Doctor/Patient Confidentiality and our views on Diseases.

[November Rain]

At the point of sounding mildly ignorant, what's the big deal with the privacy behind someone's medical documents.

I mean if one could use it to defraud someone like a back account, then fair dos but I don't see how anything in one's medical record could be used to any benefit.

Nor do I really see how It could be used to deface someone's character unless they are living a pretence of being something they are not.

To summarise, how have we grown to become a society where we are embarassed about our illnesses. What happened to a time when if you were ill, you'd tell everyone you knew so they could take care of you and look after you.

When did having a disease become a shameful experience?

 

[Logan's Runt]

Because of the stigma behind certain diseases?

If you had come down with a case of the gonorrhea, or had a mental breakdown with a diagnosis of schizophrenia, you might not want your coworkers/new friends/random people whose business it is not knowing all about it. It's your own business to deal with, for your doctor to deal with- what can your neighbor down the street do about it? They don't need to know unless you choose to tell them.

My mom has MS, and worked very hard to hide it from us as kids (and consequently from the community) until we were old enough to handle the knowledge/understand what it meant. She didn't want us growing up thinking 'mom has a disease' constantly- she just wanted to be 'mom'. She hates it-hates it- when people who know treat her like she can't do things, try to help her with every little thing- she just wants to go about her life without the label of 'MS person.' Diseases become labels, instead of conditions- most people don't want that. Instead of being a person with black hair, brown eyes, tall, happens to have cancer- they become 'The Cancer Person' and no one can see past that.

What benefit comes with everyone knowing what's going on in your own body? If you want people to be sympathetic/care for you/help you out- then you can express that to them, but it's no one else's right to decide who knows your personal business.

 

[Danalys]

that maybe true. but the problem then becomes the stigma giving and the route cause of that or how it can be removed.

 

[SoulManX]

Because of the stigma behind certain diseases?

If you had come down with a case of the gonorrhea, or had a mental breakdown with a diagnosis of schizophrenia, you might not want your coworkers/new friends/random people whose business it is not knowing all about it. It's your own business to deal with, for your doctor to deal with- what can your neighbor down the street do about it? They don't need to know unless you choose to tell them.

My mom has MS, and worked very hard to hide it from us as kids (and consequently from the community) until we were old enough to handle the knowledge/understand what it meant. She didn't want us growing up thinking 'mom has a disease' constantly- she just wanted to be 'mom'. She hates it-hates it- when people who know treat her like she can't do things, try to help her with every little thing- she just wants to go about her life without the label of 'MS person.' Diseases become labels, instead of conditions- most people don't want that. Instead of being a person with black hair, brown eyes, tall, happens to have cancer- they become 'The Cancer Person' and no one can see past that.

What benefit comes with everyone knowing what's going on in your own body? If you want people to be sympathetic/care for you/help you out- then you can express that to them, but it's no one else's right to decide who knows your personal business.

 

[November Rain]

Because of the stigma behind certain diseases?

If you had come down with a case of the gonorrhea, or had a mental breakdown with a diagnosis of schizophrenia, you might not want your coworkers/new friends/random people whose business it is not knowing all about it. It's your own business to deal with, for your doctor to deal with- what can your neighbor down the street do about it? They don't need to know unless you choose to tell them.

Sexually trasmitted diseases are being talked about more in this day and age. It should be no big deal to admit one has had one as it encourages more people to go out and get checked.

schizophrenia may get bad press because nobody knows anything about it except for the extremes you seen on tv. if more people talked about it, the stigma on it at work would reduce. Then again, some people may not be fit to work in a similar environment they were in before an incident and stay in denail under the guise of patient/doctor confidentiality.

My mom has MS, and worked very hard to hide it from us as kids (and consequently from the community) until we were old enough to handle the knowledge/understand what it meant. She didn't want us growing up thinking 'mom has a disease' constantly- she just wanted to be 'mom'. She hates it-hates it- when people who know treat her like she can't do things, try to help her with every little thing- she just wants to go about her life without the label of 'MS person.'

