PA Supreme Ct. allows MD to challenge PA's gag rule that prevents fracking chemical disclosures

[JPZenger]

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20131220_PA__Supreme_Court_jolts_shale_industry.html

This landmark PA. Supreme Court case included a second major element that overturned a particularly horrible part of Act 13.

"The Supreme Court also overruled Commonwealth Court's decision not to grant standing to an Allegheny County doctor who challenged the "physician gag order" provision in Act 13. That provision allows drilling companies to hand over proprietary information on chemical additives only "if the health professional executes a confidentiality agreement."

Mehernosh Khan said the law prevents doctors treating people who may have been exposed to drilling-related chemicals from disclosing information on the materials.

"In light of Dr. Khan's unpalatable professional choices in the wake of Act 13, the interest he asserts is substantial and direct," the Supreme Court said. Its ruling means Khan can now challenge the law in court."

----
Previous articles on this topic:

http://www.npr.org/2012/05/17/152268501/pennsylvania-doctors-worry-over-fracking-gag-rule

Excerpt:

"Doctors can get the chemical names only if they sign a confidentiality agreement and agree not to share that information. That's a move that makes doctors like Pare nervous.

"As I understand it, it's legally binding, so if 20 years from now I hiccup that someone was exposed to zippity doo dah, I'm legally liable for that," she says.

It's not even clear whether the doctor can share the trade-secret ingredient with the patient or the patient's neighbors, co-workers or primary care doctor."
-----
http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/03/for-pennsylvanias-doctors-a-gag-order-on-fracking-chemicals/255030/

Excerpt:

"The whole goal of medical community is to protect public health," said David Masur, director of PennEnvironment. He worries that the threat of a lawsuit from a big industry player like Halliburton or ExxonMobil for violating a confidentiality agreement could scare doctors away from research on potential impacts in the state. "If anything, we need more concrete information. This just stifles another way the public could have access to information from experts."

The provision was not in the initial versions of the law debated in the state Senate or House in February; it was added in during conference between the two chambers, said State Senator Daylin Leach (D), which meant that many lawmakers did not even notice that this "broad, very troubling provision" had been added. "The importance of keeping it as a proprietary secret seems minimal when compared to letting the public know what chemicals they and their children are being exposed to," Leach told Mother Jones.

The limits on what doctors can say about those chemicals makes it impossible to either assuage or affirm the public's concerns about health impacts. "People are claiming that animals are dying and people are getting sick in clusters around [drilling wells], but we can't really study it because we can't see what's actually in the product," said Leach."