I believe the only direct legal protection *in the US at least*, doctor-patient confidentiality, ceases to apply after death.Originally Posted by Aimless
I believe the only direct legal protection *in the US at least*, doctor-patient confidentiality, ceases to apply after death.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Are you certain?
Pretty sure I've seen US legal dramas (OK maybe not 100% realistic) where the doctor of the murder victim has cited confidentiality. Although in that instance often confidentiality is broken, it doesn't appear that it is 100% gone the second they die.
Stop right there. US legal dramas are predicated on popular conceptions of the law, which are often (usually?) vastly different from reality, particularly once you get down to the level of detail and minutia courts rely on to make new rulings and apply precedent. I could fill a book with the number of legal mistakes and misrepresentations from a single season of Law & Order (well, the seasons prior to several years ago, when I stopped watching), and I'm no where near as knowledgeable on the subject as LittleFuzzy is.
Pretty much like anything else you get from popular media - it occasionally gets the subject matter right "enough" to seem realistic to people not in the particular field covered, but never manages to convince an expert, because the target audience is the general public, and all the perceptions and misinformation that comes along with that audience.
"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
-- Thomas Jefferson: American Founding Father, clairvoyant and seditious traitor.
After a Google search: http://www.ankinlaw.com/our-practice...privilege.html
They're advertising the fact that privilege doesn't stop with the death.
Actually, they're advertising that it "may" survive death.
"If a patient dies without waiving confidentiality, the privilege may remain in tact. [si c]"
Meaning it's probably not firmly established one way or t'other, and in such cases, caution (and the presumption of a lack of legal protection) is the wiser choice... especially when the entity saying you may have legal protections is offering to litigate those protections for you, in exchange for money.
"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
-- Thomas Jefferson: American Founding Father, clairvoyant and seditious traitor.
LF was quite categorical that it does cease. May not cease is different to does.
"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
-- Thomas Jefferson: American Founding Father, clairvoyant and seditious traitor.
Fine, LF's belief was quite categorical. Hence why I asked how certain.
I assume you mean "quite qualified," and that's fair enough. I'll still take LF's qualified belief over a webpage selling legal services and the plot of a legal drama, though. Perhaps what I should have said in the first place was "corpses shouldn't have rights," and saved the whole mess. Oh well, I think I'll still blame it on the j00s anyway.
"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
-- Thomas Jefferson: American Founding Father, clairvoyant and seditious traitor.
Professional boring left-winger Frank Rich wrote a few thousand words in New York magazine about this. Perhaps his most annoying assertion is this:
Having recently joined New York from the New York Times (another dual-share company controlled by a family with political views) this is a pretty stunning act of cognitive dissonance.This ethos would never be tolerated for long at most public companies, but News Corp. is a faux-public company thanks to the Murdochs’ special tier of controlling shares. What’s being illuminated daily by the News of the World revelations in London are the broad parameters, still sketchily filled in, of News Corp.’s definition of business-as-usual: the compulsive lying (James Murdoch’s testimony before Parliament is of a piece with that interview Rupert gave to the Times in 1976); the wholesale buying of police and politicians; the thuggery employed to invade the privacy of cheesy celebrities and the 13-year-old murder victim Milly Dowler alike to pump newspaper sales; and the dizzying array of cover-ups, from the sham News Corp. “investigations” and “independent committees” to the hush money that rains down on victims, discarded employees, and cops. It’s not happenstance that many watching the Murdochs’ testimony on television were struck by the resemblance to the Senate hearing in The Godfather: Part II, with James Murdoch starring as Michael Corleone and Joel Klein in the supporting Robert Duvall role of the consigliere Tom Hagen. Students of pop culture know an epic family business when they see one.
http://nymag.com/news/frank-rich/mur...candal-2011-8/
Self-righteousness has always been a leftist hobby.
Hope is the denial of reality
A right-wing one too... or have the religious nuts stopped believing in their superior morality in my absence?
