The left did the same with President GWB. One day he was a master conspirator and the next he was an idiot. He couldn't be both. He was neither.@goat or clinton and the crew and dem donors were on there as well. i'm sure that wasn't limited to a party
I'm just reminding everyone that you can't claim a guy is a criminal mastermind and a vegetable at the same time. People seem to forget that, depending on what is convenient in any particular argument.
That’s interesting. It’s not normally how the fifth works, but it’s a reasonable explanation why his lawyer might have advised it.
Glad I wasn't totally off the reservation. I'm actually surprised that view isn't basic. If I can't be compelled to admit to a crime, surely I can't be compelled to commit one.
I don't think disclosure in this case would be committing a crime. I think he was probably just pleading the fifth to cover his bases. Pleading doctor-patient privilege looks good, but might not stand up to a determined Congress, since it's merely a professional ethic, not a constitutional right.
His own physician just took the 5th. Only a guilty person would do so as we've been told many times. So how deep was the coverup? Who was running the autopen? We need answers.
https://twitter.com/RepJamesComer/status/1942970278381838547?t=levsbZp4S-hhbnxlcctksw&s=19
Under HIPAA, he's not allowed to disclose personal medical information without concent.
True, Why did he take the 5th when had an easy doctor/patient privilege layup?
I don't think it was a layup. I think Congress would clearly have the authority to demand he break confidentiality, and then hold him in contempt when he refuses.
@aloha-hoosier i didn't want ot say it out loud because i'm trying to manifest it. then we'd really have the wc band back together. still some out there but getting there.
i really wish there was a like laugh and love button for speed in responses
Yes, there are exceptions to HIPAA and doctor-patient confidentiality where protected health information (PHI) can be disclosed without patient consent. These exceptions are narrowly defined to balance privacy with public interest or legal obligations. Below are key exceptions relevant to your question, including scenarios like a doctor being subpoenaed to testify before Congress in a criminal matter:
1. **Court Orders and Subpoenas**:
- A doctor may be required to disclose PHI if served with a valid court order, subpoena, or other legal mandate, such as testifying before Congress in a criminal matter. HIPAA permits disclosure when compelled by law, but the information shared must be limited to what is specifically required by the legal request.
- For example, if a doctor is subpoenaed to testify about a patient’s medical records in a criminal investigation, they must comply, but only to the extent required by the subpoena. They may also notify the patient or seek a protective order if appropriate.
2. **Law Enforcement Purposes**:
- HIPAA allows disclosures to law enforcement under specific circumstances, such as:
- Reporting certain types of injuries (e.g., gunshot wounds or suspected abuse).
- Responding to a court order, warrant, or administrative request.
- Identifying or locating a suspect, fugitive, or missing person.
- Providing information about a crime victim, if certain conditions are met (e.g., the patient cannot consent due to incapacity).
- In a congressional testimony scenario, if the matter involves a criminal investigation, the doctor may be required to disclose relevant PHI, especially if it pertains to public safety or a high-profile case.
3. **Public Health and Safety**:
- Doctors can disclose PHI to prevent or lessen a serious and imminent threat to the health or safety of a person or the public. For instance, if a patient’s condition poses a danger (e.g., a mental health crisis leading to threats of violence), a doctor may share information with authorities or other relevant parties.
4. **Mandatory Reporting Laws**:
- State and federal laws may require doctors to report specific information, such as child or elder abuse, domestic violence, or certain communicable diseases, overriding confidentiality protections.
5. **Government Oversight and Investigations**:
- Disclosures are permitted for health oversight activities, such as audits, investigations, or inspections by government agencies (e.g., Department of Health and Human Services). If Congress is conducting an investigation, a doctor might be required to provide information under oversight authority.
6. **Workers’ Compensation or Legal Claims**:
- PHI can be disclosed for workers’ compensation claims or when a patient’s health is directly relevant to a legal proceeding (e.g., malpractice or personal injury cases).
7. **Deceased Patients**:
- HIPAA protections may not apply to deceased individuals in certain cases, such as when information is requested by law enforcement or a coroner for criminal investigations or determining cause of death.
### Specific to Congressional Testimony
If a doctor is subpoenaed to testify before Congress in a criminal matter:
- The doctor must comply with the subpoena, as it is a legal obligation. HIPAA explicitly allows disclosures required by law (45 CFR § 164.512(f)).
- The doctor should disclose only the minimum necessary information to satisfy the subpoena unless broader disclosure is explicitly required.
- The doctor may consult legal counsel to ensure compliance with HIPAA and state laws, as some states have stricter confidentiality rules.
- If the testimony involves sensitive information, the doctor or patient may request a protective order to limit public disclosure or redact certain details.
### Practical Considerations
- **Notice to Patient**: When possible, doctors are encouraged to notify the patient of the disclosure unless doing so would interfere with the legal process or is prohibited.
- **Minimum Necessary Rule**: Even in exceptions, HIPAA requires limiting disclosures to the minimum necessary to achieve the purpose, except in cases of treatment or patient-authorized disclosures.
- **State Laws**: Some states have confidentiality laws that are stricter than HIPAA. Doctors must comply with the more protective standard.
If you’re exploring a specific scenario (e.g., a hypothetical case or a particular type of criminal matter), I can dig deeper into relevant regulations or case law. Let me know if you’d like me to search for real-time information or analyze a specific situation!
_Disclaimer: Grok is not a lawyer; please consult one. Don't share information that can identify you._
Concur.@aloha-hoosier i didn't want ot say it out loud because i'm trying to manifest it. then we'd really have the wc band back together. still some out there but getting there.
i really wish there was a like laugh and love button for speed in responses
His own physician just took the 5th. Only a guilty person would do so as we've been told many times. So how deep was the coverup? Who was running the autopen? We need answers.
https://twitter.com/RepJamesComer/status/1942970278381838547?t=levsbZp4S-hhbnxlcctksw&s=19
Under HIPAA, he's not allowed to disclose personal medical information without concent.
True, Why did he take the 5th when had an easy doctor/patient privilege layup?
I don't think it was a layup. I think Congress would clearly have the authority to demand he break confidentiality, and then hold him in contempt when he refuses.
An end run around the 5th is easier. It’s called immunity.