• Railing5132@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    8 days ago
    1. the judge wouldn’t be in bumble fuck, TN or anywhere else other than in a civil rights case brought by the department of health and human services in DC. You’d be charged in federal court.
    2. disclosing information that relates to the “a) treatment, b) payment, or c) operations” (not medical procedures, that’s under “treatment” - this is things like quality assurance and training) need to have a client authorization for disclosure.

    Strictly speaking, this nurse confirmed the identity of a specific individual that received a _specific treatment_ at a specific facility (her employer) to a public forum, all without the authorization of the client. Any compliance office would hang the nurse out to dry, even as a proactive measure, to mitigate a potential unauthorized disclosure claim.

    • Optional@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 days ago

      I see, i see, a federal case even. Mmm.

      So, counselor, what was the specific treatment then?

      • Bertuccio@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 days ago

        Laws are generally not stupid enough to allow magic wording loopholes.

        If it’s obvious that the nurse saying they gave the boy a “brave boy” sticker means the boy got a vaccine, that’s the same thing as saying he got a vaccine.

        Compare to hypothetical statements like

        “I can’t say what procedure she got, but she’s going to need to keep buying tampons for the next 9 months”

        “I can’t say what procedure they got, but they’ll definitely need to sit to pee from now on.”

        “I can’t say what procedure he got, but keep strong magnets away from him his chest.”