Betsy Stands By Her Testimony

[Tom Kunich]

"Nancy2" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> B. Lafferty wrote:
>> "Alex Rodriguez" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>> > In article <[email protected]>,
>> > [email protected] says...
>> >
>> >>LOL. Sorry....
>> >
>> > Some places take patient privacy seriously. What's so funny about
>> > that?
>> > -----------------
>> > Alex
>>
>> There is not doctor patient privilege (privacy issue) when the patient
>> makes
>> his/her comment in from of third parties not in the employ of or under
>> the
>> supervision of the physician present. Privacy isn't an issue here at
>> all.
>
> Well, it is, in the sense that IF the questions were asked at all. As
> has been pointed out, there would have been no need to ask, especially
> after a procedure instead of before. It's all sour grapes - the
> Andreus are just missing publicity and have decided to claim some for
> themselves. It's all a bunch of hoo-haw that doesn't mean anything in
> 2006.

As Alex has pointed out, there was NO reason to ask such questions AFTER a
procedure. On the other hand I don't believe that Frankie would have lied
under oathe. I DO believe that he might have misunderstood what was being
said.

 

[B. Lafferty]

"Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Nancy2" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> B. Lafferty wrote:
>>> "Alex Rodriguez" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>> > In article <[email protected]>,
>>> > [email protected] says...
>>> >
>>> >>LOL. Sorry....
>>> >
>>> > Some places take patient privacy seriously. What's so funny about
>>> > that?
>>> > -----------------
>>> > Alex
>>>
>>> There is not doctor patient privilege (privacy issue) when the patient
>>> makes
>>> his/her comment in from of third parties not in the employ of or under
>>> the
>>> supervision of the physician present. Privacy isn't an issue here at
>>> all.
>>
>> Well, it is, in the sense that IF the questions were asked at all. As
>> has been pointed out, there would have been no need to ask, especially
>> after a procedure instead of before. It's all sour grapes - the
>> Andreus are just missing publicity and have decided to claim some for
>> themselves. It's all a bunch of hoo-haw that doesn't mean anything in
>> 2006.
>
> As Alex has pointed out, there was NO reason to ask such questions AFTER a
> procedure. On the other hand I don't believe that Frankie would have lied
> under oathe. I DO believe that he might have misunderstood what was being
> said.

Right. That's likely. God are you delusional. Did you find the Merckx
1973 quotes proving that he accepted ASO money to not ride the Tour? Come
on ,Tom. Either or.

>
>

 

[RicodJour]

B. Lafferty wrote:
>
> A person recently out of surgery, on medications, some of it for pain,
> thinking that he might compromise his treatment by giving a false answer
> thereby increasing the odds of his dying , might well spill the beans.

ROTFLMAO! Good one! Thanks, I needed the chuckle.

Next time read what you write before you hit the send button. It
sounds really stupid when you try to defend your conspiracy theories
with an imagined drug-addled rambling. Really stupid. Really, stupid.

R

 

[Michael Press]

In article
<[email protected]>,
[email protected] wrote:

> Frankie and Lance has obviously had some kind of falling-out (I know,
> you seek evidence of this). They used to be good friends, and now they
> are clearly not. Lance barely spoke to Frank when he was pulling
> microphone duty for OLN. Also note that Lance and Tyler are no longer
> the best of buds anymore. Does he even have any friends besides
> Carmichael and Stapleton?

He can buy a dog.

--
Michael Press

 

[Michael Press]

In article
<[email protected]>,
"B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Medical history is more than just one question. There has been no
> indication that I'm aware of that the physician present, whoever they were,
> was taking a medical history from Armstrong. The best way to find out why
> it wasn't noted in the chart is to ask the doctor who was present.

What is alleged is questions and answers about his medical
history; ergo, a medical history is being documented.

--
Michael Press

 

[Curtis L. Russell]

On Thu, 06 Jul 2006 04:48:59 GMT, Michael Press <[email protected]> wrote:

>In article
><[email protected]>,
> [email protected] wrote:
>
>> Frankie and Lance has obviously had some kind of falling-out (I know,
>> you seek evidence of this). They used to be good friends, and now they
>> are clearly not. Lance barely spoke to Frank when he was pulling
>> microphone duty for OLN. Also note that Lance and Tyler are no longer
>> the best of buds anymore. Does he even have any friends besides
>> Carmichael and Stapleton?
>
>He can buy a dog.

