64
If such conversations are reported, it can place the suspect in a dilemma.
Consider a man who appears to have overdosed on illegal narcotics. He is taken to the hospital, and the doctor asks what kind of drugs he took, in order to plan his treatment. If the man thinks that what he says could be used to prosecute him, he might lie to the doctor. Then he ...
38
It was decided back in 1905 in the case of Jacobson v Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11, that mandatory vaccination laws are constitutional in the US (the specific example being mandatory smallpox vaccination - through vaccination, this illness was eradicated globally). The court observed that
in every well ordered society charged with the duty of conserving the
...
29
No, they could not. The conditions of violating a patent don't revolve around monetary gain, so regardless of compensation they would be in violation of the patent.
27
Governments have a significant interest in controlling pathogens and preventing outbreaks: they are dangerous to dense & unimmunized populations.
Can a government legally prevent me from intentionally infecting
myself with a virus?
Yes, governments have the broad authority to enact laws. The US prohibits and regulates pathogen experimentation ...
20
Yes, the government gets to regulate how people work with pathogens. Not least, Coronavirus must be handled in a Biosafety Level 3 facility.
It's a good way to collect a manslaughter charge, and a reckless endangerment lawsuit.
The problem is you would then become responsible for all unintended consequences that could be connected to your actions. And ...
answered Mar 13 '20 at 23:24
Harper - Reinstate Monica
9,2302 gold badges12 silver badges44 bronze badges
18
Different kinds of court records are subject to different rules, but generally speaking, the public has a right to access the complaint in a civil case, derived from both the First Amendment and common law.
Under common law, the Court should only block public access if it determines that some interest in secrecy outweighs the interests promoted by the ...
18
The government cannot force people to get vaccinated, without passing a law to that effect. When they do, they can. This was sorted out in Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11, when the Supreme Court, in 1905, ruled:
The liberty secured by the Constitution of the United States does not
import an absolute right in each person to be at all times, and in ...
17
Yes. In its 1904 term, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of a Massachusetts law requiring small pox vaccinations in Jacobson v. Massachusetts. The Court held that the law did not violate the 14th Amendment by depriving Jacobson of his "liberty" without "due process of law."
In upholding compulsory vaccination, the Court used ...
12
Let us assume that you were high on meth at the time, that you were acting normally (that is, were not smashing windows or other such criminal things), but you had mouth sores and high blood pressure. Let's also assume that you are docile, but don't consent: so you stick around. Even with all of these assumptions working against you, the sheriff cannot force ...
12
Anything related to legality for something like this, depends on where you live.
Self-harm or attempted suicide can be illegal in some countries such as Japan. It is a criminal offense in others: see here for a list. You might not consider purposefully contracting coronavirus to be attempted suicide, and maybe 90% of the population will agree with you, but ...
9
The federal HIPAA law generally gives patients the right to obtain copies of their medical records. I would expect test results to be included.
According to the link above:
A provider cannot deny you a copy of your records because you have not paid for the services you have received.
However, a provider may charge for the reasonable costs for ...
9
This is "Topic #601" in various ForwardHealth interpretative statements about BadgerCare Plus and Medicaid. The last 3 paragraphs say:
When commercial health insurance plans require members to use a
designated network of providers, non-network (i.e., providers who do
not have a contract with the member's commercial health insurance
plan) will be ...
9
A medical practitioner may use whatever methods s/he thinks proper and appropriate, subject to the limits of malpractice law, and to the right of the patient (or patient's parent or guardian for a child) to give informed consent to any procedure or treatment.
A patient can not insist on a treatment or method that the doctor or dentist does not wish to ...
8
You don't specify what country's law you're interested in, but as you mention precedent, I'll assume you're interested in common-law jurisdictions such as the United States.
The short answer is: you won't find any successful lawsuits such as you describe, at least not without some significant additional facts.
In order to be subject to liability, a person ...
8
No. HIPAA places no limits on who you may share your medical records with - only on those with who your doctors (et al) can share.
The HIV laws you refer to, place a positive obligation on you to share the information.
7
Yes and no
In Germany, the first case where vaccination was mandatory was Smallpox. The Bundesverwaltungsgericht had adjudicated back in Juli 1959 – I C 170.56 - that mandatory Vaccination (Impfpflicht) against Smallpox follows the Impfgesetz of 1874 (RGBl. S. 31) which was declared a) still good law and b) in line with the Grundgesetz and so enforced ...
