Another Idiot Judge...

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by insein, Aug 18, 2004.

  1. insein
    Offline

    insein Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2004
    Messages:
    6,096
    Thanks Received:
    356
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Philadelphia, Amazing huh...
    Ratings:
    +356
    http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/04196/346128.stm

    Total fucking Bullshit. A doctor doesn't have the authority to TELL the police that a man who drinks on his own time might be unable to drive. This guy lost his license and the judge upheld it. What fucking BS. Top that all off with the fact that the Doctor remains anonymous. So the man has no legal recourse against the doctor either.

    Talk about invasion of privacy.
     
  2. Hobbit
    Offline

    Hobbit Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2004
    Messages:
    5,099
    Thanks Received:
    420
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Near Atlanta, GA
    Ratings:
    +421
  3. Comrade
    Offline

    Comrade Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    1,873
    Thanks Received:
    167
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Seattle, WA.
    Ratings:
    +167
    Agreed. The doctor would lose his license for violating the right to medical privacy passed under Clinton.

    Federal law in this case supercedes the state provision. An appeal would resolve this case, but may not be worth his effort.
     
  4. insein
    Offline

    insein Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2004
    Messages:
    6,096
    Thanks Received:
    356
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Philadelphia, Amazing huh...
    Ratings:
    +356
    I think it would be. To have to pay $2000 or more for a special device on his car because his doctor ratted on him is bullshit. He might as well put that towards legal fees and bet on winning.
     
  5. Moi
    Offline

    Moi Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2003
    Messages:
    1,859
    Thanks Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    The ONLY GOOD place
    Ratings:
    +11
    I am not so sure that the law would be deemed invalid. Medical privacy laws were not meant to squelch all cases of privledge relief. For instance, it is still quite acceptable for a doctor to alert authorities of impending crimes commited by their patients...I would have to assume drunk driving counts.

    I'm not sure what the Pennsylvania law actually states though.
     
  6. Comrade
    Offline

    Comrade Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    1,873
    Thanks Received:
    167
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Seattle, WA.
    Ratings:
    +167
    I'm not so sure either... I read up on the privacy laws a bit, and it's definately worth a trial.

    http://www.privacy2000.org/presiden...the_Privacy_of_Medical_Records_Fact_Sheet.htm


    The courts should take it up, though. That law really sucks. Sucks ass. Nobody hearing of this case will ever be completely honest with their doctor again, if they were smart.

    We absolutely must be encouraged to tell our doctor the truth, without fear of consequences. This is a bad precedent!
     
  7. Moi
    Offline

    Moi Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2003
    Messages:
    1,859
    Thanks Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    The ONLY GOOD place
    Ratings:
    +11
    I'm on the fence about the part which says they can disclose for public safety. Certainly, stopping a drunk driver who may kill people is for the public health.
     
  8. Comrade
    Offline

    Comrade Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    1,873
    Thanks Received:
    167
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Seattle, WA.
    Ratings:
    +167
    I've heard of how psychologists are required to report to the police of any crime their patient declares they will commit.

    Beyond that there is the Penn. law, where you are probably right about.

    I'd say it needs to get axed, but I'm probably not going to worry too much about it, being a Washingtonian and all that.
     
  9. insein
    Offline

    insein Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2004
    Messages:
    6,096
    Thanks Received:
    356
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Philadelphia, Amazing huh...
    Ratings:
    +356
    Ummm the guy has been drinking alcohol for presumably 21 years since he's 42 years of age. He hasnt had a violation since he was 21. It has never caused a problem at work. He has never driven drunk since his DWI at the age of 21. Where is the inference that a crime will be committed if one hasnt been committed in 21 years of the same behavior.

    This is horrible. A guy goes to make himself better at a doctor and discloses his behaviors to better help the doctor determine whats the best course of action. Then the doctor betrays him and tells the cops that he drinks alot. WTF is that? Alcohol effects different people differently. Bigger people can handle more alcohol, etc. Its total BS.
     

Share This Page