Etiquette Hell

General Etiquette => Techno-quette => Topic started by: Mopsy428 on August 21, 2010, 01:08:38 PM

Title: S/O Gross/unethical pictures
Post by: Mopsy428 on August 21, 2010, 01:08:38 PM
BG: My cousin "Sarah" lives in a different state, which is about a 12 hour drive from where I live. Her friend "Tammy" lives in my state. I was close to my cousin, but we've grown apart through the years. However, we catch up when she is in town. Usually Tammy tags along with Sarah, so that's how I know Tammy. Tammy and I are Facebook friends. End BG.

I logged into my Facebook, and I see that Tammy has posted this absolutely disgusting picture. To avoid making people sick, I will say she posted a lock of her patient's hair. (That is NOT what she posted, however.) I think it's extremely unethical to post a picture of your patient's hair. If I were the patient and found out, I'd be furious.

I don't know where she works, but should I mention something to her about how it's not appropriate to post those pictures and that if someone she works with finds out, she could be fired? What should I do?
Title: Re: S/O Gross/unethical pictures
Post by: Larrabee on August 21, 2010, 01:26:41 PM
If you do say something I'd do it privately in a PM or e-mail and I'd phrase it as a question rather than an accusation.

Maybe "Hey Tammy, are you sure you won't get into trouble for that?  What about the confidentiality laws?"

That sounds like you're concerned about her getting into trouble rather than just horrified.

If she's unrepentant, I'd check if its in fact illegal/against an ethical code of some sort and consider reporting it.  I'm about to start a new career in healthcare and I know they take patient confidentiality very very seriously where I live.
Title: Re: S/O Gross/unethical pictures
Post by: O'Dell on August 21, 2010, 01:36:02 PM
I wouldn't bother with warning her. If she has a lick of sense, she knows that she could be fired for doing that, and if she doesn't then she likely won't take your comments well.

I'd turn her in to where she works and a larger institution or organization they are affiliated with to make it harder for it to be covered up. The one experience that I've had with someone violating patient privacy is someone that is unstable and it was part of a pattern of poor judgment and unethical actions on her part. I wouldn't risk being someone to sweep that sort of thing under the rug again.
Title: Re: S/O Gross/unethical pictures
Post by: Roe on August 21, 2010, 02:05:07 PM
I wouldn't bother with warning her. If she has a lick of sense, she knows that she could be fired for doing that, and if she doesn't then she likely won't take your comments well.

I'd turn her in to where she works and a larger institution or organization they are affiliated with to make it harder for it to be covered up. The one experience that I've had with someone violating patient privacy is someone that is unstable and it was part of a pattern of poor judgment and unethical actions on her part. I wouldn't risk being someone to sweep that sort of thing under the rug again.

This.  If you don't want to be named, do it anonymously.  But it's obvious she is showing poor judgement...can you imagine what she does when no one is looking?
Title: Re: S/O Gross/unethical pictures
Post by: Amava on August 21, 2010, 02:14:26 PM
If we pm you and guess correctly what it really was, do we win a prize?

Just kidding.

I have seen people, who worked in the medical field, post pictures online that almost definitely broke the confidentiality of their job. But I have say that it is the first time I hear of someone who is stupid enough to do it non-anonymously. :o

Title: Re: S/O Gross/unethical pictures
Post by: Animala on August 21, 2010, 02:20:05 PM
I wouldn't bother with warning her. If she has a lick of sense, she knows that she could be fired for doing that, and if she doesn't then she likely won't take your comments well.

I'd turn her in to where she works and a larger institution or organization they are affiliated with to make it harder for it to be covered up. The one experience that I've had with someone violating patient privacy is someone that is unstable and it was part of a pattern of poor judgment and unethical actions on her part. I wouldn't risk being someone to sweep that sort of thing under the rug again.

This.  If you don't want to be named, do it anonymously.  But it's obvious she is showing poor judgement...can you imagine what she does when no one is looking?

ITA.  Get a screencap and crop it so your information doesn't show and it to them.
Title: Re: S/O Gross/unethical pictures
Post by: Larrabee on August 21, 2010, 02:25:12 PM
Hmm, I guess it depends on how well you know or like Tammy, but I think it might be worth giving her a chance to remove the offending image and possibly save her job.

Title: Re: S/O Gross/unethical pictures
Post by: Hanna on August 21, 2010, 02:34:20 PM
Are you sure Tammy did this and that her account was not hacked or subject to a virus?
Would hate for her to get in trouble or lose her job over something she didn't actually do.

