Hospital Prank On the Royal Family Leads to Suicide - Page 2
+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 21
Like Tree3Likes

Thread: Hospital Prank On the Royal Family Leads to Suicide

  1. #11
    Posting Addict
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    23,442

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GloriaInTX View Post
    Though this might have been a trigger, I'm sure she had other problems that had a lot more to do with it than this.
    I have to agree. The story doesn't make sense as is.
    Laurie, mom to:
    Nathaniel ( 10 ) and Juliet ( 6 )




    Baking Adventures In A Messy Kitchen (blog)

  2. #12
    Posting Addict
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    7,259

    Default

    Is it a crime to try to obtain someone else's medical information regardless of the reason (e.g., a prank)?

  3. #13
    Prolific Poster
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    2,219

    Default

    I honestly don't know. I have been looking for it. All I can find is if you falsely present to be someone you are not to obtain them.

    All my personal knowledge is from the provider/insurance standpoint that we cannot give out information unless to the person that is asking for them.

  4. #14
    Community Host Sapphire Sunsets's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Northeast, USA
    Posts
    7,963

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ethanwinfield View Post
    Is it a crime to try to obtain someone else's medical information regardless of the reason (e.g., a prank)?

    Yes.

    I can tell you. Having been a CNA, we are not allowed to see there medical chart. We are given the info we need to take care of the person and thats it. It is something you can be fired over. Even taking home a assignment sheet that has ANY info on it is reason to be fired (if they check your bag).

    A nurse knows better then to give info to anyone without proper authorization, and i kinda doubt that P. Kate would give auth to her DH's grandmother (even if she's the queen). If someone gives auth, they can do it....but they have to list exactly who can/can't get info.

  5. #15
    Community Host Sapphire Sunsets's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Northeast, USA
    Posts
    7,963

    Default

    Although,

    The police can get your info without a warrant if they think you are a danger to someone or yourself,or if they are investigating a crime.

  6. #16
    Community Host
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    13,521

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sapphire Sunsets View Post
    Yes.

    I can tell you. Having been a CNA, we are not allowed to see there medical chart. We are given the info we need to take care of the person and thats it. It is something you can be fired over. Even taking home a assignment sheet that has ANY info on it is reason to be fired (if they check your bag).

    A nurse knows better then to give info to anyone without proper authorization, and i kinda doubt that P. Kate would give auth to her DH's grandmother (even if she's the queen). If someone gives auth, they can do it....but they have to list exactly who can/can't get info.
    In the US, yes. But is it that way in England?

    ~Bonita~

  7. #17
    Community Host Sapphire Sunsets's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Northeast, USA
    Posts
    7,963

    Default

    found this.

    Medical Records (Encyclopedia of Everyday Law) Study Guide & Homework Help - eNotes.com


    First and foremost, there is the COMMON LAW concept of "doctor-patient
    confidentiality" that binds a medical professional from revealing or disclosing
    what he or she may know about a person's medical condition. The professional
    duty of confidentiality covers not only what a patient may reveal to the doctor,
    but also what a doctor may independently conclude or form an opinion about,
    based on his or her EXAMINATION or ASSESSMENT of the patient. Confidentiality
    covers all medical records (including x-rays, lab-reports, etc.), as well as
    communications between patient and doctor, and generally includes communications
    between the patient and other professional staff working with the doctor. Once a
    doctor is under a duty of confidentiality, he or she cannot divulge any medical
    information to third persons without the patient's consent. There are noteworthy
    exceptions to this, discussed below.

    At one time (fairly common through the 1970s), a doctor was considered a mere
    "custodian" of medical records, which were considered the property of the
    patient (because the personal information contained in them related only to the
    patient). It was common practice to release to a patient, upon demand, all
    original records concerning the patient. However, that practice led to some
    patients destroying their medical records, denying that they had received
    certain treatments, misrepresenting their conditions for the purpose of
    obtaining life or health insurance policies, and (in the case of psychiatric
    patients) sometimes becoming a threat to the community at large after learning
    what was contained in their records. MEDICAL MALPRACTICE suits and
    liability for harm caused to third persons became a paramount issue that drove
    the impetus for establishing a refinement of the law (mostly through CASE LAW).

    This change has resulted in a clarification that the actual original medical
    records belong to those who create or originate them. However, the release to a
    patient or to third parties of information contained in the medical records
    (about a particular patient) is generally controlled by the patient (with
    specific exceptions).

