OK, I'm not a lawyer, but I've been around enough of them to know a couple of things: 1. Your (or my) interpretation of something as general as what's written in the fourth (or any other) amendment is not necessarily what you'd like to interpret it as. 2. Just because it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, walks and swims like a duck, doesn't make it a duck.
It can be argued that "your" medical records aren't yours at all. That those papers are the property of the physician, not you. If you write "David Bandel is, in my considered opinion, an idiot" and sign it -- is the paper that that's written on yours or mine? It has my name and an "evaluation" about me. Ditto for your medical records. But that paper is yours, not mine. If a physician is charged with malpractice, the records in question are seized. The seizure papers are not served on you as the patient, but on the Dr (whose records they are). Same is true if you go to a lawyer and he puts together a file on you. It's not yours, so the 4th Amendment doesn't pertain to "your" medical records. Go to the last hospital you were admitted to and tell them you want "your" medical records because ... (take them home for study, etc.). Not! They're not yours. They are the institutions for their mandated (by law) requirement to keep records on treatment you (or anyone else) received at their facilities. Not yours. What you're talking about is a reasonable right to privacy and that the hospital, doctor, etc., will respect that reasonable right to privacy and not show me, Joe Dipstick, medical information about you that I don't need to know. Big difference here, reasonable right to privacy vs. 4th amendment protection from unreasonable seizure (of your person, house, papers, effects). Medical records are _not_ covered by the 4th Amendment. Try again. Again, I'm not a lawyer, just playing Devil's Advocate here. On Fri, 22 Mar 2002 11:07:46 -0700 begin Andrew Mathews <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> spewed forth: > "David A. Bandel" wrote: > <snip> > > Not sure I'm up on this amendment to the Consitution. Which amendment > > provides for right to privacy of medical records? > > > > Ciao, > > > > David A. Bandel > > -- > > The fourth amendment. It states: > The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, > and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be > violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, > supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place > to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. > > While it does not contain the words "medical records" neither does it > contain "financial records", "religous documents" or "political > documents" but I'm sure that precedents have been set to determine that > they're all inclusive as they do not have to be in your posession to be > included as a protected paper or effect. Otherwise your safe deposit > boxes, attorney's files, medical records, etc. would not require a > warrant to be seized. > Just IMHO. > -- > Andrew Mathews > ------------------------------------------------------------ > 10:55am up 5 days, 23:05, 5 users, load average: 1.01, 1.05, 1.00 > ------------------------------------------------------------ > It is better to be on penicillin, than never to have loved at all. > _______________________________________________ > Linux-users mailing list - > http://linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users > Subscribe/Unsubscribe info, Archives,and Digests are located at the > above URL. Ciao, David A. Bandel -- Focus on the dream, not the competition. -- Nemesis Racing Team motto _______________________________________________ Linux-users mailing list - http://linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users Subscribe/Unsubscribe info, Archives,and Digests are located at the above URL.
