There is an interesting lawsuit in Long Island where Michael Feinberg is suing CVS pharmacy after it revealed to his wife that he was regularly using Viagra. He had arranged to pay for the prescription rather than go through his insurance.
According to the New York Post, Feinberg’s wife called the pharmacy about one of her own prescriptions when she was told about the Viagra. Feinberg now claims that even telling his own wife violated his privacy under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act. He declares in the filing that the disclosure undermined his marriage.
The claim obviously departs from the traditional view of a husband and wife were legally one person. Moreover, there is a viable question as to the state of the marriage before the disclosure given the subterfuge behind the purchasing of the drug.
What do you think?
How would this undermine their entire marriage? Unless he wasn’t sleeping with his wife. Or maybe he was trying to hold onto a failing marriage. Who knows what was between a husband and wife. That’s none of the public’s business. What if it was the man’s daughter or son who called? Would that information be given to them, too?
This is an interesting case. I have sent my husband to pick up my prescriptions, and vice versa. If this case prevails, no one will be allowed to pick up anyone else’s prescription. That would mean that no matter how deathly ill you are, you will have to drag yourself out of bed, and get your own antibiotics refilled. I don’t see how prescriptions could be couriered, either, because you would have to sign for it by prescription name.
I think this also has come up when a parent learns that their daughter is on birth control.
I can definitely see both sides of this issue. A pharmacist really does not have the right to discuss an adult’s medical conditions with anyone else without their permission. Perhaps pharmacies can have HIPPA permission forms for each medication or customer.
I wonder of the wife could claim their conversation was privileged, route the damage claim, and derail his case out of spite.
I think it odd that any two people should be considered as one. It’s absurd on its face. In the UK even a sixteen year old has the right to privacy from their doctor and that includes from parents. Why is it ” proscription” in the headline? It makes me wonder if the wife has cracked down, but there’s no mention in the body of the text. Hmm… To call this man’s desire for privacy ” subterfuge” is utterly judgemental, based upon nothing you’ve disclosed and hints at the twitching curtain mentality of the absurd rather than a so-called civil libertarian viewpoint. Those on the right, never seem to quite grasp civil liberties and that seems particularly obvious in regard to women’s rights.
Those on the right, never seem to quite grasp civil liberties and that seems particularly obvious in regard to women’s rights.
Interesting, I made essentially the same comment and I am one of those on the right. So this last sentence of yours is not as obvious as you would like to believe. It fails miserably.
Oh, this tale is just rife with possibilities for an Irish Poem!
Very Impotent Person???
An Irish Poem by Squeeky Fromm
There once was a guy from New York
Who needed some help for his dork!
The wee pill was blue. . .
Now the dude is blue, too!
‘Cause his wife put his b*lls in a torque!
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
🙂
Squeeky,
That was most excellent.
Thank you EMW and Ollie!!! I am glad you liked it!
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Hell, he is lucky he could even get it. Under Mike Pence’s American dream, the man might not get it at all, with religious freedom and doctors and pharmacies writing up what they deem to be a offence of THEIR freedoms. Well, I might take that back a little, men will get theirs, women not so much.
Agreed.
FishWings:
Your comment brought this modern day scenario to mind. Western Europe has been fighting the conscientious objection debate about abortion. In order to be an OB or other women’s healthcare provider, you have to perform abortions. There is a fight all across Europe about the right to an abortion vs the right of the doctors and nurses not to be forced to participate.
Here in the US, you will not be forced to perform or assist in an abortion. You can offer, or not offer, those services, within the confines of the law. Here, the battle is about restrictions on abortion, and whether it should be at 9 months all the way down to conception.
The question of individual liberty is very pertinent to politics today. We are defining the lines between individual rights and how they affect others. This was also applicable in the cake baker case where the baker’s right to freedom of religion came into conflict with a gay couple’s desire to get a cake for their wedding.
It’s a very interesting question to resolve. Hopefully we can do so without throwing too many shoes.
What goes up, must come down …..
Excellent!
If he is seeking damages because the disclosure allegedly “undermined his marriage,” then the state of his marriage is a legitimate area of inquiry for the defense. This guy is opening his life up to a lot of embarrassing questions. The defense will have their private investigators all over this.
The article leaves the implication that his wife threw him out.
Another reason why women live longer than men who have really bad judgement.
Another reason you should never say anything because everything you say is non sequitur or stupid.
Yeah, that’s bad. What if CVS disclosed a husband’s Viagra prescription and the husband and wife hadn’t had sex in the past year?
I would assume that’s the issue. He’s consigned to the couch or she’s gained 50# since they were married and neither is interested anymore. There are several Michael Feinbergs in the area per White Pages, one about 35 years old and the others all over 60. Aging isn’t fun, though usually people just live with these problems.
Such amazing knowledge without any evidence offered. It would have to be her that was piling on the pounds, and yet the viagra prescription suggests you could be wrong. Face it, we don’t know, but you’re free to spill your prejudice based on precisely nothing.
Now, I’m remembering our last exchange:
Moreover, there is a viable question as to the state of the marriage before the disclosure given the subterfuge behind the purchasing of the drug.
WTF is viable about that question? Whether this man’s marriage is awesome, on the verge of divorce, or somewhere between is none of your effing business for HIPAA. Subterfuge? Again, none of your effing business! Maybe this guy’s wife is cheating on him and he was looking for an edge to keep it together. You don’t know and it does not matter for HIPAA.
Broken HIPAA
https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-professionals/privacy/guidance/access/index.html
Agreed! HIPAA is ridiculous! One day we’ll wKe up and realize how much we’ve sacrificed I. The name of “medical privacy.” That day will probably feature a major pandemic.