"David A. Bandel" wrote: > > 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.
>>Snip Even worse. Drs and lawyers are under oath and required by law not to divulge information about their patience or clients without a court issued warrant. So even if the records are the property of the Drs or lawyers government cannot just take them without the proper warrant. Lee > > 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. _______________________________________________ Linux-users mailing list - http://linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users Subscribe/Unsubscribe info, Archives,and Digests are located at the above URL.
