Left Brain Right Brain

We’re back to the Huffington Post again and this time rather than Jenny McCarthy’s boyfriend, we’re talking about Jenny McCarthy’s son’s doctor Dr Jay Gordon.

He recently blogged about an LA Times piece by fellow medical man Dr Rahul Parikh. In his piece Parikh said:

One night, we admitted a 9-month-old girl who was having trouble breathing. She arrived with her parents — Mom in tears and Dad tense with worry. Her parents were movie stars from a Hollywood borough who…needed nothing. In a way, they had chosen “nothing” for their daughter from the time she was born — refusing all vaccines for her.

From this information alone Dr Gordon decided that Dr Parikh:

…commits ethics and HIPAA violations so egregious that the Medical Board must take him to task

Interesting, I thought as I read on…

Dr. Parikh is a well-published medical author and blogger and he speaks of a patient he saw as an intern in the year 2000 at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center. (His bio on many sites lets you know that year.) He identifies the parents, their unique profession and their child’s age and illness. This family can be identified by anyone who can use Google.

I was confused by now – Parikh hadn’t mentioned the year (in fact *Gordon himself* did!), he hadn’t identified the parents and as for their ‘unique profession’…how is being a movie star from Hollywood in any way unique? Surely Hollywood is full of movie stars? I mean, I’m a Brit so maybe I’m just buying into a cliché – are there really not many movie stars in Hollywood? And as for identifying the child’s age and illness – a 9 month old with a repository infection? Is that massively uncommon? I don’t think it is.

I stopped reading at that point as I have never been Dr Gordon’s biggest fan. He lacks the balls to tell Jenny McCarthy she’s wrong about there being anti-freeze in vaccines (silliness repeated by Jim Carrey yesterday) amongst other things. I was now more interested in this ‘ethics and HIPAA violation’.

False modesty aside I’m pretty good at digging at information on search engines and try as I could (and I really did try), based on the info in Parikh’s piece, I could not for the life of me identify who the movie stars were whos daughter was ill. I still can’t.

However, finding out what constitutes a HIPAA violation in terms of identifiable data was very much easier. I hit gold on my first search. According to the site ‘Lawyers and HIPAA‘ a violation occurs when health information is made public – here’s the paragraph on health information and its public release:

Individually identifiable health information is information that is a subset of health information, including demographic information collected from an individual, and:

(1) Is created or received by a health care provider, health plan, employer, or health care clearinghouse; and

(2) Relates to the past, present, or future physical or mental health or condition of an individual; the provision of health care to an individual; or the past, present, or future payment for the provision of health care to an individual; and

(i) That identifies the individual; or

(ii) With respect to which there is a reasonable basis to believe the information can be used to identify the individual.

I simply cannot see how Jay Gordon realistically believes that the information in Rahul Parikh’s LA Times piece meets that criteria.

Update: I see Autism News Beat has covered this also. In the comments Dr Gordon appears and says:

Good points. I’ve removed the nastier comments in the HuffPo piece. The Internet lends itself to false bravado and unpleasant ad hominem attacks [please see above 🙂 ] and I have to work on not being part of that problem.

I stand by my original unhappiness at the inaccurate proclamation of whooping cough

Yet when I return to Dr Gordon’s Huffington Post entry, I still see the references to HIPAA violations. Does Dr Gordon really believe that Dr Parikh’s article is full of HIPAA violations? Yes, I’m a Brit and no, I’m not a lawyer but my common sense tells me that Dr Gordon is playing with fire here. Lets hope for Dr Gordon’s sake that Dr Parikh is not going to sue for defamation. According to Autism News Beat that would be distinctly on the cards.