Funny

6606 readers

836 users here now

General rules:

Be kind.
All posts must make an attempt to be funny.
Obey the general sh.itjust.works instance rules.
No politics or political figures. There are plenty of other politics communities to choose from.
Don't post anything grotesque or potentially illegal. Examples include pornography, gore, animal cruelty, inappropriate jokes involving kids, etc.

Exceptions may be made at the discretion of the mods.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

TheDude@sh.itjust.works

kersploosh@sh.itjust.works

example@reddthat.com

VicksVaporBBQrub@sh.itjust.works

1020

That's how you win therapy (startrek.website)

submitted 10 months ago by Stamets@startrek.website to c/funny@sh.itjust.works

29 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] MacNCheezus 99 points 10 months ago (2 children)

I have a feeling about how this will end

[–] einfach_orangensaft@feddit.de 22 points 10 months ago (1 children)

they put me in a rubber room with rats

[–] ALostInquirer@lemm.ee 37 points 10 months ago

Whoa, they gave you therapy animals? Lookit this guy

[–] Socsa@sh.itjust.works 7 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

Unironically, anything you tell a doctor can be used against you in court. I have been on two civil juries and in both cases the defense attorneys basically just read a bunch of tangentially related embarrassing medical records for seemingly no reason besides embarrassing the person their client injured.

[–] MacNCheezus 3 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

What about doctor-patient privilege, does that not exist anymore?

Admittedly, it wouldn't apply in this case since the person posted it to Twitter, but I mean in general.

[–] Socsa@sh.itjust.works 3 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Yes not many people realize that medical records can be subpoenad.

[–] MacNCheezus 6 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (2 children)

From Wikpedia:

Physician–patient privilege is a legal concept [...] that protects communications between a patient and their doctor from being used against the patient in court.

What am I missing here? Clearly both cannot be true at the same time.

EDIT: nevermind, I found the answer further down on the page:

In the United States, the Federal Rules of Evidence do not recognize doctor–patient privilege.

At the state level, the extent of the privilege varies depending on the law of the applicable jurisdiction. For example, in Texas there is only a limited physician–patient privilege in criminal proceedings, and the privilege is limited in civil cases as well.

[–] cyberic@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

But the types of cases are different. Civil cases are state cases and handle harm, murder, etc. Federal cases are often not about these types of things at all and are about businesses that operate in multiple states (because they may operate differently according to the state constitutions)

Edit: https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/types-cases

It says that they preside over Constitutional cases

[–] Amends1782@lemmy.ca 2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

US fed doesn't recognize basic ethics laws, how unsurprising

A boring dystopia