Well that's good and dandy but why can't a mom lable encompass having a disease. I know very well my mother is my mom with plenty of physical and emotional flaws. I still will always picture her as my mother regardless of what she has done or what has happened.

By her taking that route, isn't she ultimately patronising people for potentially being patronised? She is taking enlightening people and potential rise in community spirit out of the hands of people and making the world a lonlier place to live in.

It still means you have the choice to be helped or not helped.

Diseases become labels, instead of conditions- most people don't want that. Instead of being a person with black hair, brown eyes, tall, happens to have cancer- they become 'The Cancer Person' and no one can see past that.

Well this is a fault of our perceptions which arent' going to be torn down by this confidentiality agreement.

As for labels, they only become labels if the people with them allow themselves to be labels, the same can be said about anything. Height, weight, race, religion. You can step out of these labels and be recognised as an individual. Everyone labels everyone on first impressions, it's no big deal.

What benefit comes with everyone knowing what's going on in your own body? If you want people to be sympathetic/care for you/help you out- then you can express that to them, but it's no one else's right to decide who knows your personal business.

Well the benefit comes from freedom really. Freedom to educate people that there can be life after a certain ailment, Freedom to recognise that you are not alone in your situation. Freedom to find help and shelter in communities where there was no real common ground. Freedom to have somewhere to have a unified voice express concerns about the way a certain area handles things.

The freedom to not hide in shame for years with a cyst because of shame and let it eat you up and Kill you. The freedom to realise life as you know it wont ever be the same, but there is always something out there to achieve or experiences to live through.

Ultimately a Freedom to be yourself and be accepted regardless.

 

[November Rain]

that maybe true. but the problem then becomes the stigma giving and the route cause of that or how it can be removed.

so patient confidentiality is just a resultant factor of human kind's bad nature to prejudge.

Instead of dealing with ourselves as the root cause, we throw up barriers.

go progress

 

[Logan's Runt]

You're much too optimistic about 'people' and 'society.' It would be great if all those things that 'should' be were, but they're not. Some people do very good jobs of 'getting the word out' and 'changing perspectives' about all sorts of diseases, but that's not the route for everyone. Why should a person who happens to have a disease then be obligated to be a spokesperson for that disease? Most people just want to live quiet lives without constantly being on the offense (or defense) about some aspect of themselves.

It would be great if everyone had the freedom not to be stigmatized because they have a mental health disorder, STD, or other disease.

It's not shame, it's privacy. Why does everyone else need to know? Especially if it's a disease that doesn't have public consequences/symptoms. Not everyone can live a happy life wearing a T-shirt that says 'I have Irritable Bowel Syndrome! I have terrible hemorrhoids because of it and my anus has turned inside out!'

To 'be free' would be to not have a disease- I'm sure people with diseases would much rather be free of the disease than the 'pain of not being able to tell anyone.'

And the real POINT of doctor/patient confidentiality laws are to allow the person who has the disease the POWER to decide who knows and who does not. If they feel embarrassed/ ashamed of their particular disease, it's their right to inflict the 'pain' of hiding it on themselves. They should never be forced by someone else to be public with it. Doctor/patient confidentiality doesn't prohibit the patient from telling anyone at all.

 

[PemLam]

In addition to what Runt said and regardless of what many employers say, many prospective employers would use medical conditions as a barrier to employment. Why would a prospective employer want to hire someone with a medical history that could cost them time or money?

Unless the medical condition you have is a clear and present danger to society at large, it should remain confidential.

 

[Logan's Runt]

In addition to what Runt said and regardless of what many employers say, many prospective employers would use medical conditions as a barrier to employment. Why would a prospective employer want to hire someone with a medical history that could cost them time or money?

Unless the medical condition you have is a clear and present danger to society at large, it should remain confidential.

This is a huge point. What in the world would make an employer hire a person with schizophrenia (a lifetime diagnosis- does not go away) over an equally qualified candidate with a clean health record? Or a person with heart disease who may have a heart attack tomorrow over a healthy equally qualified person? Companies want the best candidate who will cost them the least and make them the most profits. An employee who will likely be absent often for health conditions would automatically be disqualified.

