Confidentiality at the Doctor/Dentist Office?

Title:	Clash of religion, privacy creates difficult exposure.
Authors:	Bradford, Michael
Source:	Business Insurance ; 1/5/2004, Vol. 38 Issue 1, p4, 2p
Document Type:	Article
Subject Terms:	BULLOCK, Gerald L. JEHOVAH'S Witnesses PRIVACY EMPLOYERS BELIEF & doubt EMPLOYEES
Abstract:	When an employee's religious beliefs clash with an employer's privacy rules, the temptation to tattle can sometimes be overwhelming. As a result, employers are left with a hard-to-handle exposure: the possibility that a devout employee will break privacy regulations in the name of a greater good. Gerald L. Bullock, who practiced medicine in Denison, Texas, in the 1980s, said he was stunned when a bookkeeper at his office released patient information to her church elders. As a Jehovah's Witness, the woman admitted that she was following what she perceived as her obligation to her church to report on a fellow church member's perceived sinful behavior, the doctor explained. Such privacy breaches by Jehovah's Witnesses are not frequent, but it does happen. Such privacy breaches, of course, could be committed by anyone who feels morally obligated to do so.
Full Text Word Count:	1036
ISSN:	0007-6864
Accession Number:	11937779
Persistent link to this record:	http://search.epnet.com/direct.asp?an=11937779&db=f5h
Database:	MasterFILE Premier
* * *
Clash of religion, privacy creates difficult exposure Religion: clash with privacy creates difficult exposure When an employee's religious beliefs clash with an employer's privacy rules, the temptation to tattle can sometimes be overwhelming. As a result, employers are left with a hard-to-handle exposure: the possibility that a devout employee will break privacy regulations in the name of a greater good. Dr. Gerald L. Bullock, who practiced medicine in Denison, Texas, in the 1980s, said he was stunned when a bookkeeper at his office released patient information to her church elders. As a Jehovah's Witness, the woman admitted that she was following what she perceived as her obligation to her church to report on a fellow church member's perceived sinful behavior, the doctor explained. The patient had been treated by Dr. Bullock for a sexually transmitted disease. The Sunday after his employee released that information to church elders, the patient was expelled from the church, he said, and told not to communicate with friends and relatives in the church. "It had a major, major impact on her life," Dr. Bullock said. The patient threatened to sue. Dr. Bullock's attorney advised the physician to immediately fire the bookkeeper and then "call this lady and do whatever she asks because you've got no defense," the doctor recalled. After the firing and an apology, the lawsuit threat was withdrawn. While such privacy breaches by Jehovah's Witnesses are not frequent, "it does happen," according to Gerald Bergman, a former member of the society who has written extensively on the church's practices. He teaches biology and chemistry at Northwest State Community College in Archbold, Ohio. "Their responsibility is to the church, not to the employer," Mr. Bergman said of the approximately 1 million Jehovah's Witnesses in the United States. "The employer is secular, and, therefore, second." Such privacy breaches, of course, could be committed by anyone who feels morally obligated to do so, noted George Head, director emeritus of the Insurance Institute of America in Malvern, Pa. "You've got to be careful not to pick on just Jehovah's Witnesses," he said. And no matter why someone feels obligated to release private information, the consequences could be dramatic for the entity that was responsible for that data. "The ramifications of this are horrendous," said Catherine H. Gates, senior training specialist with Montgomery Insurance Co. in Sandy Spring, Md. Ms. Gates, who teaches ethics workshops for Montgomery's agents, said, "Think of the damage if an insurance company had a lawsuit against them for the release of private information. Whether it was successful or not, they are going to lose their clients." Even though it seems obvious that "the right thing to do is keep your mouth shut and the wrong thing to do is share the information with others," Ms. Gates said it's not hard to see the ethical dilemma for someone who would want to be loyal to a church as well as his or her employer. For others, though, the dilemma is not so clear. "It is definitely not appropriate to release (private information) no matter what the outside religious obligation is," said Sanford M. Bragman, Dallas-based vp, risk management at Tenet Healthcare Corp. The Christian Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses, the body that directs church affairs, says there is no policy forcing members to report sinful acts or divulge private information. That choice is up to members, according to Phillip Brumley, general counsel for the Brooklyn, N.Y.-based group. "They should study the scriptures, and what they do is up to them," said Mr. Brumley. If there is a conflict, he said, a member should "think that through and decide what to do." A 1987 article in the church's Watchtower magazine, which the church says is its most recent on the subject, advises members to consider the ramifications before taking any oath that would put them in conflict with biblical requirements. Doctors' offices, hospitals and law firms are businesses where privacy problems could arise, the article states. "We cannot ignore Caesar's law or the seriousness of an oath, but Jehovah's law is supreme," it reads. The article further states that if a "Christian feels, after prayerful consideration, that he is facing a situation where the law of God required him to report what he knew despite the demands of lesser authorities, then that is a responsibility he accepts before Jehovah." It is an employee's promise, though, that appears to be an employer's only protection against the release of private information on moral grounds. "Even if you have everybody sign something, it isn't going to stop the behavior" if a zealous employee feels obligated to release information, Ms. Gates noted. "The only thing it can do is keep the employer from being held liable," she said. Dr. Bullock said he now hires only workers who make such promises, and, when interviewing, wants to know whether there is "anything about you that would cause you to tell on a patient," he noted. If so, the applicant isn't hired. Nancy Hacking, director of safety and risk management at Concord Hospital in Concord, N.H., said hospital employees each year sign a confidentiality agreement stating that they will not release confidential information. Workers who violate the agreement, she said, "are subject to termination." Apart from educating employees on what information is private, the hospital also runs "audit trails" on its electronic systems to keep tabs on who accesses such information, Ms. Hacking said. At Tenet, ongoing training, much of it online, keeps employees aware of what information should be kept private, according to Mr. Bragman. The training covers regulations contained in the Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act that govern privacy, he said. Adam G. Linett, associate general counsel with the Jehovah's Witnesses, said employers shouldn't fear HIPAA penalties for unauthorized disclosures because sanctions in the act are aimed at employees. And, Mr. Linett said, he "can't think of a single case where this has happened and resulted in a lawsuit." 'Think of the damage if an Insurance company had a lawsuit against them for the release of private information. Whether it was successful or not, they are going to lose clients.' Catherine H. Gates Montgomery Insurance Co. ~~~~~~~~ By Michael Bradford
Copyright of Business Insurance is the property of Crain Communications Inc. (MI) and its content may not be copied or e-mailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder`s express written permission. However, users may print, download, or e-mail articles for individual use. Source: Business Insurance, 1/5/2004, Vol. 38 Issue 1, p4, 2p Item: 11937779