I would just report the pic to facebook and let them handle it.
Title: Re: S/O Gross/unethical pictures
Post by: Darcy on August 21, 2010, 02:57:14 PM
I wouldn't bother with warning her. If she has a lick of sense, she knows that she could be fired for doing that, and if she doesn't then she likely won't take your comments well.

I'd turn her in to where she works and a larger institution or organization they are affiliated with to make it harder for it to be covered up. The one experience that I've had with someone violating patient privacy is someone that is unstable and it was part of a pattern of poor judgment and unethical actions on her part. I wouldn't risk being someone to sweep that sort of thing under the rug again.

This.

She is violating patient privacy, which is both unethical and illegal.
Title: Re: S/O Gross/unethical pictures
Post by: Hillia on August 21, 2010, 02:59:24 PM
I wouldn't bother with warning her. If she has a lick of sense, she knows that she could be fired for doing that, and if she doesn't then she likely won't take your comments well.

I'd turn her in to where she works and a larger institution or organization they are affiliated with to make it harder for it to be covered up. The one experience that I've had with someone violating patient privacy is someone that is unstable and it was part of a pattern of poor judgment and unethical actions on her part. I wouldn't risk being someone to sweep that sort of thing under the rug again.

This.

POD. She knows perfectly well that this is wrong on many, many levels.  And she's exposing her employer to severe sanctions.  Tell her employer.  If she's that cavalier about patient information, she doesn't deserve to be working in health care.

She is violating patient privacy, which is both unethical and illegal.
Title: Re: S/O Gross/unethical pictures
Post by: Eisa on August 21, 2010, 03:45:42 PM
Well, I guess that as Hanna said, there IS the possibility she was hacked or something. But...it sounds very unethical and apparently illegal, as well. Depending on how well you know her/like her [like: is it like her to do something like this?], you could warn her about it. Or just tell her employer. Either way, that picture needs to come down ASAP.
Title: Re: S/O Gross/unethical pictures
Post by: Mopsy428 on August 21, 2010, 04:20:34 PM
She wasn't identifying a patient, just saying, "This is a _______."

Her account may have been hacked, but the hacker would have to know her occupation. I like Larrabee's suggestion.
Title: Re: S/O Gross/unethical pictures
Post by: M-theory on August 21, 2010, 04:25:45 PM
Are you sure she didn't get the picture from a medical Web site or her old patho textbook?
Title: Re: S/O Gross/unethical pictures
Post by: SiotehCat on August 21, 2010, 04:34:32 PM
Are you sure she didn't get the picture from a medical Web site or her old patho textbook?

This is what I was thinking.
Title: Re: S/O Gross/unethical pictures
Post by: Amava on August 21, 2010, 04:59:21 PM
Are you sure she didn't get the picture from a medical Web site or her old patho textbook?

This is what I was thinking.
Ohhhh!!! That could be! Good thinking!
Title: Re: S/O Gross/unethical pictures
Post by: Mopsy428 on August 21, 2010, 05:42:23 PM
Are you sure she didn't get the picture from a medical Web site or her old patho textbook?

OK. I shortened the quote just a bit. She wrote, "This is a _____ which we just took from one of our patients."
Title: Re: S/O Gross/unethical pictures
Post by: Rohanna on August 21, 2010, 06:08:30 PM
Just report it to facebook- they'll just remove the offending image, and maybe get it through to her that at least someone on her friends list doesn't want to see it.

If it was a random internal bit/external bit/critter... (ick) with no identifying patient information on it, and no patient in the shot- it's not "really" a privacy breach, unless the HC worker has a very, very small patient base and it would be obvious who's it was. It might be "technically" one- but really, no one is likely to look at that shot and say- "Hey, that's Bob's spleen! I didn't know he was sick". Plenty of medical textbooks and articles use such pictures, and they are completely "non-identifying".  It's like I can't post on FB.... "I saw Bob today, and man does he have terrible track marks", but I can say "I get a lot of patients with bad track marks, and it makes taking their blood hard".

Now if you could see the patient's face or external body parts it would be a different story...
Title: Re: S/O Gross/unethical pictures
Post by: DangerMouth on August 21, 2010, 06:12:58 PM
I agree. While the pic sounds gross, I can't see how that would violate someone's pricacy.
Title: Re: S/O Gross/unethical pictures
Post by: M-theory on August 21, 2010, 06:23:06 PM
Are you sure she didn't get the picture from a medical Web site or her old patho textbook?

