Red flag laws and HIPPA

[phillygirl]

Which right prevails?

[Norm dePlume]

How is it handled in the case of involuntary commitment? I would think the same principles apply.

[phillygirl]

How is it handled in the case of involuntary commitment? I would think the same principles apply.

How is what handled?

[Celeste Chalfonte]

Which right prevails?

Tarasoff v. Regents?

[Norm dePlume]

How is what handled?

The tension between competing rights.

[phillygirl]

Tarasoff v. Regents?

Maybe. My concern, of course, is how broad any red flag law is, as well as the due process afforded the individual affected.I haven't read any proposed laws recently. I should probably start looking at the one proposed in PA.

[Norm dePlume]

https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-profes...-provider.html

[phillygirl]

It seems that most of the mass shooting cases didn't/don't necessarily involve the level of imminent threat that Tarasoff involved.

For a red flag law to truly work, in my opinion, you need to broaden the definition of imminent quite a bit.

[Norm dePlume]

Tarasoff seems like a more specific threat against a specific person. I can imagine threats just as serious but not aimed at any specific person. Like in the case of James Holmes for instance.

[Gingersnap]

This an interesting question. What is the damaging effect of these laws?

How many people would refuse to disclose issues or seek treatment because they believe that any record of medication use could be used against them by a vindictive person later?

[Norm dePlume]

This an interesting question. What is the damaging effect of these laws?

How many people would refuse to disclose issues or seek treatment because they believe that any record of medication use could be used against them by a vindictive person later?

Discouraging people from seeking treatment is a legitimate concern. But there is at least one early study that shows just the opposite effect.

[Gingersnap]

Discouraging people from seeking treatment is a legitimate concern. But there is at least one early study that shows just the opposite effect.

That study is a bit different than what I am thinking about. Most people who have issues have never come to the attention of physicians or the police. Their situations are transient and not at all disturbing in any way but treatment would still be a good idea - not to prevent them from harming themselves or others but to prevent them from being miserable longer than they need to be.

How many of them would decide not to seek treatment?

I don't really use weed (quit my twice a year habit a couple of years ago since I no longer have any migraines) but I know people who refuse to get a red card for medical weed because of this potential.

Now, I can't say if they need a red card versus just buying or growing the regular stuff or if weed really helps their problems more than some doctor-issued thing would.

I belong to a big HMO. Some years ago, they issued a questionnaire that covered a lot of things including gun ownership. I just wrote N/A on it all. Now, not all of it was N/A in my case but to heck with that. Who knows what they'd use it for?

If I have a specific issue, I will inform my doctor since that seems sensible but I'm not volunteering potential information just as I wouldn't with financial information. But I'm not in a situation where a vindictive ex-spouse or relative is likely to do anything to me. I can see the issue.

[Norm dePlume]

That study is a bit different than what I am thinking about. Most people who have issues have never come to the attention of physicians or the police. Their situations are transient and not at all disturbing in any way but treatment would still be a good idea - not to prevent them from harming themselves or others but to prevent them from being miserable longer than they need to be.

How many of them would decide not to seek treatment?

I don't really use weed (quit my twice a year habit a couple of years ago since I no longer have any migraines) but I know people who refuse to get a red card for medical weed because of this potential.

Now, I can't say if they need a red card versus just buying or growing the regular stuff or if weed really helps their problems more than some doctor-issued thing would.

I belong to a big HMO. Some years ago, they issued a questionnaire that covered a lot of things including gun ownership. I just wrote N/A on it all. Now, not all of it was N/A in my case but to heck with that. Who knows what they'd use it for?

If I have a specific issue, I will inform my doctor since that seems sensible but I'm not volunteering potential information just as I wouldn't with financial information. But I'm not in a situation where a vindictive ex-spouse or relative is likely to do anything to me. I can see the issue.

Well, let's look at this in terms of set theory. There is the set of "people who live in Colorado". A subset of that is "people who live in Colorado and are mental". A subset of that subset is "people who live in Colorado and are mental and speak and/or act as if they might be dangerous". A subset of that subset of that subset is "people who live in Colorado who are mental who speak and/or act as if they might be dangerous and who own or try to purchase guns". That last subset of a subset of a subset are the ones who would be impacted by this red flag law. And the study I cited suggests that, of that subset of a subset of a subset, (all of whom really should seek treatment) the act of removing their weapons makes them at least twice as likely to seek treatment. That's a good thing.

[Norm dePlume]

I don't really use weed (quit my twice a year habit a couple of years ago since I no longer have any migraines) but I know people who refuse to get a red card for medical weed because of this potential.

Now, I can't say if they need a red card versus just buying or growing the regular stuff or if weed really helps their problems more than some doctor-issued thing would.

The only difference between medical marijuana and recreational marijuana in Colorado is the price.