Forced medical testing
November 28, 2004 11:31 AM   Subscribe

I found this and was quite surprised that it would happen to anyone (then I kept reading and was more surprised). But at least this kid was a semi-adult and chose the school he went to. But, it's been done to children, too. Perhaps they've never heard of HIPAA. (via Entertainer)
posted by nospecialfx (22 comments total)
 
There is a lot more going on in the first link than your post lets on. If this guy is accurately reporting what happened, this was part of an active deformation campaign for standing up to a poor authority figure. This is slightly different than the children links. Still the overall point remains the same, STD testing has become a stigma that can be wielded like a weapon. Scary stuff.
posted by litghost at 12:07 PM on November 28, 2004


And the ACLU is...where? I'd be suing the crap out of those hose-bags. No one sticks a needle in me without my permission. Except that kindergarten screening nurse. But she was the last one.
posted by BradNelson at 12:46 PM on November 28, 2004


Okay, the "too" article mentions the NYCLU, but is this beyond the ACLU's scope of interest?
posted by BradNelson at 12:48 PM on November 28, 2004


What amazes me the most, I think, about that site, are the people who tell him he's unchristian for even thinking about filing lawsuits. Way to continue the cycle of perpetual spiritual abuse.
posted by nospecialfx at 12:52 PM on November 28, 2004


To be fair, the "children" link and the "too" link refer to the same incident. It's quite an amazing incident, though.

I haven't taken torts yet (ah, famous first-year law student disclaimer...), but the kid might be barking up the wrong tree, insisting on invasion of privacy. A little poking around Westlaw reveals that, at the moment, it's not clear Indiana recognizes the "public disclosure of private fact" aspect of invasion of privacy; the Indiana supreme court said "In our 'been there, done that' age of talk shows, tabloids, and twelve-step programs, public disclosures of private facts are far less likely to cause shock, offense, or emotional distress than at the time Warren and Brandeis wrote their famous article", Doe v. Methodist Hosp. 690 N.E.2d 681, 692. Notice the Taylor person specifically relies on the Warren / Brandeis article in one of his posts.

That said, it seems like he still might be able to pursue a claim for defamation of some type, if he can identify who started spreading the word that he had hepatitis. Usually that's reserved for allegations that someone has an STD or some really embarassing disease, but from all this hoopla, it seems like maybe hep. would count.

Then, if the counselor is actually a licensed counselor and not just some guy, he could probably nail him for violation of doctor/patient privilege, if the counselor actually did disclose privileged information to that woman who was snooping around. Come to think of it, as Taylor is a religious school, maybe there would be some kind of clerical privilege there too, if the counseling was "spiritual" in nature. Of course, the kid could probably just get the counselor's license revoked or something, not recover any damages.

I think I disagree with litghost that this situation is completely distinguishable from the kids-STD story from New York. In both cases, someone is being directed to have a medical test done based solely on the suspicion that they may be sick. I agree, though, that an STD generally carries more of a stigma than hepatitis. Still, the invasion seems similar in kind, and the fact that the NYCLU got interested in the kids' case bodes well for this Taylor alumnus. I hope he calls the Indiana chapter of the ACLU. Oh, and if anyone thinks this is legal advice, it's not, I'm just practicing "issue spotting". :)
posted by rkent at 1:06 PM on November 28, 2004


Interesting analysis ... I think though, he's claiming invasion of privacy only with the woman who was snooping around. He hasn't said much more about the medical test.

Though, I'm gonna disagree with the less likely to cause shock and emotional distress in *this instance* --

If you read some of what that school is all about, the community suggests that someone having this type of information published to *this type* of community -- extremely conservative -- would very much produce shock, offense and emotional distress.

Wouldn't there be some type of reasonable man test to apply that would take into consideration that these people probably didn't fit the definition of a reasonable man in regard to their beliefs?

Justin thinking out loud.
posted by nospecialfx at 1:12 PM on November 28, 2004


And wait -- hepatitis isn't and STD?
posted by nospecialfx at 1:15 PM on November 28, 2004


The scary part about all this is he was presumed to have hepatitis, which meant even if he was allowed not to take the blood test, people would continue to assume he had hepatitis. The school didn't even need to force him too, that pressure from the gossip would've forced him to take the test.

Also, I never found the follow-up to "My blood", did people find out he never had hepatitis, or what?

On preview: First off, some forms of hepatitis are STD's, and I thought that is what all the hoopla is about. Second I agree about what you said ("In both cases, someone is being directed to have a medical test done based solely on the suspicion that they may be sick"), but I think the back story to Taylor case makes it worse. In both cases STD testing is being used as a weapon, but I felt there was simply a higher level of malevolence in the Taylor case. That is what distinguished them. They are still very much related.
posted by litghost at 1:15 PM on November 28, 2004


It begs the question -- what would they have done had the test come back positive?
posted by nospecialfx at 1:19 PM on November 28, 2004


And wait -- hepatitis isn't an STD?