    Medical professionals may be required by the request of a patient (or court
    order, SUBPOENA, etc.), to produce original documents and records for
    inspection, copying, or review. Usually, this is done in a supervised fashion
    within the offices or facilities of the creator/originator of the records (the
    doctor or medical facility). For all intents and purposes, it is more common for
    the original documents to be simply photocopied and forwarded to the patient or
    to the party whom the patient designates. It is general practice to not charge
    for copying or reproducing if the records are not extensive and are being
    requested by the patient, for the patient's own use.


    Constitutional Right to Privacy

    The fundamental right to privacy, guaranteed by the Fifth and Fourteenth
    Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, protects against unwarranted invasions of
    privacy by federal or state entities, or arms thereof. As early as Roe v.
    Wade
    , 410 U.S. 113 (1973), the U.S. Supreme Court acknowledged that the
    doctor-patient relationship is one which evokes constitutional rights of
    privacy. Because the Supreme Court has found that a fundamental right of privacy
    exists as to medical information about a person, private causes of action
    (against defendants other than federal or state entities) also exist for alleged
    violations of privacy rights (e.g., "invasion of privacy"). This right would
    extend to the privacy of any medical information contained in medical
    records.

    But even that right is not absolute, and must be weighed against the state or
    federal, or outside interest at stake. For example, in Whalen v. Roe, 429
    U.S. 589 (1977), a group of physicians joined patients in a lawsuit challenging
    the constitutionality of a New York STATUTE that required physicians to report
    to state authorities the identities of patients receiving Schedule II drugs
    (controlled substances). The physicians alleged that such information was
    protected by doctor-patient confidentiality, and their patients alleged that
    such disclosure was an invasion of their constitutional right to privacy. The
    Supreme Court did not disagree with the lower court's finding that "the intimate
    nature of a patient's concern about his bodily ills and the medication he
    takes... are protected by the constitutional right to privacy." However, the
    high court concluded (after balancing the state's interests) that "Requiring
    such disclosures to representatives of the State having responsibility for the
    health of the community does not automatically amount to an impermissible
    invasion of privacy."



    Statutory Privacy Laws

    Despite the above two recognized areas of law that purported to shield
    medical information about a person from unauthorized release or disclosure,
    there continued to be substantial "gray areas" susceptible to varying
    interpretations and applications. For example, do "medical records" include
    dental records, pre-employment physical examination records, self-generated
    records (documents created or completed by the patients themselves, such as
    healthcare questionnaires), birth and death certificates? And what about records
    generated by quasi-medical personnel, e.g., physical therapists or mental health
    counselors? Further, there appeared to be a developing area of case law that
    permitted, in fact demanded, the unauthorized release of medical information
    (i.e., against the patient's wishes and/or without the patient's knowledge) if,
    without the release, there was a substantial risk of harm to a third person
    (e.g. by violence of the patient or by communicable or sexually transmitted
    disease).

    To address these concerns, all fifty states have enacted laws that govern the
    release of medical records. They encompass the recognition of any legal
    privilege (privileged communications between the health care provider and the
    patient), any prerequisites to the release of records (almost all require
    patient consent), and the circumstances under which records or information may
    be released in the absence of consent.



    The Federal Privacy Rule

    In the past, physicians could physically secure and shield personal medical
    records from disclosure, absent consent from their patients. Electronic
    data-banks have changed all that (as foretold by the Supreme Court in
    Whalen, above). With the passage of the Health Insurance Portability and
    Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) (which encouraged electronic transmission of
    patient data), Congress passed concurrent legislation for uniform protection of
    medical records and personal information. In December 2000, the Department of
    Health and Human Services (HHS) published its Privacy Rule ("Standards for
    Privacy of Individually Identifiable Health Information", 65 Fed. Reg. 82462),
    which became effective on April 14, 2001. The regulation covers health plans,
    health care clearinghouses, and health care providers that bill and transfer
    funds electronically. The regulation mandates a final compliance date of April
    14, 2003 (small health plans have until April 14, 2004 to comply.) The Privacy
    Rule includes provisions for the following:

    • Ensuring patient access to medical records, ability to get copies and/or
      request amendments
    • Obtaining patient consent before releasing information. Health care
      providers are required to obtain consent before sharing information regarding
      treatment, payment, and health care operations. Separate patient authorizations
      must be obtained for all non-routine disclosures and non-health related
      purposes. A history of all non-routine disclosures must be accessible to
      patients.
    • Providing recourse for violations through an administrative complaint
      procedure.
    In March of 2002, the Bush Administration proposed amendments to the Privacy
    Rule that would address several complaints registered by patients and medical
    facilities alike. Specifically, the impact of the proposed amendments would
    remove the requirement for express consent in such communications as pharmacists
    filling prescriptions, patient referrals to specialists, treatments provided or
    authorized from telephone communications, and emergency medical care. The
    relaxed consent requirement would only apply to uses and disclosures for
    treatment, payment, and health care operations (TPOs) purposes. All other uses
    and disclosures would continue to require express patient consent.


