Speakeasy forum: Should Newspapers Publish Abortions?

Gun registration records are public information.

I wonder how Ms. Coulter feels about drivers' licenses being public info, being that at one time she had two of them, from two different states, with two different birth dates on them.

they asked me for a password that anyone asking for information on the phone would have to give to receive information, and then limited

We never had a problem with out doctor office, but then my wife liked for both of us to go when one of us had an appointment when possible, so our doctors were use to talking in front of the spouse.

You can designate when you're there anyone that you want to allow access to your records.

Sadly the refusal to speak to a spouse is a result of bad events when a spouse found out medical conditions the patient didn't want them to know. The most obvious is STD's. But there have been other cases I have read. Spousal abuse has resulted from information being passed to someone other than the patient. Rare perhaps, but it has occurred.

Cutting off ties with barely grown children if the family finds out about sex or pregnacy isn't as common now, but it use to happen. Throw a pregnant 18 year old out of the house and what are the chances for her or the baby is she has it?

It's just another case of bad results from a rule trying to prevent bad results.

of either a nurse, caretaker not family, and even family members taking advantage of patients confusion, more in long term chronic rather than acute I admit, and siphoning off money and goods?

My experience may be different in part because I was the primary on the insurance, and so they at least were inclined to go to me rather than the patient, my wife, anyway.

As far as the doctors, well we had been in the hospital and she honestly was visually not competent at a couple of times and that may have influence things also, even after we got home. And even today, I think there is still just a bit of an unconcious attitude that makes it easier for a husband than anyone else, even a wife, to deal with medical providers for their spouse. There is still a hangover of "the man of the house" attitude subconciously I think.

I still think the pain in the ass for 95% of us with the rules regarding patient information etc, is because of misuse of that information by the 5%.

The IRS, it seems, has a good reputation with regards to the secrecy of their data. I didn't hear about any leaks about Mitt Romneys much discussed income and taxes, while I'm sure that somebody over there has all the details Romney didn't want to share with his voters.

Why do you expect it will be different with medical data?

Kees

healthcare. The government pays for treatment and procedures. All they have are the code numbers indicating the treatment or the operation, which are considered and treated as confidential information, not for public access. It is a criminal offence to release that information in any country with Universal Health Care.

You continue to be ignorant of how Universal Health Care works, and how medical records are considered confidential not public information. Is military information considered public? The government has access to all of that, but keeps it secret or confidential.

This is another of your Red Herrings, James. Fabricated false ideas to discredit something you don't understand or don't like. Stop making things up, and do some research. I'd suggest first finding out how many and which countries have Universal Health Care, then finding out the cost per patient and the infant mortality and over-all life expectancy for people in those countries as compared to the United States, and then the cost as a percentage of GDP compared to what the US pays. If you were better informed you wouldn't make up silly and wrong things like this.

Rob

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/29/business/medicare-is-faulted-in-electronic-medical-records-conversion.html?pagewanted=all


Just look at all the people who will have access to the records. A little money in the right hand almost anywhere to any medical worker and someone's "secret" medical records will be had. Another thing will be the weakening of "second opinions" since doctors will be able to see who and what the "first opinion" was.


California — The medical records of nearly 300,000 Californians have been exposed on the Internet. The firm responsible for the data says it believed the information was protected.

Southern California Medical-Legal Consultants put the files on a website it thought only employees could access. But it turns out the information was visible to anyone.

The files included descriptions of workers' comp claims and Social Security numbers.

Psychiatry records open to reviewers.

"Many people would be
surprised at just how exposed they are. Millions of individual medical
records float around these days in a vast electronic network that serves
both commerce and scientific research. The information zips around the
country, speeded by computers at every stage. Computers help diagnose
disease, monitor patients, organize the data about their conditions, and
transmit the information to managed care networks, medical research
networks, pharmaceutical benefits managers and other outposts of
America's increasingly wired health care system. Along the way,
thousands of eyes scan this data. The eyes may belong to health
researchers seeking improved treatments, or to corporate managers bent
on slashing costs, or to drug company marketers looking for new
customers. Some of the records are even available through the Internet,
part of a $40 billion medical information industry."

.....is the same as a government policy making them public?

Okee dokeee........ (backs away slowly)

some consider birth control the same as abortion.

Do you deny that some equate the two?

And some consider both a medical procedure, so equal again.
You're projecting your beliefs.

i think some kinds of ,newspaper can