EPA PROPOSES CHEMICAL TESTING ON ORPHANS AND MENTALLY HANDICAPPED CHILDREN

Helen's back and she's in the process of agreeing to learn how to post her own blog pieces and write more frequently. I'm crazy about the comment she wrote this morning on the piece just below this one (about Democratic hawk Norm Dick seeing the light). She just sent this outrageous report in about Bush's EPA doing the unthinkable :

My close friend, Cathy, sent me a piece on this. At first I thought it was a sick joke, but no. I spoke to a nurse I work with, an extremely knowledgeable professional whom I hold in high regard, and she nodded and smiled sadly at me. She had already heard about it. Actually, upon doing a little research, it turns out that this has been public knowledge for a few months. I find it astounding that the EPA's new proposed rule and its glaring shortcomings are not in huge bold faced print on the front page of every newspaper in the country. On the other hand, DWT readers are well aware of the poor job our press is doing these days in informing the public.

Here is the scoop. Earlier this year, August 2, 2005 to be exact, Congress had mandated the EPA to create a rule that permanently bans chemical testing on children and pregnant women. (Gee, this indicates that this is already being done and should be stopped! I did not know this. Did you?) So, the EPA has proposed a new rule; however, it has GAPING HOLES in it that allow for government and industry scientists to treat children as "human guinea pigs."

Here are the three conditions under which chemical testing for the sake of research may occur with children:

1. Children who "cannot be reasonably consulted," such as orphaned newborns or those who are mentally handicapped, as long as permission is given from the institutions or guardians.

2. Children who are abused or neglected, no parent consent necessary.

3. Children outside the U.S.


Apparently this violates the Nurenburg Code, an international treaty that mandates assent of test subjects as absolutely essential and that test subjects must have the "legal capacity to give consent" and be able to "exercise free power of choice." This is too much! First the Geneva Conventions are out the window, and now the Nuremburg Code! Did we learn anything at the end of World War II? Are there parallels here with the Nazis? Inconsistencies among the three scenarios abound. For the first scenario, permission is needed, but for the second, for children unfortunate enough to have unfit parents, none is needed. For the third, testing on human subjects is fine as long as it is done on subjects outside the U.S.A.: no permission necessary from anyone, thank you very much.

Sadly, this proposed rule is one more nail in the coffin of America's dying morality. Our lack of respect for human beings is appalling. BushCo is destroying our soul, our humanity. GW has to be the most pompous hypocrite on the planet, recently espousing human rights to the Chinese (which they frankly ignored, who could blame them), while flagrantly violating human rights in so many actions. The list is getting longer each day. From Abu Graib to Guantanamo to the newly discovered gulag, we are condoning torture. I thought Saddam was a "monster" who had to go-- well, what do our actions make us? Why bother to count Iraqi deaths in this war? We need only count American soldiers' deaths, though mind you, we cannot look at the coffins, as this would be too upsetting, too reality based. And the wounded? Few to be seen or heard, with an almost total media silence. The poor in New Orleans? A momentary sound bite, with their stories fading away in the news, soon to be forgotten.

The new victims are our own children.

Who are we? What have we become? Is this who we want to be? Were issues such as this discussed at your Thanksgiving dinner yesterday? Not at mine, unfortunately. I did learn, however, that The Apprentice with Martha Stewart was cancelled for Wednesday, November 23.