Do you think any/all individual medical information should be completely private? Should public servants need to publicly disclose health issue?

Public servants can range from 10-40% of the workforce. (Shout out cuba at 70%).

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_public_sector_size

If you want to invade the privacy of 10-40% of your population, why bother having privacy protections at all?

Do you think any/all individual medical information should be completely private?

Yes. Pregnancy status and menstrual cycles are also considered medical information. Thus, whether someone is pregnant and why is nobody's business.

Should public servants need to publicly disclose health issue?

No. But they should be required to pass reasonable mental and physical acuity assessments administered by a board of qualified, unbiased, randomly selected physicians as a condition of holding office.

I can think of at least one real life example you may be referencing.

However, if we start checking medical records to determine fitness for the job, that opens the door for any employer to do the same, and some of you might not care, but I'd rather my boss not know the contents of my medicine cabinet.

I think they probably mean like congress. Not all public sector workers.

More like any political leadership positions. I'm less worried that the garbage man has gout, more that a political figure is physically/mentally unwell.

Should public servants need to publicly disclose health issue?

Yes, I want everyone to know about my chronic insomnia, PTSD, alcoholism, and depression. I think everyone has a right to know this.

Patient privacy best protected by a doctor's poor handwriting.

Back when giants ruled the earth, a snooper need to trek across the country, ask a harried file clerk for the file that hopefully wasn't lost, wade through a a foot thick folder, then hopefully decipher the doctors shitty handwriting before finding out about anything juicy. In any case, the file was burned in 7 years or so because the file room needed space.

Nowadays, any secretary can instantly access the data from a computer on the other side of the continent and the files are never purged.

Do you think any/all individual medical information should be completely private?

First, we don't have funny names for our laws. That is an advantage, because that way we don't have the need to explain such funny names, or their meanings. And then we can't forget to explain them when it is neccessary.

Regarding your more specific question:

I believe that nearly all individual medical information should be completely private.

One exception is when the person owes such disclosure. For example you are a worker and you get sick so you can't do your job, then you have a duty to tell the boss/company that it is because of being sick (in such cases the boss does not need to know any further medical details), and you also have a duty to tell when that condition is over and you are able to fo your job again.

Another exception is when a person has special needs because of a medical condition and somebody else must provide for these needs. You cannot assert a claim without a basis. In such cases you need to disclose more specific details. For example a pregnant woman can claim maternity leave from work, then she needs to disclose the fact that she's pregnant. Or an office worker has spine problems and the company must provide a special desk and chair, then the worker must disclose some details of his condition to back this claim.

Should public servants need to publicly disclose health issue?

Not at all. I cannot imagine a situation where this is needed.

But there are some "very public" people like politicians or the pope, who usually disclose too many such details because they themselves think they owe this to the public.

only if its public health disease, like infections, or sudden high diagnosis of the same cancer in one area or if it involves criminal activities. everything else should be protected.

Pretty much on board with everything you've said. But, what about disclosing that you have an STI/STD prior to sex with a new person? Should it be a crime not to? I know this is a new and different question but you gave a great initial answer.

reasonable

Pretty funny, thanks.

Pretty reasonable. Plenty of jobs require pre-employment screenings. If I were colorblind or in particularly bad shape I wouldn't be permitted to work my job. Which I wouldn't personally class as discrimination.

In my country you could kill someone, get injured, go to the doctor to get treates and as long as you reasonably say that you won't do it again (e.g. it was your father who you hated) they are not allowed to say it (exceptions apply).
Some people think this is bad, i think it is the only way such a law can work.

Yeah... politics over the last few years kinda inspired the question. But also just curious to see general opinions, I'm hoping someone dissents. I'd love to hear a compelling argument against. I will say plenty of jobs do look at your medical history/current status. I had to pass some medical tests to get my job. Couldn't be color blind, very unhealthy or have a high level of anxiety/low stress tolerance. The last part was pretty much just a can you not freak out when things are really intense list of yes or no's.

I'm not following. You mean, say, you get stabbed and stab someone else. You go to the hospital, get it treated, the docs don't communicate that a crime likely happened to the cops, because of that confidentially?

Hipaa/etc is privacy. Duty to report imminent danger does not break laws on private information. It's attribute vs action, and the two are all but orthogonal.

I have never thought about that. Difficult question. Was that your HIPPIE law?

I think I may be too dumb to parse exactly what you're saying/mean.

Not sure what you mean.

Yes

Alright, I don't hate that.

I see.

patients should have ways of having their records be completely private if they want to the extent that patients should have the right to pay cash and not give the provider their name or id, this should not be the default because it would be highly inconvenient but it should be an option in my personal opinion if for no other reason than to give kids the right to get vaccinated behind their parents back.

Pertaining to the study of birds, I believe.

I mean, you can do that in the US. Offering to pay cash opens plenty of doors. I do fundamentally disagree with the last part though. I firmly believe parents need to be involved with any/all medical decisions. I'm not against emancipation in plenty of circumstances though.

Someone's medical history is between them and their doctors. There are times that there should be exceptions to that rule, such as if a patient poses a clear and present danger to others. Also in the case of sti's it might be worth exploring some way for people to identify people with conditions that have no cure like herpes or HIV. It might make more sense though to approach that from the other side and have civil and/or criminal penalties for not disclosing and sti that would scale with severity of the disease. Either way though the whole system would hinge on people using their real names for dangerous sex. But for everything else it should be totally private with harsh penalties (big fines and real jail time) for releasing it.

Public servants shouldn't need to disclose their health conditions publicly, but should be given annual physical and mental health evaluations by non-partisan, publicly accountable clinicians with a failing result ending in termination/removal from office. But the public does not have a right to know the specifics.

It depends on who the public servant is and whether their health issue affects their ability to do their job.

There are lots of circumstances where it is acceptable for your doctor to share private medical information about you, regardless of who you are.

In the UK for instance if you have severe obstructive sleep apnea and don't get treatment for it then the health service will tell the driver and vehicle licensing agency and have your drivers licence medically revoked. Same if you have really bad eyesight and don't wear glasses.

In the US it is clear that Trump has dementia and God only knows how many other severe illnesses or conditions. His doctors are doing a public disservice by not releasing that information.

Well done. That's really funny!

I believe medical data should remain private, outside of cases where there is an imminent risk to self or others by not disclosing.

I would say an elected official who has a condition rendering them unfit for office should fall under that umbrella.

Realistically, I think HIPAA (or similar) is doomed to be compromised by the sheer volume of data collection being performed on everyone. Even without full access to your record, pattern analysis will paint a clear enough picture for everyone to have their own shadow record compiled for them by nefarious actors.

Requiring public servants to publicly disclose health issues creates more problems than it solves and is not realistically enforceable.
In a perfect world, a public servant would want to act in the public's best interests and would step down if they were unable to do their job effectively.

In reality, that's not what usually happens but requiring public disclosure of health issues is not going to solve that.

It is still discrimination, just justified discrimination

not really, the military can still access the records if you sign up and the police can get the with warrants because there is no way to avoid your name being tied to a clinic visit

Reasonable answer.

It's not funny, it's sad. The HIPAA releases to you sign gives permission to pretty much use you info for any reason whatsoever.

In the past, it was pretty much impossible to get your medical records.

Now that they are digitized, everyone and their uncle has access, legitimately or otherwise. Medical institutions don't hire the best to secure their data. It's all security theater.