User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 1/19/2015 11:38:37 AM EDT
[#1]
Quoted:
Would a patient be within the law to record his phone or office conversation w/o doctors knowledge? Depends on your local/state laws. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2015 11:38:52 AM EDT
[#2]
Check your local state laws
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2015 11:39:12 AM EDT
[#3]
Quoted:
Would a patient be within the law to record his phone or office conversation w/o doctors knowledge? Probably depends on state law? Unless there's a HIPPA element that I'm not aware of. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2015 11:40:01 AM EDT
[#4]
What is it you intend to record? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2015 11:41:51 AM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted: What is it you intend to record? Document
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2015 11:43:25 AM EDT
[#6]
Most of the laws are written so a person can record a conversation they are directly involved in.
One would need a warrant to record the conversation of two other people. Generally speaking, one party involved in the conversation must know it's being recorded. It is dependent on local laws. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2015 11:43:35 AM EDT
[#7]
In FL it's not legal. Not sure about your state OP.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2015 11:46:02 AM EDT
[#8]
lol
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2015 11:48:13 AM EDT
[#9]
Quoted:
Would a patient be within the law to record his phone or office conversation w/o doctors knowledge? Depends on the state due to 'wiretapping laws'. However, you will be an 'ex' patient very quickly once words gets around the medical community that you are targeting physicians. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2015 11:48:27 AM EDT
[#10]
Why not just start the conversation with "by the way, my memory is terrible so I'll be recording this conversation" since credit card companies do it all the time.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2015 11:50:08 AM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Document Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: What is it you intend to record? Document Are you planning on suing in case your reassignment surgery doesn't work out?  |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2015 11:51:23 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: What is it you intend to record? Document Are you planning on suing in case your reassignment surgery doesn't work out? He can always date FlatDarkErf after though so there's that |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2015 11:51:41 AM EDT
[#13]
NY is a one party consent state, as long as the recorder is an active part of the conversation, recording is fine.
Check your state laws. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2015 11:52:13 AM EDT
[#14]
Depends on what State. Some it's OK, some it's felony "wiretap".
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2015 11:53:28 AM EDT
[#15]
New York makes it a crime to record to record or eavesdrop on an in-person or telephone conversation unless one party to the conversation consents. N.Y. Penal Law §§ 250.00, 250.05.
California makes it a crime to record or eavesdrop on any confidential communication, including a private conversation or telephone call, without the consent of all parties to the conversation. See Cal. Penal Code § 632. «tc2k11» |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2015 11:57:57 AM EDT
[#16]
In Texas it is legal as long as one of the parties is aware of the recording.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2015 12:00:08 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Why not just start the conversation with "by the way, my memory is terrible so I'll be recording this conversation" since credit card companies do it all the time. Don't forget to add "for purposes of quality improvement." I'm sure your doc will have no problem with that. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2015 12:03:53 PM EDT
[#18]
Going off of your last arfcom recorded state of residence...
Pennsylvania's wiretapping law is a "two-party consent" law. Pennsylvania makes it a crime to intercept or record a telephone call or conversation unless all parties to the conversation consent. See 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5703 (link is to the entire code, choose Title 18, Part II, Article F, Chapter 57, Subchapter B, and then the specific provision). «tc2k11» |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2015 12:11:25 PM EDT
[#19]
I am aware of an instance where two family members were in a doctors appointment for a child who was also present. Critical patient interveiw facts were stated by family members, and then when the doctor typed up his report that is the medical record, Key elements of those critical facts stated were missing from the medical record. The doctors omission of important facts from the record became Direct cause of a case being opened by the Department of Child and Family Services against the family.
