Mar 172019
 
 March 17, 2019  Posted by  Govt, Healthcare, Surveillance

Seen at FourthAmendment.com:

A blood sample in a lab is not “information” within the physician-patient privilege statute. The state sought a search warrant for the blood sample. State v. Atwood, 2019 Minn. LEXIS 122 (Mar. 13, 2019).

I had never thought of that before, but yes, I can see how it is not “information” although the outcome/results/test report might be “information” as it is necessary to provide treatment to the patient.  But if the purpose of privilege is to make the patient feel safe providing information that the doctor needs to properly diagnose and treat, then is this court splitting a hair that shouldn’t be split? What if a patient declined to give doctors a DNA sample to test for hereditary diseases like Huntington’s?  The doctor needs the information to treat/advise the patient, but if the sample isn’t protected from non-parties to the medical relationship….?

 

 Leave a Reply

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

(required)

(required)

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.