PPs refusal to show records

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-08-2007
PPs refusal to show records
158
Thu, 06-14-2007 - 10:55am

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9B05EED9143EF933A25750C0A9629C8B63

That is a link to the story, which I'm sure you've all heard about Planned Parenthood refusing to show records of women who obtained late term abortions.

If they were really all for "medical reasons" why won't they let us know exactly what those reasons were? The names and addresses would be taken out, so I don't see how it's a matter of privacy. The court wasn't asking for the name of any woman and her specific reason. They simply wanted to know what in general the problem was and why a late term abortion necessary. I don't see how that's an invansion of privacy.

For example, if my OB wanted to talk about my particular pregnancy to another person I wouldn't have a problem with it as long as she didn't use my name. If she said "I have a patient, who has gained a lot of pregnancy weight, and is expecting a girl in August..By the way she had an abnormal pap in early pregnancy." I wouldn't have a problem with that...I wouldn't feel like my rights were violated. Now if she used my first and last name I would be upset. But just a general story outline isn't an invansion of privacy.

Why shouldn't I be led to think that some of the abortions were not for medical reasons?

Ella Grayce

Lilypie1st Birthday Ticker

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Thu, 06-14-2007 - 11:04am

It does seem suspicious. I don't understand why they won't show the records if there is nothing to hide.

Sue

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-14-2003
Thu, 06-14-2007 - 11:25am

They don't have to, is the simple answer.

Likely, what is considered "medical" is not something they want up for debate. While some (including myself) would consider mental health a reason for later term abortion, many would not.

So, rather than open up this can of worms, they are keeping their records private - a legitimate choice and one they have every right to make.

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-08-2007
Thu, 06-14-2007 - 11:29am

That seems like a very childish agrument. Because they don't have to!

I wouldn't think a major corparation would just sit back one day and say "Hey! Let's be defiant and cause a stir just because we can!"

And what do you consider mental illness? ADD is a mental illness, but is that really something that will hinder someone's parenting to the point where termination is better?

Ella Grayce

Lilypie1st Birthday Ticker
iVillage Member
Registered: 06-03-2007
Thu, 06-14-2007 - 11:38am

Well, 49 states already report most of the medical details of all abortion procedures in aggregated form. Providers typically use a state form that is based on a federally designed standard. The form generally asks for information about the facility, the patient’s demographic characteristics and medical history, and the abortion procedure itself, including the method used and gestational age. After the FDA’s approval in 2000 of the abortion drug mifepristone, most states adjusted their forms to include questions about medical (nonsurgical) abortion. http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/spibs/spib_ARR.pdf

If all they wanted was more information about what lead to the decision about what type of procedure was done, it would be simplest, quickest, and most effective scientifically to add to that aggregated data. They already have the patient's medical history, gestation age, and method used. That's 3/4 of what they say they want.

In any circumstance, merely removing a persons name doesn't make it confidential. Providing a patient's age and diagnosis together, or town of origin and diagnosis is enough to become an identifier. Aggregated data should be plenty enough for any aim that is not a deliberate attempt to threaten patient privacy.

By asking for individual files with merely the name blocked out, they created a demonstrable chilling effect by frightening women away from clinics. Because of people like that nut in Illinois that videotapes women entering and leaving clinics and puts their faces and medical records up on the web, women are afraid to give accurate information to providers at clinics that have been served with subpoenas. Here's bit about that from a law student club, written last year.
http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:8fxtpYij1bEJ:www.lawstudentsforchoice.org/downloads/fact_sheets/Subpoenaing_Records_FS.pdf+planned+parenthood+records+subpoena+patient&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&client=firefox-a

For those that like legal-ese (makes my head spin) here's a discussion of HIPAA and state privacy laws and how they interact around this case.
http://www.wileyrein.com/publication_newsletters.cfm?id=10&publication_ID=11072

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-14-2003
Thu, 06-14-2007 - 11:39am

"That seems like a very childish agrument. Because they don't have to!"

Did I not say that was the simple answer, or did you neglect the read the rest of the post?