 

[Majic Walrus]

The doctor patient confidentiality ethical agreement is not new and it can really be reason by a simple argument.

Is your personal life anyone else's M-Fin' business? No.

Is it your doctor's/laywer's/gardener's buisness? No.

You should have the opprotunity to decide who gets to know ANY personal information.

 

[November Rain]

I'm not optimistic about societies or individuals at all, otherwise I wouldn't make a thread on the subject.

I understand how someone should not be a spokesperson for a disease but what i need to understand is where we don't have a society where we aren't defined by anything other than what we are.

in order to free one's self from the stigma of being attached to a condition or social/ethnic group is to wear it on one's sleeve and not be affected by it.

Now i'm not going saying shout it from the rooftops but the idea of an embarassing illness should be taboo and it stops people from getting treatment because they don't openly hear other people being open (when questioned) about their past. It may even stop people prejudging them.

Spoiler

I heard a story once about a man on a subway. He was joined at a stop by a father and some really loud young children. They were jumping everywhere and shouting and obviously making everyone on the train feel uncomfortable. After awhile the original man got enough courage to confront the father.

he basically accused him of being a bad parent and not knowing how to control his wild children.

The father responded he didn't realise, they had just been back from the hospital where they had seen their wife and mother pass away and had yet to come to terms with it.

Immediately the children no longer were a problem and everyone on the line started being comforting and helpful towards to the dude.

To 'be free' would be to not have a disease- I'm sure people with diseases would much rather be free of the disease than the 'pain of not being able to tell anyone.'

Here lies the problem. There is no freedom, Everybody's has gone through or has got something.

So why the need to live in a world full of pretence?

 

[November Rain]

In addition to what Runt said and regardless of what many employers say, many prospective employers would use medical conditions as a barrier to employment. Why would a prospective employer want to hire someone with a medical history that could cost them time or money?

Unless the medical condition you have is a clear and present danger to society at large, it should remain confidential.

Where I was applying for work, you had to go through a medical anyway and are required to pass on your medical details to your employer.

You also have to partake in a drugs and alcohol test.

So being part of a working process that already takes this into account, i don't really see the significance.

 

[November Rain]

The doctor patient confidentiality ethical agreement is not new and it can really be reason by a simple argument.

Is your personal life anyone else's M-Fin' business? No.

Is it your doctor's/laywer's/gardener's buisness? No.

You should have the opprotunity to decide who gets to know ANY personal information.

Alright, here is real flaw. Stop me where you divert from this logic

1.'It's no one's business' really means you do not wish to disclose the information.

That's fine.

2.But then brings the question of why one doesn't wish to share.

3.The only reasons I can come up with are shame or ultimately a shift in perception of you by either loved ones, family, friends, work or the general public.

4.1 But then bears the question of why the perception of yourself you give not your true one.

or

4.2 Why do people misrepresent people based on little information?

5. Help me shed some light on the last bit because for me, it comes down to public ignorance/perception which can be really quickly cured by mass scale awareness and education

 

[Logan's Runt]

Where I was applying for work, you had to go through a medical anyway and are required to pass on your medical details to your employer.

You also have to partake in a drugs and alcohol test.

So being part of a working process that already takes this into account, i don't really see the significance.

Well I didn't have to go through a medical exam. There are plenty of jobs where you don't. Not every job requires drug testing, either.

You seem to have a problem with society's view of disease in general, and not the confidentiality laws. You keep saying that we shouldn't have to live in a society where those laws are necessary- so why advocate taking away the laws when the roots of the problem you see are much larger? They protect people in the current state until such time when they are not needed.

And the point that you fail to address is that the laws don't prohibit the person who has the disease from telling people, they simply enforce that it is that person's right and their right alone to decide. I don't see how there could be a problem with that.

In your original post you didn't seem to understand how diseases could be used against a person like financial info can- we have given you plenty of examples of how they can in current society. Now if you want to talk about the ills of society that is an entirely different conversation.