I tell you, when half the people are being self-righteous, moralizing twits telling you you're evil for not agreeing with them, and the other half are being self-righteous, selfish twits telling you that you're evil for not agreeing with them... it's really difficult to give a shit about a whole chunk of them dying all at once.
"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
-- Thomas Jefferson: American Founding Father, clairvoyant and seditious traitor.
Religious fundies believe they are superior due to their beliefs, not actions. Leftists believe everything they do is morally superior because they want to help people (i.e. superior intentions).
Hope is the denial of reality
Erm, except, don't a lot of those beliefs explicitly dictate their actions? (Granted, it's a big list of "don't do [x]," but still, ... actions.)
I mean, I've never got the impression that the fundies think I'm immoral hellspawn because I believe that pre-marital sex, recreational drug use and personal revenge/retaliation are inherently amoral... I always got the impression they think I'm an immoral hellspawn because I drink, fuck and fight back (or retaliate intelligently as to avoid arrest). Actions.
Maybe we need an independent expert to settle the question.
Lewk, why do you think I'm evil?Is it the contents of my intellect, or the actions of my genitals?
Isn't differentiating between "intentions" (lefties) and "beliefs" (righties) something of a hair-splitting exercise as well? I'm not sure I understand the distinction you're trying to make, although I strongly object to the tame and generous tone of your characterizations.
"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
-- Thomas Jefferson: American Founding Father, clairvoyant and seditious traitor.
Yeah, but even the ones who are just as "immoral" as you think they're superior because they believe in God/Jesus/Spaghetti Monster. Also, they would think they're superior to you even if you sinned no more than normal as long as you didn't believe in the same entities.
Hope is the denial of reality
Funny that - still not seen any coverage about the Guardian's hacking on the BBC.
Here's a quote from Guardianista years ago when this first came public.I’ve used some of those questionable methods myself over the years. I, too, once listened to the mobile phone messages of a corrupt arms company executive – the crime similar to that for which Goodman now faces the prospect of jail. The trick was a simple one: the businessman in question had inadvertently left his pin code on a print-out and all that was needed was to dial straight into his voicemail.
There is certainly a voyeuristic thrill in hearing another person’s private messages… when I try to explain newspaper methods to my current university journalism students, and some of whom are rather shocked. There are other techniques I have used, along with the rest of Fleet Street. I did not turn up my nose when the notorious Benjy the Binman emptied a bag of stinking rubbish on to my carpet.
I look forward to the editors of the Guardian being hauled before Parliament.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16936408The editor of the Times has publicly apologised for a reporter who hacked into an email account to write a story.
James Harding had been asked to come back to the Leveson Inquiry to clarify his part in the affair.
If the times had been owned by Murdoch, it would have been closed down and it's editor thrown in gaol by now because of this story, which is completely identical in every way to was happening at the News of the World.
oh wait no
The light that once I thought compassion still casting shadows in your action
The words you shared were cold transactions that bring me to curse what you've done
When you're up there absorbed in greatness with such success you've grown complacent
I hope you scorch your many faces when you fly too close to the sun
Hacking an email address != hacking a missing child's phone, deleting voicemail messages such that the parents and police think the missing girl is still alive.
But The Times have not been mud slinging at anyone else about this either.
THEY ARE COMPLETELY IDENTICAL IN EVERY WAY
LIBERAL MEDIA IS ON CRUSADE TO BRING DOWN RUPERT MURDOCH
ONLY POSSIBLE EXPLANATION
WHERE IS THE FAIRNESS
The light that once I thought compassion still casting shadows in your action
The words you shared were cold transactions that bring me to curse what you've done
When you're up there absorbed in greatness with such success you've grown complacent
I hope you scorch your many faces when you fly too close to the sun
How many Daily Mirror reporters were confirmed to be doing the same thing?
Hope is the denial of reality
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote