Does this privacy case open up all similar gov't records to public inspection?

Cal.2d: State pharmacy controlled substance database doesn’t violate patients’ privacy rights
Posted on June 2, 2014 by Hall

A patient does not have a substantial enough state constitutional privacy right to overcome the public interest in making prescription controlled substances records inspections at pharmacies. Pharmacies are highly regulated, and there are sufficient other general protections of patient information. Reporting sales of controlled substances through the state database (CURES) is not, on balance, an unreasonable violation of patients’ privacy rights. Lewis v. Superior Court, 2014 Cal. App. LEXIS 471 (2d Dist. May 29, 2014).

davidmcbeth said:

Cal.2d: State pharmacy controlled substance database doesn’t violate patients’ privacy rights
Posted on June 2, 2014 by Hall

A patient does not have a substantial enough state constitutional privacy right to overcome the public interest in making prescription controlled substances records inspections at pharmacies. Pharmacies are highly regulated, and there are sufficient other general protections of patient information. Reporting sales of controlled substances through the state database (CURES) is not, on balance, an unreasonable violation of patients’ privacy rights. Lewis v. Superior Court, 2014 Cal. App. LEXIS 471 (2d Dist. May 29, 2014).

Click to expand...

So, it's a violation, but it's okay because the courts have said so.

apparently..........

Freedom1Man said:

So, it's a violation, but it's okay because the courts have said so.

Click to expand...

that was a court's conclusion. Personally, in this circumstance, I do not see this as an invasion of privacy because absent any questions about the number of prescriptions that one person is receiving, there should be no other use that the gov't is making of this information. If however, they used this information as a means to require surrender of firearms , then I do agree that it's a violation of the right to privacy. Depends on the circumstances of the use, I guess.

I can tell you from experience in the medical field, in several of the facilities I worked, we had patients who would go to every provider they could find in a community trying to get prescriptions for pain killers. It became known to the doctors in the community who the abusers were just by their repetitive visits to the clinics and complaints about pain and needing medication. There are definitely those out there that will try to abuse the system and get as much pain medicine as they can by any means, either to take it or sell it. I agree with the fact that those folks should be looked at by law enforcement and asked why they need so much medication, and also ask the providers why those patients need so much medication. On the other hand, I have heard that someone in New York was contacted by the State Police as a result of an inquiry into their medical records, and told to surrender his firearms within 60 days because he had taken prescription anti anxiety medicine in the past. Not sure if that is, in fact, true however, if that did happen, that is clearly a violation of privacy rights in my opinion.

Freedom1Man said:

So, it's a violation, but it's okay because the courts have said so.

Click to expand...

Well, privacy is always weighed against other factors .... how a court ruled that the ends justify the means on this one is out of kilter IMO...the public health benefits are marginal at best IMO.

But does that data now become open records to the general public? I would think so ...

RK3369 said:

that was a court's conclusion. Personally, in this circumstance, I do not see this as an invasion of privacy because absent any questions about the number of prescriptions that one person is receiving, there should be no other use that the gov't is making of this information. If however, they used this information as a means to require surrender of firearms , then I do agree that it's a violation of the right to privacy. Depends on the circumstances of the use, I guess.

I can tell you from experience in the medical field, in several of the facilities I worked, we had patients who would go to every provider they could find in a community trying to get prescriptions for pain killers. It became known to the doctors in the community who the abusers were just by their repetitive visits to the clinics and complaints about pain and needing medication. There are definitely those out there that will try to abuse the system and get as much pain medicine as they can by any means, either to take it or sell it. I agree with the fact that those folks should be looked at by law enforcement and asked why they need so much medication, and also ask the providers why those patients need so much medication. On the other hand, I have heard that someone in New York was contacted by the State Police as a result of an inquiry into their medical records, and told to surrender his firearms within 60 days because he had taken prescription anti anxiety medicine in the past. Not sure if that is, in fact, true however, if that did happen, that is clearly a violation of privacy rights in my opinion.

Click to expand...

So , because some choose to abuse, everyone's records are now open to public review?

Next all gun sales and gun owners will be public record because a few idiots decide ot use a gun to rob a liquor store, bank, home, etc?

http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/B252032.PDF

The link to the opinion not provided by the OP.

Informational privacy....hmm....very interesting. I'll be scrutinizing all those "forms" at the doctor's office a bit more closely and requesting copies. I'll also be lining out all those "disclosure to..." parts.

yup..........

Freedom1Man said:

So , because some choose to abuse, everyone's records are now open to public review?

Next all gun sales and gun owners will be public record because a few idiots decide ot use a gun to rob a liquor store, bank, home, etc?

Click to expand...

that's the way it goes. Some are pursuing criminal activity so we all have to be inconvenienced by having our drivers license scanned when we pick up even some over the counter meds at the pharmacy. But it's because some of the underlying activity is illegal to begin with. I don't like it either but law enforcement hasn't yet figured out how to target and arrest those who are abusing the system without having this information. Not everything each of us does every day is under scrutiny (yet).

Gun ownership is not illegal, as far as I know, so there is no need to make any of that information public. Because we want the bad guys caught and locked up, we all have to suffer a little inconvenience.

JTHunter said:

Rahm is already pushing for all gun sales in Chicago to be videotaped.

Click to expand...

I believe that all political donations should be video recorded.

That way we know who is owned by what company

JTHunter said:

Rahm is already pushing for all gun sales in Chicago to be videotaped.

Click to expand...

wear a mask...

We all may think we have privacy however if you possess a driver license or a social security number, you're an open book, one would be very naive to think different. Its the 21st century, NO Privacy Allow.

My .02

Regards

CCJ

countryclubjoe said:

We all may think we have privacy however if you possess a driver license or a social security number, you're an open book, one would be very naive to think different. Its the 21st century, NO Privacy Allow.

My .02

Regards

CCJ

Click to expand...

Good thing you're not required, by any law that I know of, to have either one.

What is specifically meant by medical records?

When the gun board says they may review medical records what exactly does this mean? Where do they access this information. Does it mean they ask you for your primary care providers info and want to see those records? Does it just mean they are accessing the health department to see if you are on the crazy list? Are they accessing the MAPS system to look at you prescriptions? Are they verifying medical Marijuana registry? What data base does this information come from? Where do they find the information they want. Is it as simple as if you pass the checks for purchase you are probably ok for CPL. This is Michigan I am referring to. If anybody has clarification on this please respond. Thanks