Originally posted by: O2bnVegas
Isn't there a contradiction, or incongruity, or something, when a prominent figure such as an entertainer's, TV or movie star's, or POTUS's medical information is splashed all over the news, and a lowly nobody citizen faces a five-figure fine and possibly jail for even looking at the medical record of any person, let alone broadcasting it? Most of us are familiar with HIPPA which is intended to protect persons from such disclosure when we go to the doctor or are hospitalized.
We all want to know. We are all curious about our favorite celebrities. Where is the line drawn? Does a president HAVE TO accept such disclosure, and at what point?
And nobody needs to lecture me about a right to know the health status of those who lead our nation. But is there such a right, and aren't there boundaries?
I know the POTUS gets a routine health checkup every so often, the results of which are normally publicized in the press. But how much detail is told, and does the president sign off on such disclosure. Does that mean if he has a TIA or a bout with HTN or a URI or a UTI, or an STD is there no privacy? Is he required to disclose everything?
Just wondering, always have. They were so strict about it at work. Our associated medical center often had celebrities of stage and screen as patients, usually for some serious cancer since the medical center was recognized as having world renown cancer expertise in some categories. Once one of the young doctors happened to tell me he was on the medical team caring for a certain actor. I was immediately in a state of being star struck and told the doctor "Oh, tell him I really enjoyed him in such and so movie." YIKES, I knew better, just forgot for a moment. And the doctor turned pale and never mentioned it again, 'cause he knew that if it was known that he let on to somebody NOT on his care team about him, that actor could file a complaint and there would be big trouble for everybody.
It happened years ago at another hospital in town when a popular TV news anchor was attacked in her home, died at the hospital of her injuries. A well regarded local MD, not on the anchor's care team, was found to have looked in her electronic medical record along with a couple of nursing staff while the anchor was in surgery. (The computer system flagged the 'unauthorized viewing'.) The MD had his license suspended for some months, and the nursing staff people were disciplines, some terminated. And none of them had contacted the media. Later the anchor's mother sued the hospital and the MD. I don't know the outcome of that.
Sorry to go on so long. Still, thje initial question, where is the line, if any, drawn on presidential privacy of medical data?
Candy
It is irrelevant because his team was hiding everything about him so they could just run the country and put the scarecrow in front of a camera while they did it.