Message #47681

[Kilika]

because at the end of the day a lot of this ends up being taxes and who can visit who in the hospital, and there's other repercussions and things that come with it," Bevin said.

That argument does hold water, at all. Any patient can name any person as having a right to access to you and your medical information. All it takes is a single sheet of paper and a signature, then it's placed within the patient's medical record of the facility they are at.

Now if by chance the patient is not able to articulate their wishes, it will fall back on the person who does have right to speak on behalf of the patient before the patient came to not be able to speak for themselves. Usually, no person has officially been listed within the patient's medical record other than the intake forms you fill out as a new patient. The patient can name on that form, or update later, anybody the patient wants on that form, but the patient in sound mind must name them. Once a patient can't speak for themselves, it's too late legally.

Keep in mind, a patient's medical records are NOT the property of the patient.

The patient only has rights to view what those records contain, and to obtain a copy, or share them with another medical facility that requests them as part of the patient's care somewhere else. Here again, this is where the patient can name or allow, or disallow access to those records, to a limit. Doctor to doctor is the primary need usually, and that is done professionally between offices by a standard request, done with every records request.

Again, the patient is the one that dictates release of records in virtually every situation.

Ultimately, this all boils down to money, the love of money. The secular world doesn't really care who is related or married to whom, just so long as they  know who to tax and how much. That's it.