Had the doctor not edited what was important factual details, there never would have been a case for the State Department of Child and Family Services to open in the first place. Those family members were malpracticed against by the doctors bad reporting. They are writing a request to get the medical record corrected. But will likely only end up with a small note at the bottom of the medical record stating that patient disagrees with something, because if the records department of the medical office made the correct changes to the medical record, that would be an admission of wrongdoing, so they would never do that even though it is the right thing to do. So sure some people might say they don't like the idea of recording interactions with healthcare professionals, but if those healthcare professionals slip up in the slightest way in their care and recordkeeping for you, you the patient will get fucked and have little recourse. So why not have some recorded evidence to keep everybody honest? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2015 12:17:32 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
In Texas it is legal as long as one of the parties is aware of the recording. And in Illinois, BOTH parties have to be aware and consent. Thus the really important "Check your local laws" advice. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2015 12:19:55 PM EDT
[#21]
Here in NV, yes. Audio only.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2015 12:27:05 PM EDT
[#22]
Serious question here....
If you have a trust issue with someone to the point of recording them without his/her knowledge, do you really want them working on you as a physician? Fuck that noise, I'm finding a new doctor. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2015 12:29:42 PM EDT
[#23]
If you distrust a doctor that much - WTF are you doing using that doctor?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2015 12:29:59 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Serious question here.... If you have a trust issue with someone to the point of recording them without his/her knowledge, do you really want them working on you as a physician? Fuck that noise, I'm finding a new doctor. Agreed, unless you're looking for a payday. «tc2k11» |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2015 12:32:40 PM EDT
[#25]
What if the patient makes the phone call from a single party consent state across state lines to the doctor office in a dual party consent state?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2015 12:34:50 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What if the patient makes the phone call from a single party consent state across state lines to the doctor office in a dual party consent state? What are you trying to accomplish here? «tc2k11» |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2015 12:36:20 PM EDT
[#27]
This may or may not be related to my grandmother's recent botched eye surgery in which she was recently blinded in one eye
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2015 12:37:33 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This may or may not be related to my grandmother's recent botched eye surgery You should probably talk to a lawyer, then. «tc2k11» |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2015 12:39:12 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This may or may not be related to my grandmother's recent botched eye surgery in which she was recently blinded in one eye Don't try to be cute. Just lawyer up. If you try to Matlock this on your own and catch the doctor saying something, you're going to fuck up the whole thing if you accidentally do it in violation of state law. Not only would the recording be inadmissible, but you could end up with a felony charge. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2015 12:40:42 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted: This may or may not be related to my grandmother's recent botched eye surgery in which she was recently blinded in one eye So your plan is to call up a physician and try and trick him into admitting, over the phone, that he deliberately screwed up an operation? I'm sure that will work out exactly the way you imagine it will.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2015 12:41:32 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This may or may not be related to my grandmother's recent botched eye surgery in which she was recently blinded in one eye I presume this one: http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/1706981_Doctor_sending_my_grandma_bill_for_botched_cataract_surgery.html Are you POA for your Grandmother or did she give permission for you to get her health info? Regardless of the ability to record it, you're asking the Doctor to violate HIPPA if you are not allowed the information. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2015 12:50:00 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I am aware of an instance where two family members were in a doctors appointment for a child who was also present. Critical patient interveiw facts were stated by family members, and then when the doctor typed up his report that is the medical record, Key elements of those critical facts stated were missing from the medical record. The doctors omission of important facts from the record became Direct cause of a case being opened by the Department of Child and Family Services against the family. Had the doctor not edited what was important factual details, there never would have been a case for the State Department of Child and Family Services to open in the first place. Those family members were malpracticed against by the doctors bad reporting. They are writing a request to get the medical record corrected. But will likely only end up with a small note at the bottom of the medical record stating that patient disagrees with something, because if the records department of the medical office made the correct changes to the medical record, that would be an admission of wrongdoing, so they would never do that even though it is the right thing to do. So sure some people might say they don't like the idea of recording interactions with healthcare professionals, but if those healthcare professionals slip up in the slightest way in their care and recordkeeping for you, you the patient will get fucked and have little recourse. So why not have some recorded evidence to keep everybody honest? An incomplete record would net set off CPS, so there has got to be more to the story. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2015 2:21:44 PM EDT
[#33]
Would Google Glasses be illegal to use in dual consent law areas then?