OK. I shortened the quote just a bit. She wrote, "This is a _____ which we just took from one of our patients."

That being the case, I agree with reporting her to the facility immediately without informing her. The photos that are occasionally taken as part of procedures are part of the confidential medical record covered by HIPAA, and distributing them to anyone unauthorized is a huge no-no whether or not there's any identifying info in the pictures themselves.

I wouldn't bother saying anything to her, because that will probably just make her more careful. And she needs to be punished for what she's already done.
Title: Re: S/O Gross/unethical pictures
Post by: M-theory on August 21, 2010, 06:25:08 PM
Just report it to facebook- they'll just remove the offending image, and maybe get it through to her that at least someone on her friends list doesn't want to see it.

If it was a random internal bit/external bit/critter... (ick) with no identifying patient information on it, and no patient in the shot- it's not "really" a privacy breach, unless the HC worker has a very, very small patient base and it would be obvious who's it was. It might be "technically" one- but really, no one is likely to look at that shot and say- "Hey, that's Bob's spleen! I didn't know he was sick". Plenty of medical textbooks and articles use such pictures, and they are completely "non-identifying".  It's like I can't post on FB.... "I saw Bob today, and man does he have terrible track marks", but I can say "I get a lot of patients with bad track marks, and it makes taking their blood hard".

Now if you could see the patient's face or external body parts it would be a different story...

They aren't the same.

Pictures legitimately taken in a healthcare setting are part of the patient's sealed record. The pictures in medical textbooks have been released by patients or their families, or are from autopsies.
Title: Re: S/O Gross/unethical pictures
Post by: Rohanna on August 21, 2010, 06:31:27 PM
Q: Are pictures considered part of the patient's health record/PHI, and am I able to disclose them?
A: Yes, pictures of the patient are considered part of their health record. You are able to disclose them in the same manner as other types of PHI are disclosed. A patient's photograph that identifies him/her cannot be posted in public areas, such as hallways, without specific authorization from the patient. Likewise, a patient's photograph that identifies him/her cannot be used in any form of publication without the patient's specific authorization. If the patient is not identifiable from the image, it is not considered to be PHI.


http://www.uthscsa.edu/hipaa/FAQs.asp

Now, the HC provider may be violating her own workplace policy on such photos- and as such could be at risk of a firing for that offence, but it would not as such be a HIPPA violation. This is assuming the OP is in the US- as in Canada and other countries different laws would apply.
Title: Re: S/O Gross/unethical pictures
Post by: M-theory on August 21, 2010, 06:37:46 PM
Q: Are pictures considered part of the patient's health record/PHI, and am I able to disclose them?
A: Yes, pictures of the patient are considered part of their health record. You are able to disclose them in the same manner as other types of PHI are disclosed. A patient's photograph that identifies him/her cannot be posted in public areas, such as hallways, without specific authorization from the patient. Likewise, a patient's photograph that identifies him/her cannot be used in any form of publication without the patient's specific authorization. If the patient is not identifiable from the image, it is not considered to be PHI.


http://www.uthscsa.edu/hipaa/FAQs.asp

Now, the HC provider may be violating her own workplace policy on such photos- and as such could be at risk of a firing for that offence, but it would not as such be a HIPPA violation. This is assuming the OP is in the US- as in Canada and other countries different laws would apply.


From AHIMA:

In facilities where patient photography is used routinely to document patient care, the practice of patient photography in healthcare operations should be included in the HIPAA-mandated notice of information practices, as well as in the consent for treatment signed on admission. It is advised that a consent paragraph, such as the one below, be inserted into the standard admission consent form.

I understand that photographs, videotapes, digital, or other images may be recorded to document my care, and I consent to this. I understand that [organization name] will retain the ownership rights to these photographs, videotapes, digital, or other images, but that I will be allowed access to view them or obtain copies. I understand that these images will be stored in a secure manner that will protect my privacy and that they will be kept for the time period required by law or outlined in [organization name]’s policy. Images that identify me will be released and/or used outside the institution only upon written authorization from me or my legal representative.

Note: This consent does not authorize the use of the images for other purposes, such as teaching or publicity. A separate consent for photography form should be used for such purposes.
Title: Re: S/O Gross/unethical pictures
Post by: Rohanna on August 21, 2010, 06:46:04 PM
The paragraphs you link concern photographs that identify patients.