6
According to an HHS guide entitled "Individuals’ Right under HIPAA to Access their Health Information", HIPAA does entitle you to access your medical records; however, the medical provider has 30 days to respond to your request. See the section on "Timeliness". So if the doctor wants to withhold the information until your appointment in 3 weeks, it looks to ...
6
The "Privacy Rule" (45 CFR Part 160 and Part 164, Subparts A, E) don't forbid this. Sect. 164.502 states the general rule:
(a) Standard. A covered entity or business associate may not use or
disclose protected health information, except as permitted or required
by this subpart or by subpart C of part 160 of this subchapter.
"Health information" is ...
6
It probably does, up to a point. Roe v. Wade asserts a right to privacy, discussed in §VIII. Granting that there is no explicit enumeration of a right to privacy in the Constitution, its implicit presence is discerned via a long series of constitutional rulings of a diverse nature. It is not clear what is the extent of
This right of privacy, whether it be ...
5
This article from 2007 indicates
radio frequency identification microchips are not considered medical
devices by Health Canada's Therapeutic Drugs Directorate, so there's
no requirement to obtain licences for their sale or use. Health Canada
spokesperson Carole Saindon says the devices do not have a therapeutic
use, so they fall outside the ambit ...
5
IANAL, and I don't live in America, but some of this depends on their intent. If they gave the drugs away by mistake, they probably have not broken any laws. If they were given away deliberately (and you would need to prove this – which might be hard) then yes, he has broken laws.
Either way, I expect you have a right to compensation (i.e. $900) ...
5
It is legal for a dentist to bill you for services rendered. You have an obligation to pay the dentist (in exchange for services); the insurance company has an obligation to cover certain expenses of yours (in exchange for money); the dentist has an obligation to the insurance company to accept certain terms specified by the insurance company (in exchange ...
5
There is no state that requires you to show ID to obtain medical care. To the extent that this is done it is done at the behest of whoever is paying for the care to determine that you are someone who is authorized to benefit from this payment, and not an imposter, or as a matter of policy of the doctor.
(An exception to this general rule applies when one ...
5
This is controlled by 8 U.S.C. § 1401 which details who qualifies for "birthright citizenship". Including of course the condition mandated by the 14th ammendment, Congress is otherwise free to bestow such citizenship essentially as it pleases by duly enacted legislation. One of the cases that receives birthright citizenship is
a person of unknown ...
5
In France, one needs to ensure that the medical application respects the Code de la Santé Publique (CSP).
https://www.cnil.fr/fr/quest-ce-ce-quune-donnee-de-sante (mirror) gives an overview of different CSP laws pertaining to medical data.
dispositions relatives aux référentiels de sécurité et d’interopérabilité des données de santé (art. L. 1110-4-1 ...
5
Welcome to LSE. Here are some answers to your question:
No! It's not even close, but something like it is.
The OSHA standard you cite is for mercury in the air in the workplace. You ask about "injections," which do not involve mercury in the air, so: this standard does not apply to injections.
You ask about "injecting your employees with ...
5
From the legal perspective, the question is whether the substance is legal in Australia. The legal root of the matter is the Therapeutic Goods Administration. Dosages above 100 mg are on "Schedule 4" meaning they require a prescription. There are also apparently state regulations. In Queensland, there is an amendment to the
Drugs Misuse Regulation ...
4
http://www.healthinfoprivacybc.ca/confidentiality/when-can-and-cant-they-tell-others is a pretty good summary. Different rules apply to private practices than public clinics and hospitals. I will assume that the clinic on campus is private. This is a summary of the summary about who your information can be shared with:
Health care professionals can share ...
4
You probably don't have any legal recourse.
I once got out of a dental bill by arguing along these lines: "you told me the cost would be X and you knew the terms of my insurance coverage when you provided that estimate, or at least you claimed you did, and I would not have consented had I known the cost would be Y instead of X. "In that case, however, the ...
4
The purpose of the button is not to put liability on you, but to shield the website from liability. The website does not want you looking up information about drugs, deciding that a particular drug is right for you, causing yourself harm and then blaming the website.
You may have acted unlawfully but you would have no liability because no injury (financial ...
Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible
