24/7 Newsfeed

Put Reason 24/7 on Your Site

RSS

Follow Reason 24/7 on Twitter and via RSS

Doctor Loses Challenge to Pa. Fracking Gag Rule

A Pennsylvania doctor cannot fight a "medical gag rule" that he says forces physicians to keep the public ignorant of the health dangers of hydrofracking, a federal judge ruled.

In a July 2012 complaint, nephrologist Alfonso Rodriguez had taken aim at Act 13 of 2012, an amendment of the Oil and Gas Act signed on Feb. 14.

Rodriguez, who specializes in renal diseases, hypertension and advanced diabetes in Dallas, Pa., said the law prevents doctors from telling patients or the public about the health dangers of hydraulic fracturing. More commonly known as "fracking," the practice involves using toxic fluids to release natural gas by power-drilling through underground shale rock.

The nephrologist "has recently treated patients directly exposed to high-volume hydraulic fracturing fluid as the result of well blowouts," including one "with a complicated diagnosis with low platelets, anemia, rash and acute renal failure that required extensive hemodialysis and exposure to chemotherapeutic agents," according to the complaint.

Source: Courthouse News. Read full article. (link)

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Aresen||

    Rodriguez, who specializes in renal diseases, hypertension and advanced diabetes in Dallas, Pa., said the law prevents doctors from telling patients or the public about the health dangers of hydraulic fracturing. More commonly known as "fracking," the practice involves using toxic fluids to release natural gas by power-drilling through underground shale rock.

    The nephrologist "has recently treated patients directly exposed to high-volume hydraulic fracturing fluid as the result of well blowouts," including one "with a complicated diagnosis with low platelets, anemia, rash and acute renal failure that required extensive hemodialysis and exposure to chemotherapeutic agents," according to the complaint.

    Is it just me, or are there a hell of a lot of assumptions packed into those paragraphs?

    TBS, I would think that the law, as described here, is a 1st Amendment violation.

advertisement