Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here.
Posted on 04/28/2005 8:01:01 AM PDT by SoFloFreeper
TALLAHASSEE, Fla. (AP) -- The Florida Supreme Court says it won't consider an appeal from conservative commentator Rush Limbaugh. Today's four-to-three order didn't explain the court's reasoning.
Limbaugh's attorney argues that an appeals court misconstrued Florida law when it ruled prosecutors could review the records.
Prosecutors seized Limbaugh's medical records in 2003 for an investigation into whether he illegally purchased prescription painkillers.
Limbaugh hasn't been charged with any crime. He lost at the appellate court level and wanted the Florida Supreme Court to overturn a ruling that would open his medical records and possibly allow prosecutors to build a case against him.
Limbaugh has maintained his innocence throughout the investigation and argues that the case threatens the privacy rights of all Floridians.
Perhaps a fine, payable to government or an approved treatment facility.
I appreciate you being a good sport while debating this; oftentimes, people "personalize" a good debate, and take offense when you try to point something out that is counter to what they believe.
I still don't think that this case sets such a precedent. Rush's loss of privacy is due to a suspicion of wrong doing on his part. Opening the records of the clinic patients exposes their privacy when they have done nothing illegal. By that logic, wouldn't prosecutors be able to search the homes of these patients and not just the clinic itself. This would be a similar invasion of privacy.
Like this is a surprise?
Conservative vs. Floriduh SC?
Automatic REJECTION...no matter what the actual law...
Shameful bunch of ilk...
Well you are right you dont know if the persons infection is resistant untill you try. That is why a doc will STILL give the person ABs and if the bacteria are resistant then he will try another one and then yet another if necessary in order to kill off the bacteria once and for good. You cant just not perscribe at all b/c then you will sooner or later have a dead patient on your hands. The thing is though that you have to be sure that the person has an infection that call for ABs and not something else like a virus. I think what happend in the past was that a guy comes in with a nasty cough and cold--says to the doc--give me something now for it. Now an antibiotic isnt gonna do a darn thing for a common cold but yet many people used to demand something be given for it. What the docs used to do was just hand out some ABs to the guy and call it a day. The sick guy eventually gets better wether it be to placebo or just that the cold has run its course and the doc gets the guy off his back and feels good he made someone feel like theyd been helped out. The majority of the time though you see super resistant bacterial infections if im not mistaken is in the hospital itself with an already sick patient. Then they pull out all the stops to get rid of it but there are only so many diff ABs we have left that bacteria havent developed any resistance to--many of the common ABs are useless in those cases.
So what happened to this...
Office for Civil Rights - HIPAA
Medical Privacy - National Standards to Protect the Privacy of Personal Health Information
http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/hipaa/
Doctors, nurses, pharmacists, etc. can't even tell YOUR FAMILY they spoke to you. YOUR FAMILY can't even pick up medical records, prescriptions, etc. for you.
If I was Rush with more money than I could possibly spend, I would choose a place for the quality of life, relative lack of liberals, gun laws (permissive), recreational opportunities, a just legal system, etc. even if it cost more in taxes.
Who is he going to pass his money on to when he dies? He can't take it with him.
>>>So what happened to this...
>>>Office for Civil Rights - HIPAA
From the HIPAA web site:
The Privacy Rule is balanced to protect an individual’s privacy while allowing important law enforcement functions to continue. The Rule permits covered entities to disclose protected health information (PHI) to law enforcement officials, without the individual’s written authorization, under specific circumstances summarized below. Disclosures for law enforcement purposes are permitted as follows:
To comply with a court order or court-ordered warrant, a subpoena or summons issued by a judicial officer, or a grand jury subpoena. The Rule recognizes that the legal process in obtaining a court order and the secrecy of the grand jury process provides protections for the individual’s private information (45 CFR 164.512(f)(1)(ii)(A)-(B)).
With Rush being such a lightning rod of liberal leftist anger, I wouldn't want to stay in Florida with its liberal corrupt supreme court. Who knows, Rush might have future legal problems (of any sort) and have to rely on the Florida courts for relief. (I would get the he** out of there)
Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here.
Typical -- the state must merely accuse someone of illegal drug use, and they then can steal his medical records. Rush is lucky his property hasn't been seized -- if he were less famous and powerful, it probably would have been auctioned off by now, with the proceeds going to the state.
I hope this travesty will lead pro-war-on-drugs FReepers to at least consider the horrible abuses that are rampant in the system. You don't have to be pro-drug to object to this kind of government overreach.
You're not giving me a hard time at all; if anything, I am! I'm stubborn and bull-headed, and even if I'm *correct*, I fear I sometimes come off as arrogant or insulting, besides stubborn. At least, people on the racing forum I post on seem to think so. ;-)
Interesting that people would go to several doc's at 1 time and apparently not tell about what else they're doing. I can't imagine doing that; if I go to another doc I tell them what happened at the 1st doc. Percocet? Yikes - too much of that and I'd think you couldn't wake up!
Generally speaking, I see this as comming out of the unreported underage abortion category. Abortion clinics are required, for example, to report a 12 year old girl getting an abortion to the police. The "fetal material" has to be preserved as evidence for statory rape. If an abortion clinic is not doing that in one case, the police/prosecutors are no no longer barred under a medical privacy doctrine.
At least the door has now been firmly kicked open to try this in court. It would have to start with a known underage abortion. To go further than an abortion clinic, it would involve a seperate request to the court.
Actually, Florida authorities announced several years ago that they were going to crack down on doctor shopping (which is what they're trying to nab Rush for). They've arrested and jailed a number of people for it (but it's not so highly publicized because they are nonentities).
"Sorry, but when I have strep throat, I know it and don't need to go to the doctor. At worst I should be able to call up and say I need a prescription for it."
And if you get the drugs, take them and something happens, who will you sue? I recenty had surgery and had to have tests done. What I want to know is why would they give me a pregnancy test? Aside from the fact I am 44 and male, I cannot think of a reason.
no they have not.
When this originally broke it was revealed that palm beach had ONE case and that case was ONLY prosecuted when the defendent had reniged on a negotiated cooperation plea.
The bottom line is that the State Attorney is not actually after doctor shopping, the State Attorney is trying to charge rush of being a dealer. As a dealer a defendant is not automatically shunted into first time drug offender court which has the net result of ZERO criminal record.
It would be same as that south florida democrat who was caught with perscription drugs she was not supposed to have.
Yes they have. Palm Beach may not have had many arrests and jail sentences for doctor shopping, but the poorer counties in Florida certainly have. And it's very typical for prosecuters to charge people with an amount of drugs over a certain limit with "intent to distribute." That's why so many non-violent drug offenders without priors are in jail!
It's BS -- I just wish people would protest this governmental overreach for anonymous fellow citizens as well as for Rush.
No Snow, Ocean, and One of only seven states with No State Income Tax
Remember Wolfie do as I say, not as I do.......
What it's sad about this law is that we can't blame the liberal Democrats for this intrusive law. A Republican state legislature and a Republican governor turned "doctor shopping" into a felony in Florida.
The "drug warriors" have no shame, and they are members of both political parties.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.