From a story filed by ABC News on the Cheney hunting accident, I noticed this status report on Harry Whittington’s condition.
Whittington, 78, suffered a mild heart attack Tuesday after a birdshot in his chest traveled to his heart, Christus Spohn Hospital Corpus Christi-Memorial officials said. He is still in the hospital’s intensive care unit. A hospital spokesman said that was “strictly due to personal privacy issues,” and that he was sitting up, eating regular food, and planning on doing some of his legal work today.
Now, let me say up front that getting shot is a serious matter, especially if you’re a 78–year old man. I’m not trivializing this. What concerns me is the disparate information coming from Mr. Whittington’s doctors and the media. The doctors, who know better than anyone involved in this matter, are painting as accurate a picture as they possibly can concerning the health status of Whittington. Yet, the media reports create the impression that Whittington is still in the path of death. As a result, the pot stirring continues, and speculation and what-if scenarios continue to grow hour-by-hour.
Just this morning I heard a sound bite from Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, who characterized Harry Whittington as a “very sick man”. How does this square with what Whittington’s doctors are saying about Whittington? I don’t want to get into a “what is the meaning of sick” debate here. I’m simply illustrating a serious gap in tone. What if Whittington was to appear today on video, “sitting up, eating regular food, and doing legal work”? Would anyone really think they’re looking at a “very sick man”?
I predict that we’ll see something exactly like this within the next 48 hours. Some brief video clip or sound-bite from Whittington will be released, probably with him smiling, laughing, and shrugging his shoulders over this whole thing. And then what can we expect, a story about Harry Whittington’s miraculous recovery? News about how a 78–year old man beat back a visit from Mr. Death? A honest account of Whittington’s real condition as opposed to the hyped drama?
Nope, we won’t hear, see or read anything of the sort. The New York Times will probably file a story which floats yet another conspiracy theory – like, this:
“Was the man identified as Harry Whittington in video released today really Harry Whittington, or a stand-in hired by the White House?”
I’m an accounting manager in a company whose health-insurance plan is self-funded. When I ask, for purposes of monthly financial analysis, about health expenses, I’m frequently told that the names of the employees involved and the reasons behind the expenditures can’t be diclosed to me because of HIPAA. I’ve been present in emergency rooms when physicians took steps to ensure that their conversations about patients’ conditions weren’t overheard, again because of HIPAA.
As I said, I’m not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV, but I couldn’t help but wonder over the last couple of days why Mr. Whittington’s condition was being discussed so freely by medical personnel. Is there a shot-by-the-VP exception to HIPAA disclosure rules?
I’m also wondering why the media are so quick to jump to defend my privacy rights when Uncle Osama calls me but so quick to abandon the notion of Mr. Whittington’s privacy rights.
I was very nervous when I heard that one hospital spokesperson said that Mr Whittenton’s condition was ‘stable, very stable’ – The only truly stable medical condition I’m aware of is ‘dead’.
I’m glad that he is getting better. I hope he recovers.
Mr Whittenton and his family may have given the hospital permission to discuss his condition
I’m not sure, but it seems to me that some HIPPA regulations regarding patients health may have been violated by the MSM.
Don’t kid yourselves; Cheney is in full control of what medical information gets released and when. When did we learn the birdshot had nearly penetrated the victim’s heart? Only when the heart attack forced them to admit the severity of the shooting. How many pellets are in the victim’s body? Anywhere from 6 to 150-200! This is deliberate obfuscation.
To: Diffus
HIPPA is designed to keep personal health data from spreading within the organization that that person works for. HIPPA wouldn’t apply in this situation, but there are perhaps other rules, which may have been waived by the patient.
Mark,
Your understanding of HIPAA and PHI is completly incorrect. PHI restrictions apply to anyone that comes into contact with the information. I work for a company that processes medical claims and HIPAA applies to us, doctors, employers, PPOs, UR companies, PBMs and anyone that touches the information. You are not allowed to dissemenate or share PHI without written consent with limited exception. One of those being Diffus’ job is allowed to receive the information for plan management. ****brief sales pitch*** Diffus if your TPA won’t share it mine would be happy to work with you.
Funny how fast the MSM wants to violate personal rights when they can move some copy and hurt conservatives but don’t you dare touch their rights if it could save lives. Secert prisons and NSA should be exposed, sharing terriorist intercepts between CIA and FBI shouldn’t…scary isn’t it