Young mans brain kept after autopsy.

[Emet]

Um, to be a turd in the punchbowl here....has anyone thought this might not have actually happened?

I know a few people that have worked in morgues, and other places of which specimines are kept. And a popular, urban legend is the exact story. Off the top of my head i can think of 6 times i have heard versions of this story. The latest being on the set of a local film that was shot partly in a morgue ( actress saw her sisters heart in a specimine jar, and had to be taken away.)

I just find it a wierd coincidence that someone happened to have an experience that synchs up perfectly with an urban legend.

Well, I can't speak to the exact way the specimen was labeled, but according to one court document:

Finally, we note that while the sole remaining cause of action in the complaint additionally alleges that Jesse's brain was mishandled by being placed on public display by the medical examiner, the defendants submitted evidence clearly demonstrating that the organ was simply kept in a cabinet with other specimens awaiting further examination and was never publicly displayed in the manner alleged.

(my bolding)

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2010/2010_06786.htm

 

[Uncayimmy]

Maybe considering the circumstances. Turns out some field trip of kids went through the morgue and the name of the brain's previous owner was there on the jar for all to see. Worse, some of the field trip kids apparently knew the dead kid. That's how the info got out and eventually to the parents.

Suit: Kids Found Dead Classmate's Brain at Morgue

Body parts kept or not, that is one serious breech of medical confidentiality.

In what way was it a "serious" breach of medical confidentiality? If students are given a tour of a morgue, it would seem rather foolish to hide everything related to the corpses. If you're dead and the state is authorized to perform an autopsy, is there a reasonable expectation of privacy that your corpse or body parts will not be seen in a morgue? When I visit my doctor, I see other patients. They announce the person's name to call them back ("Mr. Jones? The doctor will see you now."). That's not really "confidential" information, is it?

Did you think they had a trophy case in the lobby with labeled specimen jars or something?

 

[brenn]

Maybe considering the circumstances. Turns out some field trip of kids went through the morgue and the name of the brain's previous owner was there on the jar for all to see. Worse, some of the field trip kids apparently knew the dead kid.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ah! Very good. Would you mind telling me whose brain I DID put in?
Then you won't be angry?
I will NOT be angry.
Abby Someone.
Abby Someone. Abby who?
Abby Normal.
Abby Normal?
I'm almost sure that was the name.

 

[blutoski]

Um, to be a turd in the punchbowl here....has anyone thought this might not have actually happened?

I know a few people that have worked in morgues, and other places of which specimines are kept. And a popular, urban legend is the exact story. Off the top of my head i can think of 6 times i have heard versions of this story. The latest being on the set of a local film that was shot partly in a morgue ( actress saw her sisters heart in a specimine jar, and had to be taken away.)

I just find it a wierd coincidence that someone happened to have an experience that synchs up perfectly with an urban legend.

That is suspicious, yes.

Related... my sister is an undertaker. She owns a funeral home in a small town and this means she knows everybody in town and is very involved in community activities.

One of these activities is a 'scared straight' program about speeding for teenagers who have too many moving violations on their record. The program involves going to the morgue and my sister shows them what they do with the remains of people who have been killed in speeding accidents. She also shows them a movie of a very serious collision from the 1970s that killed a bunch of kids.

Here's the coincidence: my sister didn't know that the accident in the movie was one that she was thrown clear of in 1976. It killed two of her friends and some strangers in another car. Horribly traumatic, and a total shock when she realized what the movie was the first time she showed it.

I was trying to figure out what the odds were... anyway... the point is that coincidences do happen.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Um, to be a turd in the punchbowl here....has anyone thought this might not have actually happened?

I know a few people that have worked in morgues, and other places of which specimines are kept. And a popular, urban legend is the exact story. Off the top of my head i can think of 6 times i have heard versions of this story. The latest being on the set of a local film that was shot partly in a morgue ( actress saw her sisters heart in a specimine jar, and had to be taken away.)

I just find it a wierd coincidence that someone happened to have an experience that synchs up perfectly with an urban legend.

Except in this case there is a kid's brain and a lawsuit and the parents found out somehow. It might be an urban legend if we didn't have the deceased's name and a family and a morgue representative admitting the error and a lawsuit.

 

[NYCEMT86]

....a morgue representative admitting the error....

