John Jones: The Invasion Of Privacy Cases

It would be unlawful to release Ms. Jones medical information without the proper documentation to authorize the release. I would explain to Deputy Parker that he would need to obtain a signed authorization from Ms. Jones or obtain a subpoena that specifies what

Dr. Patterson’s office called to give patient Sara Martin her results, but her husband answered and asked to relay the message. As a doctor, she cannot give out patient’s information to anyone but the patient. In this situation Dr. Patterson should explain to the husband that information can only be released to the patient and; although he is the husband she would have to sign an information release form. If this information where to get released and she did not want anyone else to know , this would be a HIPAA violation and there can be fines to pay and may lose her

samples. Permission for doctors to use anyone’s cells or body tissue at that time was

Contrary to the alleged, Dr. Brock refuted the claim, defending that he never established a doctor-patient relationship with Anita, which relieves him of liability. In order to validate his refute, Dr. Brock provided four factual elements that were supported by his counterparts; Dr. Whitfield and Dr. Ketcham. The four elements that were presented in the affidavit included: (1) That there has never been a doctor-patient relationship between Dr. Brock and Anita Oliver, (2) Dr. Brock has never seen or talked to Anita or Cathy Oliver, (3) Dr. Brock was not employed, engaged or requested to serve as a consultant to treat Anita, (4) and Dr. Brock was not employed or engaged to consult with doctors treating Anita, concerning complaints or medical problems. In order to support Dr. Brock’s refute, Dr. Whitfield and Dr. Ketcham provided affidavit’s as

On November 29th, 2010 Peterson sent a text to Hinchy stating, “I’m not trying to start any crap but I have a print out showing that you didn’t even refill ur birth control prescription for july or august. The last time you filled ur prescription was june. I know uve lied to ur mom and harmony and anybody willing to listen but the printout does not lie. I know you lied to me wth tears and curse words and misplaced righteousness. U really should think about what you did…on ur own. You really should think about that FACT before you call me another name. What kind of person does something like that?”(Marion superior court). Hinchy followed up with a text that would state that it is illegal to obtain any of her medical information.

The resident physician violated confidentiality, because when he left the patient’s room and made a comment about “She-male,” everyone in that vicinity may have overheard him. Only the health care professional taking care of him should know about the patient being

165). The HIPAA regulations are set as a protection of Personal Health Information (PHI) and all of its areas of concern, i.e. – name, condition, symptoms, etc… Legally, the nurse is not subjected to any clearly defined healthcare related laws, at the federal level, liable under the Privacy Acts of 1974 which protects any personal identification records or information relating to the patient’s privacy. The nurse takes photographs of the patient’s demographic information from his electronic health record which violates the regulations set forth by the Privacy Acts of 1974 (Privacy Act of 1974, n.d.). In many aspects of this scenario, a major concern lies on the nurse’s ethical, unethical, practice. The American Nurses Association (ANA) delineates in Provision Three of the Code of Ethics for Nurses “The nurse promotes, advocates for, and protects the rights, health, and safety of the patient.” (ANA, 2015). The nurse is in many violations enough to end their career in this situation. The privacy of the patient is a right not a privilege. With the increase usage of social media, this invasion of privacy on the patient could potentially be leaked and could lead to jeopardizing the patient’s safety while in the hospital.

The legal rule in this case is the First Amendment’s right to publish any findings you would like and freedom of the press and speech,

Whether it is calling someone on your phone or online shopping on the computer, people are more connected than ever to the internet. However, a person might be oblivious to the fact that they are being watched using these technologies. The NSA (National Security Agency) is an intelligence organization for the U.S. to protect information systems and foreign intelligence information. Recently the NSA has been accused of invading personal privacy through web encryption, tracking, and using personal information for their own uses and without permission. The surveillance of the NSA produces unlawful invasion of privacy causing an unsecure nation.

Is anyone’s private information contained in their cell phone actually private? Are appointments, bank information, conversations, the user’s location or other sensitive personal information truly confidential? Is there a Big Brother watching? There is no definitive answer to any of these questions. From the beginning of time to now, privacy has become more and more scarce. Through new developments in technology, it is hard to believe that someone is not watching your move at any given moment. The government’s job is to keep Americans safe, but where is the line drawn? Where is the difference between having a reasonable doubt and accessing information solely because these government officials have the power to do so? The government has infringed upon the rights of the American people when it comes to this topic.

Privacy; the state of being free from being observed or being disturbed. Things such as credit card companies, ads on television, warnings on the evening news, and even locker searches at school all directly contradict the definition of “privacy”.

With the numerous legal, ethical and moral issues that were highlighted in Henrietta Lacks case, two major ones to note: 1) the Lacks never specifically consented to providing samples of Henrietta’s cervical tissue for research, and 2) Johns Hopkins University releasing Henrietta’s name and medical records to third parties without her or her family’s

Huping Zhou, a former cardiothoracic surgeon from China, whom recently moved to Los Angeles and became employed at UCLA School of Medicine as a researcher, was sentenced to federal prison for HIPAA violations. This made him the first person in the United States to receive a prison sentence for HIPAA violations. His employer informed Zhoe that they were starting the process of terminating his employment .Zhou accessed the medical records of his former colleagues that night. During the following three weeks he accessed the records of celebrities, and high-profile patients 323 times. He claimed that he was unaware that it was illegal to view these records. No evidence was found that Zhou misused the information he obtained, nor did he sell the information. He received a four month jail sentence and a 2,000 dollar fine (Dimick, 2010).

In medicine one of the things every patient is entitled to, no matter what, is their privacy. Since ancient times the privacy between a doctor and a patient has been somewhat of sacred thing. The patient has the right to release their health information to whomever they please. Even for doctors to access a patient’s medical history there has to be consent from the patient. In Mair’s article she reports about the case PD v Harvey in which PD upon asking for her future husband’s (FH) HIV test results was denied access because of lack of consent from FH. FH because of his right to confidentiality, despite having the disease, was able to lie and forge a pathology report which reported his HIV status as negative and in turn PD was lead to believe that FH actually received a negative result. If PD had been allowed the right to view the positive result or maybe even if the doctors would have taken into consideration her well-being PD could have avoided being infected (2009). Before testing a patient for HIV/AIDS a doctor should consult the patient in this consultation the patient should be educated about the disease, the testing process, and actions to be taken upon a positive result, including disclosure to sexual

Other concerns are conversations within the hospital cafeterias/lobbies about patients and their families, and employees sharing information throughout the hallways without a “need to know.” Once employees discover their colleagues looking at patient information without a “need to know basis,” and, other wrong doings according to the agency’s standards, their own sense of what is right and wrong instantly comes into question. Reporting the unethical behavior, the employee who had discovered the violations of patient rights is presented with a number of difficult choices. The legal basis for imposing liability for a breach of confidentiality is more extensive than ethical guidelines, which dictate the morally right thing to do.