" Images that identify me will be released and/or used outside the institution only upon written authorization from me or my legal representative."

 It does not say anything there about what is going to be done with images that do not identify you. If the doctor wants to take a picture of your enormous kidney stone for his new research paper, well...guess what, he isn't going to ask you.


A lot of stink has been raised because doctors, particularly plastic surgeons and dentists, were using before and after photos of patients (without consent) in their advertising. You can imagine that it would be embarressing to see your face-lift photos on the back of a bus, especially if you hadnt told anyone you had one. That's why employers are so twitchy.

I agree the HC worker in the OP may very well be violating her workplace rules, but HIPPA applies to "identifying patient information"... so it would depend on what the photo was to determine that. Should she be more careful? Yes. Did she violate HIPPA...possibly not. Could she get fired? Maybe. Her bosses may decide to act on a mis-understanding of the law, as in this case

http://www.realtime-itcompliance.com/privacy_and_compliance/2009/08/fired_because_photo_of_surgery.htm

From my readings of it, and my training- if it was a picture of say, like I said, a spleen, or a tumor- and the HC worker works in a large facility...then no, it probably was not a privacy breach. Photos of faces, x-rays, scars, body photos...those are breaches.

Not every photo in a text book needs to have a "model release"... the paragraph above that is quoted again applies to ones that contain PHI, not those that don't.  

I think the HC worker is being careless posting this to FB, and it may very well cost her a job- but I wouldn't say she is being immoral. Just gross.
Title: Re: S/O Gross/unethical pictures
Post by: M-theory on August 21, 2010, 06:49:45 PM
Nope. It refers to all photographs of patients, identifying or not. The consent process for identifying photographs under HIPAA is discussed also - check out AHIMA.
Title: Re: S/O Gross/unethical pictures
Post by: Rohanna on August 21, 2010, 06:57:37 PM
"2. No “Identifiable” Patient Information in Photo/Recording – Not Required.
For photographs/recordings that do not in any way identify the patient or include any identifying characteristics of
the patient, such as a photograph that excludes (1) the patient’s name, (2) medical record number, (3) patient’s face
or any part of the face that would identify the patient, and (4) all other “identifiers,” a HIPAA Authorization is not
required. In other words, the photograph/recording is completely de-identified, so HIPAA does not apply. See
UAMS De-Identification Policy 3.1.31 to confirm if it is “de-identified” according to HIPAA standards."

(http://hipaa.uams.edu/Photograph%20Release%20Reference%20Tool%2011-3-2004.pdf)

From HIPAA itself

"De-Identified Health Information. There are no restrictions on the use or disclosure of de-identified health information.14  De-identified health information neither identifies nor provides a reasonable basis to identify an individual. There are two ways to de-identify information; either: (1) a formal determination by a qualified statistician; or (2) the removal of specified identifiers of the individual and of the individual’s relatives, household members, and employers is required, and is adequate only if the covered entity has no actual knowledge that the remaining information could be used to identify the individual.15"
 (http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/hipaa/understanding/summary/index.html)

Title: Re: S/O Gross/unethical pictures
Post by: M-theory on August 21, 2010, 07:02:12 PM
From HIPAA itself

"De-Identified Health Information. There are no restrictions on the use or disclosure of de-identified health information.14  De-identified health information neither identifies nor provides a reasonable basis to identify an individual. There are two ways to de-identify information; either: (1) a formal determination by a qualified statistician; or (2) the removal of specified identifiers of the individual and of the individual’s relatives, household members, and employers is required, and is adequate only if the covered entity has no actual knowledge that the remaining information could be used to identify the individual.15"
 (http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/hipaa/understanding/summary/index.html)



So, do you think she consulted a statistician or talked to the patient before posting the pic to FB?
Title: Re: S/O Gross/unethical pictures
Post by: Rohanna on August 21, 2010, 07:06:58 PM
It specifically *says* there are two ways to accomplish this. There is a second sentence, and an "or"...

(2) the removal of specified identifiers of the individual and of the individual’s relatives, household members, and employers is required, and is adequate only if the covered entity has no actual knowledge that the remaining information could be used to identify the individual.15

So if the photograph has no specific identifiers of the patient or anyone related to the patient, and the HC worker isn't say, ignoring the fact that the patient has a large tattoo that everyone in hicksville knows is his, then it's fine to post it.  The second line just says, if there's nothing identifying in the picture, and you aren't ignoring something that you know is identifying, then it's fine.