    Voluntary Consent for Release of Medical Information

    Almost all requests for release of medical records contain a requirement that
    patient consent be obtained in writing. Medical providers or custodians of
    medical records may or may not accept facsimile (FAX) transmission of
    authorizations/signed consent forms. In legal matters, the process may be
    simplified by a patient authorizing his or her attorney to obtain copies of
    records (or review originals).




    Waiver of Consent for Release of Medical Information

    There are ways in which a patient may "waive" the confidentiality of medical
    records. A common way by filing a lawsuit or claim for PERSONAL INJURY. By doing
    so, the patient has put his or her physical condition "at issue" in the lawsuit.
    Therefore, the law presumes that the patient has waived all confidentiality
    regarding his or her medical condition, and there is an implied authorization to
    the patient's doctor for disclosure of all relevant information and medical
    records.




    Involuntary Release of Medical Information

    In recent years, many courts have held that doctors are supposed to protect
    third persons who may be harmed by patients. This often results in a duty to
    release medical records or medical information without either knowledge or
    consent on the part of the patient. For example, without a patient's permission
    or knowledge, doctors may warn others or the police if the patient is mentally
    unstable, potentially violent, or has threatened a specific person. In some
    states, the duty to report or warn others "trumps" the right to confidentiality
    or privileged communication with a doctor. Courts will decide these matters by
    balancing the sanctity of the confidentiality against the foreseeability of harm
    to a third party.



    Selected Applications


    Death Certificates

    Under most state laws, birth and death certificates are a matter of public
    record. The advent of physician-assisted suicides in less than a handful of
    states (e.g., Oregon) created new concerns for the scope of privacy and
    confidentiality. Some states have addressed such matters by express legislation,
    e.g., permitting the registration of physician-assisted deaths directly to state
    offices rather than to local county offices of vital statistics. Others have
    permitted dual-systems that incorporate specific codes for "cause of death" on
    public records, but more thorough explanations on private state records. Many
    doctors simply list innocuous language, such as "cardiac-respiratory failure,"
    on public records, and leave blank the secondary or underlying cause. Similar
    issues of limited disclosure often arise on birth records. In some
    circumstances, personal details such as PATERNITY, marital status, or
    information regarding a newborn's HIV status may WARRANT the filing of dual
    records (one requiring more disclosure than the other) for separate purposes and
    separate viewers, based on a "need to know" criterion.



    Disclosures to State or Federal Authorities

    Under most state statutes, doctors and health care providers generally have
    duties to report incidence of certain sexually transmitted diseases, CHILD
    ABUSE, communicable diseases, HIV/AIDS, or other conditions deemed to be risks
    to the health and safety of the public at large. Some states have developed
    registries to track the incidence of certain conditions, (e.g., certain forms of
    cancer) that may later help researchers discover causes. In registry cases,
    personal data about the patients is released only to the necessary local, state,
    or federal personnel, and the data usually does not contain "patient identifiers".

  8. #18
    Community Host Sapphire Sunsets's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Northeast, USA
    Posts
    7,963

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AlyssaEimers View Post
    In the US, yes. But is it that way in England?

    They have Hipaa there too. I'm looking at a site right now.

  9. #19
    Community Host Sapphire Sunsets's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Northeast, USA
    Posts
    7,963

    Default

    Yes, it is the same. I can't quote cause it goes to a PDF file.

    Privacy Policy - UK HealthCare


    click on link "Notice of Privacy Policies"

  10. #20
    Posting Addict Spacers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    My avatar is the tai chi -- a symbol of the eternal cycle of life
    Posts
    16,468

    Default

    Has it been proven that she committed suicide? What I saw was that she had an anxiety attack but had been reassured by the hospital that she did nothing wrong. She simply transferred a call and was not facing any discip0line over it. It was a different nurse who provided the medical information.

    I don't think the DJs should be prosecuted for anything. Any legal ramifications should be on the person who divulged the private information. I mean, Kate's part of the royal family, people impersonate them all the time, people try to get them pranked all the time, and that nurse was STOOPID to say anything over the phone without ensuring that the person was authorized to get that information. And she didn't say much, really, just that she wasn't "retching" any more (love that word, so British!) and was sleeping on & off, at least she didn't say how far along the pregnancy is or how much weight Kate lost from vomiting or how many bowel movements she'd had that day. I think that's probably why the tape was allowed to air, because it was pretty innocuous.
    David Letterman is retiring. Such great memories of watching him over the past thirty-two years!

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
v -->

About Us | Contact Us | Privacy Policy | Sitemap | Terms & Conditions