Viewpoints: EPA Dropped The Shield Protecting Children’s Health From Chemicals; Another Year Goes By And Bump Stocks Still Thrive

The New York Times: A Bad Move That Exposes Kids To Chemicals 
Last week, the leadership of the Environmental Protection Agency took aim at its own Office of Children’s Health Protection by placing its director, Dr. Ruth Etzel, a distinguished pediatrician and epidemiologist, on “administrative leave.” At first glance, the action might look like mere bureaucratic shuffling, though the agency, while saying she was not facing disciplinary action, offered no explanation for the move. But we worry that it signals one of two actions: closing the office, which has argued for tougher regulations on industrial pollutants, or minimizing its role in rule-making. For its part, the E.P.A. says children’s health programs are not in jeopardy. But there is no question that if Dr. Etzel is pushed aside, the chemical industry will benefit and America’s children will be harmed. (Philip J. Landrigan and Lynn R. Goldman, 10/2)

The Washington Post: A Year After The Las Vegas Shooting, Congress Still Hasn’t Banned Bump Stocks
It has been a year since a gunman in a hotel room on the Las Vegas Strip killed 58 people and wounded hundreds more. The mass shooting — the worst in modern U.S. history — brought attention to the bump stocks the shooter used to effectively convert his rifles into automatic weapons, enabling him to spray more than 1,000 rounds in 11 terrible minutes. There was widespread agreement — including from congressional leaders — about the need to ban these devices. (10/2)

Stat: Memorial Sloan Kettering, You've Betrayed My Trust
I trusted Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center and believed in it. For more than 30 years, my family and I have literally put our lives in its hands. But it has betrayed my trust and that of many other patients and their families. (Steven Petrow, 10/3)

Sacramento Bee: We Already Know What America Would Look Like If Roe Is Overturned
The nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court and threat to Roe v. Wade is cause for considerable concern for the future of legal abortion in the United States. But we don’t have to imagine what could happen in a post-Roe America. There are many current policies that already push abortion out of reach. (Sarah CM Roberts, 10/2)

The Hill: Restricting Medicaid Abortion Coverage Forces Some Women To Carry Unwanted Pregnancies
As we continue to fight for the future of abortion rights, it is critical for us to take a moment to acknowledge that many in the United States currently live without the ability to get abortion care. Prior Supreme Court decisions like Roe v. Wade and Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt have reaffirmed every person’s right to access abortion services, however, many obstacles — from laws designed to shut down abortion clinics to bans on insurance coverage — stand in the way of exercising that right.  (Terri-Ann Thompson, 10/2)

Boston Globe: Keeping The Nobel Prizes Relevant
It’s early fall, and the season of Nobel Prizes is now upon us. Among elite scientists, pulses quicken in the days prior to each announcement, for reasons of both hope and handicapping. Yet the way scientific laureates are chosen has not kept pace with major changes in the conduct of science, which means some updates should be made to the selection process. Established in the will of Swedish industrialist Alfred Nobel — whose considerable fortune derived from the discovery and marketing of dynamite and who was perhaps seeking a more exalted legacy — the prizes are now given in six areas “to those who, during the preceding year, shall have conferred the greatest benefit to mankind.” (Jeffrey S. Flier, 10/2)  

The Washington Post: Dear Dads: Your Daughters Told Me About Their Assaults. This Is Why They Never Told You. 
A man emailed recently in response to something I’d written about street harassment. He was so glad, he said, that his college-age daughter never experienced anything like that. Less than a day later, he wrote again. They had just talked. She told him she’d been harassed many, many times — including that week. She hadn’t ever shared this, because she wanted to protect him from her pain. For all the stereotypes that linger about women being too fragile or emotional, these past weeks have revealed what many women already knew: A lot of effort goes into protecting men we love from bad things that happen to us. And a lot of fathers are closer to bad things than they’ll ever know. (Monica Hesse, 10/3)

USA Today: Trump Is A Classic Gaslighter In An Abusive Relationship With America
The United States is in an abusive relationship with the president. As a psychologist in clinical practice, I’m trained to spot the signs and offer strategies to help people cope. Abusive relationships are extremely dangerous, and this is no exception. Donald Trump’s gaslighting has led the country into a spiral of doubt, anger and despair. Gaslighting behavior has always been present in history, to a degree. It is par for the course whenever a person or entity wants to exert as much control as possible over others. But we haven’t seen this level of gaslighting since the Axis powers of World War II. (Stephanie Sarkis, 10/3)

New England Journal of Medicine: A Not-So-New Treatment For Old Bones
Taken together, the results of the trial by Reid et al. should have an effect on clinical practice. Given the effectiveness of infrequent administration of zoledronate in reducing the risk of fragility fracture, this treatment can certainly be added to our armamentarium for treating osteoporosis, and it would represent an approach that would not be hindered by adherence issues. But just as importantly, this trial reminds us that risk assessment and treatment decisions go well beyond bone mineral density and should focus particularly on age and a history of previous fractures. (Clifford J. Rosen, 10/1)

Stat: More Research On ‘Dying Healthy’ Will Also Help Us Live Healthier
Helping people live longer has been a central goal of medicine for decades. The quest to extend life raises an interesting question: Should we keep investing in research aimed at adding even more years to the already impressive gains in the average life expectancy that occurred during the 20th century? We can only go so far. ...Lacking evidence that the human life span can be radically increased by new medical technologies, we believe it’s time to shift our country’s investment priorities away from medical research that aims to extend life and instead focus on the same social, cultural, and political factors that successfully prolonged life in the last century. That means more public investment in education, transportation, and housing. That kind of investment would directly contribute to the prevention of chronic diseases such as diabetes, heart disease, and many cancers, and would do more to improve the quality of life of the population than additional medical research aimed at treating individuals with specific diseases. (George J. Annas and Sandro Galea, 10/3)

St. Louis Post Dispatch: Dementia Wracks Finances As Well As Minds. Federal Programs Leave Gaping Holes.
In the frayed, porous net that is America’s health care system, dementia sufferers are especially susceptible to falling through. With early-onset dementia in particular, the financial stresses can be devastating, and federal programs inadequate. It can drive patients, their spouses and even their adult children to bankruptcy. (10/3)

The Hill: Medicare (And Medicaid) For None
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), California Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom, and other liberal candidates for office this year are calling for “single-payer” health care, or “Medicare for all.” These proposals would be inefficient and explosively expensive, leading to a collapse of the U.S. health care system and the emergence of a two-tiered system with excellent, expensive health care for the rich and little or no health care for the poor and elderly. The objective of health care reform should be to make care available to all Americans and to have a system that continuously lowers cost and improves quality of care. Single-payer and Medicare-for-all would do the opposite. (Grady Means, 10/2)