Seems the laws need updated |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2015 2:37:06 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted: An incomplete record would net set off CPS, so there has got to be more to the story. Not necessarily. His version: "My son Bobby has a cold, could you check him out? What, these marks on my arm? Oh no, that was me accidentally dropping a cigarette, causing a few burns. And this other mark is from the time when I accidentally stabbed myself with a nail putting up a painting of my son. My wife thinks I'm deliberately being clumsy to get out of house work." Doctor's incomplete record: "My son Bobby has... cigarette... burns... from the time when I... stabbed... my son... deliberately..."  |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2015 3:06:47 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Would Google Glasses be illegal to use in dual consent law areas then? Seems the laws need updated Why, because someone came up with a new kind of recording device? The law still applies - in places like Illinois, you can't record unless both parties consent. Google Glass, iphone, mini-tape recorder, whatever. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2015 3:11:46 PM EDT
[#36]
If I wear a shirt that says I may be recording all interactions, and you talk to me, isn't that implied consent?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2015 3:19:42 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
An incomplete record would net set off CPS, so there has got to be more to the story. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I am aware of an instance where two family members were in a doctors appointment for a child who was also present. Critical patient interveiw facts were stated by family members, and then when the doctor typed up his report that is the medical record, Key elements of those critical facts stated were missing from the medical record. The doctors omission of important facts from the record became Direct cause of a case being opened by the Department of Child and Family Services against the family. Had the doctor not edited what was important factual details, there never would have been a case for the State Department of Child and Family Services to open in the first place. Those family members were malpracticed against by the doctors bad reporting. They are writing a request to get the medical record corrected. But will likely only end up with a small note at the bottom of the medical record stating that patient disagrees with something, because if the records department of the medical office made the correct changes to the medical record, that would be an admission of wrongdoing, so they would never do that even though it is the right thing to do. So sure some people might say they don't like the idea of recording interactions with healthcare professionals, but if those healthcare professionals slip up in the slightest way in their care and recordkeeping for you, you the patient will get fucked and have little recourse. So why not have some recorded evidence to keep everybody honest? An incomplete record would net set off CPS, so there has got to be more to the story. Oh yeah? I'll sum it up for you. Title of medical record should've said: "child MAY have ingested alcohol". Doctor titled it: "child ingested alcohol". A fingerprick blood sugar test was performed and found blood sugar level to be in normal level range. Had the blood sugar tested low, than a blood alcohol content test would be warranted to be performed. No further action was taken and the child was discharged. The state has no case about the child actually having ingested any alcohol because test showed the child hadn't. However since the doctor fucked up the title of the medical record problem, and also omitted other supporting details, The medical record asserts an assumption that a potential crime had been committed, when a crime had not in fact been committed. so then the people go home and there's a knock on the door and who do you think it is? "Hi my name's David Carlson from the state of Connecticut Department of children and family services, i work for the government and I'm here to help! Why don't you be a nice parent, Open the door and let me in, and answer some nice incriminating questions! " The family retained an attorney the next day after realizing how bad shit just got. It's still not over yet. So NavyDoc1, now that you have all of the background information, would you say there really was more to the story, or did I really sum up pretty truthfully saying it was an incomplete medical record and was a malpractice? When you assert that there's more to the story, you're essentially calling bullshit on somebody. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2015 3:20:53 PM EDT
[#38]
Yo dawg! I heard you like HIPPA violations, so I'm giving you a HIPPA violation for violating your own patient privacy!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2015 3:24:02 PM EDT
[#39]
I'm hoping this turns out as entertaining as the guy that wanted to sit in on his wife's surgery to make sure she didn't get molested.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2015 3:31:42 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm hoping this turns out as entertaining as the guy that wanted to sit in on his wife's surgery to make sure she didn't get molested. Link??Sounds epic.... my free search sucks. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2015 3:32:14 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Are you planning on suing in case your reassignment surgery doesn't work out?
