Now required to ask patients of suicidal thoughts??

Please see these links.
As per HIPAA,you're not even allowed to LOOK ,let alone give info to anyone else.
There are law firms that do just this. Sue using HIPAA law.

The actor I meant was GEORGE CLOONY .
16 people were termknated for viewing and leaking his medical records .

Numerous examples.
hipaahealthlaw.foxrothschild.com...

www.lexology.com...

reply to post by PtolemyII

wait a minute, consent to publish and consent to treat are not usually on the same form or are you suggesting that they are ?
(ps, haven't been a patient in a hospital in many years)

we were discussing consent to TALK about it or publish case studies ... last i recall, that is a separate consent form.

a person cannot be a 'patient' without consent so your question is moot by the implication that they ARE a patient.

i see no grey area in this matter ... either you are a patient or you aren't ... you don't become a patient without some form of consent to receive treatment.

however, the consent to treat didn't automatically provide consent to publish ... has that changed ??

reply to post by Honor93


No one should even have to worry about CONSENT TO PUBLISH .
who goes to the E/R worrying personal records go anywhere. IT'S NOT ALLOWED .
If anything is leaked or published,you can sue ,and people lose their jobs,and hospitals are fined .
That is HIPAA law.

There is no consent to share patient info ,at a hospital ,PERIOD .

The fact anyone is even asking if there's a difference between treatment or publishing consent ,shows how out of control this is.

Originally posted by Honor93
i take issue with #2 and James Holmes is a glaring example of why.

2. If someone is trying to off other people, I think that's going to be obvious, don't you?

apparently, even when they are, the "professionals" seem to be either oblivious or hog-tied to DO much of anything, wouldn't you agree ?

Sort of. However, I didn't say anything about whether or not they could do anything. I said it should be pretty obvious and if it is not, then there wouldn't be any reason to suspect anything anyway.

I haven't researched the Holmes story too much but as I recall, his shrink did know these things so it should have been quite obvious. If his shrink knew but didn't think it was a big deal, that is on the individual doctor, no? If he was not permitted by law to report threats that a patient made without being asked, that's another matter, I think.

But having shrinks and other medical personnel just digging for information on behalf of the government? That just doesn't pass the smell test in my book. There should at least be a reason to believe someone is a threat other than the plain fact that they're in the ER with wrist pain.

as for the rest, i agree except #5 ... the 4th Amendment does cover such issues, specifically.

I'm not sure if it does cover them simply asking questions. But obviously, you don't have to answer. But obviously, if you refuse, they will become suspicious of you.

reply to post by PtolemyII


yes, it is sad but like it or not, it's also true.
allowed or not, it HAPPENS every day in every setting imaginable, that's the point.

when has any law prevented anyone from breaking it ?
that is why HIPAA is a joke ... it is not about privacy, it's about Portability ... get it ?

and for the record, portability is 'the sharing of information', period.
that is exactly what most ppl don't comprehend (including you apparently)

perhaps a quote from the law is needed to clarify ?
well ok then, here ya go ...

www.hhs.gov...
A covered entity is permitted, but not required, to use and disclose protected health information, without an individual’s authorization, for the following purposes or situations: (1) To the Individual (unless required for access or accounting of disclosures); (2) Treatment, Payment, and Health Care Operations; (3) Opportunity to Agree or Object; (4) Incident to an otherwise permitted use and disclosure; (5) Public Interest and Benefit Activities; and (6) Limited Data Set for the purposes of research, public health or health care operations. [color=amber] Covered entities may rely on professional ethics and best judgments in deciding which of these permissive uses and disclosures to make.

and there is plenty more double-speak allowing the random uses of your PHI at their discretion.
protected and private, my arse

and lastly, when written medical records are randomly discarded in a ditch alongside the roadway, what protection do patients have then ???

electronic records are the new player in the game ... HIPAA does nothing to protect written records (even though the pretty picture indicates otherwise) and for old farts like me, that's a big problem.

and the only reason those few cases were prosecuted is because the facility had a method to track unauthorized access ... no tracking mechanism, no proof.

reply to post by Honor93


It's not allowed . They are allowing it for GUN CONTROL ONLY ,or so it seems ,so its possible they are ,as usual invoking the patriot act,way out of its scope,as per usual .

