Re: "Medical Records Confidentiality: Issues Affecting th

[Dynalysis of Princeton <mail@dynalysis.com>]

Seems logical to me that if you are a patient and are a Plaintiff in a case, you
would understand that your medical records would be released -- afterall, you are
bringing a medical case.  I think the important thing is that the U. S. Supreme
Court has ruled in 1996 that there is an expectation of privacy between doctors
and at aleast therapist, no matter what license the therapist has and that
therapy records are considered private.  How this would apply to other areas of
medicine is not clear.   I think that the forced disclosure of medical records,
especially therapy records, with our without the patients' knowledge and without
their consent and with their objection, is wrong and at this point, I think the
Supreme Court supports this.  Any discussion about that?

Barb

METRA1001@aol.com wrote:

> This is all well and good, but the problem is and will remain, that in order
> to have claims paid, or to seek damages in personal injury cases, the rule of
> law presides, and under Lifshutz v CA, 1961, appealed to the Supreme Court,
> Justice Tobriner wrote "Everyman must be made to testify." That includes
> Doctors, therapists, and is now beginning to include the clergy. While
> Confidentiality seems to be assumed, Privacy was invaded in that precedent
> setting case, and in order to have insurance(s), get justice if your neck is
> broken by a reckless driver, or whatever, EVERYONE must give a full and
> COMPLETE release of any and ALL medical information to shark-like lawyers,
> and their minions, judgmental claim clerks for insurers, and the fact is,
> that is not going to ever change.
>
> The new medical databases will make that a bit easier, but it has been a
> cinch to invade anyone's privacy at will. Until THAT snoop/informant/spy
> mind-set is abolished, that will be the cornerstone of medical procedure in
> this nation. End of story. All the pablum and self flagellating talk of 'new
> privacy laws' are all well and good, but they mean nothing. The recent Reid
> case in Tenn lately proved that beyond a shadow of a doubt.
>
> Doctors may still have the Hippocratic Oath, but it still has to be waived
> for any action to proceed in court. Even if it is not the patient's fault. As
> long as that is the case, there is no medical privacy. There is no
> confidentiality. And, there is no such thing as a "cornerstone of modern
> medicine." That cornerstone was made out of clay.
>
> Alex
>
> In a message dated 4/28/99 5:11:29 PM EST, techdiff@ix.netcom.com writes:
>
> << For example, the Hippocratic oath states that
>  "whatever in connection with my professional practice, or not in connection
>  with it, I see or hear in the life of men, which ought not to be spoken of
>  abroad, I will not divulge, as reckoning that all such should be kept
>  secret."
>
>  The ethical codes of the health care professions also embrace
>  confidentiality as a major principle.[1,2] The issue has emerged as a major
>  concern for American citizens, many of whom believe that the privacy of
>  health care information is not protected as strongly as it should be.[3] In
>  fact, many characterize confidentiality as a cornerstone of the clinical
>  relationship >>