Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

At the House Energy and Commerce Health Subcommittee hearing last Thursday, Democrats passed a bill to require federal health officials to question anyone seeking services from Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) community health centers or other programs about their sexual orientation and “gender identity.”





http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=39076

And here I was reading the title, thinking that there would be an overwhelming answer of 'Yes please'.

Seems an odd thing to want to collect, and even odder to answer to.

Tim is confused.

I guess my response to this is:


'And...?'

Is there an answer of "Why should I tell you?".

SilverMK2 wrote:Is there an answer of "Why should I tell you?".

Shouldn't be any questions other than those related to the health of the patient. Get your stats on your own time.

We have all sorts of boxes for patient information where I work - I was told once that the hospital got paid for filling out extra information such as ethnicity, religion, occupation etc.

Bit wrong if you ask me. Kind of like asking applicants for jobs what their ethnicity is so that you don't descriminate against them... based on their ethnicity...

I don't see why gathering demographic information on people who use a service is controversial, but since it involves asking about demographics on HOMOSEXUALS and not just race and gender I guess some people see it as a moral issue?

BearersOfSalvation wrote:I don't see why gathering demographic information on people who use a service is controversial, but since it involves asking about demographics on HOMOSEXUALS just like race and gender I guess some people see it as a moral issue?

Corrected your typo.

Again they have no business collecting information, at all. What about freaking client/patient privilege?

BearersOfSalvation wrote:I don't see why gathering demographic information on people who use a service is controversial, but since it involves asking about demographics on HOMOSEXUALS and not just race and gender I guess some people see it as a moral issue?

I don't believe that you should be asked to give any information that is not pertinent to your treatment. Your sexual preference or race is, to the vast majority of illnesses and medical issues, irrelevent. Your religious views are also largely irrelevent unless it precludes the use of certain treatments (blood transfusions etc).

You should have the right to refuse to give any information that is not strictly required, and have any information stored on you that you do not wish to be recorded (such as sexual preference, race, etc) removed from your records.

This information should certainly not then be passed on to third parties.

Knee-jerk reaction as per, Frazzled.

'I don't know why they want the information, but I don't like it!!!'

Have you ever thought that collecting said information might actually, y'know, help them do their jobs better and improve the service they provide, a service they provide to the people who pay their wages (i.e. the taxpayer)? Surely you would be in favour of public sector workers doing their job more efficiently?

Or do you think that your (in my opinion, irretrievably warped) principals are more important than absolutely every other consideration?

Wait, I already know the answer to that one.

The only reason I could see it having any medical impacts would be because homosexuals are statiscally proven to be at higher risk for things like HIV.

My personal feelings on this though, is that the government has no business legislating like this. Then again though, the government has no business legislating a lot of what it does, but it's not like that stops them.

SilverMK2 wrote:

BearersOfSalvation wrote:I don't see why gathering demographic information on people who use a service is controversial, but since it involves asking about demographics on HOMOSEXUALS and not just race and gender I guess some people see it as a moral issue?

I don't believe that you should be asked to give any information that is not pertinent to your treatment. Your sexual preference or race is, to the vast majority of illnesses and medical issues, irrelevent. Your religious views are also largely irrelevent unless it precludes the use of certain treatments (blood transfusions etc).

You should have the right to refuse to give any information that is not strictly required, and have any information stored on you that you do not wish to be recorded (such as sexual preference, race, etc) removed from your records.

This information should certainly not then be passed on to third parties.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Albatross wrote:Knee-jerk reaction as per, Frazzled.

'I don't know why they want the information, but I don't like it!!!'

Have you ever thought that collecting said information might actually, y'know, help them do their jobs better and improve the service they provide, a service they provide to the people who pay their wages (i.e. the taxpayer)? Surely you would be in favour of public sector workers doing their job more efficiently?

Or do you think that your (in my opinion, irretrievably warped) principals are more important than absolutely every other consideration?

Wait, I already know the answer to that one.

