Justice Dept. Demands Abortion Records

AP ^ | 2/12/04 | DAVID CRARY

[To Hell With Poverty]

NEW YORK (AP) - Under fire from abortion-rights groups, Attorney General John Ashcroft insisted Thursday that doctor-patient privacy is not threatened by a government attempt to subpoena medical records in a lawsuit over the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act.

At stake are records documenting certain late-term abortions performed by doctors who have joined in a legal challenge of the disputed ban. President Bush signed the act into law last year.

[Doctor Stochastic]

Perhaps there's some DA's in Florida who know how to get patient's records.

[Aeon Flux]

Spunkie- You wanna hit? I'll pass it over...

[cyborg]

I wonder myself. BTW, amazing how Dr.Atkin's records were obtained so easily.

[Tuscaloosa Goldfinch]

The Justice Department's contention is that it is a crime to perform this practice -- it is murder. I'm not sure -- I'm not a prosecutor -- but does the right to privacy extend to covering up a murder??!!

[templar]

No more government intrusion into citizen's personal records

A warranted search of personal records, based on probable cause, is a constitutional function of government. In this case, the suit filed against the government gives rise to discovery which makes it legal and constitutional to seek subpeona for these records. If it can be shown that the requested records cannot produce useful evidence, the subpeona can be denied. You have the same right (to seek evidence in your favor from an opponent) if a suit is filed against you, either criminal or civil.

[spunkets]

"The PBA ban is up in the air due to challenges which is the real key to whether the enforcement is applicable.

? The ban has been challenged, because the docs say it is necessary. They make various claims about the mom's life being in danger.

Well guess what. The kid's almost born, just a few more inches and it's over. Now the Atty. gen. is out to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the docs are lying and the whole business amounts to killing a kid for convenience.

As far as enforement goes, that's not hard to do at all. The perps will either have to keep it a deep dark secret, like hired killers usually do. Else someone will tattle.

" Patriot Act Scene 2, HIPPA is a Federal law. Illinois has a state law that deserves respect as well."

Irrelevant.

" I happen to believe all these hot issues should be state laws"

The issue is a med procedure that denies the fundamental right to life of an American citizen. The feds have the right to ensure each and every American their rights, regardless of what any particular bozo, or State sees fit to deny. Note, that includes State law that is offensive to, oppressive to and/or denies the rights of anyone, or group of persons.

[spunkets]

"does the right to privacy extend to covering up a murder??!!"

Depends, are you talking about democrats, or decent folks.

[Judith Anne]

Private medical records with the patient's name removed are used all the time for many purposes. Lawsuits containing private medical information with the names removed are used all the time, specifically for training purposes--for medical people and probably likely for lawyers.

Your private medical records are not and have never been private. The hospital owns your medical records if you were there, you don't. The treating physician, when you go see one, owns your medical records, you don't.

But you are supposed to have the right of privacy over those records, after the pharmacy, the insurance company clerks, the billing office have all had a look at them.

As a nurse, I could lose my license if I EVER gave out private medical information. But I am certain that insurance company clerks (who decide who should and who shouldn't get a particular medical procedure paid) have no such licensure problems.

So, do I have a problem with a court getting a doctor's files on partial birth abortions he has performed, as long as identifying information is blocked out? No, I don't. If a freakin pharmacy tech can have the information with the name and address attached, I see no reason to withhold the information from a court, with the identifying information blocked out.

[spunkets]

"The hospital owns your medical records if you were there, you don't. The treating physician, when you go see one, owns your medical records, you don't."

They are your records. You own them. The doc and hospital are required to keep them. An individual can buy and keep a copy for other docs to use, but the original is required to be kept by the med folks.

[Tuscaloosa Goldfinch]

You're right. I forgot about whom I was talking.

[Judith Anne]

You know, I've been a nurse for 10 years, and I thought I knew this...I'm going to check, but I think I'm right, here.

[Tuscaloosa Goldfinch]

Thank you for clearing that up for me. If the Justice Department needs the records, with the identifying information blocked out, and the court rules they can't have them, then the lawsuit should be thrown out. JMHO.

[kcvl]

``People's medical records should not be the tools of political operatives,'' said Rep. Eliot Engel, D-N.Y. ``All Americans should have the right to visit their doctor and receive sound medical attention without the fear of Big Brother looking into those records.''


I suppose that doesn't apply to Rush Limbaugh.

[cyborg]

a demoRAT hypocrite

[MPJackal]

This is BS. The Pro Partial Birth Abortion people claim that is should be over turned because it does not take into consideration "Health of the mother". The governments case, to some extent will argue against that claim (The AMA agrees with the Government. The only way to argue this point is to see how many PBA were done for the mother's health. My guess is ZERO. It seems the Hospitals know this too. That is why they won't release the records. Banning PBA might cut into those profits and allow more nasty children to be born.

[Judith Anne]

Spunkets, I went to Princeton's website and found this, right off the bat:

Who owns the medical record?

the record and its contents are owned by the health care organization and the physician.

the patient has the right to see his/her record. If you want to review your medical record, make an appointment with a health services practitioner to go over the information.

And here it is from the AMA:

The general rule is that medical records are the property of the physician, and that the patient may have access to their medical records upon request. Courts have held that while patients have the right to access their medical records, medical records become property belonging to the treating physician or hospital where the services were rendered.

I looked it up on Google, with this question: Who owns medical records.

Think of it this way: When you call a plumber, and he takes care of your plumbing problem, he has records that BELONG TO HIM, not you. Same with the doctor and hospital.

[spunkets]

That's also why all patients have to sign the doc, hospital and insurance forms for release of the info and no one can refuse to give(sell a copy) it to you for use by other docs. OK, you'll check.

[Judith Anne]

Sure, you can control who sees your records within certain limits. And you can get copies of them, too. But they don't belong to you. I've already confirmed that, and posted the confirmation above with the source. If you want to argue, find someone else--or look it up yourself. If Princeton and the AMA aren't good enough for you--fine.

[MPJackal]

Hospitals release information contained in medical records for social studies or statistics that serve their needs. This should be no different.

[Judith Anne]

PS, you cannot have the original records from the doctor and hospital. You can have a copy. That copy belongs to you. But the original records belong to the doctor, and to the hospital.