If you want to propose that the government be limited in requiring
doctors to provide certain information about patients, that could be perfectly
sensible. But restricting doctors' First Amendment rights to ask questions
because maybe that information will eventually end up in the wrong hands? As I
mentioned in another thread, that sounds much like restricting people's Second
Amendment rights to possess guns because maybe the possessors will end up
passing along the guns to the wrong people.
Eugene
> And if doctors' notes stayed in doctors' desks, that's where it would end.
> However, doctors have become a de facto data collection agency for the
> federal government, and a lot of what used to be "confidential" information is
> now reportable by law to third parties, the biggest of which are governmental
> agencies.
>
> So in a very real sense, the doctors' First Amendment now has to stop where
> the patient's Fifth Amendment begins.
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to [email protected]
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the
messages to others.
