On Fri, 22 Mar 2002 00:41:40 -0500
begin Marvin Dickens [EMAIL PROTECTED] spewed forth:
The Bush administration proposed today to drop a requirement
at the heart of federal rules protecting the privacy of
medical records. It said doctors and hospitals should not
have to obtain consent from
Bill Campbell wrote:
On Fri, Mar 22, 2002 at 12:41:40AM -0500, Marvin Dickens wrote:
The Bush administration proposed today to drop a requirement
at the heart of federal rules protecting the privacy of
medical records. It said doctors and hospitals should not
have to obtain consent from
It's a shame; we could have been a Great Country.
Power corrupts. Absolutely.
___
Linux-users mailing list - http://linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
Subscribe/Unsubscribe info, Archives,and Digests are located at the above URL.
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
edj wrote:
snip
The US Constitution limits only the government, not private parties.
Thus, while the US government would need a warrant to recover my papers
and effects, my doctor could disseminate my records to whomever he
wished, absent statutory prohibition. The Bush administration
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
from David A. Bandel:
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
Strikes me that this spotlights the crux of the matter. That crux is
not that it might be debateable whether or on what basis
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
On Fri, 22 Mar 2002 11:57:58 -0600
Stuart Biggerstaff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't really know the details (and don't really want to defend W.--or the
health insurance industry), but I'm not sure I can see this as a big
threat. I think most of the people involved have seen seeking
I'm going to take a slightly different tack here...
Have you seen Gattaca (1997)? The film featured one mans struggle to
break the bonds of his genetic limitations which caused him to be deemed
unfit to go into space by the big, bad MegaCorporation, despite his
skill and intelligence. He used
On Fri 22 March 2002 02:07 pm, David A. Bandel wrote:
On Fri, 22 Mar 2002 13:49:11 -0500
begin edj [EMAIL PROTECTED] spewed forth:
The US Constitution limits only the government, not private parties.
Thus, while the US government would need a warrant to recover my
papers and effects,
On Fri 22 March 2002 02:33 pm, Andrew Mathews wrote:
edj wrote:
snip
The US Constitution limits only the government, not private parties.
Thus, while the US government would need a warrant to recover my
papers and effects, my doctor could disseminate my records to
whomever he wished,
On Fri, Mar 22, 2002 at 12:41:40AM -0500, Marvin Dickens wrote:
The Bush administration proposed today to drop a requirement
at the heart of federal rules protecting the privacy of
medical records. It said doctors and hospitals should not
have to obtain consent from patients before using or
13 matches
Mail list logo