Why? Robin Williams is always available and soon he will be able to
keep up with both Armstrong and Lemond. And Williams can probably make
better dog sounds than the average dog, if that's important.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

 

[RicodJour]

Curtis L. Russell wrote:
> On Thu, 06 Jul 2006 04:48:59 GMT, Michael Press <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >He can buy a dog.
>
> Why? Robin Williams is always available and soon he will be able to
> keep up with both Armstrong and Lemond. And Williams can probably make
> better dog sounds than the average dog, if that's important.

He's also hairier than a lot of dogs.

R

 

[[email protected]]

Frank Drackman wrote:
> "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > http://sports.yahoo.com/sc/news;_yl...rcF?slug=reu-armstrong&prov=reuters&type=lgns
> >
> > This could get nasty if Armstrong keeps trashing them. Stay tuned.
> >
>
> I am certainly not a Lance supporter but her testimony, unlike a lot of
> other stories about Lance doping, doesn't make any sense to me. I have had
> many medical procedures and the doctors have always been extremely
> protective about my privacy, even asking me if it was OK if my wife stayed
> in the room for discussions. I can't think of a situation where a doctor
> would ask a patient such invasive questions in a room full of people. The
> fact that someone was taking a medical history after he had been operated on
> makes it even sillier.
>
> My drug store has to get my permission to announce over the store's audio
> system that my meds are ready and only one customer is allowed at the
> prescription counter at a time so that you can't learn what meds another
> customer is purchasing. I just can't picture a doctor walking into a room
> and start asking questions about past drug history.


"I just can't picture a doctor walking into a room
and start asking questions about past drug history."

To which I would add that it would be especially unprofessional when it
purportedly occurred three days after the patient had had the surgery.
A bit late to be taken a drug histroy.

 

[RonSonic]

On 6 Jul 2006 15:12:19 -0700, [email protected] wrote:

>
>Frank Drackman wrote:
>> "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>> > http://sports.yahoo.com/sc/news;_yl...rcF?slug=reu-armstrong&prov=reuters&type=lgns
>> >
>> > This could get nasty if Armstrong keeps trashing them. Stay tuned.
>> >
>>
>> I am certainly not a Lance supporter but her testimony, unlike a lot of
>> other stories about Lance doping, doesn't make any sense to me. I have had
>> many medical procedures and the doctors have always been extremely
>> protective about my privacy, even asking me if it was OK if my wife stayed
>> in the room for discussions. I can't think of a situation where a doctor
>> would ask a patient such invasive questions in a room full of people. The
>> fact that someone was taking a medical history after he had been operated on
>> makes it even sillier.
>>
>> My drug store has to get my permission to announce over the store's audio
>> system that my meds are ready and only one customer is allowed at the
>> prescription counter at a time so that you can't learn what meds another
>> customer is purchasing. I just can't picture a doctor walking into a room
>> and start asking questions about past drug history.
>
>
>"I just can't picture a doctor walking into a room
>and start asking questions about past drug history."
>
>To which I would add that it would be especially unprofessional when it
>purportedly occurred three days after the patient had had the surgery.
> A bit late to be taken a drug histroy.

And with a bunch of people in the room, inconceivable.

Ron

 

[[email protected]]

I've heard many doctors do histories with patients many days after they
were first admitted to the hospital. If true, he'd for certain be a
specialist other than the surgeon. If you find a surgeon that asks you
to repeat your same medical history twice, then you might want a new
surgeon.

He might be the surgeon's PA doing follow-up. He might be looking at
lab results that don't look right. Also, the existing data on his
history might not be detailed enough for him, or he might not have had
faith the the previous doc had covered enough of it (as he reviewed the
chart). Might be as simple as not being able to read the previous
doc's writing (and the transcription has not been put in the chart
yet).

I'm not sure if HIPPA was in place during 1996, but these days, there
is no way that a doc would discuss such issues casually in front of a
room full of family and friends (unless he'd asked Lance if it was OK
first). Even then, I find it unlikely.

But then again, I have also met many docs who defy all logic and rules.


