Dorkington Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 I'd assume the duty is as a licensed medical professional you can't breach the trust, not that the info is sacredly protected, in how the laws are framed. If I find the paper sitting in the street I don't have a duty to shred it, and I won't get in trouble for showing friends(to take it a little extreme in example). A doctor with access on the other hand.... But if you were sent child porn, and then posted it on twitter, and thousands of people reposted that.... (extreme comparison, but still...) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 (edited) But if you were sent child porn, and then posted it on twitter, and thousands of people reposted that.... (extreme comparison, but still...)Right because thats illegal material. If I find a bag of crack I can't distribute it either. I'm saying that in this case the root theory may be the info itself isn't illegal, simply the act of opening the door. Once open its simply factual information it seems- though I'm not an expert. If you hit shefter you'd just as soon have to hold everyone that shares it online accountable including those who posted it in this thread could be the slippery slope Edited July 9, 2015 by NoSaint Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NyQuil Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 So Schefter could be arrested for tweeting that? Whoever disclosed the information is the one who could be sued. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 Right because thats illegal material. If I find a bag of crack I can't distribute it either. I'm saying that in this case the root theory may be the info itself isn't illegal, simply the act of opening the door. Once open its simply factual information it seems- though I'm not an expert. If you hit shefter you'd just as soon have to hold everyone that shares it online accountable including those who posted it in this thread could be the slippery slope That may be it, but really one person made it public. If someone steals a million dollars, and then just tosses it off a bridge. You wouldn't really go after anyone who picked up one of the $20s (even if you wanted or asked for it back). Just logically, it would seem whomever stole the info and Schefter were equally at fault and to blame. It's an interesting case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimmy10 Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 I'd hate to be the in house attorney for that hospital. That guy is currently having a long f#%king night. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 That may be it, but really one person made it public. If someone steals a million dollars, and then just tosses it off a bridge. You wouldn't really go after anyone who picked up one of the $20s (even if you wanted or asked for it back). Just logically, it would seem whomever stole the info and Schefter were equally at fault and to blame. It's an interesting case. I'm literally just spitballing theory based on the tweets saying he's not liable (coupled with the reasonable guess espns lawyers agree). Kind of looping around it just seems it's a professional conduct rule and not a privacy rule at its root. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vincec Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 (edited) Why/how does ESPN get that information? It doesn't seem right +1. Medical records??? Wtf? https://twitter.com/JoeYerdon/status/618924478941294593 @JoeYerdon If Schefter reports that without showing the photo, he's in the clear - right? It's that simple isn't it? @jrlind @JoeYerdon he's fine either way. he's not a covered entity under HIPPA This seems wrong to me. So basically, if you can find a lackey that get's you the info then all bets are off and you can publish it as you please? That doesn't seem right. But if you were sent child porn, and then posted it on twitter, and thousands of people reposted that.... (extreme comparison, but still...) I was thinking of the same example. The one key difference is that simply being in possession of child pornography is a crime, regardless of how you got it or if you posted it or not. Right because thats illegal material. If I find a bag of crack I can't distribute it either. I'm saying that in this case the root theory may be the info itself isn't illegal, simply the act of opening the door. Once open its simply factual information it seems- though I'm not an expert. If you hit shefter you'd just as soon have to hold everyone that shares it online accountable including those who posted it in this thread could be the slippery slope Sounds similar to nude photos of celebrities that get stolen and then posted to the internet. However, the celebs have sued the crap out of people publishing these things so there must be some legal basis to do so. Edited July 9, 2015 by vincec Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 This seems wrong to me. So basically, if you can find a lackey that get's you the info then all bets are off and you can publish it as you please? That doesn't seem right. Is 26cornerblitz wrong for distributing it on this board? Might be an interesting talk, honestly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 People may be surprised how widely dispersed their "Private Health Information" is disseminated. Beyond all of you doctors/nurses/hospitals/offices, there is your insurance company. And if your company is self-insured, guess what...your employer has access to your records as well. There can be no penalty to anyone who is not a "covered entity" from disseminating PHI--unless they stole it from a "covered entity", obviously. Clearly Schefter didn't steal this stuff, so he is free to publish it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChan Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 +1. Medical records??? Wtf? This seems wrong to me. So basically, if you can find a lackey that get's you the info then all bets are off and you can publish it as you please? That doesn't seem right. I was thinking of the same example. The one key difference is that simply being in possession of child pornography is a crime, regardless of how you got it or if you posted it or not. Sounds similar to nude photos of celebrities that get stolen and then posted to the internet. However, the celebs have sued the crap out of people publishing these things so there must be some legal basis to do so. I mean, the lackey is basically destroying their career and any shred of their integrity. There's that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThurmasThoman Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 Well that was my original question, if it's against the law for doctors shouldn't it be against the law for anyone, so the person who gave it to Schefter is one, and Schefter made it public so he is another. yes. and you too, for looking at it, should surely go downtown and turn yourself in to the constable. luckily, i shielded my eyes and should avoid a hanging in the public square. