|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Physician–patient privilege article.|
|WikiProject Philosophy||(Rated Start-class)|
|WikiProject Law||(Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)|
I would be curious to see opinions on this topic because of the Rush Limbaugh case, in which he his arrest and conviction was based upon evidence obtained from his physician without Mr. Limbaugh's permission. 220.127.116.11 20:24, 1 May 2006 (UTC)Brian Pearson
To add: ...An Historical Prospective Over forty years ago this Court confirmed that the State of Florida does not recognize a patient-physician testimonial privilege. MORRISON v. MhLMQUIST, 62 SO. 2d 415 (Fla. 2953). Eleven years ago that holding was reaffirmed in the context of a challenge to voluntary' ex parte contact between defense counsel and a plaintiff's treating physicians. See, CORALLUZZO v. FASS, 450 So. 2d 858 (Fla. 1984) * In CORALLUZZO this Court could find "no reason in law or in zquity to disapprove" of voluntary ex parte conferences between defense counsel and treating health care providers. 450 So. 2d at 859 ....
...Relying upon MORRISON v. MALMQUIST, supra, the court pointed out that there is no physician-patient privilege in the State of Florida which would preclude such. contact becaus9 or' the witness' professional relationship with the plaintiff...
Whalen v. Roe, 429 U.S. 589 (1977), a group of physicians joined patients in a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of a New York statute that required physicians to report to state authorities the identities of patients receiving Schedule II drugs (controlled substances). The physicians alleged that such information was protected by the doctor-patient confidentiality, while the patients alleged that such disclosure was an invasion of their constitutional right to privacy. The Supreme Court did not disagree with the lower court's finding that "the intimate nature of a patient's concern about his bodily ills and the medication he takes . . . are protected by the constitutional right to privacy." However, the high court concluded (after balancing the state's interests) that "Requiring such disclosures to representatives of the State having responsibility for the health of the community, does not automatically amount to an impermissible invasion of privacy."
I'm not trying to make the case for one this side of the argument -- I'm only adding this to see if it will help with comments. 18.104.22.168 21:00, 1 May 2006 (UTC)Brian Pearson
merging with Client confidentiality
From what I can see, this page largely duplicates discussion on Client confidentiality. Given that is a broader term, I think this page should probably be merged into that page. thoughts? Cas Liber 13:52, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
- Well, since there are also articles on such things as Attorney client privilege and Accountant-client privilege, maybe the Physician-patient privilege article should stay as a separate article if it is expanded. For example, you could go into the intricacies of how the privilege varies from state to state (more limited in some states than in others). I personally don't have a strong sense about this either way, though. Famspear 01:47, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
"For example, if a patient tells a physician he or she is feeling better, the defendant the patient may be suing at the time may not ask the doctor if the patient ever expressed the belief that his or her condition had improved."
- Please rephrase. 22.214.171.124 02:49, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Consultations with colleagues
Is a physician(specifically psychologist) allowed to consult his/her colleagues about a patient or is that against physician/patient confidentiality? Thanks. --Mentaka 20:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
- I beleive that they can legally discuss patients if they refrian from mentioning specific names. For example, in a medical essay, they might say something like "I saw that patient A had a large cyst on his upper neck, and found that injecting 2 ccs of (whatever) reduced its size almost immediately." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pyromancer102 (talk • contribs) 18:35, 15 April 2007 (UTC).
If it's a physician it's usually a psychiatrist, not psychologist. Yes they can discuss the case with colleagues but, as the above post says, no names should be used in such a discussion. Emiwee 15:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
you are all rearranging the deck chairs on the titanic. this article needs a complete rerwrite by someone who is at least a practicing attorney, and preferably an academic. there are umpteen issues it doesn't even touch on; e.g. exceptions to privilege. someone who is m.d.,j.d. would be ideal. without that level of help on an issue like this, you're just spinning your wheels.Toyokuni3 (talk) 03:21, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
- Least of which is not the fact that every single citation points to the same Huffingtonpost.com editorial. 100DashSix (talk) 23:28, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
what jurisdictions does this apply in?
There is almost no elaboration on what places actually have such information. Given the lack of information about other places the detailed citation of particular Texas laws seems somewhat bizarre.--126.96.36.199 (talk) 03:50, 12 March 2010 (UTC)