Flutterby™! : Patient's Rights

Next unread comment / Catchup all unread comments User Account Info | Logout | XML/Pilot/etc versions | Long version (with comments) | Weblog archives | Site Map | | Browse Topics

Patient's Rights

2001-03-21 16:18:54+00 by topspin 2 comments

Supreme Court rules against SC

"The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday that public hospitals may not test pregnant women for drug use and provide the results to the police without the patient's consent or a warrant."

This is good. Health care is a private matter and providing name-specific info to public agencies is unethical without patient consent.

comments in ascending chronological order (reverse):

#Comment made: 2002-02-21 05:31:22+00 by: Dylan

It's not often I find myself agreeing with the present Court...what a nice change of pace.

This sort of official violation of privacy (see also: Carnivore) is just another example of everything that makes the U.S. not a true Democracy (it never was...) and more a Republic in the Roman mold. In other words, leaders are elected from the aristocracy (those who can afford TV ads). It is in the best interests of any aristocracy to have intelligence on the common people lest they get tired of their leaders. This includes circumventing due process "to protect children", reading mail "to prevent subversion" and other subtle versions of McCarthy's tactics.

It's nice to see the Court for once performing its mission and yanking the reins on this sort of stuff. Let's hope it continues.

#Comment made: 2002-02-21 05:31:22+00 by: Dan Lyke

When I first heard about this story I thought that it was a little less cut-and-dried 'cause the policy applied only to patients on a specific public health plan. But yeah, as a general policy the Supreme Court obviously made the right decision.