Nonsense. My (a patient's) right to privacy trumps do gooder bs data gathering.
In the US the patient/client privilege is a big deal. Its extremely hard to breach even in criminal jury trials.

djones520 wrote:The only reason I could see it having any medical impacts would be because homosexuals are statiscally proven to be at higher risk for things like HIV.

Various groups have higher risks from certain illnesses, however, there is no screening in place (that I am aware of) whereby members of said groups are brought in for testing more regularly than those considered "less at risk".

Signs and symptoms of illnesses are the same no matter what kind of people you share your bed with or what colour your skin is.

SilverMK2 wrote:

djones520 wrote:The only reason I could see it having any medical impacts would be because homosexuals are statiscally proven to be at higher risk for things like HIV.

Various groups have higher risks from certain illnesses, however, there is no screening in place (that I am aware of) whereby members of said groups are brought in for testing more regularly than those considered "less at risk".

Signs and symptoms of illnesses are the same no matter what kind of people you share your bed with or what colour your skin is.

Which is why I think it's BS. Look, I would bet that the reason this was put out there was because of exactly what I referenced. Since their at higher risk, they want to be able to ask them their orientations so they can put tests out there based apon it. But again, I find myself asking, why is that the governments business? It is the government trying to take the personal responsibility away from the individual.

If you like bloody butt secks with multiple partners, then it should be YOU getting tests. It shouldn't have to be the nanny-state figuring it out for you.

Stats have never really been part of the patient client privilege though, which really only extends to the discussions between a doctor and the patient.

Federal law is what makes medical records confidential, not the common law or evidentiary privilege. The government created the confidence, it can take it away.

Polonius wrote:Stats have never really been part of the patient client privilege though, which really only extends to the discussions between a doctor and the patient.

Federal law is what makes medical records confidential, not the common law or evidentiary privilege. The government created the confidence, it can take it away.

I disagree. All rights are retained by the people. The government created nothing, it can only trample on the rights we have.

I don't know what it is like in the US, but in the UK there are lots of drop in sexual health clinics (though they don't go out of their way to advertise where they are from what I am aware) where they don't ask and you don't have to tell. You just drop trousers, take the test and either wait or come back for the results.

There are plenty of other locations you can get tested out for a host of other illnesses. I know that pharmacies here will do various allergy screens as well as tests for diabetes (which has, incidentallly, a 70% higher risk rate in the African American population than in the White American population).

As you mentioned and I understand, the information can be used for positive things, but as with pretty much everything, will probably just sit there are be used by government statisticians and/or sold off for human monies.

OF course, I'm not sure it's even worth pointing out the incredibly misleading nature of both that article and this post. A bill wasn't passed, an amendment was approved by a subcommittee. The sort of thing that happens all the time in congress.

In addition, there is some value to this. Knowing how LBGT people are being treated in relation to "straight" is valuable, as many health providers don't have any real training in those areas.

Polonius wrote:OF course, I'm not sure it's even worth pointing out the incredibly misleading nature of both that article and this post. A bill wasn't passed, an amendment was approved by a subcommittee. The sort of thing that happens all the time in congress.

In addition, there is some value to this. Knowing how LBGT people are being treated in relation to "straight" is valuable, as many health providers don't have any real training in those areas.

Why should they be treated differantly? Like I said, if the LBGT community has concerns about their sexual practices have effects to their health, it should be them bringing it up to their doctor. Not the doctor being forced by big brother to fish around for information that may have nothing to do with anything.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

SilverMK2 wrote:I don't know what it is like in the US, but in the UK there are lots of drop in sexual health clinics (though they don't go out of their way to advertise where they are from what I am aware) where they don't ask and you don't have to tell. You just drop trousers, take the test and either wait or come back for the results.

There are plenty of other locations you can get tested out for a host of other illnesses. I know that pharmacies here will do various allergy screens as well as tests for diabetes (which has, incidentallly, a 70% higher risk rate in the African American population than in the White American population).

