Not until 1957 were doctors required to give patients “‘full disclosure of facts necessary to an informed consent’” (Skloot, 2011, p. 132). In the early 80s, “there was no such law” (Skloot, 2011, p. 211) forbidding a patient’s medical records to be given to anyone nor forbidding a patient’s medical record to be published in a book or magazine article. Therefore, Michael Gold was able to publish a book containing all of Henrietta’s medical records without the Lacks family’s consent. Although not many doctors regularly handed “patient’s medical records over to [reporters]” (Skloot, 2011, p. 211) in the 1980s, it was not a federal law to protect a patient’s privacy. After all, doctors regularly used black people as research subjects without informing them about the research being conducted, such as the Tuskegee syphilis study. However, in 1966, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) was passed. HIPAA protects the “confidentiality and security of healthcare information” (Dreyzehner, n.d.) of patients. Now, patients have the right to “set some limits on who sees personal information about [their] health … [and the] right to be told how [their] doctor will use [their] personal health information” (“Your Patient Privacy Rights: A Consumer Guide to Health Information Privacy in California”). This allows patients to have control over their medical records. Doctors can no longer freely hand out a patient’s medical information without the patient’s consent and must inform the patient of any uses of their medical record. If this law would have been passed much earlier, Gold, as well as scientists performing research on HeLa cells, would have never been allowed to see Henrietta’s medical records without the Lacks family’s consent. Scientists would not have been able to find out Henrietta’s reason for going to John Hopkins Hospital and the occurrences of her visits.
Citations: Your Patient Privacy Rights: A Consumer Guide to Health Information Privacy in California. (n.d.). Retrieved January 18, 2015, from http://oag.ca.gov/privacy/facts/medical-privacy/patient-rights Dreyzehner, J. (n.d.). Department of Health. Retrieved January 18, 2015, from http://health.state.tn.us/hipaa/ Skloot, R. (2011). The immortal life of Henrietta Lacks. New York: Broadway Paperbacks.
Like Julieta said, patients had no privacy until the 1980’s. Until 1957, there were only guidelines set up that required “that all human subject researched funded by NIH… required both informed consent and approval from a Hopkins review board” (Skloot, 2010). If these guidelines were broken, then the medical practitioner would not get in trouble legally because according to federal law it was legal. In 1957, however, doctors were required to give patients a full disclosure. However, the law still allowed doctors to release patient medical records. In ’66, HIPAA passed, allowing patients to handle their medical records. The law protects the current and future patients’ privacy, but can’t undo the damage of the past.
Not until 1957 were doctors required to give patients “‘full disclosure of facts necessary to an informed consent’” (Skloot, 2011, p. 132). In the early 80s, “there was no such law” (Skloot, 2011, p. 211) forbidding a patient’s medical records to be given to anyone nor forbidding a patient’s medical record to be published in a book or magazine article. Therefore, Michael Gold was able to publish a book containing all of Henrietta’s medical records without the Lacks family’s consent. Although not many doctors regularly handed “patient’s medical records over to [reporters]” (Skloot, 2011, p. 211) in the 1980s, it was not a federal law to protect a patient’s privacy. After all, doctors regularly used black people as research subjects without informing them about the research being conducted, such as the Tuskegee syphilis study. However, in 1966, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) was passed. HIPAA protects the “confidentiality and security of healthcare information” (Dreyzehner, n.d.) of patients. Now, patients have the right to “set some limits on who sees personal information about [their] health … [and the] right to be told how [their] doctor will use [their] personal health information” (“Your Patient Privacy Rights: A Consumer Guide to Health Information Privacy in California”). This allows patients to have control over their medical records. Doctors can no longer freely hand out a patient’s medical information without the patient’s consent and must inform the patient of any uses of their medical record. If this law would have been passed much earlier, Gold, as well as scientists performing research on HeLa cells, would have never been allowed to see Henrietta’s medical records without the Lacks family’s consent. Scientists would not have been able to find out Henrietta’s reason for going to John Hopkins Hospital and the occurrences of her visits.
ReplyDeleteCitations:
Your Patient Privacy Rights: A Consumer Guide to Health Information Privacy in California. (n.d.). Retrieved January 18, 2015, from http://oag.ca.gov/privacy/facts/medical-privacy/patient-rights
Dreyzehner, J. (n.d.). Department of Health. Retrieved January 18, 2015, from http://health.state.tn.us/hipaa/
Skloot, R. (2011). The immortal life of Henrietta Lacks. New York: Broadway Paperbacks.
Like Julieta said, patients had no privacy until the 1980’s. Until 1957, there were only guidelines set up that required “that all human subject researched funded by NIH… required both informed consent and approval from a Hopkins review board” (Skloot, 2010). If these guidelines were broken, then the medical practitioner would not get in trouble legally because according to federal law it was legal. In 1957, however, doctors were required to give patients a full disclosure. However, the law still allowed doctors to release patient medical records. In ’66, HIPAA passed, allowing patients to handle their medical records. The law protects the current and future patients’ privacy, but can’t undo the damage of the past.
DeleteIs there a medical history of each individual, verses obtaining directly from medical doctor or other facility?
ReplyDeleteIs there a medical history of each individual, verses obtaining directly from medical doctor or other facility?
ReplyDeleteIs there a medical history of each individual, verses obtaining directly from medical doctor or other facility?
ReplyDelete