exposed the rank hypocrisy of one of their arguments in my last post. Believe me, the rest of their points are every bit as specious. Are You Dense Advocacy responds, point by point, here. However, there were eight of us lobbying, and seventeen of them, and they were a healthier group. They boast that they met 90% of legislators face to face. Despite our energy we only were able to meet a fraction of the assembly. That's why I urge you to use the link at left to find and contact your state senator and assembly person if you live in New York.
Here is a picture of Teresa Lacey Montant, the density advocate who never made it to Albany. Here's her story.
Her husband continues her advocacy work while he struggles financially after losing her health insurance (and income).
Here are the names of the laughing lobbying doctors:
Matthew Blitz, MD
Ana Cepin, MD, FACOG
Eva Chalas, MD, FACOG, FACS
Matthew Blitz, MD
Ana Cepin, MD, FACOG
Eva Chalas, MD, FACOG, FACS
Cynthia Chazotte, MD, FACOG
K. Michelle Doyle, CNM, LM
Leah Kaufman, MD, FACOG
Nicholas Kulbida, MD, FACOG
Ellen Landsberger, MD, FACOG
Mary Ann Millar, MD, FACOG
Howard Minkoff, MD, FACOG
Allen Ott, MD, FACOG
Lawrence Perl, MD, FACOG
Hartaj Powell, MD, FACOG
Mary Rosser, MD FACOG
Naomi Ufberg, MD
Ronald Uva, MD, FACOG
Mary Margaret Wilsch, MD, FACOG
Have they no shame?
Update: if anyone happens to have/obtain a photo of the raucous Capitol Hill Deli lunch, leak them to me at "s [at] womanhattan [dot] com". Communications will be kept confidential.
Perhaps doctors have to be callous in order to get through the human difficulties of the work they do. But one would think they would have sense enough to hide the callousness.
ReplyDeleteI'm shocked and stunned, but not surprised.
ReplyDeleteI love this bit from their callous and self-absorbed AMOG newsletter: "Our ob-gyns were empowered to explain ACOG’s position on various topics – while relying on each other to get the message across to legislators. By the end of the day, our doctors were finishing each other’s sentences!"
ReplyDeleteSo in other words, the Doctors' were so well scripted that there was no independent thought or personal view amongst them. They say they debated, but it appears they simply laughed amongst themselves and regurgitated talking points.
After a fashion, it may be more generous to assume they didn't speak to anyone who suffered from cancer or grief that could have been prevented by the proposed legislation. If they behaved in such a crass and callous manner after actually interacting with cancer victims who could have been saved by the legislation (or competent Doctors aware of dense breast issues), they would be contemptible human beings.
just awful--thanks for the links because of course my first thought is "WHY would they be against the proposed legislation?" I get updates on the NJ bill from my breast dr. so at least I know which side she's on! (she's got me on an annual mammo/sono, alternating every 6mos.) How sad that this makes it so apparent that protecting women's health is not top priority for ACOG.
ReplyDelete