Also, I have the 'right' to tell all you people every detail about my life- medical, emotional, preferences, past loves, what I ate for dinner last night. But I choose not to- how does that mean that I am prohibited, afraid, or otherwise barred by 'society' from doing it? It's just not something I care to share with you in this situation, maybe in another and maybe not. Just because people choose not to share a detail about themselves with strangers/everyone doesn't mean they are afraid to.

 

[Logan's Runt]

Alright, here is real flaw. Stop me where you divert from this logic

1.'It's no one's business' really means you do not wish to disclose the information.

That's fine.

2.But then brings the question of why one doesn't wish to share.

3.The only reasons I can come up with are shame or ultimately a shift in perception of you by either loved ones, family, friends, work or the general public.

4.1 But then bears the question of why the perception of yourself you give not your true one.

or

4.2 Why do people misrepresent people based on little information?

5. Help me shed some light on the last bit because for me, it comes down to public ignorance/perception which can be really quickly cured by mass scale awareness and education

What ever happened to just not mentioning something because it is not relevant? How is having chronic migraines relevant to your neighbor down the street who only sees you when you get your mail? You seem to advocate a person with a disease telling everyone they encounter, which makes them more defined by the disease than if they could live their life without having to put a disclaimer in front of every activity they do. "I'm sorry, I may have trouble picking up and drinking this cup of coffee you just gave me, you see I have MS."

 

[Gilpesh]

in order to free one's self from the stigma of being attached to a condition or social/ethnic group is to wear it on one's sleeve and not be affected by it.

That's a dumb f**king idea.

To be free of the stigma... is not to f**king tell anyone. Because if people know, they're still going to judge but only silently.

 

[NHawk19]

Where I was applying for work, you had to go through a medical anyway and are required to pass on your medical details to your employer.

You also have to partake in a drugs and alcohol test.

So being part of a working process that already takes this into account, i don't really see the significance.

I'm going to go ahead and assume you passed all of these.

What if you would have failed the medical portion because of something minor that an employer thought could develop into something. Say a genetic defect that may or may not develop into a full blown disease. Should the employer be able to disqualify you as a potential candidate because of something that may not happen? Especially if you are a more qualified candidate? That's the big issue.

 

[November Rain]

Well I didn't have to go through a medical exam. There are plenty of jobs where you don't. Not every job requires drug testing, either.

What do you do, just out of interest?

You seem to have a problem with society's view of disease in general, and not the confidentiality laws. You keep saying that we shouldn't have to live in a society where those laws are necessary- so why advocate taking away the laws when the roots of the problem you see are much larger? They protect people in the current state until such time when they are not needed.

The confidentiality laws are a resultant of the way society views disease I believe.

The laws themselves have become a hinderance to any sort of evolutionary on society's maturity about disease in general, especially certain conditions and practices.

With any change to the status quo may bring mild chaos in the short term but hopefully long term enlightenment should benefit the majority.

And the point that you fail to address is that the laws don't prohibit the person who has the disease from telling people, they simply enforce that it is that person's right and their right alone to decide. I don't see how there could be a problem with that.

True, there is nothing in this modern day that stops people expressing themselves. The problem is normally if you give the choice for someone to act or not act, they choose the latter. For a whole bunch of reasons.

now with a lack of knowledge or stimulus to act because of perception of 'normality', do you feel there are individuals who may not be consulting their specialists?

In your original post you didn't seem to understand how diseases could be used against a person like financial info can- we have given you plenty of examples of how they can in current society. Now if you want to talk about the ills of society that is an entirely different conversation.

Jobs can but then again, There isn't a application form i've filled out which hasn't asked me whether i deem myself to have a disability or any sort of long term health problems, so that type of by may be happening right now across the uk.

In the same way they ask for your ethnic heritage and indicate that they don't consider it for the picking process while some recruitment agencies clearly do. (The latter you don't have to declare while the former you do by law).