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
What is it you intend to record? Document Are you planning on suing in case your reassignment surgery doesn't work out?
Because sometimes conversations get very detailed and you would like the record to go back and listen to. I did that with my dads oncologist. he didnt care. There is information being discussed that i will need to research later to better understand. I dont want to waste his time in asking stupid questions i can figure out for my self later. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2015 3:32:38 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Depends on your local/state laws. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Would a patient be within the law to record his phone or office conversation w/o doctors knowledge? Depends on your local/state laws. This. In Iowa I believe only 1 party has to know, so you would be ok doing so |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2015 3:32:57 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This may or may not be related to my grandmother's recent botched eye surgery in which she was recently blinded in one eye The f*ck? Are you nuts? You're trying to play junior detective on your mother's malpractice case? Using a secret recording device? If you have a legitimate medmal claim, it should be supported by the medical records, which your plaintiff's attorney (*spit*) should be able to obtain easily. Are you attempting to blackmail the doctor into a settlement or something? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2015 3:37:58 PM EDT
[#44]
And people wonder why our medical system is so fucked up.
ETA: The ridiculous cost, the time involved with the burden of documentation, the increasing doctor shortage, etc. They all at least in part stem from the fact that people want airline standards applied to medicine as if humans walked off an assembly line when that simply isn't possible. And if it doesn't happen then doctors either get sued or, apparently, secretly recorded with the intention to be sued or extorted in some way. So when you bitch about wait times, medical costs, and government intervention (control) of medical decision making, remember this thread. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2015 4:31:41 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Oh yeah? I'll sum it up for you. Title of medical record should've said: "child MAY have ingested alcohol". Doctor titled it: "child ingested alcohol". A fingerprick blood sugar test was performed and found blood sugar level to be in normal level range. Had the blood sugar tested low, than a blood alcohol content test would be warranted to be performed. No further action was taken and the child was discharged. The state has no case about the child actually having ingested any alcohol because test showed the child hadn't. However since the doctor fucked up the title of the medical record problem, and also omitted other supporting details, The medical record asserts an assumption that a potential crime had been committed, when a crime had not in fact been committed. so then the people go home and there's a knock on the door and who do you think it is? "Hi my name's David Carlson from the state of Connecticut Department of children and family services, i work for the government and I'm here to help! Why don't you be a nice parent, Open the door and let me in, and answer some nice incriminating questions! " The family retained an attorney the next day after realizing how bad shit just got. It's still not over yet. So NavyDoc1, now that you have all of the background information, would you say there really was more to the story, or did I really sum up pretty truthfully saying it was an incomplete medical record and was a malpractice? When you assert that there's more to the story, you're essentially calling bullshit on somebody. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
[snip] An incomplete record would net set off CPS, so there has got to be more to the story. Oh yeah? I'll sum it up for you. Title of medical record should've said: "child MAY have ingested alcohol". Doctor titled it: "child ingested alcohol". A fingerprick blood sugar test was performed and found blood sugar level to be in normal level range. Had the blood sugar tested low, than a blood alcohol content test would be warranted to be performed. No further action was taken and the child was discharged. The state has no case about the child actually having ingested any alcohol because test showed the child hadn't. However since the doctor fucked up the title of the medical record problem, and also omitted other supporting details, The medical record asserts an assumption that a potential crime had been committed, when a crime had not in fact been committed. so then the people go home and there's a knock on the door and who do you think it is? "Hi my name's David Carlson from the state of Connecticut Department of children and family services, i work for the government and I'm here to help! Why don't you be a nice parent, Open the door and let me in, and answer some nice incriminating questions! " The family retained an attorney the next day after realizing how bad shit just got. It's still not over yet. So NavyDoc1, now that you have all of the background information, would you say there really was more to the story, or did I really sum up pretty truthfully saying it was an incomplete medical record and was a malpractice? When you assert that there's more to the story, you're essentially calling bullshit on somebody. So who actually notified DCFS? It's not like the "medical record" automatically notified them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2015 4:43:27 PM EDT
[#46]
The doctors employer, a hospital reported.