So you can't post a picture of Bob's spleen if his grandma is in the background- because then everyone will be looking at it going "hey, that's Bob's grandma, and he just had surgery- so that must be Bob's spleen". You also can't post a picture of Bob's unique double-spleen, if you know that everyone in town knows that Bob had a double spleen.

Title: Re: S/O Gross/unethical pictures
Post by: hellgirl on August 21, 2010, 07:08:59 PM
Well I'm not familiar with US law, but I did have a grandmother with dementia in a rest home.

If someone took photos of a bedsore (for eg) and put it on fb, even if she wasn't id'able, I would be pretty angry and it would make the papers here. My GM would have been mortified to have her medical issues and person shared with strangers like that, and for their entertainment. It would be taken very seriously as an insult to dignity if nothing else.
Title: Re: S/O Gross/unethical pictures
Post by: Rohanna on August 21, 2010, 07:10:06 PM
Now note that I have repeatedly said that it may violate her workplace rules- as with my work. I can't take photos of say, a patients elbow, without the patients consent, even though that would most likely be non-identifying, because my work has a "all photos must have consent" rule.
Title: Re: S/O Gross/unethical pictures
Post by: M-theory on August 21, 2010, 07:14:38 PM
and is adequate only if the covered entity has no actual knowledge that the remaining information could be used to identify the individual

That's where consent comes in, which is the point I think we're missing each other on.

Regardless of interpretations of HIPAA, what Tammy is doing is certainly unethical, and probably violates her facility's record handling policies as well as (subjectively, it seems) HIPAA. If she thinks this is OK, it's only a matter of time before she does it again with something that's definitely identifiable. It's even remotely possible that the picture has something identifying that isn't obvious to the casual observer. If the picture is from her job and not a medical Web site/random gross picture Web site/her old patho textbook/some other third-party source, she needs to be reported.
Title: Re: S/O Gross/unethical pictures
Post by: Rohanna on August 21, 2010, 07:20:43 PM
This is where we are missing each other. The "covered entity" refers to the practisioner/institution, not the patient- it's the person/institition "covered by HIPAA". HIPAA specificially says that there is no restriction on non-identifying information under it's act, so I am not sure why people are saying that consent needs to be obtained under it. Consent may need to be obtained under the employees OWN institutions rules, but that would depend on where they work, and isn't something we can debate properly here- not knowing them.

I don't know that I can agree to it being "completely unethical" unless I knew what the photo *was*.  It's rather like the grey area between taking a beach photo that happens to have a child in a swimsuit in it, versus sitting on the beach specifically taking pictures of other peoples kids bathing. I don't know where I stand on that fence until I know the exact details.

Taking pictures of Granny's bedsores would bother me more- because it's still a part of a living human, part of her skin- and we tend to keep our covered bits "private"...
Title: Re: S/O Gross/unethical pictures
Post by: Rohanna on August 21, 2010, 07:32:15 PM
Here's an interesting article on the topic- bringing in the idea of disaster victim photos on the news, and how they could be considered unethically violating the spirit of this idea

http://academicobgyn.com/2010/02/04/hipaa-medical-case-reports-and-unbalanced-benefit-in-news-reporting/

In the article they list what HIPAA considers to be identifying info

HIPAA specifies 18 elements that cannot be published without express patient consent:

1. Names;

2. All geographical subdivisions smaller than a State, including street address, city, county, precinct, zip code, and their equivalent geocodes, except for the initial three digits of a zip code, if according to the current publicly available data from the Bureau of the Census: (1) The geographic unit formed by combining all zip codes with the same three initial digits contains more than 20,000 people; and (2) The initial three digits of a zip code for all such geographic units containing 20,000 or fewer people is changed to 000.

3. All elements of dates (except year) for dates directly related to an individual, including birth date, admission date, discharge date, date of death; and all ages over 89 and all elements of dates (including year) indicative of such age, except that such ages and elements may be aggregated into a single category of age 90 or older;

4. Phone numbers;

5. Fax numbers;

6. Electronic mail addresses;

7. Social Security numbers;

8. Medical record numbers;

9. Health plan beneficiary numbers;

10. Account numbers;

11. Certificate/license numbers;

12. Vehicle identifiers and serial numbers, including license plate numbers;

13. Device identifiers and serial numbers;

14. Web Universal Resource Locators (URLs);

15. Internet Protocol (IP) address numbers;

16. Biometric identifiers, including finger and voice prints;

17. Full face photographic images and any comparable images; and

Any other unique identifying number, characteristic, or code (note this does not mean the unique code assigned by the investigator to code the data)

And a comment from the author "As such, the publication of a de-identified medical image along with general comments about the case, whether on the internet or in print, is a HIPAA compliant activity, and therefore should be kosher."