I have to take HIPAA continuing ethics education credits,every two years. It's drilled into us.
Release patient info ,in any way,you're finished,period .
If you had looked at the links I posted,many heads have rolled for less .

And you can refuse to answer,which they will note ,making it look suspect anyway .

All that being said,bottom on for this OP is,if they ask you I'd you're suicidal,even if you are,just say no .

That's all this thread has proven .

This is an excuse to give EVERYONE a psych history ,subjecting them to investigation,now having a record with the FBI,and medications you do not need.

reply to post by BrianFlanders

and all of that makes it a horrible catch22, doesn't it ?
labeled if you do and labeled if you don't ... it's a no-win situation for the patient, regardless the initial complaint that brought them through the doors for 'treatment'.

as for the Holmes issue, i honestly believe his therapist should be facing charges as well but that's another subject for another thread.

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by BrianFlanders

 

1. Why should people be kept from offing themselves if that's what they want to do?

In my opinion, they should not be kept from it.

This is a self-ownership issue. I am not state property. I am an individual.

I agree.

OK. At least we agree on these two points. Individuals are not (supposed to be) state property and we should be free to make the most important decision in our entire lives.

2. If someone is trying to off other people, I think that's going to be obvious, don't you?

No. Not necessarily.

OK. So why not just go door to door asking people if they intend to off someone? Same difference. If you have no reason to suspect anything and you are asking them dumb questions like this anyway, it's the same thing as grabbing a random stranger on the street and doing the same thing.

3. It is a thought police type of scenario. You're just in denial about it.

No, I'm not. I've had several friends suicide. I understood every one of their motives. I've also had 'suicidal' boyfriends.....
perhaps you are unaware of how much it hurts EVERYONE ELSE when a person does that.

No. Actually, I am not unaware that it affects other people. I just don't believe that gives the state the right to intervene in your life anymore than it gives the state the right to require you to have health insurance before you can cross the street. I am obviously not in agreement with the individual mandate or the inevitable repercussions it will have if it stands.

Maybe people will be devastated if their loved ones commit suicide. Unfortunately for those people, they don't own their loved ones any more than the state does. You shouldn't be able to force your mother or your husband or your cousin to live any more than you can force them to go to college. I agree that it's a devastating thing for anyone who is close to someone who commits suicide but in quite a few cases, these people are going to try to do it one way or another and if they have to sneak and use crude methods, it's only going to make the aftermath more traumatic for everyone. Where is the sense in that?

People have a right to their thoughts and people have a right to not be interrogated by paid informers when they have gone to see a doctor about a completely innocent problem.

They ALSO have the right to NOT ANSWER THE QUESTION!

They have the same right if a police officer asks them a question. But cops aren't typically required to interrogate you if they stop to help you with a flat tire, are they? What would you think if you were changing a tire, a cop pulled in behind you, got out and asked you if you were suicidal or had any plans to kill anyone?

reply to post by PtolemyII

If you had looked at the links I posted,many heads habe rolled for less .

i did review your links (even though they both said the same thing), point is if that's what you call "many heads", then ... Houston, we have a communication problem.

like i said earlier, DENY everything and demand proof.

I'm still trying to figure out how to access the ingredients in a shot i was given against my wishes.
any advice on how to obtain said info sans a lawyer ?

************************
thought not but thanks for playing along.
curious question though, since it is my PHI, why so many hurdles to get answers ??

reply to post by BrianFlanders

What would you think if you were changing a tire, a cop pulled in behind you, got out and asked you if you were suicidal or had any plans to kill anyone?

i refuse to say what i might think but i'd be sure to not touch the tire iron for fear i'd be shot before the officer completed the question

Yeah. We have to ask this to intubated and sedated patients in the ICU.

But, seriously, we've done this for a long time. Has to do with liability.

Tired of waiting in the ER? Just tell them you feel suicidal. You'll be treated immediately and get 1 on 1 attention. It's becoming regular in our ER's. We have homeless do this because they get free bed and food for a few days. You do not automatically go to a psyche ward if you answer "yes".

reply to post by AmateuRN


..seriously !?!

