• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Has Ford waived Therapist/Patient privilege

Has Ford waived Therapist/Patient privilege

  • Yes, but only to that one therapy session

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    17
Protecting your privacy: Understanding confidentiality



The wording is ambiguous a bit here. Are there valid reasons outside of a person's mental health being in question? Then there is this: Protecting patient privacy when the court calls



Still not absolutely clear, but sounds like a court would have trouble getting records from a psychologist.

And to make it more complex, there is this: https://pro.psychcentral.com/what-a-lawyer-wants-therapy-records/



Note that the article does not say what is "consistent with the law", nor are we close to a situation where the courts are involved. Congress can issue subpoenas, so let's more onto the quote dealing with that:



This suggests that congress, which can subpoena but to the best of my knowledge not issue court orders probably would not succeed in trying to subpoena records from Ford's therapist. I think. Maybe.
Wow. Impressive work my friend. Thanks for the effort! :thumbs:

I have some familiarity with HIPAA in terms of requiring written requests for patient releases of specific data. But I never imagined it was strong enough to possibly ward-off subpoenas. That's pretty damn impressive, too.
 
Nope. Not from my familiarity with HIPAA from the providers' perspective. It takes a written release, kept on file. And the providers I'm familiar with take it pretty damn seriously.

An attorney and a HIPAA expert are telling me slightly different things. This retired soldier is going to bow out of this one. :)
 
An attorney and a HIPAA expert are telling me slightly different things. This retired soldier is going to bow out of this one. :)
No need to. I don't claim to be an attorney, either. But I do interface with health-care professionals. And I can say that a health-care provider can't discuss patient data without a written waiver from the patient. Or, (I assume) sufficient legal subpoena.
 
Nice. Now we're down to discussing whether or not her entire life's worth of therapy sessions should be laid bare so congress can find and publicly "Aha!" every private thing she ever discussed with her therapist.

How about congress paw through Kavanaugh's medical and mental health background? Maybe he too has a therapist, or a priest, who can be threatened upon pain of congressional contempt to tell us all about the times he has lusted in his heart, had impure thoughts, and attacked females while intoxicated!

Then again, how about simply waiting for all those records from his days in the Bush WH, tens of thousands of them, that might clue the country in as to whether or not he lied to congress in 2006, which actually might be, you know, relevant to whether or not he might have also lied to this congress?

The republicans on the Judiciary Committee are doing everything in their power to make certain that we, the people, do NOT have that information, so they can do a bum's rush before the mid-terms; instead, they'll simply destroy this woman publicly, no matter how low they must go to do it... and we've already had a preview of how low they are willing to go with Anita Hill, whose allegations against Thomas were not nearly as serious as Dr. Ford's are.
 
No need to. I don't claim to be an attorney, either. But I do interface with health-care professionals. And I can say that a health-care provider can't discuss patient data without a written waiver from the patient. Or, (I assume) sufficient legal subpoena.

if a patient makes a claim that involves his or her treatment by a HC professional, does the other side have the right to investigate the medical records or depose the HC professional? I had people sue the US Government all the time for "failure to accommodate" (Rehab Act), mental distress (Title VII or the FTCA) etc. And I was able to always depose their doctors. Yes, the doctors were almost always listed as witnesses. But I could have a plaintiff examined by another doctor as well. The point is-she is going to have to involve her therapist if she tries to rely on the therapist's notes
 
Nice. Now we're down to discussing whether or not her entire life's worth of therapy sessions should be laid bare so congress can find and publicly "Aha!" every private thing she ever discussed with her therapist.

How about congress paw through Kavanaugh's medical and mental health background? Maybe he too has a therapist, or a priest, who can be threatened upon pain of congressional contempt to tell us all about the times he has lusted in his heart, had impure thoughts, and attacked females while intoxicated!

Then again, how about simply waiting for all those records from his days in the Bush WH, tens of thousands of them, that might clue the country in as to whether or not he lied to congress in 2006, which actually might be, you know, relevant to whether or not he might have also lied to this congress?

The republicans on the Judiciary Committee are doing everything in their power to make certain that we, the people, do NOT have that information, so they can do a bum's rush before the mid-terms; instead, they'll simply destroy this woman publicly, no matter how low they must go to do it... and we've already had a preview of how low they are willing to go with Anita Hill, whose allegations against Thomas were not nearly as serious as Dr. Ford's are.

Anita Hill was a dishonest pawn. Two of her actions completely destroyed her credibility
 
Anita Hill was a dishonest pawn. Two of her actions completely destroyed her credibility

No, I don't believe she was. Don't forget, there were three other witnesses against Thomas who were not allowed to testify, and I've just seen enough excerpts from that despicable process that the entire thing came flooding back. History has basically proven her to be a strong, courageous woman, who spoke out knowing what the ramifications could be, and saw her life change forever.

The bottom line was that the powers that be wanted Thomas on the court, period. Hill was expendable. Dr. Ford will be too, and I frankly was offended by the implication of this poll.
 
if a patient makes a claim that involves his or her treatment by a HC professional, does the other side have the right to investigate the medical records or depose the HC professional? I had people sue the US Government all the time for "failure to accommodate" (Rehab Act), mental distress (Title VII or the FTCA) etc. And I was able to always depose their doctors. Yes, the doctors were almost always listed as witnesses. But I could have a plaintiff examined by another doctor as well. The point is-she is going to have to involve her therapist if she tries to rely on the therapist's notes
Well, if you get to a court of law or (perhaps) Congress, then possibly. But that wasn't my understanding of your question/scenario. I read your OP as the present tense, and I believe my opinion there is reasonably valid.
 
by trying to bolster her claims against Judge Kavanaugh, has Ford waived some or all of her privilege by referencing and disclosing the notes of her therapy session?