I wouldn't think a major corparation would just sit back one day and say "Hey! Let's be defiant and cause a stir just because we can!"

Perhaps not, but they are NOT legally obligated and they can weigh the pros and cons of doing so, can they not? Not wanting to, and not having to, are superficial reasons for a much deeper explanation which I speculated may have addressed reasons they consider "medical".

"And what do you consider mental illness? ADD is a mental illness, but is that really something that will hinder someone's parenting to the point where termination is better?"

What I would consider a mental illness would be directly related to the individual circumstances combined with the medical history of that woman. Nothing more, nothing less. You are welcome to disagree and split hairs all you like.

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket
iVillage Member
Registered: 07-29-2004
Thu, 06-14-2007 - 11:49am

<>

Many companies won't hand over private information of their clients without a warrant, so this is not true.

<>

I'm not a psychiatrist and would not dare to try to say that someone with a severe case of ADD could parent since I don't know all of the effects of such a disease. It seems to me that if the woman's Dr thought that her mental illness was severe enough for a late term abortion and that it was getting worse then it's between her and her Dr.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-08-2007
Thu, 06-14-2007 - 11:50am

So basically you're saying that the reason is because they know it would cause an uproar due to the fact that most people would disagree with what was truly a medical reason,and they simply don't want to deal with angry people?

That's exactly why people want to see the records. They are hiding something, and they know something in their records would cause some debate. So how are we to know there are medical reasons at all? How are we to know that perfectly healthy women aren't going in and having abortions on perfectly healthy babies? What would stop them?? If no one ever sees the records, and they know that no one will ever see the records, what is to stop them from partaking in illegal late term abortions on healthy women/fetuses?

Ella Grayce

Lilypie1st Birthday Ticker
iVillage Member
Registered: 07-29-2004
Thu, 06-14-2007 - 11:53am

"For example, if my OB wanted to talk about my particular pregnancy to another person I wouldn't have a problem with it as long as she didn't use my name. If she said "I have a patient, who has gained a lot of pregnancy weight, and is expecting a girl in August..By the way she had an abnormal pap in early pregnancy." I wouldn't have a problem with that...I wouldn't feel like my rights were violated. Now if she used my first and last name I would be upset. But just a general story outline isn't an invansion of privacy."

Then you need to put on your HIPAA form that your DR. can tslk to anyone they'd like. I for one don't want my Dr.s talking to others about my health problems. I tell my family what the Dr. says but don't go round publicizing everything. Especially women with mental health problems tend to have a problem with this since society just assumes they are crazy.

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-03-2007
Thu, 06-14-2007 - 11:53am

From Judge Richard Posner's majority opinion given in a decision on March 2004 from the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in the case of Northwestern Memorial Hospital v. Ashcroft.

<< Some of these women will be afraid that when their redacted records are made a part of the trial record in New York, persons of their acquaintance, or skillful “Googlers,” sifting the information contained in the medical records concerning each patient’s medical and sex history, will put two and two together, “out” the 45 women, and thereby expose them to threats, humiliation, and obloquy.

Even if there were no possibility that a patient’s identity might be learned from a redacted medical record, there would be an invasion of privacy. Imagine if nude pictures of a woman, uploaded to the Internet without her consent though without identifying her by name, were downloaded in a foreign country by people who will never meet her. She would still feel that her privacy had been invaded. The revelation of the intimate details contained in the record of a late-term abortion may inflict a similar wound.>>
http://idtrail.org/content/view/205/42/

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-08-2007
Thu, 06-14-2007 - 11:54am

Then I pose another question about mental illness.

Say the father has a severe mental illness that would affect his parenting skills. But the mother is perfectly healthy. If she decides that she doesn't want her child involved with a mental ill man, would that be considered a "medical reason" for aborting a late term baby? Or does the medical reason have to directly involve the mother? If we're talking about aborting due to someone not having sufficent parenting skills then she should abort since she's with a mental ill person, since a father's parenting skills affect the child too.

Ella Grayce

Lilypie1st Birthday Ticker

Pages