Small victory

[chaparral]

@TMI

@slowguy

As I said, even if there’s no legal penalty, he acted unethically and should be penalized by his employer and medical association. A hospital saying they’d stop offering services but continuing to perform those services is not illegal, and accessing patient data for people not under your care and then turning that info over to media and political groups is not “whistleblowing.”

Criminal prosecutions of HIPAA violations are exceedingly rare, so there was no reason for the DOJ to get involved in the first place. As you said, it should have been left to his medical association and employer. In the case of sidewalk abortion protester Mark Houck, the DOJ took up a dismissed case and sent 20 agents with long guns to arrest him in front of his family. It took the jury less than one hour to render a verdict of not guilty on all counts in a humiliating rebuke. The Houck case blew up in the administration’s face, and the Haim case was headed to a similar result.

The initial indictment contained factual errors resulting in the need for a couple of superseding indictments that removed some of the original allegations. The claim about releasing unredacted patient information wasn’t true, nor was the claim about gaining unauthorized access to the patient databases, nor the claim about malicious harm to patients (all detailed in the NR+ link).

Both cases were partisan attempts to use the DOJ to intimidate those who disagreed with the administration’s positions on some hot-button social issues.

@chaparral

TMI, in the future you can just save us all the time and just post:

Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.

See how much typing that saves you!

Because this is such a perfect example of your belief here. The doctor here is in the “in-group”, so not bound by laws. The trans children are in the “out-group” that you believe the law should not protect.

In this instance, you have it backwards. Not a single patient suffered any harm while Haim’s legal fees approach nearly two million dollars after being targeted by the DOJ.

He had legal fees after breaking the law? That is a surprise to you?

[Nutella]

@TMI

Criminal prosecutions of HIPAA violations

Last year there were 2,419 criminal referrals to the DOJ.

Your hero clearly broke the law and illegally leaked to a troll who deliberately misrepresented the leak for clicks …and you cheered.

[BfloTri]

@TMI

Not a single patient suffered any harm while Haim’s legal fees approach nearly two million dollars after being targeted by the DOJ.

It really doesn’t matter whether patients in fact suffered harm. His unauthorized compilation of PHI for no valid reason was a violation in itself. I’m kind of surprised they dropped the case. At a minimum he should be shit-canned from his current job.

[BLeP]

@BfloTri

@TMI

Not a single patient suffered any harm while Haim’s legal fees approach nearly two million dollars after being targeted by the DOJ.

It really doesn’t matter whether patients in fact suffered harm. His unauthorized compilation of PHI for no valid reason was a violation in itself. I’m kind of surprised they dropped the case. At a minimum he should be shit-canned from his current job.

What part of this surprised you?

[BfloTri]

In crazy age, I guess I shouldn’t be surprised about anything anymore. During yearly HIPAA training they scare the shit out of you with punishments for unauthorized use of PHI. I guess I’ll skip right to the test next time. Appears we’re just checking boxes anyway.

[Nutella]

@BfloTri

@TMI

Not a single patient suffered any harm while Haim’s legal fees approach nearly two million dollars after being targeted by the DOJ.

It really doesn’t matter whether patients in fact suffered harm. His unauthorized compilation of PHI for no valid reason was a violation in itself. I’m kind of surprised they dropped the case. At a minimum he should be shit-canned from his current job.

Trump ordered the DOJ to drop the case after Sen Josh Hawley told him the hospital was performing “illegal gender transition surgeries on minors”. Like most things Hawley says this was a lie, but Trump fell for it.

[spockman]

I have pointed out numerous times in our local hospital that we make a big deal of patient confidentiality however you go to the ER and the only things separating you and your personal business is a thin fabric curtain. One can hear the goings on of the patient and doctor five bays over. When I raise such concerns people just shrug.

[40-Tude]

@spockman

I have pointed out numerous times in our local hospital that we make a big deal of patient confidentiality however you go to the ER and the only things separating you and your personal business is a thin fabric curtain. One can hear the goings on of the patient and doctor five bays over. When I raise such concerns people just shrug.

I was in the hospital about a year ago and separated from the next bed by that thin public curtain. The patient there was an elderly NY woman that had just had hip surgery. A group of Gen-Z residents came by to tell her surgery went well, blah blah, and what to expect over the next 24 hrs. Can’t help but hear everything.

Funny part was when the group left, she gets on the phone and I hear her say, “Yeah, the 12 year olds were just here again…”

[Thiswasit]

@spockman

I have pointed out numerous times in our local hospital that we make a big deal of patient confidentiality however you go to the ER and the only things separating you and your personal business is a thin fabric curtain. One can hear the goings on of the patient and doctor five bays over. When I raise such concerns people just shrug.

I would guess a major difference is the patient is implicitly agreeing to have that public conversation by participating in it.

