I want my information back: evidentiary privilege following the partial birth abortion cases.

Journal of health law Pub Date : 2005-01-01
Molly Silfen
{"title":"I want my information back: evidentiary privilege following the partial birth abortion cases.","authors":"Molly Silfen","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In February 2004, privacy concerns captured the public's attention when the United States government, the defendant in a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003, sought to subpoena the medical records of patients receiving intact dilation and extraction (also known as \"partial birth\") abortions in six different hospitals and six Planned Parenthood centers across the country. Three different federal court cases explored the enforceability of the subpoenas. This Note explores the rationales used by the three courts in examining the privacy interests involved. It then suggests some possible solutions for systematically protecting medical information: a legal solution; a technological solution; and a combination of both. The legal solution involves creating a federal physician-patient privilege, similar to that enforced in many states and parallel to the federal psychotherapist-patient privilege. The technological solution requires the complicity of multiple jurisdictions to verify the necessity of revealing medical information. Taken together, these solutions can assist the government in protecting its citizens by imposing more checks on itself.</p>","PeriodicalId":80027,"journal":{"name":"Journal of health law","volume":"38 1","pages":"121-35"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2005-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of health law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In February 2004, privacy concerns captured the public's attention when the United States government, the defendant in a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003, sought to subpoena the medical records of patients receiving intact dilation and extraction (also known as "partial birth") abortions in six different hospitals and six Planned Parenthood centers across the country. Three different federal court cases explored the enforceability of the subpoenas. This Note explores the rationales used by the three courts in examining the privacy interests involved. It then suggests some possible solutions for systematically protecting medical information: a legal solution; a technological solution; and a combination of both. The legal solution involves creating a federal physician-patient privilege, similar to that enforced in many states and parallel to the federal psychotherapist-patient privilege. The technological solution requires the complicity of multiple jurisdictions to verify the necessity of revealing medical information. Taken together, these solutions can assist the government in protecting its citizens by imposing more checks on itself.

我想要回我的信息,部分分娩流产案之后的证据特权。
2004年2月,隐私权问题引起了公众的注意,当时,美国政府在一项挑战2003年《部分分娩堕胎禁令法》的合宪法性的诉讼中,作为被告,试图传唤在全国六家不同医院和六家计划生育中心接受完整扩张和取出(也称为“部分分娩”)堕胎的患者的医疗记录。三个不同的联邦法院案件探讨了传票的可执行性。本摘要探讨三个法院在审查涉及的私隐权益时所采用的理据。然后提出了系统保护医疗信息的一些可能解决方案:法律解决方案;技术解决方案;以及两者的结合。法律上的解决方案包括建立一个联邦医生-病人特权,类似于许多州所执行的,与联邦精神治疗师-病人特权平行。该技术解决方案需要多个司法管辖区的共谋来验证披露医疗信息的必要性。综上所述,这些解决方案可以帮助政府通过对自身施加更多的检查来保护其公民。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信