Any person who goes to a doctors office has the right to utter and complete privacy. (Docs, on board here, please add your two bits.) Unless, and I am talking out of my backside here so correct me if I am wrong), the doctor knows or suspects the patient commits a crime and it is in the better interest of the community that the patient is turned in.
The police have an obligation to find the woman who did this as it is now a murder case. It’s one thing to leave a just delivered baby in a dumpster ( vile) but to shred an infant …takes a lot of forethought (or severe post partum physchosis) which leads me to think that this woman is a very desperate girl. Not necessarily an older teen. However, to think of tossing a newborn into a shredder takes some forethought and possibly access to wheels.
3)The judge ordering this, I feel, has no right. He can, apparently, order all he wants. It’s another thing entirely if the hospitals and clinics honor the request.
However, unless some one in the community notices how a friend suddenly lost weight or is no longer pregnant, and comes forward to narc on the woman/girl who did this, everything is at a stalemate.
What I know about DNA could fill a thimble leaving enough room for your finger. I am presuming DNA testing will be done which will give more specifics, but can DNA tell the age of a person? As in, if this was a botched self done abortion 20 week old fetus or what? Can DNA tell info on the mother/father like hair/eyes?
The Fox News article you quoted describes the victim as a “newborn” and an “infant boy.” This implies that it was either carried to term, or was at least far enough along to survive outside the womb.
As a resident of Des Moines I have been following this story for the last few days. An interesting interjection is that there are a few “Pro-Life” clinics here that encourage young mothers to carry their unwanted pregnancy to full term. None of these clinics have been ordered to turn over records to the authorities. It seems a bit one-sided to go after the Planned Parenthood Clinic alone.
I guess I am just failing to see the big point of this debate. I don’t see where privacy issues necessarily come into something like this, where pregnancy is involved.
I mean, how many pregnant women can hide the fact that they are pregnant? I think it’s usually pretty obvious when they get near the 9-month point. So arguing that it is an invasion of privacy just seems like people are trying to find something to complain about.
Besides, if it means finding the horrid excuse of a human being mother who dumped the child, I say go for it.
I really don’t like this ruling. If this woman could just toss her baby away like that, why does anyone believe that she went to get any type of medical care ?
I didn’t read the whole article, so does the judge have any reason to believe she went to a clinic ? If not, I’d say it is a big invasion of privacy.
I agree with LilSheiste. No one would be hurt by the authorities looking up who’s been pregnant. I think she WOULD have gotten medical care - not for the baby, but for herself. Besides, when she was first pregnant, she probably didn’t did think she would do such a horrendous thing.
RE:“No one would be hurt by the authorities looking up who’s been pregnant”
How about a woman who confirmed her pregnancy at Planned Parenthood,then moved to a private physician for prenatal care,& unfortunately had a late term miscarriage? I’m sure she would be thrilled to have the cops at her door asking if she killed her baby.
From the article, it hasn’t been established that this is a murder case. The autopsy isn’t complete and authorities aren’t sure whether the baby was already dead when dumped. I would assume the body was shredded after the dumpster was emptied, with the mother not involved in that.
Once they are sure it was a murder, maybe it makes sense to look into records. I know privacy doesn’t apply if there are indications a patient will do harm to himself or others, but that doesn’t seem relevant here.
“Okla. 1988. In response to a police request, physician reported patient treated for penile bite. Patient sued physician for negligence after information furnished by physician led to patient’s arrest and conviction for rape. Patient alleged a tortious breach of the physician-patient confidential relationship . . . the court reasoned that the benefit of the divulgence inured to the public at large and thus fell within the public policy exception to the testimonial privilege, created no liability in tort or contract, and was not a breach of medical ethics. Bryson v. Tillinghast, 749 P.2d 110, 113, 114.” From the AMA’s Annotated Code of Medical Ethics.
“Any person who goes to a doctors office has the right to utter and complete privacy.” Nope. There are many situations where your medical records could be released without your express consent; for instance, if you sue a doctor, you have placed your medical status at issue, and the physician is released from the physician-patient relationship constrains for the purposes of the litigation; if you threaten bodily harm to another or yourself, the physician has an obligation to notify law enforcement; communicable diseases, gun shot and knife wounds are usually required to be reported to authorities. Also, most state medical boards have subpoena power and can obtain your records without your consent (they can’t be further released without your consent, but they are reviewed by the boards and experts and you might not even know it).
"He [the judge] can, apparently, order all he wants. It’s another thing entirely if the hospitals and clinics honor the request. " It’s not a request, it’s a court order. If they don’t comply, they will be penalized. In complying, the court order allows them to release records without the risk of being sued for releasing confidential info, because it was a court order.
It’s not clear from the article, but it looks like the court has simply ordered the clinics to release the names of those women who tested positive for pregnancy, not their actual medical records.
I guess I am the only person who is more disgusted by people actually WANTING to live in the world described by 1984 than I am by a woman dumping an infant. I guess that will probably make me sound inhuman.
Let’s just note for the record that they aren’t asking for the medical records of the suspect, but information from the medical records of EVERY WOMAN who came in for a pregnancy test. So even if you weren’t involved and your baby is living just fine in his pretty little crib with his Winnie the Pooh wallpaper, you are still having your rights violated. People go to Planned Parenthood for the reason that it’s anonymous, for one thing. Much more anonymous than even your Doctor.
Not to mention that this woman may never have gotten tested, may have used a home pregnancy test, or any other number of ways, and yet the authorities are subpoenaing the private information of people completely unattached to this case.
Well, I have to say, I was able to handle when I first heard about this a few weeks ago, but the responses in this thread made me sick to my stomach.