The doctor and patient should have sued the bookeeper, the local congregation, and the WTBTS.

Myself I would have been to tempted to just beat the snot out of her.

 

The article states:

This is Watchtower-speak for "we will hang you out to dry if you get sued for breaching confidentiality in your place of employment".

I've addressed this topic before, and wrote an essay for my Ethics class in Nursing School based on this incident:  Confidentiality - an essay by me

Love, Scully

So would I, but the word "snot" seems a little weak in this context.   Bug 

 

Bullshit.

Which means "If you don't follow the scriptures, and do what we tell you, we'll disfellowship you, which after all, is your choice"

This spin master Brumley is a real prize. Very good at the art of misdirection. Check out what he says here about my bro's case.

http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/8/46670/1.ashx

Looks like the society has a smarter spokesman, though, JR Brown was really good at screwing stuff up for the society.

Of course, JWs can't sue each other so they are protected on every front.  I would sue the offending JW for everything the doctor/dentist office's insurance will pay as well as civilly sue the individual.  Probably get DF'd for that.

It's things like this that prove to me that God is not and never has backed the Pharisaical WTS.

Blondie

 

Liar!  everybody knows that the policy is clear, "Your first duty is to keep the congregation clean, and if you get fired then that is a sacrifice that you have made for Jehovah" that is a summary of what they really mean.

How can people who advocate  a policy of "Truth in all things" make such public statements?  Perhaps it is either a form of cognitive dissonance or viewed as "strategy"

I really enjoyed your paper on the linked thread, Scully.  I definitely think it should be submitted for publication, as it is quite an interesting aspect of medicine.  There is a lot of concern about malpractice these days, and this issue would catch a lot of attention--even more than in 1997.

I think you gave a good example conclusion, especially the extra step which might be considered.

bebu

You know, it's funny... the Watchtower is so obsessed with not "bringing reproach upong Jehovah's [i.e. the Watchtower's] name". But how much negative publicity have they had over this incident?

I thought "god"--the JW god--was supposed to know everything.  Why would anyone believe that they needed to "tattle" on someone else in such personal and private matters?  I've always had a problem with this JW mentality.

/<

This red text was of great interest to me.  When I was young the other churches were always making the allegation that JWs were not christian.  At that point there was a very marked change in the writings of the WTS to include numerous references to Jesus and make sure everyone knew we believed in Jesus.  (a common playground taunt was --you guys don't believe in Jesus).  So looks like the PR machine at the society is still working on that perception.

Secondly, as others have pointed out before, they tell the public that things are up to your conscious.  They say this about the blood issue, voting, and this tattling thing.  Yes, technically that is true.  But inside the cult they make sure you know you will be damned to a lifetime of shunning by friends and family if you break that taboo.

What a crock.

Gretchen

Does anyone remember having the "principle" taken from Lev 5:1 used over and over to illustrate HOW one should decide what to do when there is a conflict of conscious?



"Now in case a soul sins in that he has heard public cursing and he is a witness or has seen it or has come to know of it, if he does not report it, then he must answer for his error"



I remember the fear and trembling after some CO visit - the STORIES - entire congregations, stripped of the holy spirit and all stricken w/ leprosy, all because someone failed to bring their "spiritually sick" brother/sister's failing to the elders!!!



That bookkeeper's actions were indefensible, but I REMEMBER that fear, and was so entrenched in the thing....



Perhaps they should revisit the principle found in James 3:8: "but the tongue, not one of mankind can get it tamed. An unruly injurious thing, it is full of death-dealing poison."