Hey, you're in APE ,and like gonna die,all that pink frothy sputum ,and you hypoxic and all.....sooooooo..... ,we need to tube you ,are you suicidal ?

Liable for what ?

Medicine is such a joke now. Seriously .

reply to post by Honor93


Go back to where I stated neither you nor I know about the care and access to care for those individuals. You proclaimed that you indeed knew and started babbling about TBI from what I can gleam occurred sometime around '96. See what you did there?


Truth is you simply do not know and you keep tossing red herrings to cover up the fact that you really know nothing about the individuals that you named outside of what you have heard through MSM and most likely conspiracy sites or alternative media. To my knowledge none of them even had a TBI. So to be clear here just for you:

1. You do not know them.
2. You have no access to their health records.
3. You did not treat them.
4. You do not know if they had health insurance or access to health care.
5. You somehow have knowledge of a TBI from '96.

Do you even understand the advancement in TBI diagnosis and treatment just within the last 2-3 years? Geez, you are thick. I still find the questions legit. Imagine asking those questions and having some admit that they are suicidal/ homicidal or that they are unsafe at home? I imagine you and others think the reaction is to find their gun stash and report them to HHS. That is the furthest from the truth. SMH. I, a CT, am starting to diassociate myself from modern CTs. Instead of worrying about the boogeyman you can see it is much more fun to wonder about the imainary ones under your bed or possibly hiding in your closet. Just effing WOW.

Originally posted by PtolemyII
Please see these links.
As per HIPAA,you're not even allowed to LOOK ,let alone give info to anyone else.
There are law firms that do just this. Sue using HIPAA law.

The actor I meant was GEORGE CLOONY .
16 people were termknated for viewing and leaking his medical records .

Numerous examples.
hipaahealthlaw.foxrothschild.com...

www.lexology.com...

edit on 05/28/2013 by PtolemyII because: (no reason given)

This is the truth. Patients even have the right to request WHO looked at their info. If a valid reason is not given there are fines and even jail time when info is leaked/exposed. One would certainly lose their job.


My personal opinion is conspiracies run amok to the point that people do not understand the severity of these things in a clinical setting. HIPAA and PII are taken seriously.

reply to post by wildtimes

They ALSO have the right to NOT ANSWER THE QUESTION!

Indeed, this was my thought. You don't have to answer the question if you feel it is something that is none of their business.

That is the bottom line on this issue.

No matter why the question is asked, you do not have to answer it, and they won't hold it against you.

reply to post by Honor93


You've self-disclosed that you are a twice-TBI victim. Your thinking is skewed, and not "normal." That's what TBIs do to people. You may have once been of 'sound mind' but you no longer are due to your injuries. So using your own disability to claim "expertise" about medicine and mental health screenings is a non-sequitor. You are not qualified, or capable (due to double TBI) of thinking it through clearly and reasonably. You are a casualty, unfortunately.

I'm very sorry you've suffered with and still have the chronic and persistent TBI injuries - but that does not make you an expert in the procedures of the "helping" professions. By definition, it makes you unable to address the subject with authority.

reply to post by Darkblade71

Indeed, this was my thought. You don't have to answer the question if you feel it is something that is none of their business.

That is the bottom line on this issue.

No matter why the question is asked, you do not have to answer it, and they won't hold it against you.

Yep!
Same as if your family doc asks how much you smoke or drink, if you used illegal drugs, whatever. There's no "perjury" involved. If they don't know, they can't be held liable.

So, you understate your actual, private behavior, and they are off the hook because "they asked" and "you answered."

They don't hook you to a lie detector test or drug you to spill it or try to otherwise "force" you to tell the truth or intimidate you. Therefore, truly suicidal people will NOT tell their practitioner - and they will probably succeed. They do it privately, and don't WANT to be stopped. It's the ones who try and fail, and are left disabled, that have the worst situation.

Those with ideation or behavior who DO disclose, do so to get help. My opinion and experience.

ETA: Another good example is being asked if you may be pregnant before getting an x-ray. If you say "no", they take the x-ray, and the baby gets messed up - it's not THEIR FAULT - it's YOURS ALONE. Or being asked if you fasted after midnight before undergoing blood tests or anesthesia. If you lie, and your tests come out inaccurate, or you choke on your own vomit during the procedure, it's not THEIR FAULT.