I like that he stated he is taking down any photos that the patient could identify as themselves, even if other could not. I think that's a fair standard to hold to- as if even the patient could not ID the photo- it is as anonymous as anything in the life can be.
Title: Re: S/O Gross/unethical pictures
Post by: M-theory on August 21, 2010, 07:33:44 PM
We're going to have to agree to disagree as I have too little free time from my job processing medical records for me to want to debate this during time off. I think if you re-read not only HIPAA, but AHIMA's disambiguation of the legalese, you'll find that I'm correct.

As to ethics, there really is no grey area, at least not per my medical law and ethics training. It's misuse of photographs intended to be part of the private medical record/facilitate patient care. I was afraid that she was going around with a camera snapping pictures to post to FB, which would be a lot worse, but this is still very bad.
Title: Re: S/O Gross/unethical pictures
Post by: Rohanna on August 21, 2010, 07:38:56 PM
You are  not the only poster here with a medical background or ethics training, but I cannot debate your lack of free time :)

I have re-read this very carefully, so please don't imply that I haven't- and I have posted many sources saying that they don't believe anonymous, unidentifiable photos to be unethical- so it is obviously a grey area to many people, not just myself.

 You don't have to "like" something, or want it to happen to you, for it to be illegal or immoral. I was not happy to see myself on the front of the local paper once, as I hate how I look in pictures- but it was perfectly moral and legal for the paper to snap my picture as part of the crowd in the park.
Title: Re: S/O Gross/unethical pictures
Post by: M-theory on August 21, 2010, 07:42:56 PM
You are  not the only poster here with a medical background or ethics training, but I cannot debate your lack of free time :)

I have re-read this very carefully, so please don't imply that I haven't- and I have posted many sources saying that they don't believe anonymous, unidentifiable photos to be unethical- so it is obviously a grey area to many people, not just myself.

 You don't have to "like" something, or want it to happen to you, for it to be illegal or immoral. I was not happy to see myself on the front of the local paper once, as I hate how I look in pictures- but it was perfectly moral and legal for the paper to snap my picture as part of the crowd in the park.

Sorry, I didn't intend that as "I have more medical training than you!" I intended it as "I don't want to think about this during my free time since I'll have to do it for real in a few hours." I know that I'm right, but I'm unwilling to go digging through the HIPAA Web site myself, so you can be right. :)
Title: Re: S/O Gross/unethical pictures
Post by: O'Dell on August 21, 2010, 07:44:23 PM

I agree the HC worker in the OP may very well be violating her workplace rules, but HIPPA applies to "identifying patient information"... so it would depend on what the photo was to determine that. Should she be more careful? Yes. Did she violate HIPPA...possibly not. Could she get fired? Maybe. Her bosses may decide to act on a mis-understanding of the law, as in this case


I think the HC worker is being careless posting this to FB, and it may very well cost her a job- but I wouldn't say she is being immoral. Just gross.



So she possibly did violate HIPAA since it's not clear? Then let her employer sort it out. If it's legal and ethical, then there will be no repercussions.

And I think she is being unethical. Current ethics are so weighted in favor of patient privacy that it shows bad judgment and questionable ethics on her part. Part of the reasoning behind HIPAA is wanting patients to feel secure in sharing their medical issues and concerns with medical professions without worries that their information will get around. Whether she violated the letter of the law or not, she violated the spirit of it and that is what is important. How many of her friends that saw the post and how many people here on this board are now questioning the privacy and security of their own medical records? If anyone is, then it's an indication that a line was crossed.
Title: Re: S/O Gross/unethical pictures
Post by: Rohanna on August 21, 2010, 07:47:21 PM
I meant, that as we do not know what the photo was of and what was in it we can only say "maybe". I can't say "of course she didn't" as I have not seen the post. I didn't not mean "it's unclear whether she violated the rules because it could be taken either way looking at this photo". I mean, maybe the photo is of something that clearly does breach the rules- I have no idea, so I had to say "maybe".

Title: Re: S/O Gross/unethical pictures
Post by: Garden Goblin on August 21, 2010, 07:57:10 PM
The simple fact that there is even debate as to whether or not it is covered by HIPAA is reason enough that posting it was unethical and rude.