posted on Nov, 21 2012 @ 06:50 PM
reply to post by Cosmic911
Firstly, when replying to a specific OP, it's common courtesy to hit the "Reply To" button so that the person has the opportunity to respond to
"Completely erroneous comparison about FB."
No it's not. It demonstrates how stupid the public and this country has become.
On that, you and I can agree; however, it is still comparing apples to oranges. If you voluntarily choose to post personal information on FB for the
world to see, that is YOUR conscious decision (be it idiotic or not) and you automatically give up any expection of privacy. When your private health
information is shared without your consent, that is a breach of confidentiality and a violation of law. There's a major difference between the two.
"Why should they have a RIGHT to see my entire medical record?"
When you become a healthcare professional, you'll come to understand. Until then, let the professionals do their jobs.
How incredibly patronizing it is of you to assume that I, or any other of us “little people”, don’t have the intelligence to properly convey
information to our healthcare provider(s). I don't need to be a healthcare professional to understand this and you're missing the point. I am the
patient - I am the one employing the services of the doctor for which he/she is being compensated. It's amazing to me that people lose sight of the
fact that any service provider, whether it be in healthcare or any other industry, is still providing a service to the client, in this case, the
patient. It is the patient who should ultimately have control and the right to decide who has access to his/her private health information. You have
taken the impetus of my original post and skewed it because, for some reason, you seem to be personally offended by my statements. This is not about
who is more qualified to decide on an appropriate course of medical treatment, but who has the right to decide where and with whom a patient's
private health information is disseminated. That is a right which should remain with the patient.
"If the types of clinical situations you describe should arise, it should be the patient's responsibility to provide the
information." This is a little laughable...because patients are Not doctors. It's the doctor's job to provide a safe clinical experience
for the patient, not the other way around.
You keep losing sight of the original impetus for this post. Not at the cost of a patient's privacy rights. I admire your comment that it's the
doctor's job to provide a safe clinical experience - they are hired and compensated to provide this service to the best of their ability; however,
it is the patient's right to retain control of their private health information and who also needs to assume some responsibility in this process as
well. In a perfect world where medical history isn't often times used against an individual in so many aspects of life, I would agree with your
overall philosophy but, unfortunately, we do not live in a perfect world. The patient has the right to protect him/herself from discrimination based
on the unauthorized sharing of private health information. That was the purpose of the HIPPA law. Period.
"With respect to medications outside the classification of narcotics, this is why I said I can understand a centralized database used by
pharmacies, but that doesn't change the fact that it's contrary to what the HIPPA language allows." HIPPA falls short is many areas. It
doesn't cover all situations.
You don't need to make a blanket statement to me about the HIPPA laws as my own personal background and involvement in the writing and interpretation
of such laws in the 90’s make me highly qualified to comment on them. I am well aware that there are gaps in the law and that subsequent
modifications weakened the original language in some areas, but this is not one of those areas.
When patients start attending four years of pre-med, and then fours of medical school, then three to five years of residency, then take
their boards and start practicing medicine, then and only then, will patients be educated enough to determine how much of their chart is medically
necessary enough for a treating and diagnosing physician to make good clinical decisions for their patients. I can't stress this point
Again, you have lost sight of the topic at hand which is the unauthorized release of private health information. This is not a debate over anything
beyond that scope.