[spunkets]

"What you have to argue in this case is that the harm done by the government's intrusion into these doctors' records is greater than the harm that is now being done and will be done to "

No. The patient's name is not being given and the parient is not in legal jeopardy whatsoever. THe docs are making claims that are based on the records and the court should have them, because those records are the evidence the claims are based on.

Otherwise their is no justification for obtaining med records at all, because of the 5th amend. The greater harm nonsense is just that, nonsense.

[adiaireton8]

Contrary to your claim, what you said, and what I said are not incompatible. If no harm is done by the government looking at these particular medical records (with names and such deleted), then the greater harm argument allows Ashcroft to do what he is doing, ceteris paribus. I never claimed that a greater harm analysis was a *sufficient* justification for the government's actions in this case, but I am claiming that it is *necessary* for the government's actions to pass the greater harm analysis in order to be justified. In this case, it seems quite clear that the government's actions do pass the greater harm analysis.