| Title: | Clash of religion, privacy creates difficult exposure. | |
| Authors: | Bradford, Michael | |
| Source: | Business Insurance ; 1/5/2004, Vol. 38 Issue 1, p4, 2p | |
| Document Type: | Article | |
| Subject Terms: | BULLOCK, Gerald L.
JEHOVAH'S Witnesses PRIVACY EMPLOYERS BELIEF & doubt EMPLOYEES | |
| Abstract: | When an employee's religious beliefs clash with an employer's privacy rules, the temptation to tattle can sometimes be overwhelming. As a result, employers are left with a hard-to-handle exposure: the possibility that a devout employee will break privacy regulations in the name of a greater good. Gerald L. Bullock, who practiced medicine in Denison, Texas, in the 1980s, said he was stunned when a bookkeeper at his office released patient information to her church elders. As a Jehovah's Witness, the woman admitted that she was following what she perceived as her obligation to her church to report on a fellow church member's perceived sinful behavior, the doctor explained. Such privacy breaches by Jehovah's Witnesses are not frequent, but it does happen. Such privacy breaches, of course, could be committed by anyone who feels morally obligated to do so. | |
| Full Text Word Count: | 1036 | |
| ISSN: | 0007-6864 | |
| Accession Number: | 11937779 | |
| Persistent link to this record: | http://search.epnet.com/direct.asp?an=11937779&db=f5h | |
| Database: | MasterFILE Premier | |
| * * * | ||
Religion: clash with privacy creates difficult exposure When an employee's religious beliefs clash with an employer's privacy rules, the temptation to tattle can sometimes be overwhelming. As a result, employers are left with a hard-to-handle exposure: the possibility that a devout employee will break privacy regulations in the name of a greater good. Dr. Gerald L. Bullock, who practiced medicine in Denison, Texas, in the 1980s, said he was stunned when a bookkeeper at his office released patient information to her church elders. As a Jehovah's Witness, the woman admitted that she was following what she perceived as her obligation to her church to report on a fellow church member's perceived sinful behavior, the doctor explained. The patient had been treated by Dr. Bullock for a sexually transmitted disease. The Sunday after his employee released that information to church elders, the patient was expelled from the church, he said, and told not to communicate with friends and relatives in the church. "It had a major, major impact on her life," Dr. Bullock said. The patient threatened to sue. Dr. Bullock's attorney advised the physician to immediately fire the bookkeeper and then "call this lady and do whatever she asks because you've got no defense," the doctor recalled. After the firing and an apology, the lawsuit threat was withdrawn. While such privacy breaches by Jehovah's Witnesses are not frequent, "it does happen," according to Gerald Bergman, a former member of the society who has written extensively on the church's practices. He teaches biology and chemistry at Northwest State Community College in Archbold, Ohio. "Their responsibility is to the church, not to the employer," Mr. Bergman said of the approximately 1 million Jehovah's Witnesses in the United States. "The employer is secular, and, therefore, second." Such privacy breaches, of course, could be committed by anyone who feels morally obligated to do so, noted George Head, director emeritus of the Insurance Institute of America in Malvern, Pa. "You've got to be careful not to pick on just Jehovah's Witnesses," he said. And no matter why someone feels obligated to release private information, the consequences could be dramatic for the entity that was responsible for that data. "The ramifications of this are horrendous," said Catherine H. Gates, senior training specialist with Montgomery Insurance Co. in Sandy Spring, Md. Ms. Gates, who teaches ethics workshops for Montgomery's agents, said, "Think of the damage if an insurance company had a lawsuit against them for the release of private information. Whether it was successful or not, they are going to lose their clients." Even though it seems obvious that "the right thing to do is keep your mouth shut and the wrong thing to do is share the information with others," Ms. Gates said it's not hard to see the ethical dilemma for someone who would want to be loyal to a church as well as his or her employer. For others, though, the dilemma is not so clear. "It is definitely not appropriate to release (private information) no matter what the outside religious obligation is," said Sanford M. Bragman, Dallas-based vp, risk management at Tenet Healthcare Corp. The Christian Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses, the body that directs church affairs, says there is no policy forcing members to report sinful acts or divulge private information. That choice is up to members, according to Phillip Brumley, general counsel for the Brooklyn, N.Y.-based group. "They should study the scriptures, and what they do is up to them," said Mr. Brumley. If there is a conflict, he said, a member should "think that through and decide what to do." A 1987 article in the church's Watchtower magazine, which the church says is its most recent on the subject, advises members to consider the ramifications before taking any oath that would put them in conflict with biblical requirements. Doctors' offices, hospitals and law firms are businesses where privacy problems could arise, the article states. "We cannot ignore Caesar's law or the seriousness of an oath, but Jehovah's law is supreme," it reads. The article further states that if a "Christian feels, after prayerful consideration, that he is facing a situation where the law of God required him to report what he knew despite the demands of lesser authorities, then that is a responsibility he accepts before Jehovah." It is an employee's promise, though, that appears to be an employer's only protection against the release of private information on moral grounds. "Even if you have everybody sign something, it isn't going to stop the behavior" if a zealous employee feels obligated to release information, Ms. Gates noted. "The only thing it can do is keep the employer from being held liable," she said. Dr. Bullock said he now hires only workers who make such promises, and, when interviewing, wants to know whether there is "anything about you that would cause you to tell on a patient," he noted. If so, the applicant isn't hired. Nancy Hacking, director of safety and risk management at Concord Hospital in Concord, N.H., said hospital employees each year sign a confidentiality agreement stating that they will not release confidential information. Workers who violate the agreement, she said, "are subject to termination." Apart from educating employees on what information is private, the hospital also runs "audit trails" on its electronic systems to keep tabs on who accesses such information, Ms. Hacking said. At Tenet, ongoing training, much of it online, keeps employees aware of what information should be kept private, according to Mr. Bragman. The training covers regulations contained in the Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act that govern privacy, he said. Adam G. Linett, associate general counsel with the Jehovah's Witnesses, said employers shouldn't fear HIPAA penalties for unauthorized disclosures because sanctions in the act are aimed at employees. And, Mr. Linett said, he "can't think of a single case where this has happened and resulted in a lawsuit." 'Think of the damage if an Insurance company had a lawsuit against them for the release of private information. Whether it was successful or not, they are going to lose clients.' Catherine H. Gates Montgomery Insurance Co. ~~~~~~~~ By Michael Bradford | ||
| ||
Confidentiality at the Doctor/Dentist Office?
