Doctors Caught Revealing Info About Patients On Facebook
from the not-smart dept
Earlier this year, we noted that the Journal of Medical Ethics was recommending doctors stay off Facebook entirely. I thought that was kind of silly, so long as doctors were aware of what they were doing on social networking sites, what was the problem? Well, apparently, not all doctors are particularly smart or discreet when it comes to using such tools, and a doctor in Australia has been reprimanded for revealing patient info on his Facebook account... which the patient later saw. You would think that even if a doctor was clueless enough to reveal info about patients on Facebook that he or she would at least keep that info private, but apparently, not every doctor has basic common sense.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: doctors, privacy, social networks
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Ouch
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ouch
What I was trying to say is> In the US you can loose your licence for that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Get used to it
Doctors discuss this stuff all the time (which is generally good!), it's just that the venue may produce unexpected results.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I could be wrong, it just reads weird to me.
I'll stop not adding anything to the discussion now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You start with correcting grammar, then it is onto straightening pictures on someone else's wall, the next thing you know, you are ordering a group of tanks across the border.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Oops. You're correct. Fixed. Thanks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Here's the thing, and I'm going to address this from a US-centric POV, simply because those are the laws and ethical guidelines I'm best familiar with (being a US healthcare professional, though not an MD or DO.).
The ethical guidance is pretty clear, don't talk about a patient's condition (or even that they are a patient) in such a way or venue that it and the patient's identity could be revealed to anyone who doesn't already know or have a professional reason to know. And that's basically how it's codified in HIPAA, the law which, among other things, covers medical privacy.
What this interpretation then allows is things like "A 16 year old female presented with [symptoms], laboratory testing revealed a positive result for chlamydia...", it disallows, "Oh man, Meg Griffin came in to the office today, and she has the clap, what a slut!".
Where you start to get into a bit more of a grey area is with comments like, "Had a patient come in today wearing this ugly pink shirt with matching beanie, she swore she was a virgin, but she turned up positive for chlamydia. Not only no fashion sense, but also no common sense.". The problem here is that while someone completely unfamiliar with Meg (Who, by the way, is a character from The Family Guy, just to make sure people know this is a fictional reference.) would be completely unable to connect the dots, someone who knew Meg, as well as Meg herself (as sounds to be the case here), could say with a fair degree of certainty who was being referred to.
The problem you run into is that everyone needs to kvetch about their job, Everyone.
I don't really think it's a great idea to do that kvetching on facebook, or any forum where you can't reasonably control dissemination, whether you work in healthcare or not, but then, I don't so much as have a facebook profile, so...
All I'm saying (in an incredibly verbose fashion) is that without specifics of where on the spectrum of possible comments what this doctor said falls, it's impossible to say whether or not (s)he violated ethical or legal guidelines for disclosure of pt information.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Private" forums
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wasn't Australia once a penal colony?
Joking, so Aussies need not get upset.
However, here in the states, we have this law called the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA).
Now, if you're a patient and you see some quack posting your info online, that's better than winning the lottery and you can put the smack on the quack.
Unfortunately, you can't do squat if he's bragging about banging your wife.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wasn't Australia once a penal colony?
Actually not quite that simple, see my earlier post.
You have to prove a release of Personally Identifiable Information (PRI).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Patient
[ link to this | view in chronology ]