Comments on: Ashcroft goes after medical records of women who have had abortions

By: karpad

karpad — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000

might I propose a third option?
“Mr. Ashcroft understands privacy perfectly well, but feels he has no reason to respect the privacy of others, and therefore simply disregards privacy on the whole”

medical records are one of the few things in our culture that are inarguably private. if anyone is serious proposing that someone might “disagree” with the privacy afforded by Doctor-patient privalege, then they are not in simple disagreement, they’re dead wrong.

By: Stentor

Stentor — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000

DF Moore’s comment and your correction presuppose the answer to an important issue: are blog titles italicized, or put in quotation marks? I would lean toward italicizing a blog title, on the grounds that usually when you have a larger work made up of subparts, the larger work is italicized whereas the subparts get quotes. So the song “Electrolite” was on New Adventures in Hi-Fi, the story “Man Bites Dog” ran in The New York Times, and the post “Ashcroft goes after medical records …” appeared in Alas, a Blog.

By: Beth

Beth — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000

Actually they are not “inarguably” private. That’s a persistent misconception, but medical records are subject to subpoena in many situations, and at times patient information can become part of the public record without the patient having ever consented to disclosure. (Think medical malpractice suits, some criminal cases, even cases where someone testifies as a witness but has medical issues that might impeach their perception or credibility.)

I’m not in any way suggesting that the disclosure of these abortion records is okay — frankly, it horrifies me — but it also worries me that Americans are so convinced that their medical records are sacred, when it’s just not so.

By: Lis

Lis — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000

By the way, the big papers — New York Times & Washington Post — have finally written articles on the issue

By: acm

acm — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000

ugh, imagine these prosecutors tracking down each woman to determine whether they were “encouraged or pressured” to have a particular procedure. as though any of them would want to discuss this with a legal beagle. I suppose they could be subpoenaed? (with spelling caveats and panics)

just evil, that Ashcroft. let’s talk about a sense of entitlement and lack of empathy . . .

By: acm

acm — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000

Actually, this is sort of a Catch-22: how do you prove that late-term abortions are “medically necessary” (as the doctors contend) without reference to the files/histories of the women whose health necessitated such a procedure? Obviously, you don’t want to open those women to Ashcroftian abuse, but you need to be able to present facts/data in the case…

Thoughts?

By: Lis

Lis — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000

That’s directly addressed in Judge Kocoras’ ruling:

The government seeks these records on the possibility that it may find something therein which would affect the testimony of Dr. Hammond adversely, that is, for its potential value in impeaching his credibility as a witness. What the government ignores in its argument is how little, if any, probative value lies within these patient records and the ready availability of information traditionally used to challenge the veracity of Dr. Hammond’s scientific assertions and medical opinions. The presence or absence of medical risks, their likelihood and nature are undoubtably described and discussed in available medical literature. Challenges to Dr. Hammond’s views would be readily available, as would the enlistment of experts supporting contrary opinions. The search for the truth that any hearing or trial seeks to produce would hardly be infringed by finding that a physician-patient privilege exists in these circumstances.

By: Crescat Sententia

Crescat Sententia — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000

Comprehension and Disagreement
Why is it that people feel compelled to accuse Ashcroft of not understanding “privacy” rather than, say, understanding perfectly well, but disagreeing about what should be private?…

By: DFMoore: Pizzazz, Panache, and a Phoenix

DFMoore: Pizzazz, Panache, and a Phoenix — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000

Referencing a blog with a comma in the title
(Note - I must come up with better titles of posts) In reading this post from Will, I stumbled on this odd sentence structure here: I think Will overestimates how literal my readers are. I trust that Alas, a Blog…

By: blargblog

blargblog — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000

Patient Rights Aborted
The U.S. Department of Justice—you know, the one run by crisco-annointed John Ashcroft—has demanded hundreds of patient medical records of women who have had an abortion. Why? So they can defend the ban on so-called “partial-birth abortions” from a leg…

By: Sappho's Breathing

Sappho's Breathing — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000

What I’ve been reading while I haven’t been writing
So much interesting writing, so little time: (1) I’m riding Atrios’ coattails’ by providing this link, but Gail Sheedhy’s New York Observer article about the questions not being asked in the 9/11 commission makes me ill. I’m warning you: it’s…