[Oxzzlvpg]

Hey...

Just about everybody knows that VP Dick Cheney accidentally shot a guy during a quail-hunting expedition last weekend. Fortunately, it looks like the man will make a full recovery, despite what appears to have been a mild heart attack.

I'm not interested in debating who's right or who was responsible on this thread. What I do want to discuss is the "right to privacy" of people in the hospital.

There's been a great deal of "debate" in the media about why Cheney didn't immediately report what happened, who got shot, what hospital he was in, the man's condition, and the like. And of course, there are those who feel it's a big cover-up.

Here's my question: In light of the new HIPA privacy laws, wouldn't it have been a violation of the man's right to privacy for Cheney to hold a press conference and give details of what was going on? I've heard of local church pastors complaining because they cannot even find out if somebody from their church is in the hospital, unless an immediate family member calls them. How could Cheney have given any details without violating HIPA privacy laws?

What are your thoughts?

[mikeydesignzinc]

I think I agree with you on this one. Whittington's condition doesn't need to be advertised to the press, and Cheney doesn't need to be telling us what happened.

He got the man to the hospital immediately, and while his delay in dealing with the police is worrisome, his delays in dealing with the press are unquestionably correct. Despite their assertions to the contrary, it is not the duty of private citizens or government officials to inform them of events that are not related to public policy.

[kabelshik]

So long as Harry Whittington gives the okay to release the information about his medical records there's no problems right?

What would have been an ineresting scenario is if say the guy had said no i want this to remain confidential and no info to be released and see how the liberals reacted as they scream a right to privacy over so many different things from abortion to sodomy but too late for that now.

[Symnunidanimb]

Cheney could have notified the public without disclosing the identity of the victim. He could have stated he was witholding the identity of the victim until Whittingtons family could be notified. He's under no obligation to disclose where the victim is. That would have started a media frenzy, trying to find the guy.

The only thing I think he is guity of is poor judgement.

[clomoll]

Despite their assertions to the contrary, it is not the duty of private citizens or government officials to inform them of events that are not related to public policy.

I disagree with you on this point. We are bombarded in the press each day by politicians espousing their moral views on a variety of topics, so when an action occurs that brings into question the ethics or abilities of an elected official to carry out their duties, that does fall into the realm of public interest.

[leahjhburton]

The only thing I think he is guity of is poor judgement. I agree, if you're talking in the context of gun usage. I think the press & privacy angles of this were handled as well as could be expected under the unusual circumstances.

... that does fall into the realm of public interest. I agree. Up-to-the-minute immediate notification wasn't needed, but to not mention it at all would have been highly inappropriate.

[Moupponge]

... so when an action occurs that brings into question the ethics or abilities of an elected official to carry out their duties, that does fall into the realm of public interest.

Well, that's the thing. I really fail to see how this event does either.

So far, the worst thing about Cheney's conduct seems to be either "canned hunting", which is extremely distasteful, but unfortunately quite legal, or hunting without the appropriate tax stamp, which is illegal but not particularly immoral. (It's a seven dollar stamp. Doesn't count as "tax evasion" in my book.)

If he'd shot someone outside his hunting party, I might be more interested in the question of whether or not he was intoxicated.

Cheney's job doesn't include carrying a gun or supplying American families with delicious quail. This accident doesn't really say anything about his ability to do anything else-- so I just don't see it as being anybody else's business.

[ecosportpol_ru]

Well, that's the thing. I really fail to see how this event does either.

So far, the worst thing about Cheney's conduct seems to be either "canned hunting", which is extremely distasteful, but unfortunately quite legal, or hunting without the appropriate tax stamp, which is illegal but not particularly immoral. (It's a seven dollar stamp. Doesn't count as "tax evasion" in my book.)

If he'd shot someone outside his hunting party, I might be more interested in the question of whether or not he was intoxicated.

Cheney's job doesn't include carrying a gun or supplying American families with delicious quail. This accident doesn't really say anything about his ability to do anything else-- so I just don't see it as being anybody else's business.

Ow is the fact that a man second-in-charge of the US military, shot another man in the face, and is therefore not capable of wielding a weapon, and then tried to keep it quiet, is not in the public interest? If anything, it gives greater assertion to suggestions that the Bush administration is full of cover-ups and screts.

[Susanleech]

Well, one, Cheney isn't "second in command" of the military. He's first in line to be first in command, if that makes any sense. Cheney doesn't have any military authority.

Two, while he may be expected at some point to wield military authority, there is no reasonable chain of events that would lead him to be expected to wield a weapon. While I agree that at least some capacity with small arms should be expected of any red-blooded American, it isn't part of the Vice President's duties.

I will grant that his avoidance of the media is part of an overall pattern of behavior that suggests secrecy and distrust. However, if we're going to complain about that, we should be complaining about when he concealed important information.

[Suentiend]

Ow is the fact that a man second-in-charge of the US military, shot another man in the face, and is therefore not capable of wielding a weapon, and then tried to keep it quiet, is not in the public interest? If anything, it gives greater assertion to suggestions that the Bush administration is full of cover-ups and screts.

Read the first post. Under HIPPA no information could be given out about the victim. If Cheney would have said something, you'd be all over him like flies on shit over him violating medical privacy laws. You're reaching WAY too far in trying to make this a "Gotcha".

[DoctorQuquriramba]

Yeah there's no doubting the fact that Cheney just couldn't win at all in this situation. This guy is his friend and a donor the GOP and yet there are still conspiracy theories about that this wasn't just an accident.

If he didn't go public to protect this guy's privacy the media would have jumped him for being secrative.

If he did and the victim didn't know about it the liberals would have jumped him for violating this guy's right to privacy.

I think even when Harry Whittington comes out and says he's okay and he holds nothing against Cheney the liberals are gonna be out there spouting the fact that Cheney just probably put him upto it.

[gimffnfabaykal]

.....
The only thing I think he is guity of is poor judgement.

I disagree. I think he gave the media the finger as best as he could. Whiner Gregory's career is now shot after his resulting tantrum.

[lXvtm0ox]

Ow is the fact that a man second-in-charge of the US military, shot another man in the face, and is therefore not capable of wielding a weapon, and then tried to keep it quiet, is not in the public interest? If anything, it gives greater assertion to suggestions that the Bush administration is full of cover-ups and screts.

What bull! I can't even start to comment.

[Clielldub]

What bull! I can't even start to comment.

Don't then.

[ZAtlLVos]

If he'd shot someone outside his hunting party, I might be more interested in the question of whether or not he was intoxicated.
.

As I understand it, the fuzz has ruled out alcohol as a factor.

[gortusbig]

As I understand it, the fuzz has ruled out alcohol as a factor.

I'm willing to accept the possibility that this was simply an accident, with no negligence involved on anyone's part. On the other hand, the police didn't get ahold of this until nearly a day had passed-- which is more than enough time to sober up-- so there's going to be some lingering doubts about it.

I'm not concerned with this. Frankly, I'm baffled that people are trying to make an issue out of this.

[sXVUOUVC]

....Frankly, I'm baffled that people are trying to make an issue out of this.

I'm baffled at why you are baffled. The press hates Cheney.

[Arrocousa]

I'm baffled at why you are baffled. The press hates Cheney.

They're not the only ones.

[hablyShappY]

They're not the only ones.

Unfortunately, some people are filled with so much hatred that they can't see anything else.

[Deseassaugs]

They're not the only ones.

The press and the left, but it is good that you freely admit that.