njhoya78
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,734
|
Post by njhoya78 on Jul 9, 2015 15:31:51 GMT -5
I'm not criticizing the level of care provided at Jackson Memorial. When a team has a multi-million dollar investment in a professional athlete, merely going to a good hospital isn't enough; why do so many pitchers travel to Birmingham, Alabama to have Dr. James Andrews check out their elbows and shoulders, instead of merely staying with the local medical establishment? You go for the best available care. As a New Jersey resident (if you go due east from Philadelphia and due south from New York CIty, I live at the intersection of those paths), I have plenty of good hospitals around. That being the case, if I had a critical issue, I'd be traveling to Philly or NYC. Again, you go for the best available care. JPP had those options open to him. Not sure why he chose to do this on this own, without team involvement or assistance. Andrews is an anomaly. He's the best in the country and everyone goes to him. Not a good example. What if there was a hospital/surgeon in Los Angeles that was slight better than what was available in NYC? Would you go all the way to LA? No, you go to what's [relatively] local. That's my point. For a finger amputations, "minor" skin graft and insertion of pins in a thumb, I think the standard of care at Jackson is the equivalent of that in NYC or Philly or other big cities. If he was having a knee reconstructed or brain surgery, that might be different. There are lots of issues with this incident. The quality of JPP's medical care is not one of them. Again, I'm not quibbling with the quality of care afforded JPP at Jackson Memorial. How do we know, however, that amputation of his right index finger was required? Was he given the opportunity for a second opinion? Was there an alternative course of care that may have been available to him? These are questions to which we do not have answers, and may never have answers. That is why, at the very least, the Giants' medical staff should have been in the loop about the nature and extent of the injuries and the available alternatives. They may well have agreed with the chosen course of action, and they may well have "signed off" on the procedure being done at Jackson Memorial. We don't know, and we'll probably never know.
|
|
DanMcQ
Moderator
Posts: 30,302
|
Post by DanMcQ on Jul 9, 2015 16:20:29 GMT -5
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,428
|
Post by TC on Jul 9, 2015 20:57:01 GMT -5
It's the name of the player he's reporting on. Unless he's got the medical record of the wrong 26 year old Jason Pierre-Paul, what's the issue? The issue is exactly that: tweeting out a snapshot of a medical record with THE PATIENT'S NAME on it is a HIPAA violation (yes, technically, Ace Reporter Schefter is not bound by HIPAA, he is only bound by whatever common decency and ethics he may or may not have). When you say above there has been no privacy violation, you are dead wrong from a HIPAA perspective. That's the issue. I agree on all that (other than the "decency" part, that's part of Schefter's job to suss out when teams and players aren't truthful about injuries). I guess we've crossed lines because my question is - why is that particular screenshot of that record too private to publish? If Schefter had published every detail of that record without publishing the photo of the record, would that still have been an issue? Whether or not there's a HIPAA violation here doesn't matter at all to Schefter - or to Glenn Greenwald whether documents are classified (except in cases of public safety), or to Mother Jones how someone got a video of Mitt Romney's 47% speech.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,428
|
Post by TC on Jul 9, 2015 21:00:59 GMT -5
It's the name of the player he's reporting on. Unless he's got the medical record of the wrong 26 year old Jason Pierre-Paul, what's the issue? What's the name of the 65-year-old dude having an ORIF on his left wrist? Unless I'm reading the screenshot wrong, the name of the 65 year old didn't appear. The only other name besides Pierre-Paul's that appeared I think is the name of the surgeon.
|
|
DanMcQ
Moderator
Posts: 30,302
|
Post by DanMcQ on Jul 10, 2015 8:30:28 GMT -5
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on Jul 10, 2015 9:34:49 GMT -5
What truly shocked me was the revelation that Schefter is not a Newhouse alumnus. Oh well, lie down with dogs...
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Jul 10, 2015 10:53:56 GMT -5
What truly shocked me was the revelation that Schefter is not a Newhouse alumnus. Oh well, lie down with dogs... I'm most bothered by the incorrect spelling of Schefter's name in the title of this thread, an error which the originator of the thread continues to ignore
|
|
thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,836
|
Post by thebin on Jul 10, 2015 12:14:31 GMT -5
Andrews is an anomaly. He's the best in the country and everyone goes to him. Not a good example. What if there was a hospital/surgeon in Los Angeles that was slight better than what was available in NYC? Would you go all the way to LA? No, you go to what's [relatively] local. That's my point. For a finger amputations, "minor" skin graft and insertion of pins in a thumb, I think the standard of care at Jackson is the equivalent of that in NYC or Philly or other big cities. If he was having a knee reconstructed or brain surgery, that might be different. There are lots of issues with this incident. The quality of JPP's medical care is not one of them. Again, I'm not quibbling with the quality of care afforded JPP at Jackson Memorial. How do we know, however, that amputation of his right index finger was required? Was he given the opportunity for a second opinion? Was there an alternative course of care that may have been available to him? These are questions to which we do not have answers, and may never have answers. That is why, at the very least, the Giants' medical staff should have been in the loop about the nature and extent of the injuries and the available alternatives. They may well have agreed with the chosen course of action, and they may well have "signed off" on the procedure being done at Jackson Memorial. We don't know, and we'll probably never know. One could certainly quibble with the standard of patient privacy at Jackson Memorial. I'd be pretty surprised if some nurse/admin at Columbia Presbyterian or the Mass General would hand over a medical record to an ESPN reporter.
