Mental health advocates are worried that the privacy of people who have received treatment for their illnesses could be jeopardized by a White House push to expand a database used to run background checks on gun buyers.
President Barack Obama said he wants to see state governments contribute more names of people barred from buying guns to the database, part of a sweeping set of executive actions he announced after a gunman killed 20 children and six adults at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, in December.
States are encouraged to report to the database the names of people who are not allowed to buy guns because they have been involuntarily committed to a mental hospital, or have been found to have serious mental illnesses by courts.
Many states do not participate. So the administration is looking at changing a health privacy rule - part of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) - to remove one potential barrier.
The Health and Human Services Department has not released a detailed proposal outlining possible changes to HIPAA. When it asked for comments on the idea, it was flooded with more than 2,000 letters and e-mails.
Many of the comments were from gun rights advocates, but a surprising number were from mental health professionals and advocates.
Health care professionals are sympathetic to Obama's goal of reducing gun violence, but worry that the privacy rule proposal could discourage people with mental illness from seeking treatment.
There are two problems. Some people may be discouraged from getting the help they need, even though the reporting affects those involuntarily committed not those seeking help on their own. And, there may be some cases of formerly ill people who have recovered and no longer pose a threat.
My opinion is we'll just have to work around those two problems, the first one through education. The second one may just be the cost of doing business.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
You recognize the problems, but you still are willing to press ahead. As I've said before, once you give up one right, no other right is safe.
ReplyDeleteThe second one may just be the cost of doing business.
ReplyDeleteIf you view the suppression of rights as a cost of business, you probably shouldn't expect to do any business with free people.
I still don't understand how HIPPA applies. All that needs to be done is to use court records to document the commitment as opposed to medical records. Is there something I'm missing on this?
ReplyDeleteLets apply the same standard to internet blogs. Or to free speech. If you lose your blog Mike, its just the cost of doing business.
ReplyDeleteSo, are there any rights you aren't willing to surrender in the name of social utility?
ReplyDelete