[email protected] wrote:
> Frank Drackman wrote:
> > "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > > http://sports.yahoo.com/sc/news;_yl...rcF?slug=reu-armstrong&prov=reuters&type=lgns
> > >
> > > This could get nasty if Armstrong keeps trashing them. Stay tuned.
> > >
> >
> > I am certainly not a Lance supporter but her testimony, unlike a lot of
> > other stories about Lance doping, doesn't make any sense to me. I have had
> > many medical procedures and the doctors have always been extremely
> > protective about my privacy, even asking me if it was OK if my wife stayed
> > in the room for discussions. I can't think of a situation where a doctor
> > would ask a patient such invasive questions in a room full of people. The
> > fact that someone was taking a medical history after he had been operated on
> > makes it even sillier.
> >
> > My drug store has to get my permission to announce over the store's audio
> > system that my meds are ready and only one customer is allowed at the
> > prescription counter at a time so that you can't learn what meds another
> > customer is purchasing. I just can't picture a doctor walking into a room
> > and start asking questions about past drug history.
>
>
> "I just can't picture a doctor walking into a room
> and start asking questions about past drug history."
>
> To which I would add that it would be especially unprofessional when it
> purportedly occurred three days after the patient had had the surgery.
> A bit late to be taken a drug histroy.

 

[RonSonic]

On 6 Jul 2006 16:44:16 -0700, [email protected] wrote:

>I've heard many doctors do histories with patients many days after they
>were first admitted to the hospital. If true, he'd for certain be a
>specialist other than the surgeon. If you find a surgeon that asks you
>to repeat your same medical history twice, then you might want a new
>surgeon.
>
>He might be the surgeon's PA doing follow-up. He might be looking at
>lab results that don't look right. Also, the existing data on his
>history might not be detailed enough for him, or he might not have had
>faith the the previous doc had covered enough of it (as he reviewed the
>chart). Might be as simple as not being able to read the previous
>doc's writing (and the transcription has not been put in the chart
>yet).
>
>I'm not sure if HIPPA was in place during 1996, but these days, there
>is no way that a doc would discuss such issues casually in front of a
>room full of family and friends (unless he'd asked Lance if it was OK
>first). Even then, I find it unlikely.

Doctors need straight answers. Usually they won't even ask if it's okay to ask
in front of others in front of others.

Anybody with the intelligence to get into med school can do this math.

Ron



>But then again, I have also met many docs who defy all logic and rules.
>
>
>[email protected] wrote:
>> Frank Drackman wrote:
>> > "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> > news:[email protected]...
>> > > http://sports.yahoo.com/sc/news;_yl...rcF?slug=reu-armstrong&prov=reuters&type=lgns
>> > >
>> > > This could get nasty if Armstrong keeps trashing them. Stay tuned.
>> > >
>> >
>> > I am certainly not a Lance supporter but her testimony, unlike a lot of
>> > other stories about Lance doping, doesn't make any sense to me. I have had
>> > many medical procedures and the doctors have always been extremely
>> > protective about my privacy, even asking me if it was OK if my wife stayed
>> > in the room for discussions. I can't think of a situation where a doctor
>> > would ask a patient such invasive questions in a room full of people. The
>> > fact that someone was taking a medical history after he had been operated on
>> > makes it even sillier.
>> >
>> > My drug store has to get my permission to announce over the store's audio
>> > system that my meds are ready and only one customer is allowed at the
>> > prescription counter at a time so that you can't learn what meds another
>> > customer is purchasing. I just can't picture a doctor walking into a room
>> > and start asking questions about past drug history.
>>
>>
>> "I just can't picture a doctor walking into a room
>> and start asking questions about past drug history."
>>
>> To which I would add that it would be especially unprofessional when it
>> purportedly occurred three days after the patient had had the surgery.
>> A bit late to be taken a drug histroy.

 

[Warren G]

In a case like this, the substances one might admit to have used
previously, and long enough prior to the questions, could make the
possible answer(s) unimportant for that patient at that time. If the
patient later asked for an (unimportant) answer(s) to be removed from
the file, or not added to the file, it could be done.

Perhaps some questions are not a matter of privacy if the other people
in the room already know the answers.

 

[Curtis L. Russell]

On 6 Jul 2006 16:44:16 -0700, [email protected] wrote:

>I'm not sure if HIPPA was in place during 1996, but these days, there
>is no way that a doc would discuss such issues casually in front of a
>room full of family and friends (unless he'd asked Lance if it was OK
>first). Even then, I find it unlikely.