Yeah, I wasn't sure about that. I know I had to get a bunch of hep vaccinations when I went to Africa, and I don't think it was even ostensibly connected to concerns about sex. And I'm pretty sure Hep C, at least, is one you can get from being in close quarters, maybe casual physical contact, with someone who has it.
posted by rkent at 1:43 PM on November 28, 2004


"Hepatitis" merely means inflammation of the liver. There are a variety of such conditions, some viral and some not. While sex, or any exchange of bodily fluids, is a risk factor, it is far from the only one: the most common hepatitis is Hep A, which is almost exclusively passed through fecal-oral transmission.

So wash your hands, kids.

nospecialfx, I do hope we're not in for a slew of Christian site posts from you. What is your agenda?
posted by adamgreenfield at 2:05 PM on November 28, 2004


"What amazes me the most, I think, about that site, are the people who tell him he's unchristian for even thinking about filing lawsuits." Hardly suprising. Many religious communities do not believe in privacy amongst their members. Kinda like a cult...
posted by dirvish at 2:49 PM on November 28, 2004


nospecialfx, I do hope we're not in for a slew of Christian site posts from you. What is your agenda?

FWIW his 2 posts on this (very broad) topic haven't exactly shown the kinder, gentler side of christianity, so I daresay he's not out to convert anyone on MeFi. And if he's got a plan to debunk the myth that everything is just fine and happy in non-mainstream nutjob american christianity, I say bring it on.
posted by contessa at 3:02 PM on November 28, 2004


What's more, if he wants to post things centered on christianity, let him. They're good posts, and I see no reason why they shouldn't continue. Where's the "No christian things" rule?
posted by ChrisR at 3:19 PM on November 28, 2004


Please include a more informative summary of the main link than "I found this". Your post says nothing of substance about the subject of any of the links.
posted by azazello at 3:55 PM on November 28, 2004


If this person can establish that his medical records (wrong or right re. diagnosis) were leaked, the leaker AND whatever bigwigs are in charge of the leaker are in deep shit. If there were confidentiality violations comparable to this at the hospital for which I work, HIPAA mandates that it's the tippy-top administrators (initials V.P. and above) who are looking at fines in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. And jail time.
posted by jfuller at 4:19 PM on November 28, 2004


ChrisR, they're actually not good posts, neither one of 'em. (The fact that the first unleased a 300+ comment shitstorm of response should not be read as validation.)

The first was disingenuous AgendaFilter; this one is...I'm not quite sure what it is, but it's certainly not the kind of thing that needs to be shared with this audience.

I'm perfectly happy to watch you-all n00bs find your feet. I'm less happy to watch people set about redecorating the place in a way congenial to them. I'm not sure if there's a crying need for a collaborative-filtering site to surface and disseminate news of interest from the farflung, diverse Christian blogging community, but I do know that MetaFilter is not and should not be that site.
posted by adamgreenfield at 7:19 PM on November 28, 2004


Is there a specific name for the type of post that links to stuff without explaining it? i.e. "mystery post" etc. ?
posted by mecran01 at 7:28 AM on November 29, 2004


rkent: Indiana law doesn't matter, this is a federal issue due to HIPAA as the FPP pointed out. Any personally-identifiable information about your health is protected under federal law and may not be disclosed without your explicit written permission. And as medical information goes, a diagnosis is one of the most strongly-protected items; I used to work at a health-insurance company and there were situations where we were forbidden to disclose diagnosis information to the patient, let alone anyone else.
posted by ubernostrum at 7:30 AM on November 29, 2004


I don't know about that, adamgreenfield, I agree that they don't fulfill the best of the web idea, but MeFi is somewhat more than just that, these days (and this isn't a newbie thing either).

I look at this one as a good post because, well...

Ah, crap. Might as well admit it. I was in part playing devil's advocate here. "Good post" may well be stretching things, but I don't approve of telling him to stay away from things Christian. Not a good thing to discourage, in my strongly atheistic (and actively anti-theistic) libertarian mind.
posted by ChrisR at 8:54 AM on November 29, 2004


LOL
posted by adamgreenfield at 9:30 AM on November 29, 2004


ChrisR, agree, I'm atheistic (if not anti-theistic, though don't get me started on the subject of mediums) and I can't say I was particularly bothered by either post. As someone who belongs to an opressed minority here on mefi (non-American "help! help! I'm being repressed!") I don't see why other opressed mefi minorities don't get their posts in the sunlight ;)
posted by Kattullus at 11:42 AM on November 29, 2004


« Older Losing Languages   |   Tom Claytor, Bush Pilot Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments