Also in this playlist...
This transcript is automatically generated
So this -- woman in Rhode Island who is now suing her one time doctor.
She says the doctors book about a drug addict was based on her life and her case.
That doctor admits the book was based on -- real patient but he changed all the names to keep the person's identity confidential.
-- to the lawsuit before patient.
Of the former patient -- the book gave her emotional distress.
Court documents show that woman had taken part in a treatment program to to treat drug addiction so far no response from the doctor.
If the book was about her she basically -- -- herself.
So should this lawsuit stand.
Let's take you to our legal panel prosecutor Josh in chapter criminal -- attorney.
-- these -- it was about her life her medical records are private doctor patient confidentiality.
Why was it okay for him to do this.
I don't think it wasn't even him to do this I think everybody makes a choice in this case of the Doctor Who said.
I'm gonna make money I'm gonna put out a book I'm gonna right at the beginning that you know I'm keeping my name private and any other facts into and not make -- -- Directly -- person's life directly available for everybody but in the end he took somebody's life.
He didn't ask -- can use your story medical history and make money off of that and show she would've said no or yes I'd like that for a cut of the money he went ahead and did what he wanted to do.
As a lawyer -- I prosecute cases all the time we have an ethical obligation and a legal obligation to say you know what I'm not out there to make money from people's lives and that's what's what's wrong here and I.
Whether Lowell will prevail in this case is questionable with a lot of times -- happens in the cases fall apart really what you just said she added herself nobody knew that it was car.
Except for -- So there has been no invasion of her privacy because her name wasn't disclosed none of -- personal information was disclosed there was no violation of what we call -- -- below which is patients' privacy.
Because again none of her personal information was disclosed court let -- -- of course was if you go through a very difficult process like a rehabilitation program.
And you're laying it all out for your doctor and then this book is written in you have to read about it.
She claims emotional distress do you -- that that's a possibility that you have to read.
Well do you buy that it's a possibility that that emotional stress is there any sessions and she knows other people are reading this book and she may have -- personal -- with other people about elected it's hard to get that it's not a author were adopted that she confided -- that's the purpose of the -- -- to say.
I'm going to you on the to speak to you and no there's no chance that my information -- -- get out in me change the names may change some facts that you really given up my life and that's not you know that of course and any distress there are eighteen factors under -- -- -- -- to determine whether or not there's been a violation so if you don't violate any of them just because the patient thinks it may be about me.
And maybe some friends -- that's not enough we saw what happened -- -- -- John Grisham novel case dismissed the movie to help.
-- -- Just because you know would you put it nobody else does it's not an invasion of privacy -- not actionable and legally -- don't know -- but in the end that -- -- an ethical obligation to say.
I should ask the simple question would you like can you -- you just your story in my story.
She says no he put it away and you wonder what would happen if this were about a psychologist or psychiatrist.
Somebody's life laid bare in that way someone who would -- told some friends -- this little -- specific things.
But then -- you'd be afraid that the friends might be able to figure out the whole story.
Could this be precedent -- will -- and follow the trial.
So we'll follow the case at least seal team.
Filter by section