Here's a good one: the FAA categorically prevents any pilots from taking any psychiatric medication (minor caveats but the point holds in practice), in particular for depression, anxiety, and ADHD, all of which are extremely common in the airlines. As such, everyone just hides their diagnosis and waits until they snap because the alternative is permanently losing a job they took out hundreds of thousands in loans to get. Others pay out of pocket for treatment under false names so the FAA is currently trying to hunt them down.
Before anyone says the usual stuff about not wanting their pilots on meds, the medications are safe to fly on and much safer than the alternative, the FAA just hasn't updated their psych guidelines since Freud was the standard because any change would open whichever bureaucrat up to being hauled in front of Congress for the next accident regardless of culpability. Additionally the medication standards are also inherited from ICAO so even if we wanted to change, we'd need to convince the likes of China and the Saudis (both major stakeholders) that they can come out from the rock they live under and accept modern psychological science.
And I agree, it is safer to just get the drugs. Maybe some very specific drugs should be excluded, but that's it
Same with leaded fuel and some very old mechanical gizmos in planes.
Giving how overwhelmingly worse the mental health is of people, especially young people, in America, I can see why the Chinese and Saudis are so reluctant to accept western psychological "science".
Treatments could be—and should be—better, but comparing US to countries where psychological issues are being ignored and stigmatized is not to the benefit of the latter.
Citation?
Some of those medications can alter you in a big way... at least many of those medications should be on the list...
You don't even have to imagine; there are plenty of concrete examples.
https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-politics-and-policy/seat...
"Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton asked a Seattle hospital to hand over records regarding gender-affirming treatment potentially given to children from Texas, according to court filings that appear to show the Republican going beyond state borders to investigate transgender health care."
https://montanafreepress.org/2023/07/19/knudsen-other-republ...
"Montana’s attorney general and Republican officials from 18 other states are opposing a federal effort to strengthen medical privacy regulations, arguing that states with abortion bans should be able to obtain reproductive health care records for criminal investigations, including when a patient travels to another state."
Against big government when it suits, I see. Hypocrisy is the worst disease in politics.
Dismissing critical thought, first order reasoning, and "the ends justify the means" short-term focus has brought our country once again to the brink of civil unrest.
Unfortunately, it's a phenomenon that's not limited to any particular political party.
> Within one day of Texas's filing, Trump, over 100 Republican Representatives, and 18 Republican state attorneys general filed motions to support the case.
I expect that the 18 states opposing strengthening medical privacy are the same 18 states whose AGs filed these motions.
Rules aren’t just for people you like or approve of.
I agree with the legal principle you describe, but to me that is the less interesting angle because public policy is hard to change whereas my own behavior is much easier to change. It is amusing that I cannot have a conversation here about any other angle without getting downvoted by people opposed to any writings that could possibly be useful to the opposing side in the public debate over the one angle they want to talk (write) about.
For those downvoting this question, I think askers are trying to weigh the benefits of better data-based decision making versus privacy. Amidst an opioid crisis we're wondering if more patient-level data may have helped form an earlier picture of abuse. Having done some data science, I immediately see the benefits of clearer pictures to inform policy; and having lucked out of being targeted for medical violence I'm honestly looking for examples.
What difference does that make? It's wrong, regardless of whether or not one can cite a specific case where it affected someone. This is no different than the b.s. "you don't need privacy if you don't have anything to hide" crap that people spout sometimes.
If the govt. needs this information, the can get a warrant. If they can't get a warrant, they don't need the information. This isn't that hard to figure out.
The point of a warrant is that you need to have this suspicion to pull the info. If it doesn't take a warrant, they can go on fishing expeditions.