Chaplain Fired After Blogging about Interaction with Museum Shooting Victim
by Danny Fisher
The Washington Post reports that several weeks after her reflection on attending to Holocaust Memorial Museum shooting victim Stephen T. Johns ran at their On Faith blog, Rabbi Tamara Miller has been fired from her post as head of the spiritual care department at George Washington University Hospital.
I am inclined to side with the hospital on the issue of patient privacy. Indeed, the patient information mentioned might have already been available in the general media, but this fact in no way changes the situation of a health care professional dispensing patient information at her own discretion. Strict patient privacy rules exist for a reason. From the rabbi’s perspective, the hospital may have been looking for an excuse to dismiss her—but if this was indeed the case, then it was the rabbi who gave them the perfect opportunity to do so.
The patient information issue was actually a pretext: the real reaons Rabbi Miller was fired was because she’d previously made a complaint about unfair gender-based salary discrimination. Read more about Rabbi Miller’s firing, watch video, check out other articles, and sign our petition to have her reinstated at http://www.newsericks.com/physician-heal-thyself.
@Newericks: I won’t deny that the hospital unfairly compensated Rabbi Miller, bristled at her complaint and sought out a pretext to fire her. I really don’t know what happened behind the scenes, but I am sympathetic to the rabbi’s story.
That said, my point is that patient privacy, albeit a pretext, was a valid one. Rabbi Miller’s actions unfortunately put her in a position which gave her employer a solid legal footing to dismiss her. With authority comes responsibility, and she should have known better.
The Gosselins’ healthcare providers could blog at length with reference to the children’s medical histories with information that is already well circulated throughout the internet—and this would likewise be a violation of patient privacy. If Rabbi MIller felt that writing about the incident was imperative, then there were other avenues she could have pursued that would not have violated patient privacy laws.
She may be hard pressed to demonstrate comparable breaches of patient privacy where the previously hospital took no action. If you can prove this, then I wish you all the best on this endeavor.
Arunlikhati: You make a good point, but I think that it is likely Rabbi Miller may well; be able to show comparable situations in which the hospital took no action if the case goes to court (which I think would not be in GWUH’s interest, given the further bad publicity and the risk of a decision against them). Also, according to my understanding of HIPPA, the hospital would only be liable for sanction if someone filed a claim, which no one in this case is or was ever remotely likely to do. Even if a claim had been filed, my understanding of HIPPA is that cases are to be resolved via consensus (e.g., the violater agrees to set up a new employee awareness program, or give a class), and that if a fine is given it’s very low anyway (only $100). All of that argues for a reprimand at most, not firing.
By the way, did you read my piece at http://newsericks.com/Physician-Heal-Thyself? I’d be interested in your comments on it. If you believe I’m factually inaccurate about anything, by all means point that out as well.
@Newsericks: I read your piece, but I don’t have much to say. For the sake of promoting your argument, it would be in your best interest to talk about HIPAA (not HIPPA). From my shallow understanding of patient privacy laws, what may seem to be a minor violation is treated seriously, often accompanied by dismissal/resignation, not to mention a painful fine. A fine of $100 is the lowest fine for the lowest level of violation; the hospital can probably argue that Rabbi Miller’s actions fell within a higher class (willful neglect), for which the minimum fine is $10,000. I believe Rabbi Miller had good intentions, and I’m aware of the support of the patient’s family—but I also believe in upholding strict standards of patient privacy. It’s unfortunate that she’s found herself in this situation, but I haven’t seen any argument to inform me that her actions constituted an absolute necessity, or that the hospital’s pretext/excuse/reason deviates from a legally defensible response to the Rabbi’s actions. Nonetheless, I still wish you all the best on your endeavor.
Thanks for the input, and for the correction.