Source? I checked your link and the link in the OP and couldn't find this.

 

[NYCEMT86]

Body parts kept or not, that is one serious breech of medical confidentiality.

No it is not. As students of a high school's forensics club, they were brought in to learn about the medical examiners office. Before doing so, they are required to sign HIPAA confidentiality forms. Which clearly these students violated by telling one of their parents and the sister of the deceased.

Now how would I know this? Well, because as an EMT you are required to ride on an ambulance for 8 hours and to observe and interact with patients in the ER for another 8 hours while in the certification program. I got an added bonus of being able to observe an autopsy conducted by the NYC OCME. Even before I could start any of my clinical rotations I had to sign 3 different HIPAA confidentiality forms stating that I would not release the names or information about the patients/victims I may come in contact with.

What the city did was in their legal rights and that was even determined in the lawsuit against them.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

In what way was it a "serious" breach of medical confidentiality? If students are given a tour of a morgue, it would seem rather foolish to hide everything related to the corpses. If you're dead and the state is authorized to perform an autopsy, is there a reasonable expectation of privacy that your corpse or body parts will not be seen in a morgue? When I visit my doctor, I see other patients. They announce the person's name to call them back ("Mr. Jones? The doctor will see you now."). That's not really "confidential" information, is it?

Did you think they had a trophy case in the lobby with labeled specimen jars or something?

Just as you don't allow access to medical records by people passing through looking at what you left open on a desk, you don't leave a patient's name in plain view in a morgue, be it on a body, a body drawer, or a body part. If you can find a single reference from any morgue workers here or anything on the Net that says it was an accident that anyone knew the deceased but the name in plain view was OK, then let's see it.

It's quite a different thing to see one's neighbor in the doctor's waiting room and to see one's neighbor in the morgue. And in some medical settings, names are indeed not public. I work in a psych hospital and the patients all have a first name and the first letter of their last name when we address them, and also on their outer chart label. So the outside of the chart will say Susan S, for example, and no one says the last name out loud where other patients can hear. At the STD clinic in a big hospital here it is called the Adult Medicine Clinic even though STDs are all they see 'adults' for there.

 

[Uncayimmy]

Just as you don't allow access to medical records by people passing through looking at what you left open on a desk, you don't leave a patient's name in plain view in a morgue, be it on a body, a body drawer, or a body part. If you can find a single reference from any morgue workers here or anything on the Net that says it was an accident that anyone knew the deceased but the name in plain view was OK, then let's see it.

See post #21.

It's quite a different thing to see one's neighbor in the doctor's waiting room and to see one's neighbor in the morgue.

True there is a difference, but it doesn't work in your favor. The big difference is that deaths are a matter of public record while visits to the doctor are not. In that sense there is even less privacy expectation for the deceased's presence in the morgue. Nothing private is being revealed by (say) a toe tag on a corpse bearing someone's name.

And in some medical settings, names are indeed not public.

I have no doubt some practices are much more concerned about privacy due to the nature of the ailments they treat and the public shame associated with (say) STDs or mental illness. It's irrelevant to your statement of fact that this was a serious breach of confidentiality in the morgue. The court didn't see it that way, and you have not presented any first-hand knowledge or third party citations to prove your point.

 

[sadhatter]

Except in this case there is a kid's brain and a lawsuit and the parents found out somehow. It might be an urban legend if we didn't have the deceased's name and a family and a morgue representative admitting the error and a lawsuit.

From the bit posted by a previous poster, i believe we have confirmed , indeed said brain was placed in a cabinet , and not on display.

So it seems more of a case of an event being given spin to sound like an urban legend.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

From the bit posted by a previous poster, i believe we have confirmed , indeed said brain was placed in a cabinet , and not on display.

So it seems more of a case of an event being given spin to sound like an urban legend.

From the link in post #21

Some members of the group observed that one of the jars held a human brain in a formaldehyde solution. In what can only be described as a surreal coincidence, the label on the jar indicated that the brain was that of Jesse Shipley, a circumstance which evoked strong emotional reactions from some of the students who were present.

So in a cupboard or not, the students were given access to names on the specimens. I think most morgue field trips would consider not allowing access to any named bodies or body parts when high school age kids were involved.