by blondie 27 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
blondie
-
xjw_b12
The doctor and patient should have sued the bookeeper, the local congregation, and the WTBTS.
Myself I would have been to tempted to just beat the snot out of her.
-
Scully
The article states:
The Christian Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses, the body that directs church affairs, says there is no policy forcing members to report sinful acts or divulge private information. That choice is up to members, according to Phillip Brumley, general counsel for the Brooklyn, N.Y.-based group.
"They should study the scriptures, and what they do is up to them," said Mr. Brumley. If there is a conflict, he said, a member should "think that through and decide what to do."
A 1987 article in the church's Watchtower magazine, which the church says is its most recent on the subject, advises members to consider the ramifications before taking any oath that would put them in conflict with biblical requirements. Doctors' offices, hospitals and law firms are businesses where privacy problems could arise, the article states. "We cannot ignore Caesar's law or the seriousness of an oath, but Jehovah's law is supreme," it reads.
The article further states that if a "Christian feels, after prayerful consideration, that he is facing a situation where the law of God required him to report what he knew despite the demands of lesser authorities, then that is a responsibility he accepts before Jehovah."
This is Watchtower-speak for "we will hang you out to dry if you get sued for breaching confidentiality in your place of employment".
I've addressed this topic before, and wrote an essay for my Ethics class in Nursing School based on this incident: Confidentiality - an essay by me
Love, Scully
-
Shutterbug
Myself I would have been to tempted to just beat the snot out of her
So would I, but the word "snot" seems a little weak in this context. Bug
-
avishai
The Christian Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses, the body that directs church affairs, says there is no policy forcing members to report sinful acts or divulge private information. That choice is up to members, according to Phillip Brumley, general counsel for the Brooklyn, N.Y.-based group
Bullshit.
"They should study the scriptures, and what they do is up to them," said Mr. Brumley. If there is a conflict, he said, a member should "think that through and decide what to do."
Which means "If you don't follow the scriptures, and do what we tell you, we'll disfellowship you, which after all, is your choice"
This spin master Brumley is a real prize. Very good at the art of misdirection. Check out what he says here about my bro's case.
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/8/46670/1.ashx
Looks like the society has a smarter spokesman, though, JR Brown was really good at screwing stuff up for the society.
-
blondie
Of course, JWs can't sue each other so they are protected on every front. I would sue the offending JW for everything the doctor/dentist office's insurance will pay as well as civilly sue the individual. Probably get DF'd for that.
It's things like this that prove to me that God is not and never has backed the Pharisaical WTS.
Blondie
-
BluesBrother
The Christian Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses, the body that directs church affairs, says there is no policy forcing members to report sinful acts or divulge private information. That choice is up to members, according to Phillip Brumley,
Liar! everybody knows that the policy is clear, "Your first duty is to keep the congregation clean, and if you get fired then that is a sacrifice that you have made for Jehovah" that is a summary of what they really mean.
How can people who advocate a policy of "Truth in all things" make such public statements? Perhaps it is either a form of cognitive dissonance or viewed as "strategy"
-
VM44
Your first duty is to keep the congregation clean, and if you get fired then that is a sacrifice that you have made for
JehovahThe [Man Made] Watchtower Society! -
bebu
I really enjoyed your paper on the linked thread, Scully. I definitely think it should be submitted for publication, as it is quite an interesting aspect of medicine. There is a lot of concern about malpractice these days, and this issue would catch a lot of attention--even more than in 1997.
I think you gave a good example conclusion, especially the extra step which might be considered.
bebu
-
Euphemism
You know, it's funny... the Watchtower is so obsessed with not "bringing reproach upong Jehovah's [i.e. the Watchtower's] name". But how much negative publicity have they had over this incident?