Originally posted by Darkblade71

Indeed, this was my thought. You don't have to answer the question if you feel it is something that is none of their business.

That's just the point. It ISN'T any of their business. If this was something you wanted to share with them, they wouldn't have to ask, would they?

No matter why the question is asked, you do not have to answer it, and they won't hold it against you.

Oh. OK. Then we can have store cashiers asking you if you're an arsonist for no reason. You don't have to answer and I'm sure someone who asks you such a probing question won't think anything of it if you tell them it's none of their business.

Originally posted by BrianFlanders

Originally posted by Darkblade71

Indeed, this was my thought. You don't have to answer the question if you feel it is something that is none of their business.

That's just the point. It ISN'T any of their business. If this was something you wanted to share with them, they wouldn't have to ask, would they?

No matter why the question is asked, you do not have to answer it, and they won't hold it against you.

Oh. OK. Then we can have store cashiers asking you if you're an arsonist for no reason. You don't have to answer and I'm sure someone who asks you such a probing question won't think anything of it if you tell them it's none of their business.

How is that even close to the same?

I just don't get why anyone , other than paranoid gun owners\supporters, would be bothered by a clinician in a hospital setting trying to find out information about symptoms being presented .

If you feel that a question like that will ruin your future, even though it won't , then get up and leave and go to a different hospital/ACC where they won't ask such a horrible question.

Originally posted by wildtimes
Yep!
Same as if your family doc asks how much you smoke or drink, if you used illegal drugs, whatever. There's no "perjury" involved. If they don't know, they can't be held liable.

"Are you going to kill somebody?" is a little different than "Do you smoke?" Wouldn't you say? Please don't play dumb here. You're on a conspiracy forum trying to convince people that there is nothing bizarre about being interrogated by a doctor or a nurse in a time when the government has ratcheted up it's attempts to cancel and undermine individual rights to very disturbing levels. You can't just take things like this at face value and I personally have a hard time swallowing good excuses for odd behavior just because they're good excuses.

So, you understate your actual, private behavior, and they are off the hook because "they asked" and "you answered."

Right. It's a great excuse. Just like terrorism is a great excuse to tap people's phones on an industrial scale and torture confessions out of suspects.

They don't hook you to a lie detector test or drug you to spill it or try to otherwise "force" you to tell the truth or intimidate you.

Wrong. The question itself is the coercion. Because let's face it. This isn't just any old question. It's not like "do you have back pain". It's a deeply probing and personal question. And medical professionals are seen as authority figures in our society. Therefore, people feel obligated to be completely honest with them. So, if your doctor asks you something, you're going to feel guilty if you lie. Most people have longstanding relationships with their doctors so they're going to feel like they have to answer their questions.

I've been going to my current doctor since the 90s. Obviously, I feel comfortable with him. I would feel very uncomfortable if he asked me a question like that and I would feel like I can't just tell him it's none of his business (even though it obviously isn't). I would feel bad about it on a personal level because I like him. This is coercion. When you are free to say no but you are made to feel like you have to answer truthfully.

Therefore, truly suicidal people will NOT tell their practitioner - and they will probably succeed. They do it privately, and don't WANT to be stopped.

Well, there you go. You defeated your own argument. If they wanted their "practitioner" to know, they'd just volunteer the information. They wouldn't need to be asked. If people want this kind of "help" they tend to ask for it. If they don't volunteer this information, they probably don't want to be stopped.

So what were we arguing about, again?

Those with ideation or behavior who DO disclose, do so to get help. My opinion and experience.

You don't think that some of them disclose because they are bad liars or feel wrong about lying when someone asks them a direct question? What if they don't want "help" but they are just one of those people who can't lie? If they went to the doctor with a twisted ankle and the doctor asks them if they're suicidal, it's an awkward time for a question like that and they are probably not prepared to lie with a straight face when they're vulnerable and in pain.

But hey. If you want to keep defending this, go ahead. I'm guessing you work in the medical field. If you want people to start thinking of medical workers as people they can't trust, you're going the right way.