In some cases, however, students like med students or nursing students would see names of patients and morgue specimens. So a field trip and kids in high school, it would not be appropriate. But students in a medical or forensics program would be given access. In that case the students would be breaking the law to further disclose the name they saw on a labeled specimen. And they would be taught about confidentiality before their first clinical class.

I would think this morgue probably underestimated the capacity for high school students, forensic science class or not, to understand and maintain confidentiality of what they were allowed to see. So this would be one of those mistakes made by the morgue that someone failed to anticipate could be a problem.



When I was in nursing school, we got report on the patients we were being assigned to and one of them turned out to be my neighbor who had suffered a severed spinal cord in a car accident. I had not known. Just because you know someone doesn't mean you can't learn anything about them while you are working or it breaches the patient's confidentiality. The way confidentiality works is we separate it by on the job or off the job. A student in a legitimate program is considered to be on the job.

So, what I learn about a patient on the job is confidential. If I learn the same thing through gossip, off the job, the legal rules do not apply. If I learn something listening in to a radio transmission, such as listening in to the police radio, the rules don't apply to me, but they apply to the police to be careful what they transmit on the radio. When the body of the missing kid in Bellingham recently was found, the radio transmission said a body was spotted and a boat was needed to get to it. That went up on the Facebook page of the missing kid within minutes. The police immediately changes to transmitting only text messages and email from then on. They knew the transmissions were being listened to.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

See post #21.


True there is a difference, but it doesn't work in your favor. The big difference is that deaths are a matter of public record while visits to the doctor are not. In that sense there is even less privacy expectation for the deceased's presence in the morgue. Nothing private is being revealed by (say) a toe tag on a corpse bearing someone's name.


I have no doubt some practices are much more concerned about privacy due to the nature of the ailments they treat and the public shame associated with (say) STDs or mental illness. It's irrelevant to your statement of fact that this was a serious breach of confidentiality in the morgue. The court didn't see it that way, and you have not presented any first-hand knowledge or third party citations to prove your point.

I'm not wasting my time on this nonsense. Seeing a name on a body in a morgue doesn't have to do with knowing one's neighbor died. Common sense is against you, UY.

 

[Uncayimmy]

I'm not wasting my time on this nonsense. Seeing a name on a body in a morgue doesn't have to do with knowing one's neighbor died. Common sense is against you, UY.

You are the one who claimed a "serious breech [sic] of confidentiality," which by definition means the released information must be confidential. The boil on my ass that needs to be lanced is confidential information between myself and the doctor. My death is a matter of public record as is the record of the government having performed my autopsy (not necessarily the results). Therefore, no new information is revealed by a toe tag or by a jar with my brain being labeled and noticed by a group on a tour of the facilities.

Prove your claim, admit you were wrong, or simply say you can't support it. You know the routine.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

You are the one who claimed a "serious breech [sic] of confidentiality," which by definition means the released information must be confidential. The boil on my ass that needs to be lanced is confidential information between myself and the doctor. My death is a matter of public record as is the record of the government having performed my autopsy (not necessarily the results). Therefore, no new information is revealed by a toe tag or by a jar with my brain being labeled and noticed by a group on a tour of the facilities.

Prove your claim, admit you were wrong, or simply say you can't support it. You know the routine.

If you are interested in the issue, see my edits on post #33. If you are interested only in your usual pissing contest, I'm not interested**. This is not a contest, it is a discussion.


**I'm still fresh from watching John Stewart's Rally to Restore Sanity.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Source? I checked your link and the link in the OP and couldn't find this.

Don't hold your breath waiting for a source.

 

[OMGturt1es]

When I die I'd like to donate my body to necrophiliacs to make a point.

 

[Uncayimmy]

From the link in post #21So in a cupboard or not, the students were given access to names on the specimens. I think most morgue field trips would consider not allowing access to any named bodies or body parts when high school age kids were involved.


In some cases, however, students like med students or nursing students would see names of patients and morgue specimens. So a field trip and kids in high school, it would not be appropriate. But students in a medical or forensics program would be given access. In that case the students would be breaking the law to further disclose the name they saw on a labeled specimen. And they would be taught about confidentiality before their first clinical class.