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Jul 10, 2015 12:53:20 GMT -5
One could certainly quibble with the standard of patient privacy at Jackson Memorial. I'd be pretty surprised if some nurse/admin at Columbia Presbyterian or the Mass General would hand over a medical record to an ESPN reporter. It happens at hospitals everywhere. Maybe not on this scale, but it happens.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,428
|
Post by TC on Jul 13, 2015 9:59:18 GMT -5
TC: it's an issue either way because someone leaked JPP's private medical record without permission. Obviously the HIPAA issue relates to whomever leaked it. Schefter could have accomplished the same thing by simply saying "sources say" blah blah blah without the grandstanding look at me move of publishing a photo of it. His actions make it more obvious and regardless of his and ESPN's hiding behind 'HIPAA doesn't apply to the press' the hospital is now liable and it's a pretty good shot a person or persons will be both fined and fired. And they should be. Regardless of the legal issues, it's an unethical journalistic action on Schefter's part and, by extension, his employers. I still disagree. I know you're coming from a different standpoint here working in medicine, but I'm not sure the hospital's liability should really be a factor in a reporter's decision whether to publish something newsworthy. Here's Schefter's take - it's basically unapologetic to any ethical issue, the only thing he's apologizing for is not checking with his bosses, probably because of the headache ESPN gave him for not checking with the editors / lawyers : deadspin.com/adam-schefter-explains-why-he-posted-jason-pierre-pauls-1717448766The "other hospital administrator" statement saying that the day's OR schedule / hard copy of statement makes the source untraceable is interesting - I have no idea if that's true or not, but it does absolve Schefter from burning his source if so.
|
|
DanMcQ
Moderator
Posts: 30,302
|
Post by DanMcQ on Jul 13, 2015 19:09:26 GMT -5
TC: agree to disagree. I believe Schefter crossed a line into unethical journalism. I can only hope some day he is put on the receiving end as the subject of a similar leak. That would be fair punishment.
|
|
DanMcQ
Moderator
Posts: 30,302
|
Post by DanMcQ on Feb 25, 2016 1:31:26 GMT -5
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on Feb 25, 2016 5:56:16 GMT -5
Hopefully JPP wins and bankrupts both Schefter and ESPN. Talk about a case with unattractive defendants.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,428
|
Post by TC on Feb 25, 2016 8:21:47 GMT -5
Doesn't this seem easily within First Amendment protections of the press though?
I still don't understand how he has a legal case against ESPN or Schefter, seems like a slam dunk case against the hospital though.
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 18,072
|
Post by SSHoya on Feb 25, 2016 9:13:27 GMT -5
Doesn't this seem easily within First Amendment protections of the press though? I still don't understand how he has a legal case against ESPN or Schefter, seems like a slam dunk case against the hospital though. Not necessarily Under the First Amendment, the media has the right to gather news from any source by lawful means. See Houchins v. KQED, Inc., 438 U.S. 1, 11 (1978). The First Amendment does not protect those who commit torts and crimes in the name of newsgathering. In Dietemann v. Time, Inc., 449 F.2d 245 (9th Cir. 1971), claims of illegal or unethical entry were made against a magazine by a journeyman plumber engaged in the supposed practice of healing with clay, minerals, and herbs. Using the ruse of seeking the healer's services to gain entrance to his office within his home, two magazine reporters secretly photographed and recorded the healer's examination of one of them. In upholding a judgment for damages in favor of the healer, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the existence of a sphere of reasonable privacy expectations, stating that there is no First Amendment interest in protecting the news media from their own calculated misdeeds. Although the issue had not been decided squarely in California, the Ninth Circuit had "little difficulty in concluding that clandestine photography of the Plaintiff in his den and the recorda tion and transmission of his conversation without his consent resulting in his emotional distress warrants recovery for invasion of privacy in California." Id. at 248. Two factors seemed to guide the federal appeals court in ruling that the reporters were guilty of an unlawful intrusion: (a) the activities all took place in Dietemann's home, an area traditionally deserving the greatest protection; and (b) the reporters gained entry to the home by subterfuge, i.e., posing as patients. www.floridabar.org/divcom/pi/rhandbook01.nsf/1119bd38ae090a748525676f0053b606/dfc00ac22467b7f5852569cb004cbc2a!OpenDocument
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,428
|
Post by TC on Feb 25, 2016 10:46:40 GMT -5
From my understanding, Schefter was sent a picture. I don't believe he unlawfully entered or lied to gain access to information, or conspired to do so.
If you want to argue that his source is liable and committed HIPAA violations, I'd support you all day. But this seems like a clear conflict of first amendment freedom of press to publish information vs. laws that regulate health care providers, information systems, and clearinghouses.
|
|