reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks
Originally posted by TiredofControlFreaks
I am not mistaken AT ALL
READ the legislation. The doctor may use the disclosed information to TELL THE PATIENT that something in the recipe is making him sick and to devise
treatment option. He is prohibited only from disclosing the actual recipe.
I can only assume, you either do not understand the law or are choosing not to understand the law. Either way, you are WRONG.
Let me walk you through this. The language of the statute is quite plain.
If a health professional determines that a medical emergency exists AND the specific identity and amount of any
chemicals...are necessary for emergency treatment...the [company]...shall immediately disclose the information to the health professional upon
a verbal acknowledgment by the health professional that the information may not be used for purposes other than the health needs
asserted AND that the health professional shall maintain the information as confidential.
So what this means is that the physician may USE
the information to devise a treatment, but may NOT DISCLOSE the information to any other
This language is so ridiculous it even potentially operates to prevent the physician from sharing this information with colleagues or other medical
personnel, let alone the patient. The question would hinge upon whether a court would include in the phrase "health needs asserted" as necessarily
requiring these additional disclosures to the other parties to effect treatment. But leave alone that ambiguity. It is certainly clear the doctor
would not be able to share the information with other colleagues or medical staff not involved in the patient's treatment. And there are certainly
circumstances where additional disclosures would routinely be made in any other context that would CLEARLY not
qualify as necessary for the
patient's "health needs".
For example, a disclosure to the insurance company
of the patient would be prohibited....or even the simple act of documenting the information
in the patient's medical records, which in every other context are routinely made available and reviewed by administrators, billing personnel, review
boards, and a whole host of other individuals who have access to these records. (Think now of secret medical records.
Originally posted by TiredofControlFreaks
Ie - he can say that there is benezene in the recipe and it is affecting your health. He just can't tell you the exact recipe.
NO he can't!
The law EXPLICITLY prevents disclosure of the "the specific identity and amount of any chemicals"
Did you actually READ the statute????
The statute provides confidentiality protection to EACH of those items, not just the combination. So if a physician asserts 'identity' and 'amounts'
are necessary for treatment, the operator is compelled to disclose both. But the physician is prohibited from disclosing any of the "information" in
whole or part.
Of course the section of the statute quoted above just concerns emergency situations. In non-emergency situations it provides for the following:
(10) A vendor, service company or operator shall identify the specific identity and amount of any chemicals claimed to be a trade secret or
confidential proprietary information to any health professional who requests the information in writing if the health professional executes a
confidentiality agreement and provides a written statement of need for the information indicating all of the following:
(i) The information is needed for the purpose of diagnosis or treatment of an individual.
(ii) The individual being diagnosed or treated may have been exposed to a hazardous chemical.
(iii) Knowledge of information will assist in the diagnosis or treatment of an individual.
Good luck trying to get a physician to accept the remedy provisions often found in these types of confidentiality agreements. So what that means is
the patient's interests will be subordinated to the physician's interest out of fear of exposing himself to personal liability. The
practical effect will be for physicians to not even bother with determining what specifically caused the patient's medical circumstances or how best
to treat it.
Good luck also in helping anyone else under these circumstances.
Let's say there is a fracking fluid spill with a proprietary cocktail of chemicals in some neighborhood. Let's also say that a specific chemical, or
novel combination of chemicals, causes an acute respiratory illness that then resolves into a severe chronic illness and ultimately premature
There is no known treatment, other than prevention in terms of exposure.
Guess what? There is little that can be done by the physician to warn others of the peril!
Pathetic. Simply, pathetic.
edit on 28-3-2012 by loam because: (no reason given)