Sometimes it’s better to let a murderer go, than to violate the rights of many people just to catch them.
“I’m in love with, big brother, he keeps me safe, like no other.” -David Thrussell
Because there is a dead infant, we now are demanding confidential medical records of several clinics for every female who had certain medical tests done during a span of time.
this assumes:
A. That the mother of the infant sought medical treatment at all.
B. That said medical treatment was sought under her real name and address.
C. that said medical treatment was sought out in those facilities (vs. another one out of state etc. since we have no reason to know /speculate on where this person was living 8 months ago.)
Wholesale violation of people’s rights for a fishing expedition?
Who is harmed? are you kidding? So, cop neighbor now knows that you were treated for a STD while being screened for pregnancy? Or that his daughter’s best friend went in for an abortion? etc etc etc.
And, frankly, it’s not necessary to demonstrate that harm occured. My medical records are mine. Since I’m an adult, my own father cannot get access to it w/o my specific permission.
On the other hand, there are laws against improper disposal of a human body.
I see absolutely nothing wrong with the requirement to release this information. A crime was committed, and it is in the public interest to find this person. Period, end of story. It’s not uncommon to ask for the records of multiple people as part of an investigation.
Originally posted by wring:
You’re right. It’s none of cop neighbor’s business. Presumably, however, police officers conducting investigations are trained to be professionals who respect the confidentiality of information they find in the course of an investigation. Any officer who is loose-lipped enough to reveal this information needs to be disciplined severely.
Where does it say that the medical records of the patients are to be released? I read it as saying a list of names of women who tested positive for pregnancy would be released. I’m not saying I agree with this or it’s not an invasion of privacy, but it doesn’t look like all these ladies’ private medical records would be made available, just their names.
mswas, which responses exactly make you sick? I only see a couple that indicate they don’t feel there would be “any harm done.”
wring, your medical record is not yours. It is the doctor’s. You have the right for it not to be released without your consent (in most cases) and the right to have a copy (or “summary of” in AL), but it does not belong to you. If a court orders the doctor to release his record of his medical care of you, he must comply.
If we can’t expect them not to violate basic rights by not getting into the medical records of hundreds of even thousands of women who were not involved how can we possibly expect a level of professionalism such as you describe?
Do you realize how many crimes could be solved if we had mandatory fingerprinting? Do you realize how many crimes could be avoided if we microchipped and GPSed every single person in the country and kept track of their whereabouts at all time? Or when the technology is good enough, we could keep track of people’s vital functions and have it transmitted to a government database, that way we’ll know without a doubt which woman did this, because we’d have her medical stats up to the time of birth and then we could follow her on her personal GPS tracker through the next few days following the birth of her child. That would be simple enough.
If we can’t expect them not to violate basic rights by not getting into the medical records of hundreds of even thousands of women who were not involved how can we possibly expect a level of professionalism such as you describe?
Do you realize how many crimes could be solved if we had mandatory fingerprinting? Do you realize how many crimes could be avoided if we microchipped and GPSed every single person in the country and kept track of their whereabouts at all time? Or when the technology is good enough, we could keep track of people’s vital functions and have it transmitted to a government database, that way we’ll know without a doubt which woman did this, because we’d have her medical stats up to the time of birth and then we could follow her on her personal GPS tracker through the next few days following the birth of her child. That would be simple enough.
HIPPA addresses confidentiality of records with regard to insurance companies and others with patient identifiers deleted. It also addresses security measures for the electronic transmission of medical record data. I don’t think it changes the basic confidentiality provisions that are now in effect in the various states. From www.ahima.org/journal.features/feature.0004.5.html: “The security standards deal with measures organizations need to take to keep their information safe. The privacy standards deal with things patients may expect from organizations in terms of the way their health information is used.” I know in AL anyway HIPAA will not change the basic guidelines concerning confidentiality of records, which I stated in a previous post.
MsRobyn - there was a case locally where the police searched a local attorney’s home (with a warrent), and ‘somehow’, nude pictures of his girlfriend ended up on the wall in the police locker room.
There’s a reason these records are confidential.
Re: Mine/vs the doctor’s. Well, if I demand that they be turned over to me, they are. Sounds more like mine than theirs. Yes, a judge can order them, generally, tho’, there has to be not only a compelling reason, but a viability test.
So, for example it’s routine for a judge to order release of medical records on DNA, blood type etc. of a particular individual who’s been charged w/a crime, however a judge would not generally be able to order the local hospital to divulge the entire list of males w/blood type AB negative in order for the police to ‘create’ a list of potential suspects.
and that is exactly what is happening there.
there is no evidence to suggest that the mother of said infant even went to any of the clinics involved. It’s a fishing expedition for the police to develop a potential suspect list.
Cops can’t get a warrant to search your home just because a murder was committed a block away, MsRobyn. This is even further removed than that, wouldn’t you agree?
Okay. First things first. The information in a medical record belongs to you, the patient. You have the right to access your own medical records, and you can direct to whom the records should be sent (for example, for insurance purposes, or if you’re seeing a specialist, or employment, or what have you).
The paper records, however, belong to the physician or hospital. If the police show up with a valid court order to produce certain information, then the facility has no other choice but to release the information requested. I’ve done prep work on records for court orders, and at my practice, the information that was not specifically requested in the subpoena was redacted. No records were released that were not specifically requested. In other words, if the subpoena asked for information on all patients with a particular diagnosis, no records were sent that did not have that specific diagnosis.
In this case, the police are trying to investigate what may be a crime. Yes, it is intrusive. Personally, the notion that this many hospitals are subject to this makes my skin crawl. However, there is a legitimate need to release these records.