HIPAA has nothing really to do with the privacy of the interview: it
was part of the process to move patient records to electronic format
and had the purpose to set a national standard of record privacy and
accountability, especially in the areas of storage and transfer,
secondarily in the area of exposure to third parties in patient record
status. HIPAA wasn't in effect then anyway.

What was true by 1996 was that a lot of institutions, including public
health organizations collecting information for public health reasons,
had lost court cases on related issues, much of it coming from the
impact of information indirectly becoming public related to AIDS. If a
doctor was conducting open interviews that included privacy
information as defined by other Federal regulations and state laws, he
or she clearly didn't get the memo.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

 

[RonSonic]

On 6 Jul 2006 22:14:35 -0700, "Warren G" <[email protected]> wrote:

>In a case like this, the substances one might admit to have used
>previously, and long enough prior to the questions, could make the
>possible answer(s) unimportant for that patient at that time. If the
>patient later asked for an (unimportant) answer(s) to be removed from
>the file, or not added to the file, it could be done.
>
>Perhaps some questions are not a matter of privacy if the other people
>in the room already know the answers.


Think about it. Would you even ask?

Ron

 

[RicodJour]

Warren G wrote:
> In a case like this, the substances one might admit to have used
> previously, and long enough prior to the questions, could make the
> possible answer(s) unimportant for that patient at that time. If the
> patient later asked for an (unimportant) answer(s) to be removed from
> the file, or not added to the file, it could be done.
>
> Perhaps some questions are not a matter of privacy if the other people
> in the room already know the answers.

I wouldn't want you as my doctor or lawyer.

Long enough prior...? What, like a statue of limitations? We're
talking months, not years.

"Oh, by the way doctor, could you please remove that comment I made
about EPO from my chart, the scanned copies, and the computer files
across all of the servers? Thanks."

R

 

[Warren G]

RonSonic wrote:
> On 6 Jul 2006 22:14:35 -0700, "Warren G" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >In a case like this, the substances one might admit to have used
> >previously, and long enough prior to the questions, could make the
> >possible answer(s) unimportant for that patient at that time. If the
> >patient later asked for an (unimportant) answer(s) to be removed from
> >the file, or not added to the file, it could be done.
> >
> >Perhaps some questions are not a matter of privacy if the other people
> >in the room already know the answers.
>
>
> Think about it. Would you even ask?
>
> Ron

By "other people" I meant family, friends, co-workers, in a case such
as this, not the person asking the question(s). "Do you want to do this
in private?". "No, they can stay."

 

[Warren G]

RicodJour wrote:
> Warren G wrote:
> > In a case like this, the substances one might admit to have used
> > previously, and long enough prior to the questions, could make the
> > possible answer(s) unimportant for that patient at that time. If the
> > patient later asked for an (unimportant) answer(s) to be removed from
> > the file, or not added to the file, it could be done.
> >
> > Perhaps some questions are not a matter of privacy if the other people
> > in the room already know the answers.
>
> I wouldn't want you as my doctor or lawyer.
>
> Long enough prior...? What, like a statue of limitations? We're
> talking months, not years.
>
> "Oh, by the way doctor, could you please remove that comment I made
> about EPO from my chart, the scanned copies, and the computer files
> across all of the servers? Thanks."
>
> R

When did you last take x? It was 3 months ago. Okay, then it is no
longer relevant. Later that day, Since you said it's not relevant could
you please not put anything about that in my file (it is my right,
afterall)?

 

[RicodJour]

Warren G wrote:
> RicodJour wrote:
> > Warren G wrote:
> > > In a case like this, the substances one might admit to have used
> > > previously, and long enough prior to the questions, could make the
> > > possible answer(s) unimportant for that patient at that time. If the
> > > patient later asked for an (unimportant) answer(s) to be removed from
> > > the file, or not added to the file, it could be done.
> > >
> > > Perhaps some questions are not a matter of privacy if the other people
> > > in the room already know the answers.
> >
> > I wouldn't want you as my doctor or lawyer.
> >
> > Long enough prior...? What, like a statue of limitations? We're
> > talking months, not years.
> >
> > "Oh, by the way doctor, could you please remove that comment I made
> > about EPO from my chart, the scanned copies, and the computer files
> > across all of the servers? Thanks."
> >
> > R
>
> When did you last take x? It was 3 months ago. Okay, then it is no
> longer relevant. Later that day, Since you said it's not relevant could
> you please not put anything about that in my file (it is my right,
> afterall)?