As you mentioned and I understand, the information can be used for positive things, but as with pretty much everything, will probably just sit there are be used by government statisticians and/or sold off for human monies.

Well you can't really compaire our system with yours. Yours has been a total government ran system for decades, while ours is still mostly (and I hope it remains so) privately ran.

Frazzled wrote:

Polonius wrote:Stats have never really been part of the patient client privilege though, which really only extends to the discussions between a doctor and the patient.

Federal law is what makes medical records confidential, not the common law or evidentiary privilege. The government created the confidence, it can take it away.

I disagree. All rights are retained by the people. The government created nothing, it can only trample on the rights we have.

Lol.

If the government pays for something, it can do whatever it want. It always has been able to do that.

And while you may disagree, there is actually a bit more to running American democracy than having you read the constitution and tell us what you think. At this point the accumulated jurisprudence actually means something (don't forget that common law is also a founding principle of our country). So, sure, you can think whatever you want. It doesn't mean it has any relation to the actual legal reality.

djones520 wrote:Well you can't really compaire our system with yours. Yours has been a total government ran system for decades, while ours is still mostly (and I hope it remains so) privately ran.

Hence "I don't know what it is like in the US, but in the UK"

I was not comparing anything, I was just saying what things are like here.

djones520 wrote:
Why should they be treated differantly?

People should, like, investigate, find out if they are treated differently. .........

Polonius wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Polonius wrote:Stats have never really been part of the patient client privilege though, which really only extends to the discussions between a doctor and the patient.

Federal law is what makes medical records confidential, not the common law or evidentiary privilege. The government created the confidence, it can take it away.

I disagree. All rights are retained by the people. The government created nothing, it can only trample on the rights we have.

Lol.

If the government pays for something, it can do whatever it want. It always has been able to do that.

And while you may disagree, there is actually a bit more to running American democracy than having you read the constitution and tell us what you think. At this point the accumulated jurisprudence actually means something (don't forget that common law is also a founding principle of our country). So, sure, you can think whatever you want. It doesn't mean it has any relation to the actual legal reality.

Like the slam there Polonius. Good to see you remain constant.

Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Again, its my privacy, and not the governemnt's business. Its especially not the government's business to ask children anything.

Frazzled wrote:

Albatross wrote:Knee-jerk reaction as per, Frazzled.

'I don't know why they want the information, but I don't like it!!!'

Have you ever thought that collecting said information might actually, y'know, help them do their jobs better and improve the service they provide, a service they provide to the people who pay their wages (i.e. the taxpayer)? Surely you would be in favour of public sector workers doing their job more efficiently?

Or do you think that your (in my opinion, irretrievably warped) principals are more important than absolutely every other consideration?

Wait, I already know the answer to that one.

Nonsense. My (a patient's) right to privacy trumps do gooder bs data gathering.

So 'yes', then. Just as I suspected.

People like you are bad for conservativism. Listen to the language you use - you are using 'do good' as a pejorative. That's just moronic. As civilised people, we should be TRYING to do good, instead of revelling in how intransigent and small-minded we are. It's like you're proud of your ignorance. When did THAT become the 'American Way'?

There was a time when being 'American' was synonymous with vision, forward-thinking and 'can-do' spirit. Something to be rightly envied. This new brand of American conservatism espoused by Palin et al. has hijacked 'Americanism' and turned it 360 degrees to mean myopia, parochialism and 'won't do' spirit. Just naked opposition purely for the sake of it. Anyone who doesn't subscribe to it is branded as 'un-American'.

Collecting demographic information on sexuality could potentially be very useful for tracking trends in sexual health, and ultimately providing targeted health information for specific groups that are more likely to be at risk from certain diseases or conditions. Your internet provider already does a similar thing with advertising. You don't mind companies with little public accountability knowing personal stuff about you, but the government (who are accountable) doing it is a step too far? Are you one of the buffoons who protested against the census? Also, starting open discussion on sexuality early is a good thing, as it helps to de-mystify and destigmatise alernate lifestyles, meaning that LGBT people might be more willing to seek advice on certain issues.

