Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

My Doctor's Office Asked Me To Lie

stallman.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 245 posts

Re: My Doctor's Office Asked Me To Lie

#11

Post by uberuberuber »

While the doctor's office may have been the proximate agent asking him to 'lie', the true culprit is the incomprehensible, self-contradictory system that elected and unelected bureaucrats in the US have cobbled together over the decades. If the doctor doesn't maintain that privacy paperwork (which as rms noted the police can view at will anyway), they will not receive reimbursement from CMS. There are likely other statutory issues with HIPAA that I'm unfamiliar with. It's difficult to fault them for not wasting their limited time/money resisting the paperwork requirements when it would only detract from patient care resources.

If he were actually In Extremis, the physician/nurse/EMS would treat him under implied consent. Technically a patient of sound mind can refuse care but in practice someone who looks like rms (beard discrimination) ranting about his privacy would rather quickly be hit with a B52 (50mg Benadryl, 5mg Haldol, 2mg Ativan). Emergency providers are in a bit of a quandary as they must choose between the possibility of missing a subdural hematoma on a patient refusing care and facing a wrongful death lawsuit, and facing a lawsuit for unlawful imprisonment and assault.

Re: My Doctor's Office Asked Me To Lie

#13

Post by r4vik »

drostie wrote: post #6
morsch wrote: post #3

Note that the article is from 2011 (August 1 if you believe the headers). No direct relation to the "rms collapsed" story posted yesterday.

Yeah. As it says on the bottom, "Copyright 2011 Richard Stallman released under Creative Commons Attribution Noderivs 3.0 unported". It's a surprising statement for many reasons. First, I have traditionally thought of CC as somehow opposed to GNU, but here's Stallman releasing with CC. Second, it's a 2011 document -- had he not been to a doctor prior to 2011? unlikely, so maybe he just never noticed what he was signi…

He releases his books under GNU FDL, so they can be remixed. But I assume he doesn't want people changing his blog posts. Makes sense to me.

Re: My Doctor's Office Asked Me To Lie

#14

Post by [deleted] »

drostie wrote: post #6
morsch wrote: post #3

Note that the article is from 2011 (August 1 if you believe the headers). No direct relation to the "rms collapsed" story posted yesterday.

Yeah. As it says on the bottom, "Copyright 2011 Richard Stallman released under Creative Commons Attribution Noderivs 3.0 unported". It's a surprising statement for many reasons. First, I have traditionally thought of CC as somehow opposed to GNU, but here's Stallman releasing with CC. Second, it's a 2011 document -- had he not been to a doctor prior to 2011? unlikely, so maybe he just never noticed what he was signi…

[deleted]

Re: My Doctor's Office Asked Me To Lie

#15

Post by forinti »

jhrobert wrote: post #5

When everybody becomes a forced liar, it becomes easy for authentic liars to hide in the crowd.

This is why I hate the bureaucracy in my country (Brazil). There's a clear penalty for trying to do things the right way (tons of useless and expensive paperwork), and nothing happens to the crooks who take advantage of the system.

Re: My Doctor's Office Asked Me To Lie

#16

Post by Angostura »

shasta wrote: post #12

You should be careful just adding "not", because they can always claim they didn't notice you modified the agreement (I'm assuming no one on their staff signed or initialled your change).

To which the reply is "That's a shame, you should train your staff".

Re: My Doctor's Office Asked Me To Lie

#17

Post by idleloops »

napolux wrote: post #7

Just an unneeded rant IMHO

Interesting nonetheless. It draws some analogies with software license agreements. I start out trying to read them, but if they exceed a few paragraphs - I skip to the bottom, check the checkbox and proceed. I lie.

I guess one good thing about picking an off the shelf license to accompany software, is that at least it's probably more likely that I'll read and try to understand it.

Re: My Doctor's Office Asked Me To Lie

#18

Post by idleloops »

forinti wrote: post #15
jhrobert wrote: post #5

When everybody becomes a forced liar, it becomes easy for authentic liars to hide in the crowd.

This is why I hate the bureaucracy in my country (Brazil). There's a clear penalty for trying to do things the right way (tons of useless and expensive paperwork), and nothing happens to the crooks who take advantage of the system.

Terry Gilliam's film: Brazil spotlights the absurdity of bureaucracy. Is Brazil renowned for theirs?

Re: My Doctor's Office Asked Me To Lie

#19

Post by mkoivuni »

joshuafcole wrote: post #8

It's not exactly an isolated case. When I turned 18 I was presented with the same document. To my mother's dismay, I pointed out the flaws and then marked in the necessary negatives in pen to render the document useless before signing it. Since the other party (a member with legal power at the clinic) did not sign after me, I'm not sure the form is actually binding on either of us. Could somebody clarify what precede…

I know such precedent exists in cases like this where you are to sign a non-negotiable contract. This is why most EULA's are largely worthless especially when it comes to standard retail software.

Re: My Doctor's Office Asked Me To Lie

#20

Post by shasta »

Angostura wrote: post #16
shasta wrote: post #12

You should be careful just adding "not", because they can always claim they didn't notice you modified the agreement (I'm assuming no one on their staff signed or initialled your change).

To which the reply is "That's a shame, you should train your staff".

Snappy "replies" might not hold as much weight in a legal setting as you imagine.
Post reply on HN