If only we had an attorney here who could cite precedent and explain the laws regarding privilege to us.
 
the patient is the only person who can assert privilege. The issue is-if she uses some of the notes her therapist took to bolster her claims, can the GOP senators demand to see other stuff. I think there is a good argument there

Since it was "couple's therapy" wouldn't Ford's husband have a say in what is released?
 
Since it was "couple's therapy" wouldn't Ford's husband have a say in what is released?

Good question. I get the impression he's supporting her.
 
by trying to bolster her claims against Judge Kavanaugh, has Ford waived some or all of her privilege by referencing and disclosing the notes of her therapy session?

Not publicly no. Her therapy session should be private however I think it would be reasonable to have an unbiased third party review her sessions and privately share relevant information with the people who actually need to know.
 
by trying to bolster her claims against Judge Kavanaugh, has Ford waived some or all of her privilege by referencing and disclosing the notes of her therapy session?

Lefties try stupid tricks to try to deceive others into believing they are being truthful and moral. Comey fabricated a memo which he illegally leaked to a leftie friend of his with his professed intention of having Mueller appointed to investigate Trump on the basis of fabricated lying democrat rumors.

Susan Rice sent an email to herself claiming Obama said he wanted things done by the book. Who sends emails to self claiming something so absurd? A democrat trying to deceive others into believing a lie.

The democrat activist accuser may have notes from a therapist, but those notes do nothing to overrule eyewitness testimony which contradicts hers. Democrats may be deceived by that nonsense, but not rational people.
 
You would have to put the therapist up as a witness. That would be entertaining.

I think that if Ms Ford is placed under oath, she will decline to testify. She reads the papers.

Actually testifying under oath was never part of the plan.
 
Nice. Now we're down to discussing whether or not her entire life's worth of therapy sessions should be laid bare so congress can find and publicly "Aha!" every private thing she ever discussed with her therapist.

How about congress paw through Kavanaugh's medical and mental health background? Maybe he too has a therapist, or a priest, who can be threatened upon pain of congressional contempt to tell us all about the times he has lusted in his heart, had impure thoughts, and attacked females while intoxicated!

Then again, how about simply waiting for all those records from his days in the Bush WH, tens of thousands of them, that might clue the country in as to whether or not he lied to congress in 2006, which actually might be, you know, relevant to whether or not he might have also lied to this congress?

The republicans on the Judiciary Committee are doing everything in their power to make certain that we, the people, do NOT have that information, so they can do a bum's rush before the mid-terms; instead, they'll simply destroy this woman publicly, no matter how low they must go to do it... and we've already had a preview of how low they are willing to go with Anita Hill, whose allegations against Thomas were not nearly as serious as Dr. Ford's are.

Kavamaugh's entire life is being laid bare. Why shouldn't Ford's? Or, should we just take her word for it, with zero evidence?
 
Lefties try stupid tricks to try to deceive others into believing they are being truthful and moral. Comey fabricated a memo which he illegally leaked to a leftie friend of his with his professed intention of having Mueller appointed to investigate Trump on the basis of fabricated lying democrat rumors.

Susan Rice sent an email to herself claiming Obama said he wanted things done by the book. Who sends emails to self claiming something so absurd? A democrat trying to deceive others into believing a lie.

The democrat activist accuser may have notes from a therapist, but those notes do nothing to overrule eyewitness testimony which contradicts hers. Democrats may be deceived by that nonsense, but not rational people.

since she didn't have names in those notes, she could have used this tail against lots of potential nominees who came from the DC area. She doesn't remember the house!
 
Not publicly no. Her therapy session should be private however I think it would be reasonable to have an unbiased third party review her sessions and privately share relevant information with the people who actually need to know.

nah I don't think so. She is trying to use those sessions to bolster her smear job. We need to KNOW EVERYTHING
 
Since it was "couple's therapy" wouldn't Ford's husband have a say in what is released?

that's an interesting thought. I haven't given it much analysis but it merits serious discussion and might limit some of the information
 
"Can I gleefully attack this woman's mental health?" - Republicans
 
nah I don't think so. She is trying to use those sessions to bolster her smear job. We need to KNOW EVERYTHING

We don't need to know anything. Those who are voting to confirm need to know everything relevant to this confirmation. This woman's personal therapy sessions should not be discussed in public unless she grants that. Those who actually need to know (which don't include those of us on forums) should know in order to determine the validity of the claims.
 
Kavamaugh's entire life is being laid bare. Why shouldn't Ford's? Or, should we just take her word for it, with zero evidence?

Ford isn't up for an important public position, Kavanaugh is.
 
There is no such thing as Therapist/Patient privilege. It has never existed in law.
 
since she didn't have names in those notes, she could have used this tail against lots of potential nominees who came from the DC area. She doesn't remember the house!

This all is absurd since her lawyer drew up a letter so lacking in details it completely protects her against perjury while allowing no defense. She claims that she does not know even what month it happened, where it happened or how she got there or left. If she gave specifics she could get caught lying and Kavanaugh potentially could prove absolutely he wasn't there.
 
nah I don't think so. She is trying to use those sessions to bolster her smear job. We need to KNOW EVERYTHING

She must be very intelligent to have thought of this 6 years ago, to plan that far in advance to set up the conditions to be able to smear any potential nominee from the DC area. If that is the case, she should be working for the government. That level of long term planning is sadly lacking in the US government lately
 
Unsure on that.

Apparently some information that involves a therapist or therapists is available, based on this article and this paragraph from it:

I think so. You open the box, anything that spills out is fair game. At least that which pertains to her subject. The the info not pertaining, probably not.

That's an opinion, not a legal analysis.
 
Back
Top Bottom