LOL... the insurance company could LOSE CUSTOMERS if sued. One bookkeeper's actions ripped someone's life apart, and she did the "right thing."



Thanks Blondie for another good one.

Many years ago i quit going ot JWS doctors and doctors who employ JWS (if ican find that out).  I've had my medical problems freely discussed  by very stupid   doctor office employees.  the  damage JWS have done to so many in this regard  probably can never be undone. U  really do risk  your privacy  by going to any JWS doctor, nurse, or really going  to anyone who employs  them.    

Our business is one in which confidentiality is important. We have one JW employee, who works in a non-secure area of the  business. She is an excellent employee, works hard, is reliable and is pleasant to her co-workers. Never the less, I have made sure that her manager knows about the Watchtower's, thus possibly her, attitude for privacy and confidentiallity, and we are careful which areas she works in and what information she has access to.  I wish the situation was different as this woman is someone who we would normally liked to use in more sensive and responsible areas because of her excellent work.

Shouldn't HIPPA regulations prevent this from happening in the future? 



Oh wait... that's just Man's Law.     How silly of me.  Ever notice that if it's not convenient for them, they can always use the Jehovah's Law above Man's Law trump card?

I would have definately sued.  The WT would get off, that's for sure.   But, I wonder how it would look to members when they abandoned the informant and left them out to dry.

Country

Yes, HIPAA was designed to take care of breaches in confidentiality, and anyone can file a complaint with Health & Human Services, even on behalf of another person. However, if you do file a complaint you will need to be prepared to show exactly what part of the HIPAA law was violated. All health care providers who bill for their services using electronic billing are required to train all employess regarding HIPAA privacy. There are  penalities (up to $25,000 plus up to 1 year and 1 day in jail)  for being found guilty of breaching HIPAA privacy...but, as I mentioned previously, filing a complaint can be tedious. The first place to complain would be to the JW employee's supervisor.  

I remember hearing public talks and convention/assembly parts about how trustworthy JWs are as employees. Unfortunately this does not apply to the medical field with privacy. From personal experience, I know that rank and file JWs are willing to risk their jobs to report wrongdoing they learn of during the course of their employment.

Whenever I log in to the computer system at work, I have to click "I ACCEPT" the Terms and Conditions of use of the system.  The Terms and Conditions at the very top of the list are those regarding patient confidentiality.  By agreeing to the terms of use, I acknowledge that my employment can be terminated immediately by any breach of patient confidentiality.  Whenever I see it, I think of this incident involving Dr. Bullock, and my essay.

I wouldn't be surprised if other hospitals and health care facilities, including physicians' offices, have a similar set up to protect the confidentiality of their patients.

In a wacky kind of way, perhaps we should be thanking JWs for their utter disrespect of patient confidentiality, because they have been a focal point in the creation of privacy protection legislation.  Isn't it funny how the Society doesn't write it up in the magazines though?

Love, Scully

Thanks, Blondie, for posting this. I am having surgery in the near future. In discussing this with my surgeon, he brought up blood and said his procedures don't lead to much blood loss -- he uses cell salvage machinery -- but that he'd like me to store some of my own to have on hand in an emergency.

As I am newly "out"" this was my first opportunity to think about my current position on blood. I thought this was a reasonable solution and readily agreed to donate my own in advance. As we exited the examination room where this discussion took place, I ran into another physician in his office who looked familiar. He shook hands and said his name, which I'd forgotten. "Do you know each other," my surgeon asked. "Yes," said the other doctor. "I know him from the Kingdom Hall."

The surgeon had turned to go, but quickly spun around and looked at me. "So you're a...," he began. He stopped for a second. "But you're okay with this procedure we just discussed?"

"I certainly am," I said. The surgeon nodded and said, "Okay, good," and went on about his business.

I looked at the other doctor, who I now recognized as the husband of a "sister" in my previous hall, a guy who had come to a couple of meetings in a year. I had met him but never inquired about his employment, and his wife never introduced him as "doctor so and so," but merely by his first name.

"If they can collect my blood into a machine, whirl it around and run it through a filter and put it back into my body, I don't see any difference between that and storing it for a few weeks. It's all the same thing to me." He smiled and we exchanged some chit chat about families and so forth. I didn't mention to him that I hadn't been to a meeting in six months. When I left, he said, "See you in surgery."

Some days later, a dub co-worker dropped by my office to chat about my upcoming surgery and I mentioned running into this guy. Turns out he knows the wife fairly well. "He's not in the truth," he said. "He has some issues about blood transfusions."

Based on that, I decided not to worry about him ratting me out and spoiling my successful (so far) fade. But I think I will keep this legal case information handy, just in case it becomes an issue. If he tells his wife, and she says something to one of her elders, I wonder if I'd have a case?

willyloman writes:

You can bet your sweet bippy you would!!  It might be wise to ask your surgeon who exactly has access to your medical records.  If he asks why, tell him you know about Dr. Bullock's experience and are just interested in maintaining the highest level of confidentiality possible.

Good luck with the surgery!

Love, Scully