John D. Wentzky wrote:
"Martin" <usenet1@etiqa.co.uk> wrote in message
news:463b5cc7$0$21841$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
John D. Wentzky wrote:
John, you're just showing what a total tosser you are with ever post!
"Martin" <usenet1@etiqa.co.uk> wrote in message
news:463b275f$0$10728$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
John D. Wentzky wrote:
"Martin" <usenet1@etiqa.co.uk> wrote in message
news:463a5864$0$21834$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
John D. Wentzky wrote:
Why do you think the medical oligarchy wants that to happen?
I don't, it was YOU who wanted the medical records of women to be
published. Remember.
I recall that you were demadning that all my medical records be published.
Backing away so fast?
No John, I asked you to publish your records BECAUSE you said you wanted
the records of women who had abortionts to be published. You said "All
abortions should be a matter of public record.", I'm suggesting you go
first and publish your medical records seeing as you believe other
medical records should be public knowlege.
So you lead the way and start the ball rolling and publish yours first.
Again, do you think the medical lobby wants that to happen?
YOU wanted it to happen! "All abortions should be a matter of public
record."
Lead the way. Do you forget what you write at times?
I've not noticed that in the US when I've been there, and here in the UK
when it's someone in the public interest (actor, russian spy etc) the
statement from the hospital always starts with "On behalf of <patient>
wife/brother/daughter we have been asked to make this statement
regarding their treatment ..."
Meaning you think the people are only concerned about people they never
even met in person?
No you wanker. They need permission from the relatives before issuing any
medical information about the patient which would be illegal.
They need persmission from the patient, you idiot.
The patient is the person who has the rights to information about
themselves.
No they don't. If a patient is incapable of acting for themselves their
next of kin will act on their behalf. That is why there is such a
designated person, if not next of kin then a court will appoint someone
to act on behalf of the patient.
But it's usually husband/wife/partner who will authorise the hospital's
statement.
Your illict idea that the rights of the individual are not their rights is
an idea that shows criminal intent.
If the patient is unconscious then their next of kin are notified as a
matter of medical necessity.
That isn't what you said above. You said "Seems as if you forgot how
hospitals used to publish the names and conditions of persons in the
hospitals so that the community would know if one of their friends was
sick."
Now you're saying it's the next of kin who are notified. Which is it?
Notification to next of kin or community publication?
Are you on medication that makes you forget what you say?
I am sure it's the same in the US.
You are sure that people do not have rights regarding themsleves and their
persons themselves in the USA?
I am sure they do, remember John, it was YOU who wanted medical records
to be published, I just wanted you to go first. Remember what you wrote?
Why is that?
How long you been a control freak who seeks to deny the people their rights
at law?
YOU stated you wanted medical records to be published. You go first.
I'm finding this hard because you forget what you write 2 posts ago.
What about the equal protections and equal privileges clause in the US
Constitution?
Did you read what I wrote you fuckwit?
Shows me you do not understand how to represent people.
"here in the UK ..." Since when does the UK have anything at all to do
with the US constitution?
Since 1776ish when they recognized the US DOI as a fully legal document.
I think you will find that has no legal bearing at all in the UK in
relation to medical records. Did you REALLY read what I wrote? "In the
UK ... "
I am sure even in the US medical records are private and in your litigeous
(sp) society if a hospital published medical records to the press without
the consent of the patient or nearest relative they would be sued.
Got sometthing right that time?
I'm usually right. Remember it was YOU who wanted medical records to be
published. I just wanted you to go first.
What does nearest relative have anything to do with the patients' rights
themselves?
Who acts for the patient if the patient cannot act for themselves? You
got it.
Your secrecy agenda is what breeds suspicions about the conduct of some
organizations.
Come on John, publish your medial records on the internet for us all to
take a look.
Is there a current law requiring such?
No, but as you want others' medical records to be published, you should be
willing to publish yours.
When did I say i was unwilling to be subject to my own ideas?
You haven't published your medical records yet have you? It was your
idea that others' be published, so you seem to be unwilling to be
subjected to your own ideas.
Remember what you wrote "All abortions should be a matter of public
record." Let's see your medical records.
Now stop being a fuckwit John
What?
You heard.
.