[sonofdad]

@spockman

I have pointed out numerous times in our local hospital that we make a big deal of patient confidentiality however you go to the ER and the only things separating you and your personal business is a thin fabric curtain. One can hear the goings on of the patient and doctor five bays over. When I raise such concerns people just shrug.

I understand this, and have pointed it out myself. It’s a bad set up, and goes against confidentiality rules. It does not justify a physician gathering private health information, from clients that he had no part in treating, and giving that information to the media. Putting it in the same thread is disappointing to me.

[TMI]

If one’s employer is lying to the public, what would you do? You’d be foolish not to have evidence before going public.

I am not thrilled with the doctor accessing patient information either, but it’s the DOJ’s involvement that I object to. The doc’s relationship with the hospital was going to end one way or another.

[Thiswasit]

@TMI

If one’s employer is lying to the public, what would you do? You’d be foolish not to have evidence before going public.

Why go public rather than to someone who can investigate the claim? Was this hospital breaking the law?

[sonofdad]

I am not thrilled with the doctor accessing patient information either, but it’s the DOJ’s involvement that I object to.

You object to the DOJ’s involvement because this is about gender related issues. If this guy violated multiple patients privacy, his oath and his ethics over cancer treatment he didn’t agree with, would you praise him and object to DOJ involvement? I doubt it.

Again, I don’t give a toss about the DOJ, but don’t call this guy a hero for violating what he swore to protect. His excuse is not correct or sound.

[chaparral]

@TMI

If one’s employer is lying to the public, what would you do? You’d be foolish not to have evidence before going public.

I am not thrilled with the doctor accessing patient information either, but it’s the DOJ’s involvement that I object to. The doc’s relationship with the hospital was going to end one way or another.

No, violating the law is not allowed if you think someone is lying.

Can’t believe that has to be explained here.

[BLeP]

@chaparral

@TMI

If one’s employer is lying to the public, what would you do? You’d be foolish not to have evidence before going public.

I am not thrilled with the doctor accessing patient information either, but it’s the DOJ’s involvement that I object to. The doc’s relationship with the hospital was going to end one way or another.

No, violating the law is not allowed if you think someone is lying.

Can’t believe that has to be explained here.

Look, we can’t have gays and trannies. Any and all measures can and must be used to stop them from existing.

[Nutella]

@TMI

If one’s employer is lying to the public, what would you do? You’d be foolish not to have evidence before going public.

I am not thrilled with the doctor accessing patient information either, but it’s the DOJ’s involvement that I object to. The doc’s relationship with the hospital was going to end one way or another.

There is an establish process that the Doctor agreed to. Leaking illegally obtained, confidential, information to a right-wing troll with a long history of promoting false claims about the LGBTQ community is not part of that process…but the outrage machine must be fed.
Texas Children’s Statement on Gender Care | Texas Children’s

[LacticacidMCB]

@chaparral

No, violating the law is not allowed if you think someone is lying.

Although a political pardon here makes more sense that what we’ve seen the last two weeks.

[chaparral]

@BLeP

@chaparral

@TMI

If one’s employer is lying to the public, what would you do? You’d be foolish not to have evidence before going public.

I am not thrilled with the doctor accessing patient information either, but it’s the DOJ’s involvement that I object to. The doc’s relationship with the hospital was going to end one way or another.

No, violating the law is not allowed if you think someone is lying.

Can’t believe that has to be explained here.

Look, we can’t have gays and trannies. Any and all measures can and must be used to stop them from existing.

Does TMI know that everyone can see he is acting in bad faith? TMI doesn’t care about lying, since he supports the GOP.

[BLeP]

@chaparral

@BLeP

@chaparral

@TMI

If one’s employer is lying to the public, what would you do? You’d be foolish not to have evidence before going public.

I am not thrilled with the doctor accessing patient information either, but it’s the DOJ’s involvement that I object to. The doc’s relationship with the hospital was going to end one way or another.

No, violating the law is not allowed if you think someone is lying.

Can’t believe that has to be explained here.

Look, we can’t have gays and trannies. Any and all measures can and must be used to stop them from existing.

Does TMI know that everyone can see he is acting in bad faith? TMI doesn’t care about lying, since he supports the GOP.

No. He doesn’t. He just defends them nonstop.

[TMI]

@sonofdad

You object to the DOJ’s involvement because this is about gender related issues.

Gender issues are the only reason the DOJ signed onto the case in the first place in an effort to make an example of Haim or anyone else who would criticize gender-affirming care providers. If it was about cancer, no one would have heard about it.

@sonofdad

Again, I don’t give a toss about the DOJ, but don’t call this guy a hero for violating what he swore to protect.

Being unfairly targeted by the DOJ doesn’t make one a hero.