与你的朋友保持亲密,与你的医疗记录保持亲密:定义宪法规定的信息隐私权保护医疗记录的程度。

Journal of law and health Pub Date : 2019-01-01
Lauren Newman
{"title":"与你的朋友保持亲密,与你的医疗记录保持亲密:定义宪法规定的信息隐私权保护医疗记录的程度。","authors":"Lauren Newman","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The following Article discusses the extent to which the constitutional right to informational privacy protects medical data from improper acquisition or dissemination by state agents. Part I provides background on <i>Whalen v. Roe</i>, the Supreme Court case that has been understood to establish the right to informational privacy. Part I also discusses the variations across the circuit courts as to what medical information is afforded protection by the right. Part II analyzes the well-established approaches adopted by the Second and Third Circuits as they present opposing interpretations of <i>Whalen</i>, one wholly protecting medical information and the other protecting scarcely any. Finally, Part III explains why the Supreme Court and courts that have yet to adopt a uniform approach should follow the Third Circuit and constitutionally protect all medical information from improper government acquisition or dissemination. Part III also argues for an amendment to the Privacy Act to provide individuals whose medical conditions are not afforded protection under the Constitution an alternative remedy.</p>","PeriodicalId":73804,"journal":{"name":"Journal of law and health","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Keep Your Friends Close and Your Medical Records Closer: Defining the Extent to Which a Constitutional Right to Informational Privacy Protects Medical Records.\",\"authors\":\"Lauren Newman\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The following Article discusses the extent to which the constitutional right to informational privacy protects medical data from improper acquisition or dissemination by state agents. Part I provides background on <i>Whalen v. Roe</i>, the Supreme Court case that has been understood to establish the right to informational privacy. Part I also discusses the variations across the circuit courts as to what medical information is afforded protection by the right. Part II analyzes the well-established approaches adopted by the Second and Third Circuits as they present opposing interpretations of <i>Whalen</i>, one wholly protecting medical information and the other protecting scarcely any. Finally, Part III explains why the Supreme Court and courts that have yet to adopt a uniform approach should follow the Third Circuit and constitutionally protect all medical information from improper government acquisition or dissemination. Part III also argues for an amendment to the Privacy Act to provide individuals whose medical conditions are not afforded protection under the Constitution an alternative remedy.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":73804,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of law and health\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of law and health\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of law and health","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

摘要

下文讨论了宪法规定的信息隐私权在多大程度上保护医疗数据不被国家工作人员不当获取或传播。第一部分介绍了惠伦诉罗伊案的背景,这一最高法院案件被认为确立了信息隐私权。第一部分还讨论了巡回法院在医疗信息受何种权利保护方面的差异。第二部分分析了第二和第三巡回法院采用的行之有效的方法,因为它们对惠伦案提出了相反的解释,一个完全保护医疗信息,另一个几乎不保护任何信息。最后,第三部分解释了为什么最高法院和尚未采用统一方法的法院应该遵循第三巡回法院的做法,从宪法上保护所有医疗信息不被政府不当获取或传播。第三部分还主张对《隐私法》进行修正,以便为医疗状况不受《宪法》保护的个人提供替代补救办法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Keep Your Friends Close and Your Medical Records Closer: Defining the Extent to Which a Constitutional Right to Informational Privacy Protects Medical Records.

The following Article discusses the extent to which the constitutional right to informational privacy protects medical data from improper acquisition or dissemination by state agents. Part I provides background on Whalen v. Roe, the Supreme Court case that has been understood to establish the right to informational privacy. Part I also discusses the variations across the circuit courts as to what medical information is afforded protection by the right. Part II analyzes the well-established approaches adopted by the Second and Third Circuits as they present opposing interpretations of Whalen, one wholly protecting medical information and the other protecting scarcely any. Finally, Part III explains why the Supreme Court and courts that have yet to adopt a uniform approach should follow the Third Circuit and constitutionally protect all medical information from improper government acquisition or dissemination. Part III also argues for an amendment to the Privacy Act to provide individuals whose medical conditions are not afforded protection under the Constitution an alternative remedy.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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