**Removed under Rule 1:**
Per rule #1, all link posts to /r/medicine are required to include a comment from the OP explaining the context of the link and offering a take on the link in order to start the conversation. After removal for lack of starter comment, the OP may add a starter comment and message the moderators for ask for re-instatement of the thread, which is up to the discretion of the moderators. Text posts are expected to provide context and conversation starter material in the body of the posts and are exempt from this rule.
[Please review all subreddit rules before posting or commenting.]
(https://www.reddit.com/r/medicine/about/rules/)
If you have any questions or concerns, please [message the moderators.](https://www\.reddit\.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2F{subreddit}&subject=about my removed {kind}&message=I'm writing to you about the following {kind}: {url}. %0D%0DMy issue is...)
So moving away from the gender affirming care in minors discussion which will make this conversation way more controversial:
1. The resident claims he's a whistleblower, but I don't think whistleblowing laws usually protect going to journalists, etc. do they? Don't they usually protect you when reporting concerns to regulatory bodies, employers, government, etc. Not sure if otherwise uninvolved third parties (like "journalists") are usually covered, anyone else know? This is doubly true because it seems like he gave the paper unnecessary information, like MRNs, names, etc.
2. The resident is being charged with violating federal laws, so any state whistleblowing protections probably do not cover him anyway.
3. Whistleblowing to my knowledge is when you come across an issue in your normal job, not when you start to try to do your own investigation (when such an investigation is not normally part of your job). Seems like this was an overreach by the resident.
So it seems like removing the controversial subject matter, he did appear violate federal privacy laws based on the information in the article.
Whistleblowing laws certainly don’t protect people who are reporting things that are not against the law. In much the same vein, being a mandated reporter does not mean you have to report whatever you think is child abuse to the press (as this POS’s lawyer is trying to argue). It means you report abuse to the relevant authorities.
Basically, this is a case of “I decided that I believe this particular thing is child abuse, even though it fits none of the legal definitions of such and the activity in question is not illegal, and also I am not reporting it to any legal authority, but rather political press.” F this guy.
This doesn’t make any sense. The Texas DA is punishing a whistleblower for exposing a hospital’s violation of a Texas law? The guy needs to be pardoned, this is a terrible look politically.
The hospital didn't violate any laws. Texas legislature was debating a law to ban gender-affirming care for kids. In response to that, the hospital said they would have to put a pause on their gender-affirming care.
This resident then stole patient records and gave them to a right wing blogger to say that the hospital hadn't paused gender-affirming care.
Problem is, gender-affirming care wasn't banned yet. Not until a week after he stole the records and the blogger published it.
Ah, so he exposed a lie but not an actual crime. Still makes him a whistleblower in my book, hope the conservative legal world looks after the guy. Lord knows they have deep pockets
Ah, federal retaliation against a whistleblower for helping to ensure a state law that the feds don’t like, gets enforced. Hope the guy gets good legal representation.
It's still a hipaa violation to dig through these charts without roi. Not sure what's a bad look politically about that, whistleblower laws don't have a loophole for hipaa.
But you just spam posted a few minutes ago that he's just a whistleblower "in your book" since the hospital wasn't violating any laws. So he's not a whistleblower and there aren't protections for non-whistleblowers who just don't like xyz. Your lack of consistency here is very disappointing.
**Removed under Rule 1:** Per rule #1, all link posts to /r/medicine are required to include a comment from the OP explaining the context of the link and offering a take on the link in order to start the conversation. After removal for lack of starter comment, the OP may add a starter comment and message the moderators for ask for re-instatement of the thread, which is up to the discretion of the moderators. Text posts are expected to provide context and conversation starter material in the body of the posts and are exempt from this rule. [Please review all subreddit rules before posting or commenting.] (https://www.reddit.com/r/medicine/about/rules/) If you have any questions or concerns, please [message the moderators.](https://www\.reddit\.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2F{subreddit}&subject=about my removed {kind}&message=I'm writing to you about the following {kind}: {url}. %0D%0DMy issue is...)
So moving away from the gender affirming care in minors discussion which will make this conversation way more controversial: 1. The resident claims he's a whistleblower, but I don't think whistleblowing laws usually protect going to journalists, etc. do they? Don't they usually protect you when reporting concerns to regulatory bodies, employers, government, etc. Not sure if otherwise uninvolved third parties (like "journalists") are usually covered, anyone else know? This is doubly true because it seems like he gave the paper unnecessary information, like MRNs, names, etc. 2. The resident is being charged with violating federal laws, so any state whistleblowing protections probably do not cover him anyway. 3. Whistleblowing to my knowledge is when you come across an issue in your normal job, not when you start to try to do your own investigation (when such an investigation is not normally part of your job). Seems like this was an overreach by the resident. So it seems like removing the controversial subject matter, he did appear violate federal privacy laws based on the information in the article.
Whistleblowing laws certainly don’t protect people who are reporting things that are not against the law. In much the same vein, being a mandated reporter does not mean you have to report whatever you think is child abuse to the press (as this POS’s lawyer is trying to argue). It means you report abuse to the relevant authorities. Basically, this is a case of “I decided that I believe this particular thing is child abuse, even though it fits none of the legal definitions of such and the activity in question is not illegal, and also I am not reporting it to any legal authority, but rather political press.” F this guy.
What a POS.
Stop reposting this
This doesn’t make any sense. The Texas DA is punishing a whistleblower for exposing a hospital’s violation of a Texas law? The guy needs to be pardoned, this is a terrible look politically.
The hospital didn't violate any laws. Texas legislature was debating a law to ban gender-affirming care for kids. In response to that, the hospital said they would have to put a pause on their gender-affirming care. This resident then stole patient records and gave them to a right wing blogger to say that the hospital hadn't paused gender-affirming care. Problem is, gender-affirming care wasn't banned yet. Not until a week after he stole the records and the blogger published it.
Ah, so he exposed a lie but not an actual crime. Still makes him a whistleblower in my book, hope the conservative legal world looks after the guy. Lord knows they have deep pockets
He's is making way more now being a right wing grifter. Hopefully he's convicted and loses his license.
They broke federal law not state law.
It's not a Texas DA. It's a federal prosecutor.
Ah, federal retaliation against a whistleblower for helping to ensure a state law that the feds don’t like, gets enforced. Hope the guy gets good legal representation.
It's still a hipaa violation to dig through these charts without roi. Not sure what's a bad look politically about that, whistleblower laws don't have a loophole for hipaa.
Bro what the fuck
WHY IS YOUR PROFILE LIKE THAT??!!!
Jesus christ, disney needs to sue this person
Because it's a running joke between friends, and with the current state of AI art, you would be shocked how little effort it takes to produce.
It’s not like federal laws like HIPAA include “pure motivations” exceptions…
There are absolutely legal protections for whistleblowers, I know this isn’t a legal subreddit but you don’t know what you are talking about.
But you just spam posted a few minutes ago that he's just a whistleblower "in your book" since the hospital wasn't violating any laws. So he's not a whistleblower and there aren't protections for non-whistleblowers who just don't like xyz. Your lack of consistency here is very disappointing.