Edit: the doctor stated he would be turning in the referral personally, that he was real sorry to need to do that, but he could lose his job at the hospital if he didn't. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2015 4:59:27 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Not necessarily. His version: "My son Bobby has a cold, could you check him out? What, these marks on my arm? Oh no, that was me accidentally dropping a cigarette, causing a few burns. And this other mark is from the time when I accidentally stabbed myself with a nail putting up a painting of my son. My wife thinks I'm deliberately being clumsy to get out of house work." Doctor's incomplete record: "My son Bobby has... cigarette... burns... from the time when I... stabbed... my son... deliberately..."
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
An incomplete record would net set off CPS, so there has got to be more to the story. Not necessarily. His version: "My son Bobby has a cold, could you check him out? What, these marks on my arm? Oh no, that was me accidentally dropping a cigarette, causing a few burns. And this other mark is from the time when I accidentally stabbed myself with a nail putting up a painting of my son. My wife thinks I'm deliberately being clumsy to get out of house work." Doctor's incomplete record: "My son Bobby has... cigarette... burns... from the time when I... stabbed... my son... deliberately..."
LOL. Okay, okay, you win.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2015 5:00:06 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The doctors employer, a hospital reported. Edit: the doctor stated he would be turning in the referral personally, that he was real sorry to need to do that, but he could lose his job at the hospital if he didn't. From your story, it sounds like it wouldn't have mattered. If doc put "kid ingested alcohol" vs. "kid may have ingested alcohol", there is still a question about a kid ingesting alcohol. Also keep in mind that some hospital's will activate CPS or social work referrals for very little, due to the ramifications of something horrible happening down the line and the investigation shows that "hey, 6 months ago, the doctor was concerned that the kid MIGHT have ingested alcohol. Now that kid is dead from abuse". Who do you think gets left holding the bag in that case? So if there is anything that might even look like a red flag on paper, an initial interview or look-see, which is usually done at the home, gets ordered. Now if after that first interview, there's still something happening, it's because that social worker saw or heard something that raised more red flags. I've been privy to enough of these to know that they get ordered for BS sometimes and most social workers are really good at seeing that for what it is, and knowing when something was just plain an accident, and not pursuing anything further. They even tend to be more forgiving and push things less than some doctors. So if this was all because of a questionable ingestion, and the initial interview revealed a well-to-do family without any other concerns regarding the home or family situation, it would have likely ended there. But hey, it's the internet. So everyone we all know is completely innocent of any wrong doing ever and we all live in mansions and it's always the doctor's fault. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2015 5:02:13 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Oh yeah? I'll sum it up for you. Title of medical record should've said: "child MAY have ingested alcohol". Doctor titled it: "child ingested alcohol". A fingerprick blood sugar test was performed and found blood sugar level to be in normal level range. Had the blood sugar tested low, than a blood alcohol content test would be warranted to be performed. No further action was taken and the child was discharged. The state has no case about the child actually having ingested any alcohol because test showed the child hadn't. However since the doctor fucked up the title of the medical record problem, and also omitted other supporting details, The medical record asserts an assumption that a potential crime had been committed, when a crime had not in fact been committed. so then the people go home and there's a knock on the door and who do you think it is? "Hi my name's David Carlson from the state of Connecticut Department of children and family services, i work for the government and I'm here to help! Why don't you be a nice parent, Open the door and let me in, and answer some nice incriminating questions! " The family retained an attorney the next day after realizing how bad shit just got. It's still not over yet. So NavyDoc1, now that you have all of the background information, would you say there really was more to the story, or did I really sum up pretty truthfully saying it was an incomplete medical record and was a malpractice? When you assert that there's more to the story, you're essentially calling bullshit on somebody. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I am aware of an instance where two family members were in a doctors appointment for a child who was also present. Critical patient interveiw facts were stated by family members, and then when the doctor typed up his report that is the medical record, Key elements of those critical facts stated were missing from the medical record. The doctors omission of important facts from the record became Direct cause of a case being opened by the Department of Child and Family Services against the family. Had the doctor not edited what was important factual details, there never would have been a case for the State Department of Child and Family Services to open in the first place. Those family members were malpracticed against by the doctors bad reporting. They are writing a request to get the medical record corrected. But will likely only end up with a small note at the bottom of the medical record stating that patient disagrees with something, because if the records department of the medical office made the correct changes to the medical record, that would be an admission of wrongdoing, so they would never do that even though it is the right thing to do. So sure some people might say they don't like the idea of recording interactions with healthcare professionals, but if those healthcare professionals slip up in the slightest way in their care and recordkeeping for you, you the patient will get fucked and have little recourse. So why not have some recorded evidence to keep everybody honest? An incomplete record would net set off CPS, so there has got to be more to the story. Oh yeah? I'll sum it up for you. Title of medical record should've said: "child MAY have ingested alcohol". Doctor titled it: "child ingested alcohol". A fingerprick blood sugar test was performed and found blood sugar level to be in normal level range. Had the blood sugar tested low, than a blood alcohol content test would be warranted to be performed. No further action was taken and the child was discharged. The state has no case about the child actually having ingested any alcohol because test showed the child hadn't. However since the doctor fucked up the title of the medical record problem, and also omitted other supporting details, The medical record asserts an assumption that a potential crime had been committed, when a crime had not in fact been committed. so then the people go home and there's a knock on the door and who do you think it is? "Hi my name's David Carlson from the state of Connecticut Department of children and family services, i work for the government and I'm here to help! Why don't you be a nice parent, Open the door and let me in, and answer some nice incriminating questions! " The family retained an attorney the next day after realizing how bad shit just got. It's still not over yet. So NavyDoc1, now that you have all of the background information, would you say there really was more to the story, or did I really sum up pretty truthfully saying it was an incomplete medical record and was a malpractice? When you assert that there's more to the story, you're essentially calling bullshit on somebody. A medical record does not automatically flag the CPS. Some person had to call it in. It could have read, "parents beat the child with a hammer" and CPS would not have gone to the door unless a person called in a concern. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2015 5:04:12 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And people wonder why our medical system is so fucked up. ETA: The ridiculous cost, the time involved with the burden of documentation, the increasing doctor shortage, etc. They all at least in part stem from the fact that people want airline standards applied to medicine as if humans walked off an assembly line when that simply isn't possible. And if it doesn't happen then doctors either get sued or, apparently, secretly recorded with the intention to be sued or extorted in some way. So when you bitch about wait times, medical costs, and government intervention (control) of medical decision making, remember this thread. +1 Having been sued, I can't even begin to explain how jacked-up the med-mal industry is. Even if you did the right thing, it almost doesn't matter; they'll find some prostitute experts to say you did it wrong. And settlements aren't made/offered based on whether you did the right thing... it's strictly an economic decision for the insurer. The doctor's reputation? Going into the National Practitioner Data Bank? Becoming known as a "settler" among the med-mal sharks? The time/energy/stress/lost sleep/marital stress/etc/etc? F*ck all that... that just doesn't matter. So you can see why I want to choke a b*tch when I hear about somebody trying to sneak a recording device into a conversation to try to get something "incriminating" from their doctor. Apparently all that confidentiality in the doctor-patient relationship doesn't mean what I think it means. The OP should be ashamed of himself. If he has a case, the records should bear that out. Pulling some kind of one-sided eavesdropping crap? That's BS. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