None of this adds up to a 'bad thing' as far as I can see.

Good is good.



You just seem to be against this because someone told you to be.

Frazzled wrote:

Polonius wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Polonius wrote:Stats have never really been part of the patient client privilege though, which really only extends to the discussions between a doctor and the patient.

Federal law is what makes medical records confidential, not the common law or evidentiary privilege. The government created the confidence, it can take it away.

I disagree. All rights are retained by the people. The government created nothing, it can only trample on the rights we have.

Lol.

If the government pays for something, it can do whatever it want. It always has been able to do that.

And while you may disagree, there is actually a bit more to running American democracy than having you read the constitution and tell us what you think. At this point the accumulated jurisprudence actually means something (don't forget that common law is also a founding principle of our country). So, sure, you can think whatever you want. It doesn't mean it has any relation to the actual legal reality.

Like the slam there Polonius. Good to see you remain constant.

Can I get a judge's rulling on this? Unless "slam" is now defined as "pointing out when Frazz misspeaks," all I was doing is pointing out that while you have every right to say what you think your rights are, there are courts and judges and books of law that are probably a more reliable source for planning.

Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Again, its my privacy, and not the governemnt's business. Its especially not the government's business to ask children anything.

Ah, the 10th amendment. Last refuge of the damned.

Find me case law that shows that it means, you know, anything, and we can talk. It still doesn't matter, because Congress has, as an enumerated power, the power the tax and spend for the general welfare. So while congress can't (at least in theory) pass a law requiring everybody in america wear a pork pie hat, it could pass a law buying everybody in America a pork pie hat (and if enough dems are from the garment district, they just might).

So, if congress is paying for health care (which it has been for years now, so lets not all blame obamacare), it can tell people what's what. As one court opined in a first amendment case: "he who pays the fiddler calls the tune."

djones520 wrote:Well you can't really compaire our system with yours. Yours has been a total government ran system for decades, while ours is still mostly (and I hope it remains so) privately ran.

Um, the UK has both public and private options.

Is it also worth pointing out that we have been asking questions about gender for a long time now, if not overtly?

Those little check-boxes with the words 'male' and 'female' next to them have been around for some time.

Moreover, since kids can't sign definitive documentation, potentially attesting to their 'official' sexuality, all that is being collected is information regarding what child X happens to think that he is when asked. Its potentially interesting data regarding the mental health of children as it correlates with ideas regarding sexuality.

Albatross wrote:Good is good.

Whilst in an ideal world this would be the case, the way things are at the moment the information is just not being used to the fullest extent to positively effect people. For example, there is lots of information on how different racial groups are blessed or cursed with different rates of certain diseases. This information is not exactly new but as yet (as far as I am aware) there is no screening program or intense social action (posters on buses doesn't really count) to ensure that as many cases are caught early in "high risk" social groups as possible.

Conversely there are been a number of stories over the last few years about doctors not screening young women for cervical cancer who subsequently died or who became very ill because they fell outside the "at risk" age range.

Anyone who comes to recieve healthcare should recieve it where appropriate (if it quacks like a duck and tastes like a duck, it is probably a duck even if it is flying somewhere you don't usually find ducks). There should also be programs which reach out to high risk groups and screen them regularly (obviously people can choose not to partake, you can't force people to do anything).

The point being that additional information can be used well but currently is not. The other point being that you don't always need additional information if someone comes to you with symptoms or wanting testing.

part of me is also curious if the Conservative movement, perhaps not the enthusiastic supporters of gay rights in this country, are just concerned that gathering this information could help LGBT folks, or even by collecting enough data lead to a better understanding of how prevalent they are in society.

Then I wake up and realize that conservatives would never allow such prejudice to cloud their views, and I'm simply living in a paranoid fantasy....