I will ask you again: What is the "confidential" information? I am not particularly familiar with medical privacy laws, but I have a more than casual interest in privacy concerns, especially those related to search and seizure. I have read numerous court rulings (not newspaper articles - actual rulings). One key element regarding privacy is that the information must be, well, private. If the same information is publicly available, then the argument for privacy is seriously eroded.

So, if there's a public notice of the death/funeral and/or public access to the fact that a person is undergoing an autopsy, then what private information is being revealed by a name indicating that a person is dead and undergoing an autopsy? Some states allow anyone to get an uncertified death certificate. Other states restrict access, but I haven't seen anything that addresses whether the mere fact that someone is dead being private information.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I will ask you again: What is the "confidential" information? I am not particularly familiar with medical privacy laws, but I have a more than casual interest in privacy concerns, especially those related to search and seizure. I have read numerous court rulings (not newspaper articles - actual rulings). One key element regarding privacy is that the information must be, well, private. If the same information is publicly available, then the argument for privacy is seriously eroded.

So, if there's a public notice of the death/funeral and/or public access to the fact that a person is undergoing an autopsy, then what private information is being revealed by a name indicating that a person is dead and undergoing an autopsy? Some states allow anyone to get an uncertified death certificate. Other states restrict access, but I haven't seen anything that addresses whether the mere fact that someone is dead being private information.

I'm skeptical that you are interested in anything but pissing contests.

If you are interested in actually learning about medical confidentiality, your first mistake is believing it has something to do with some legal technicality. It doesn't. It has to do with ethical patient care.

You can start here: AMA's paper on patient confidentiality.

The AMA's ethical guidelines are not binding by law, although courts have used ethical obligations as the basis for imposing legal obligations. Moreover, maintaining patient confidentiality is a legal duty as well as an ethical duty. A physician's legal obligations are defined by the US Constitution, by federal and state laws and regulations, and by the courts. Even without applying ethical standards, courts generally allow a cause of action for a breach of confidentiality against a treating physician who divulges confidential medical information without proper authorization from the patient.

It's like medical practice, there is judgement involved. If I diagnose your STD and you tell me you don't want your wife to know, I am obligated ethically to tell your wife. You cannot sue me for telling her.


The parents in the OP case can easily show in court that allowing high school students to see confidential information in the morgue caused the parent of the deceased teen serious distress. The defense will likely argue the students were not just casual observers but were in a legitimate class with the morgue as a clinical. The morgue could argue the school had a duty to assure the students understood confidentiality and the breach occurred when the students told the parents of the deceased about seeing their son's brain. But since the students were likely under 18, they would not be financially liable. And if that meant their parents were, you can imagine the parents of the students would be countersuing the morgue and the school that the kids were traumatized by seeing their friend's brain in the morgue.

The morgue would be wise to settle any lawsuits here out of court if an apology was not enough to satisfy the distressed parties. It's highly unlikely the morgue would win their case in court based on some claim that the death of the friend was public knowledge.

A breach in medical confidentiality is not dependent upon some specific legal wording, it is about professional conduct and misconduct.

A breach of confidentiality is a disclosure to a third party, without patient consent or court order, of private information that the physician has learned within the patient-physician relationship. ... The medium is irrelevant, although special security requirements may apply to the electronic transfer of information.

The legal basis for imposing liability for a breach of confidentiality is more extensive than ethical guidelines, which dictate the morally right thing to do. Although current law in this area has been referred to as "a crazy quilt of state and federal law," protecting patients' confidentiality is the law of the land. Included in the patchwork are federal and state constitutional privacy rights, federal and state legislation and regulation governing both medical records and licensing, and specific federal and state legislation designed to protect sensitive information (e.g., HIV test results, genetic screening information, mental health records, and drug and alcohol abuse rehabilitation information).

The reason I bolded the bit about the irrelevant medium is the labeled brain jar would be an unusual medium, but that wouldn't mean it wasn't an ethical breach.

 

[Mycroft]

When I die I'd like to donate my body to necrophiliacs to make a point.

I like the idea that I'd be getting some even after I die.

 

[Mycroft]

I will ask you again: What is the "confidential" information? I am not particularly familiar with medical privacy laws...

I find her as frustrating as you sometimes. I think you've made your point that this information is not "confidential" in the medical legal sense, but it's also true that it should be considered sensitive. It is careless for morgue workers to have left these specimins out where people who knew the deceased would have found them.