You’re right, and I was going to chime in on that too. In particular I do disagree with the last part of what the judge said.
“The order the father seeks would invade her sphere of privacy and force the mother to provide details of her medical condition to a person she does not desire to share that information with."
Prenatal and birth history is very important to know in pediatrics. Was it a complicated birth? Was it C-section? Does the mother have any STDs? Do we need to worry about pneumonia, blindness, etc. Therefore in order to give physicians accurate information, the father needs to know this information as well.
HIPAA prevents virtually any disclosure of personal medical information outside of very specific uses.
To give you an idea how complete HIPAA is, if I was in a session with a client and I knew they had HIV, I could not warn a person the client declared intention to have sex with. That would violate patient rights and I along with the hospital or organization I was working under could be sued.
HIPAA suits are not pretty. They often settle for large sums of money that often end careers.
If you’re not a healthcare personnel there are very few ways such information can be released to you without the consent of the individual themselves (for example, release to insurance companies). At its core HIPAA is a right to privacy, and professionals are held to strict codes of confidentiality.
In the case of a child the legal guardian has rights to medical records.
Believe me, I know about HIPAA. I’m not talking about HIPAA, I’m talking about information that both parents should know so that physicians can do their job.
A dad bring his 3 day old infant into the ER because of cyanosis and decreased breathing. Physicians are going to ask the dad a bunch of questions to figure out what’s wrong, mainly pertaining to birth. If he doesn’t know anything, then the physicians are going to have a tougher time providing adequate care.
HIPAA may or may not allow the father to acquire the prenatal/delivery information. The judge in the article definitely believes he doesn’t need the information. I’m saying he should get it for the sole reason of benefiting the well-being of the child, nothing else.
By the way, if a client had HIV, you already know that the previous partners of your client would be notified (or at least attempted to be notified). That is a specific use where HIPAA is “violated.” I’m bringing up a specific case where I think information should also be shared.