Hayzeus frickin' keereist! Any more conditions you'd like to put on
this mythical conversation? Maybe the doctor was hard of hearing and
when Lance babbled that he liked Star Wars and C3P0 the doctor heard
EPO? How about the people in the room were a priest, a rabbi and a
druid? Traveling salesman and a farmer's daughter? Stop me if you've
heard this one.

Lance treats people like they're plug and play replaceable - his life,
his call. Exactly how large of a circle do you believe such a person
would broadcast such sensitive information? Oh, right - I forgot that
Brian pointed out that Lance was probably drugged out of his mind...

If you don't want information to circulate, you keep your mouth shut.
That's how it works. You don't have second thoughts and then ask
people to erase or forget what was said. Unless you're Mafia and have
the ability to do the erasing and forgetting for them!

R

 

[B. Lafferty]

"RicodJour" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Warren G wrote:
>> RicodJour wrote:
>> > Warren G wrote:
>> > > In a case like this, the substances one might admit to have used
>> > > previously, and long enough prior to the questions, could make the
>> > > possible answer(s) unimportant for that patient at that time. If the
>> > > patient later asked for an (unimportant) answer(s) to be removed from
>> > > the file, or not added to the file, it could be done.
>> > >
>> > > Perhaps some questions are not a matter of privacy if the other
>> > > people
>> > > in the room already know the answers.
>> >
>> > I wouldn't want you as my doctor or lawyer.
>> >
>> > Long enough prior...? What, like a statue of limitations? We're
>> > talking months, not years.
>> >
>> > "Oh, by the way doctor, could you please remove that comment I made
>> > about EPO from my chart, the scanned copies, and the computer files
>> > across all of the servers? Thanks."
>> >
>> > R
>>
>> When did you last take x? It was 3 months ago. Okay, then it is no
>> longer relevant. Later that day, Since you said it's not relevant could
>> you please not put anything about that in my file (it is my right,
>> afterall)?
>
> Hayzeus frickin' keereist! Any more conditions you'd like to put on
> this mythical conversation? Maybe the doctor was hard of hearing and
> when Lance babbled that he liked Star Wars and C3P0 the doctor heard
> EPO? How about the people in the room were a priest, a rabbi and a
> druid? Traveling salesman and a farmer's daughter? Stop me if you've
> heard this one.
>
> Lance treats people like they're plug and play replaceable - his life,
> his call. Exactly how large of a circle do you believe such a person
> would broadcast such sensitive information? Oh, right - I forgot that
> Brian pointed out that Lance was probably drugged out of his mind...

No. I never said he was drugged out of his mind. He was no doubt on a
variety of med, some of which were probably for pain management. Frankly,
if I were in his situation and the question were asked of me, I would answer
truthfully as it would be in my best medical interest to do so.

>
> If you don't want information to circulate, you keep your mouth shut.
> That's how it works. You don't have second thoughts and then ask
> people to erase or forget what was said. Unless you're Mafia and have
> the ability to do the erasing and forgetting for them!

Agreed. But, Lance does have the Belgian Mafia. ;-)
>
> R
>

 

[[email protected]]

Warren G wrote:
> If thepatient later asked for an (unimportant) answer(s) to be removed from
> the file, or not added to the file, it could be done.
>

I don't know what hospital you worked in, but at mine, I do not see
that happening. First of all, if the statements were not relevant to
the case, they wouldn't really be in the chart. Docs are quite good at
self-editing, as they spend all day writing in charts. Just yesterday,
I asked one doc how many patients he had with us. Thirty two. He
started at 3AM just so he'd have enough time to visit them, review
charts and write orders. Then he goes to the office and sees a
full-slate of patients there.

They will not write down superfluous details, as that cuts into their
available time. I just do not see hospitals redacting details later
on, as that places them at a huge potential liability. If he said it,
and it was documented, it isn't going anywhere. Lance was not famous
back then. He wasn't going to get the "Liz Taylor" VIP treatment.