Privacy of medical records

tonton

"I believe that we must protect both vital health care services and the right of every American to have confidence that his or her personal medical records will remain private."



George W. Bush, 2000 (whitehouse.gov)



So why is the Bush administration trying so hard to obtain private medical records right now?



"In preparation for the trials, the Justice Department demanded that at least six hospitals in New York City, Philadelphia, Chicago and elsewhere turn over hundreds of medical records on certain abortions. Lawyers for the department said they needed the records to examine the claims made by the doctors who are plaintiffs that the ban would prevent them from providing medically necessary procedures." (NYTimes)



Of course, some claim that names can be removed from the records to "protect privacy" but actually, the removal of names and personal details from records does no such thing. Whole communities, hospitals, doctors can be judged based on the information released by such records. Under pressure, doctors may be compelled to (illegally) give up further details on procedures in self-defense. The only way to make sure medical records remain private is to keep them private.



Perhaps Bush meant to say, "I believe that we must protect both vital health care services and the right of every American to have confidence that his or her personal medical records will remain private. Except when it's inconvenent for me politically." Kind of how it's inconvenient to allow Condoleeza Rice to testify, even though there's no law whatsoever stopping her from doing so, and the people of the US have made it clear that they want her to testify.

shawnj

Sounds like reproductive (religious) rights to me.

scott

You know it's funny. My wife is getting ready to deliver at UofM. There's a law that requires the hospital to smear antibiotics in the eyes of newborn infants within the first hour of being born. Newborns have a period of alertness after being delivered when they can look at the parents and even start to breast feed. Now story has it that one woman didn't want her child to have the treatment because it was unnecessary and she just didn't want stuff in her kids eyes. So benevolent privacy protecting UofM within a short period of time was ready to go to court to force this woman to submit her child to unnecessary treatment.



So? UofM is a contradiction of patient privacy.

billybobsky

newborns are incredibly short sighted... but still, why do they put antibiotics into their eyes?

scott

If the mother has VD of some kind and she delivers vaginally then there's a chance the baby could get an eye disease that causes blindness. I think I heard it's the second leading cause of blindness so it's not nothing. But many women know they don't have VD and the woman in question had a c-section. But you know some do-gooders in Lansing had to write it into law.