EHS Death & Legal
There are so many symptoms of EHS either singly or in multiples that sufferers experience. Radiation damage is not limited to physical problems either because greatly increasing numbers of people are being mentally damaged (please see MUBS). Probably half to two-thirds of our people don’t yet have symptoms sufficiently serious for them to stop functioning as viable citizens but EHS is a one-way slide to extreme sensitivity gaining more and more symptoms along the way and that accumulation aspect will lead to a very large number of expensively dysfunctional and non-functional people.
Victims coming to our notice with even one symptom used to be extremely rare but recently we are seeing more and more cases where multiple symptoms prevail which means the problem is escalating fairly quickly. If not for the “violent opposition” over EHS, Australia and elsewhere could have had an accurate figure by nationwide electronic survey a decade ago to establish a base line starting figure when injury rate was very much lower.
Anti-discrimination and Unfair Dismissal:
EHS is an EMR caused disability. Australian Law says: a person shall not be discriminated against or unfairly treated for a range of factors including: gender, age, ethnic background, religion and disability. Precedent already exists that employers have to provide a safe working environment for workers including the disabled. EHS being a disability it is only time before legal challenges must come over these people being discriminated against and/or unfairly dismissed due to that disability. As the percentage of afflicted persons grows so too does the probability that in the not too distant future legal actions will be instituted and it would be most wise for Canberra to treat EHS honestly rather than dishonestly. Once the first test case succeeds it is likely to open the door for a spate of litigations.
Duty of Care – Hospitals:
A Government mandate is to ensure that quality, safe medicine is available to all. At the moment hospitals are frantically installing wireless networks and switching to wirelessly transmitting computers on wheels (COWS). For the EHS person, a hospital’s high (EMR) radiation levels can trigger severe reactions that place their health seriously at risk and can result in death. Please see EMR = Dangerous BP section for just one of the severe, life-threatening reactions.
CORONERS should note: If you are not already doing so, we suggest that suspicious deaths for EHS persons need to be scrutinised even more closely than usual as to cause.
Precedent and Liability:
Sweden learned long ago that EMR in their hospitals often provoked severe and life-threatening reactions in EHS patients so did something to greatly reduce the risk and by 2011 had eight (8) or more hospitals providing very low radiation level wards, shielded electrical sources, non-conductive wooden-framed beds, etc, to minimise the severe risks. We believe they include: Karlskoga, Karlstad, Lycksele, Orebro, Ryhov, Skelleftea, Sundsvall and Umea. A later hospital, Kalmar, was purpose built to cater to the needs of the at-risk EHS patient. Australia’s Government has a peculiar mentality of ignoring timely warnings and only taking their responsibilities seriously when they lose an expensive court case and look like losing more.
HOSPITALS should note: It would be very prudent for Australian hospitals to quickly place a moratorium on the rush for installation of wireless transmitter obsession and assign a fact finding team to Sweden to obtain professional qualified information on radiation reaction risks for EHS patients and how potentially hospital caused fatal outcomes are managed and avoided.
As with unfair dismissal and discrimination for disabilities we suspect legal actions can’t be too far away over known to be EHS patients dying where no other valid medical reason can be positively established, i.e., the death was caused by severe reaction to high levels of hospital EMR. While we are by no means qualified to provide legal advice, it seems if <aimtolive> can easily obtain the above information then it should be known by hospital administrations and this conceivably would be a significant issue in any legal challenge over a death from a non-medical cause. To paraphrase a wise old saying: “A gram of prevention is better than a kilogram of legal costs and compensation payment”.