• Beacon
      link
      fedilink
      828 days ago

      Yeah the sticker sentence especially. That’s essentially the same as saying that the kid got the shot. HIPAA doesn’t say “it’s ok to reveal private health information as long as you do it in a wink-wink manner.” Revealing personally identifiable health information is forbidden no matter how you do it.

      • frustrated_phagocytosis
        link
        fedilink
        478 days ago

        Even agreeing that her son was at the doctor was a violation. We can’t confirm or deny that a potential patient even came to the building for health care.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          88 days ago

          They could probably get away with simply saying “I would never recommend any advice that goes against verified safe medical practices.”

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        218 days ago

        I think she’s good with “I absolutely did not say that”.

        I suspect this is a double reverse “and everybody clapped” moment.

      • @Mouselemming
        link
        208 days ago

        See now, I decided I could read that as “your son deserved a bravery sticker for having to bear up with you as a mom.”

        Since the mom made the visit itself public, and lied about the conversation, and the nurse didn’t specify what either person DID say, nor what actually was or wasn’t done, I’m not sure any new information was revealed. Implied, if you want to infer it, but not stated. And for the mom to sue about it, she’d have to publicly admit to her own lies…

          • @Mouselemming
            link
            5
            edit-2
            8 days ago

            I know lying isn’t against the law. (Although I’m neither a legal nor medical professional.) I meant she would be deterred from suing because the extent of her lies would have to be aired in court, in public, in order to prove the nurse revealed information.

            In the case you linked, the nurse posted information about a rare case (ergo easily identified) whereas in OP’s situation the publicly identifying information had already been revealed by the mother and the nurse didn’t specify any new facts about the case itself. She might still get in trouble but it’s less cut and dried than the case in your link. Imvho.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    34
    edit-2
    8 days ago

    It’s been a while since I saw a good “and everybody applauded” moment. Thank you for that lol

    EDIT: Just clicked and saw the second part, whomp whomp

    • Optional
      link
      fedilink
      28 days ago

      No there isn’t.

      Posting patient information on social media is a HIPAA violation if you do not have the patient’s authorization because it discloses individually identifiable health information to the public that could be used to commit fraud or identity theft.

      “Yes, I’m VaxBatCrazy59’s son, and I would like to purchase this motorcycle. My identification? Of course, it’s all right here in a now-deleted facebook post. You can confirm with NightNurse1985. Of course, i’ll wait.”

      This even specifically says there’s nothing in HIPPA that mentions social media. This (law? Policy? What is the . . crime? . . again?) has all the solidity of soup.

      • Vox
        link
        fedilink
        428 days ago

        Because she’s friends with tons of antivaxxers on fb or in real life and is saving face

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          298 days ago

          It’s not even saving face. She could just say nothing and nobody would know. She’s an attention whore and wants the good fee-fees from people telling her how great she is.