Green Party of California Proposal (April 2004) Consent and Certification (3/16/07 version)

SPONSOR: PLATFORM WORKING GROUP

PRESENTER: Adrienne Prince adrienneprince@hotmail.com

CONTACT: Adrienne Prince and Elizabeth, info@green247.org

SUBJECT: Prevention of Medical Profiteering: Prevention of Violence/Undue Profits from Biological Materials. Social justice and equal opportunity, feminism and gender equity, respect for diversity, and personal and global responsibility are the involved 10 Key Values of the GP.

BACKGROUND: In or before 2001, Brian Stafford (head of FEMA) announced that the Federal Emergency Mangagement Administration/Agency (FEMA) should become a lucrative business.(1) Since then, the Administration has managed many traumatic emergencies. "Multiple trauma management requires organization, teamwork, and rapid clinical intervention. ... Finally, caring for trauma victims also includes knowledge of organ donation and survivor death counseling."(2) Organ theft and profiteering have become lucrative businesses in China. An adoption center in Texas charged $10,000 per child. Now, the University of California is under investigation for its part in alleged illegal sales of a million dollars worth of body parts.(3)

The Fifth and Fifteenth Amendments proclaim the right of an individual to maintain life, liberty and property.(4) It is a violation of law to coerce an individual who is enjoying a right.(5) The right to self-determination includes informed consent concerning what is being taken from or put into the body.(6) The right to privacy maintains courageous leadership in California.

The GPCA values social justice and equal opportunity, and personal and global responsibility. Therefore, it is presumed that the GPCA supports respect for the integrity and will of an individual, including the last will and testament of an individual.

PURPOSE: Amendment of the Human Rights/Civil Liberties plank of the GPCA Platform in the form of one or more talking points. To inform legislation to remove the profit motive affecting increasingly common forms of invasive processes used in the health care industry, including but not limited to: the performance of unneeded medical procedures, the over-prescription and administration of pharmacological/psychotropic substances, the insertion or removal of organs, appliances or other human biological matter into or from an individual, (including the harvesting or cloning of cells, the insertion of microchips or materials used in plastic surgery, removal of embryos or fetuses, abortion or even forced child adoption.) Removing the profit motive is intended to prevent the use of medicine as a form of violent criminal assault, as may be the case in the removal and re-sale of organs, DNA or fetuses, or the forced administration of microchips, medications or medical procedures upon vulnerable, often unwilling, individuals.

PROPOSAL: The California Green Party recommends the following steps be taken and enforced:

1. Require informed consent and certification to ensure that any medical manipulation of an individual's body, (including extraction, insertion, injection, imaging, abortion, and adoption) is not performed for profit and is not coerced, or forced upon that individual. This policy covers any drug or toxin administered to a patient, and the alteration, use or removal of any affected body tissue, organ, cell, cell content (DNA), cloned cell or organism, fetus, infant, or in-vitro conceived embryo.

2. All [organs] biological materials used for transplantation or research must have a clear and traceable lineage.

3. The wholeness and integrity of an individual's body should be considered a primary human right, [beyond violation. The] One has the inalienable right to ownership and full control of one's biological material [is solely the property of the individual and under their primary control,] until [the time] that [the] individual/patient willingly and knowledgeably assigns this biological property elsewhere.

4. Full disclosure as to the nature of the distribution, possible uses and outcomes, as well as other options which may exist, and any requested identification of the recipient, are essential elements of informed consent. Informed consent should precede any invasive procedure and any transfer of biological material. [must be made available to the individual making this distinction before their biological property is assigned to any receiver.]

5. This requires stringent and confidential procedures for the labeling of the origins of biological materials, to include the source (the patient, the physician, laboratory, etc.) and contact information for verification of the patient's informed consent.

6. All medical records must [also] be made available to an individual patient upon their request at any time, for any reason.

7. We seek to strengthen the primacy of the doctor-patient relationship by ensuring a doctor's ability to keep all patient information private from third party inquiries. A patient who chooses a procedure that involves interpersonal transfer of biological material creates an interest in verifying respect for human rights. [the integrity of biological property, as outlined above].

8. Decisions for minors or wards of the state, are to NOT be made solely by their guardians or trustees, but must also include the consent of the individual him- or herself in a verifiably informed, non-coercive setting.

9. It shall be illegal for medical service providers to extract undue profit or charge to any involved or potential parent, donor, or recipient. 10. Anonymous [or posthumous] donations (of organs, DNA, cells, cloned cells, etc.) also require informed consent and certification but are to be handled in a classified manner by an internationally accountable trust, never sold for profit, and treated according to the highest ethical standards.

COMMITTEE DECISION: The ideas were first presented to the Green Issues WG at the 2003 San Francisco plenary. An initial written form was posted on the Women's Caucus discussion board in April 2004. It was first posted on the Platform WG list-serve in May 2004, enabled for further consideration at the May 2004 Ventura Plenary, revised extensively thereafter, and was voted at the Sylmar Plenary of May 2005 to receive General Assembly assessment. It was included for General Assembly discussion at the Yolo Plenary of December 2005 but was not published in the Plenary program but had comments at and after the Platform Working Group Meeting at that Plenary. It was revised and invited back by the General Assembly at the Ventura Plenary of June 2006. On June 25, 2006, the GPCA determined that this content shall be proposed to the General Assembly for decision in the form of proposed amendment to an existing plank in the GPCA Platform. On June 25, 2006, the Platform Committee elected a new presenter by consensus.

TIMELINE: The text goes into the platform upon approval by the GA.

RESOURCES: The platform is enhanced with up-to-date talking points. Platform printing and Platform Committee expenses are included in the 2007-2008 budget.

REFERENCES:

1. His letter posted on the Internet.

2. Emerg Med Clin North Am. 1993 Feb;11(1):29-51. Management of multiple trauma. Schmidt J, Moore GP. Department of Emergency Medicine, Maricopa Medical Center, Phoenix, Arizona.

3. Santa Monica Daily Press

4. v. "...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." XIV. "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

5. California Civil Code 52.1. (a) If a person or persons, whether or not acting under color of law, interferes by threats, intimidation, or coercion, or attempts to interfere by threats, intimidation, or coercion, with the exercise or enjoyment by any individual or individuals of rights secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or of the rights secured by the Constitution or laws of this state, the Attorney General, or any district attorney or city attorney may bring a civil action for injunctive and other appropriate equitable relief in the name of the people of the State of California, in order to protect the peaceable exercise or enjoyment of the right or rights secured.

6. Boyd v. United States (116 U.S. 616, 630 (1886)); Union Pacific Railroad Co. v. Botsford (141 U.S. 250, 251 (1891)) ("No right is held more sacred ... than the right of every individual to the possession and control of his own person, free from all restraint or interference of others, unless by clear and unquestionable authority of law").