First Amendment trumps Right to Privacy

[unapatriciated]

Only if it is corrupt Corporation free speech

http://www6.comcast.net/news/articles/health/2007/12/22/Prescription.Privacy/



edited for missing word (Corporation) and spelling

[ThomCat]

1. It's a totally bullshit decision.

The drug companies want that information so they know how often each doctor proscribes their drugs. That allows them to give targetted kickbacks and bribes. They can put pressure on any doctor who isn't prescribing high-priced drugs.

The law was intended to shield doctors from that pressure, which would encourage them to prescribe generics and older, safer, effective drugs.

This first amendment excuse is pretty transparent. It's a victory for big business over our rights to good healthcare.
x(

[RC]

2. What happened to doctor/patient confidentiality?

I guess we don't need to stand back when in line at the pharmacy any more either.

[unapatriciated]

3. We lost that to the patriot act

back in 2004 or around then doctors were required to get their patients to sign a form enabling them to release medical files in the interest of national security. Without a court order. I even had to sign one for my dentist.

[Igel]

5. Not really an issue.

You can't get from the data provided down to anybody's name. No specificity, no violation of confidentiality. After all, nothing confidential is being divulged.

Knowing that Dr. N prescribes lots of Synthroid and methimazole screams, "She's an endocrinologist and deals with thyroid disorders." Then again, wouldn't the yellow pages?

Knowing that M. Igil is a patient of Dr. N comes close to violating privacy--and, for all I know, is considered to be a violation. Still, there's just a chance I have a thyroid disorder and take Synthroid or methimazole--endocrinologists do more than just thyroids. The wider the range of drugs she prescribes, the less reliably they can predict anything about me. And, of course, just because I've seen Dr. N doesn't actually mean I have an endocrine disorder: On the second visit she might say, "Nope, everything checks out."

Compare those to seeing that M. Igil signed for an order of 10 mg methimazole tablets, 90 of them. That says fairly unequivocally, "M. Igil had moderate to severe thyrotoxicosis." Of course, there are less probable reasons for taking methimazole. See that I picked up metoprolol at the same time, and virtually all doubt's removed. The only question is when I'd be chowing down on radioactive iodine. This, I consider fairly confidential.

I'd have to examine the legal opinion to see if I disagree with the reasoning. There are lots of decisions where I think, "That sucks--I hate the decision", but at the end say, "That's the law, and it's Constitutional, or reasonably so. But it still sucks, and I still hate the decision." Makes me glad that I'm not a lawyer.

[Selatius]

4. In the old days, it was simpler.

When someone wanted to take away freedom, they did it out in public for everyone to see. The tyrant would then take on all comers who challenged his authority, and if he won, he kept power. If he lost, he was hung like Mussolini.

Now, the game has gone underground. Nobody here challenges democracy anymore openly. They simply use the illusion of democracy to anesthetize the masses into acceptance.