Also, I have the 'right' to tell all you people every detail about my life- medical, emotional, preferences, past loves, what I ate for dinner last night. But I choose not to- how does that mean that I am prohibited, afraid, or otherwise barred by 'society' from doing it? It's just not something I care to share with you in this situation, maybe in another and maybe not. Just because people choose not to share a detail about themselves with strangers/everyone doesn't mean they are afraid to.

Choice seems to be the huge barrier in this.

Alright, so how would you improve the current system so the public perception of normal is shifted, people do not get alienated from jobs and people are not afraid to seek medical aid in time?

 

[November Rain]

That's a dumb f**king idea.

To be free of the stigma... is not to f**king tell anyone. Because if people know, they're still going to judge but only silently.

Well it worked out fine for the gays and blacks

How would you overcome stigma?

 

[November Rain]

I'm going to go ahead and assume you passed all of these.

Yeah Apparently so. For the aformentioned job, I didn't get through though. I was planning on being a Top Secret Nuclear Warhead Metallurgist in the UK. I didn't make the clearance, don't know why

But still for every other engineering application i've filled, they've asked for small details of medical and all contracts are based on a clear medical and drugs test.

What if you would have failed the medical portion because of something minor that an employer thought could develop into something. Say a genetic defect that may or may not develop into a full blown disease. Should the employer be able to disqualify you as a potential candidate because of something that may not happen? Especially if you are a more qualified candidate? That's the big issue.

Ok, i've had a think of this and here's what i think

for current diseases, then it is up to the employer and the job specification and the disease itself. Again a categorisation of diseases and disabilities should be given and the job itself should designate how able a person should be in order to meet its criteria. In the same way it asks for how competent someone should be with degree qualification and years of experience.

For potential diseases. They should not disqualify you but you should be employed on a probation period of say five years. if nothing develops in that five years, you should be continued to be treated as if nothing will happen but if something happens in those five years, your employer and the employee should work out the compensation package for the employee.


again this doesn't stop those who wish to disqualify based on prejudgements but there are when you hand in a cv/resume, they are disqualifying people on just as many ignorances.

By stating the level of ability required for the job before hand, i believe it reduces a disease/disability/genetic material from being an issue.

maybe again i am being naiive.

 

[Gilpesh]

Well it worked out fine for the gays and blacks

Because being black or gay is NOT a condition where you might have had a hand in causing it. Unlike some diseases that have stigmas attached to them.

How would you overcome stigma?

Um... not tell anyone and live my life? Is that so hard?




Or are you supposed to completely want to reshape the entire world so it stops thinking that certain diseases or conditions are icky?

 

[huskerwebhead]

Well it worked out fine for the gays and blacks

How would you overcome stigma?

I'd debate that it worked out "fine" as there is still plenty of stigma and prejudice towards both "gays and blacks." Regardless, these are slightly different issues. You can exactly hide being black...it's not like there is a choice (excluding Micheal Jackson). And as far as being gay, alot of people still choose to stay "in the closet." They choose to come out to be themselves and be happy.

There isn't necessarily any happiness associated with outing your diseases. In most cases there is no advantage one way or another.

I'm curious, assuming that Doctor/Patient Confidentiality was removed...do you really think it would make a difference? Those people who don't want people to know would still not tell people. Or would they be forced to "out" themselves. Something like a database that is available to the public for people to search for what their neighbor has...like a Sex Offenders list? What purpose would that serve?

 

[November Rain]

'not telling anyone and living your life' isn't overcoming a stigma. It's keeping people ignorant so you don't have to go through the motions.

reshaping the world is easier, all it takes is a few generations. Well Semi-easier

well most people don't choose to have a disease so what part you play in getting it is irrelevant.

 

[Star]

Whatever, November Rain is some creepy guy pretending to be a girl on a message board, so... pretty sure talking about telling people the truth about yourself is kind of hypocritical.

 

[November Rain]

Whatever, November Rain is some creepy guy pretending to be a girl on a message board, so... pretty sure talking about telling people the truth about yourself is kind of hypocritical.

psssh, you ignorantly assumed my gender. everyone else knows i'm odin's Lapdog