NationStates Jolt Archive

Repeal "Patients Rights Act"
A proposal to repeal a previously passed resolution


Category: Repeal
Resolution: #159
Proposed by: Mau Mau Bamboozle

Description: UN Resolution #159: Patients Rights Act (Category: Human Rights; Strength: Significant) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: I feel that this act was resolved due to our hastiness to promote patient rights. This act has the best intentions, but it is an improper execution of good will. Due to its wording catastrophe will surely arise.

Major weak points:

"(VI) Consultations between patients and physicians shall be held in the strictest confidentiality and shall not be made available to any third party without the consent of the patient."

-AND-

"(VII) Personal medical records and the contents of such records shall not be made available to any third party without the consent of the patient.”


This does not allow for the proper sharing of information within a health facility. There are simply more people involved in a persons health besides their primary care physician. Nurses, Physicians Assistants, various techs, etc. need to share information in order to treat patients effectively. This article simply creates more red tape and paperwork that need to be filed, which leads to decreased speed and efficiency of a fully functioning health care team.




For this reasons alone this Act must be repealed! My fellow leaders we must act quickly before disease acts for us.

Thank you. I await your support.

OOC: Too lazy to check myself, but does the Epidemic Prevention protocol assuage these concerns?

If so, an Act has passed that violates the articles of a previous passed act.

It doesn't do so specifically, else it would have been deleted. No, I think it's safe to assume that where a resolution may be seen to indirectly contradict an earlier resolution, the earlier takes precedence. So, if the EDC includes provisions for the eventualities you outline, then there is no issue and your basis for repeal is fallacious.

Not if you examine the other problems with Act besides epidemics.

Not if you examine the other problems with Act besides epidemics.
Then you probably shouldn't have used the title "It will lead to epidemics".

Forgive me for believing people can read beyond the title and my ignorance of the other Act you mentioned. I haven't found a good existing Act search. I found the entire list, but that's not very effective in locating specifics.

I have edited the title of this post.

Let's move on to discussing the other problems within this Act.

Other problems.....

Any inquiry into a medical malpractice suit that resulted in a death would not be able to access the patients records or the records of any procedure they underwent.

Any investigation, of any kind, regarding the patient or their state of health could not be properly executed without their consent. Difficult if they know that divulging such information could result in their incarceration. Even more so if they are dead.

Those are the first that come to mind.

BTW it looks like there is a duplicate repeal authored by Kesgrave

Other problems.....

Any inquiry into a medical malpractice suit that resulted in a death would not be able to access the patients records or the records of any procedure they underwent.

Any investigation, of any kind, regarding the patient or their state of health could not be properly executed without their consent. Difficult if they know that divulging such information could result in their incarceration. Even more so if they are dead.

Those are the first that come to mind.
OOC: With respect to death, I don't think this argument holds any water. They're dead, ergo they're not a patient: no problem.

OOC: With respect to death, I don't think this argument holds any water. They're dead, ergo they're not a patient: no problem.

You may be right. On the other hand, one could view them as simply someone else's patient (coroner). They still haven't given consent. And there's still the problem with them simply denying access while alive. An allowance for access with proper judiciary license would have covered it. Your point is no less valid, though.

Forgive me for believing people can read beyond the title and my ignorance of the other Act you mentioned. I haven't found a good existing Act search. I found the entire list, but that's not very effective in locating specifics.
Have you looked at http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/UN_Timeline?

You may be right. On the other hand, one could view them as simply someone else's patient (coroner). They still haven't given consent. And there's still the problem with them simply denying access while alive. An allowance for access with proper judiciary license would have covered it. Your point is no less valid, though.I do not beleive that the term patient applies to those the coroner gets.. As patient to me is somebody going to a doctor for threatment for something to stay alive or make ones life painless.. A coroner deals with deseased persons and he is usualy trying to find a cause of death of said deceased not cure for one for a patient.

Trouble is here that as long as say the patient is alive they can refuse giving consent for release of their records or their legal guardians can. Thus since only doctors can view them even hospital staff can't unless 'patient' gives consent.. As it clearly says this is between doctor and patient not the rest of those might work in hospital and have need to view the records even make entries in them. As they all are 'third parties' being as party #1 is patient and party #2 is doctor. Anyone else is party #3 and not allowed to them without party #1 patient consent. As didn't see where party #2 doctor could do that.

Then we run into the problem of no legal guardian so who then does have the authority to give release consent. As here nobody but patient does so if they an adult with no power autorney or living will saying who has power if they can't then there is a problem as long a 'paient' is not 'deceased' then it becomes a new matter.