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4merper4mer Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 I don't think Schefter can be arrested and probably not even successfully sued, but tweeting out a picture of a screen which he simply has to know is private info ought to get him blackballed as an insider. Of course that assumes people have an ounce of integrity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IslandBillsFan Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 Since seeing the medical release of amputation I have seen multiple comments that JPP will return to play very soon and the accident won't hinder him much. I am no expert but it seems like an index finger being amputated would have a pretty big impact in grabbing players for tackles, picking up the ball for fumbles or interceptions and lining up in a 3 point stance. I don't think they released at what location they amputated the finger (at one of the knuckles vs the whole digit) but it seems this would have an impact. Thoughts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorkington Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 Right because thats illegal material. If I find a bag of crack I can't distribute it either. I'm saying that in this case the root theory may be the info itself isn't illegal, simply the act of opening the door. Once open its simply factual information it seems- though I'm not an expert. If you hit shefter you'd just as soon have to hold everyone that shares it online accountable including those who posted it in this thread could be the slippery slope Very slippery slope. I just don't like it. I don't think it should be shared, and tweeted, and retweeted... I don't know. To me it is a form of illegal material, because only two 'people' are supposed to have that info, everyone is not privy to it. I think Schefter should have some sort of consequence for it, because its not right to do that, but I just don't know what that consequence is. Is 26cornerblitz wrong for distributing it on this board? Might be an interesting talk, honestly. I'm not sure about that... I think those that distributed it initially to the general public (Schefter) should be held responsible... after that, I don't know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PO16FFS Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 How does one pick his nose after having the index amputated? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papazoid Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 Did Schefter or ESPN violate HIPAA? The short answer is no -- "HIPAA laws apply to a very specific list of medical professionals," said Kelly McBride, a media ethics expert at the Poynter Institute. She was a former ombudsman for ESPN. ESPN said the same thing in a statement later Wednesday night: "HIPAA does not apply to news organizations." But if a health care worker leaked the medical information to Schefter, that person almost certainly violated the law. If identified, the person could lose his or her job and face jail time and fines. The records "should not be released without his explicit consent," said Arthur Caplan, the director of the medical ethics division at NYU's Langone Medical Center. Caplan concurred that HIPAA "only applies to health care personnel and payers," but said, "theft is a more serious matter." http://money.cnn.com/2015/07/08/media/jason-pierre-paul-espn-adam-schefter-hipaa/index.html maybe someone from ESPN snapped a picture of a computer screen or file without permission ?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4merper4mer Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 Did Schefter or ESPN violate HIPAA? The short answer is no -- "HIPAA laws apply to a very specific list of medical professionals," said Kelly McBride, a media ethics expert at the Poynter Institute. She was a former ombudsman for ESPN. ESPN said the same thing in a statement later Wednesday night: "HIPAA does not apply to news organizations." But if a health care worker leaked the medical information to Schefter, that person almost certainly violated the law. If identified, the person could lose his or her job and face jail time and fines. The records "should not be released without his explicit consent," said Arthur Caplan, the director of the medical ethics division at NYU's Langone Medical Center. Caplan concurred that HIPAA "only applies to health care personnel and payers," but said, "theft is a more serious matter." http://money.cnn.com/2015/07/08/media/jason-pierre-paul-espn-adam-schefter-hipaa/index.html maybe someone from ESPN snapped a picture of a computer screen or file without permission ?? Did they violate basic decency? The short answer is yes -- tweeting out a screen shot of someone's medical condition is low. It shouldn't really be that hard to figure out. Even if he said "I have seen the report and his finger was amputated...." IMO that is bad but I can see how others might disagree. Tweeting out a picture of the screen is the work of a dirt bag and I don't see how anyone can think it is cool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 maybe someone from ESPN snapped a picture of a computer screen or file without permission ?? I'm sure HIPPA includes some language that indicates allowing news reporters to read your computer screen, or leaving patient records up on an unattended computer are violations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YoloinOhio Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 (edited) Since seeing the medical release of amputation I have seen multiple comments that JPP will return to play very soon and the accident won't hinder him much. I am no expert but it seems like an index finger being amputated would have a pretty big impact in grabbing players for tackles, picking up the ball for fumbles or interceptions and lining up in a 3 point stance. I don't think they released at what location they amputated the finger (at one of the knuckles vs the whole digit) but it seems this would have an impact. Thoughts? i saw a doctor tweet last night that the index finger is the least important wrt to power grip. No idea if that is accurate though. Edited July 9, 2015 by YoloinOhio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 Is 26cornerblitz wrong for distributing it on this board? Might be an interesting talk, honestly. He should at least get a warning point. Mods? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts