should medical records of clients be sealed at age 18

MNBrant · 14th December 2011, 03:17 PM

If you strangled a kitty at age 2 because you were hugging it to hard. Does this information really need to be available to everyone who has access to your medical file for the rest of your life? I don't see how this is theraputic or healthful. No I did not strangle any kittys. I vote for sealing the medical records of minors.

MatildaGage · 14th December 2011, 03:25 PM

Are you talking about criminal records?

Medical records are destroyed after a period of time. If you don't keep telling it to your healthcare providers now, it won't keep getting into your new records.

the PC apeman · 14th December 2011, 03:28 PM

This sort of thing is in medical records? Was there an incident in the news that prompts you to ask?

Dinwar · 14th December 2011, 03:28 PM

I had a few medical conditions before I could walk that can potentially impact medical treatment I recieve. There IS a great deal of theraputic and medical data that would be lost for me if you sealed my pre-18-year-old records, including heart conditions, allergies, chronic diseases, and fractured bones. Not all medical conditions go away after the age 18, nor do they necessarily show up on subsequent check-ups.

MNBrant · 14th December 2011, 05:23 PM

I am refering to psych records. It seems like everyone has a waiver to hand you, and you never know where a page or two might wind up. If it was cut and dried that everyones psych records are sealed at age 18 there might be a lot less of this floating around.

The Norseman · 14th December 2011, 05:29 PM

How is this philosophically related?

the PC apeman · 14th December 2011, 06:04 PM

Originally Posted by MNBrant

I am refering to psych records. It seems like everyone has a waiver to hand you, and you never know where a page or two might wind up. If it was cut and dried that everyones psych records are sealed at age 18 there might be a lot less of this floating around.

I don't know about most psychologists and psychiatrists, but the ones I'm familiar with are hesitant to write much down of that sort, and even more hesitant to ever divulge whatever they do write down.

Qeidx · 14th December 2011, 06:11 PM

Originally Posted by The Norseman

How is this philosophically related?

If I slaughter fluffy and my family isn't around to hear it, did fluffy scream?

slingblade · 14th December 2011, 06:20 PM

MN is possibly going through some stuff just now. A light hand and a kind approach might be best. And some caution about flippant advice. Thanks.

Alan · 14th December 2011, 07:43 PM

Originally Posted by MNBrant

I am refering to psych records. It seems like everyone has a waiver to hand you, and you never know where a page or two might wind up. If it was cut and dried that everyones psych records are sealed at age 18 there might be a lot less of this floating around.

I volunteer at a mental health support service and asked a worker. This is what she said:

Children's records expire when they are 25. Adult records are kept for 7 years (maybe she means 7 years after they leave? I'm not sure). Information can be shared only with people who the client consents to. Consent is given and can last a maximum of 12 months, at which time the client renews it (or not) and consent can be withdrawn at any time. The client is also made aware that records must be provided to coroners and police and such if required.

Other people within the organisation are able to access data as it is stored on a network, but we are tracked when we do so.

Smackety · 14th December 2011, 08:36 PM

A prior suicide attempt is the single greatest predictor of future suicide attempts - regardless of if the attempt occurred at age 17 or 19. Doctors need to know this information when someone comes in complaining of a stomach ache or insomnia. Something like 15% of completed suicides visited the ER less than a month prior to their death. While I support rigorous and tough enforcement of HIPAA violations, I don't think records should be "sealed" if that means doctors won't be able to see them, including psych records.

JJM 777 · 14th December 2011, 09:48 PM

Originally Posted by MNBrant

I vote for sealing the medical records of minors.

You have a theory that what psychologically happens before 18, be it anything whatsoever, has no effect or informational value for understanding the person after 18?

Cuddles · 15th December 2011, 06:11 AM

Originally Posted by MNBrant

I vote for sealing the medical records of minors.

This would not make sense as a blanket policy, since it would mean sealing necessary records of ongoing cases, and even cases where past history is relevant. For example, what if someone is diagnosed with cancer aged 17? A year later, all their records are sealed. Except they still have cancer and the doctors still need access to those records. Or what if someone has a serious head injury aged 10. They appear to recover, but aged 20 they start having recurring headaches. Again, it wouldn't be a good idea to have sealed the records. And that's without addressing mental illness at all, which tends to be an ongoing problem where having access to the full history is often important.

That's not to say all notes should always be kept forever. The hospital I worked at had a policy of destroying unused records after 10 years, although they weren't exactly efficient at it and there were much older records still around. And things like maternity and neonatal records would be kept separate from others and only kept if there were issues specifically related to them, so they could still be destroyed even if the person turned up in hospital for some other reason.

The important point there is the "unused" part. If you strangled a kitty aged 2, then never saw a doctor again until you broke your leg aged 20, then sure, get rid of those old records. But if you strangle a kitty aged 2, then have long history of mental illness with constant contact with doctors over the next 18 years, those old records could be quite important in documenting the onset and progression of the illness.

As for the problem with notes getting lost or misplaced, sealing or destroying them won't really do anything to help. The thing is, records only get lost when they're used. If they're filed away somewhere, they'll stay there. Paper doesn't tend to move on its own, and people don't go hunting through room full of files looking for random ones to hide. It's only when people actually need to go and find them, then accidentally put them in the wrong place, drop them and lose some bits, or whatever, that problems can arise. Getting rid of old notes in ongoing cases won't do anything to change that.

commandlinegamer · 15th December 2011, 06:41 AM

No, in regard to the thread title.

Who should be able to access such records is am important point, though.

Andrew Wiggin · 15th December 2011, 10:02 AM

If you stop bringing it up, only the most diligent and motivated researchers will ever see it. On the other hand, that might be like not thinking about elephants. After all, you told us.

gnome · 15th December 2011, 10:22 AM

My understanding is that it is only with your permission that another can see your medical records anyway. Am I mistaken?

Skeptical Greg · 15th December 2011, 10:24 AM

Originally Posted by MNBrant

If you strangled a kitty at age 2 because you were hugging it to hard. Does this information really need to be available to everyone who has access to your medical file for the rest of your life? I don't see how this is theraputic or healthful. No I did not strangle any kittys. I vote for sealing the medical records of minors.

I have no idea why an incident like you describe would be part of a medical record..

I Ratant · 15th December 2011, 10:25 AM

I desire that my medical records -are- available to all my physicians.
And it's getting that way, with computer data bases and interfacing with the doctor's offices.
Getting files from a doctor you no longer see requires some footwork at the very least, to get the medical history to the new guy.

mediocrity511 · 15th December 2011, 11:09 AM

As someone with a history of mental health problems, I'd vote no. My psychiatric records probably include all manner of embarassing and upsetting things that I'd really rather forget about, but which are relevant to my treatment. If they are in my medical records, then I don't have to go through the trauma of recounting it all, whenever I see a new doctor. Without those records, then if I can't bring myelf to talk about something, then healthcare professionals wouldn't know about them.

Daald · 15th December 2011, 02:01 PM

It is opt in only. Even the systems that handle the data are monitored very closely. Access is strictly controlled and monitored. The word of a violation will put the entire company on alert trying to squash. My team found a bug in a back end mainframe one time and as soon as we said that it could lead to violations everyone was down our throats to prove it and then on the mainframe guys to plug it.

This leads to a lot of problems getting test data and makes putting new systems up a pain when something that is only in production breaks things.

MatildaGage · 15th December 2011, 02:51 PM

Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg

I have no idea why an incident like you describe would be part of a medical record..

This is a normal thing to include in a behavioral health assessment since it could be indicative of certain psychiatric conditions.

However, every time he gets seen by a new practitioner, they cannot possibly be obtaining copies of his childhood medical records. What's most likely happening is he is or did tell a healthcare professional this bit of info within some recent years and that information is included in his current records.

Complexity · 15th December 2011, 03:23 PM

I want all of my medical history available to my doctors and healthcare providers.

I don't want any of it available to a damned government.

I've heard that one of the consequences of the healthcare 'overhaul' in the US is that all medical information will be forwarded to the federal government, either directly or through state governments. I don't have a citation - perhaps someone else knows whether this is true.

Smackety · 15th December 2011, 05:23 PM

Originally Posted by Complexity

I want all of my medical history available to my doctors and healthcare providers.

I don't want any of it available to a damned government.

I've heard that one of the consequences of the healthcare 'overhaul' in the US is that all medical information will be forwarded to the federal government, either directly or through state governments. I don't have a citation - perhaps someone else knows whether this is true.

Well, Medicare/Medicaid has your records if you belong to those insurers, otherwise, nope. The public option that was shot down might have allowed a lot more people to have federally backed health insurance?

Andrew Wiggin · 15th December 2011, 08:56 PM

Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg

I have no idea why an incident like you describe would be part of a medical record..

MacDonald's Triad. Strong correlation between abusing animals, bedwetting, and setting fires and future antisocial behavior. Regardless of the child's excuse for why they wrung kitty's neck, children who torture or kill animals are more likely to grow up to be killers than supreme ruler of the planet. If someone does such things while simultaneously acting out enough to get themselves into the mental health system, they'll be watched.

cwalner · 16th December 2011, 10:25 AM

Another vote for no here for a lot of the same reasons. I had two heart surgeries when I was a child (5 months and 5 years). Just last year (40 years old) I had an issue that arose directly related to those original surgeries. The treatment that I received was dependent upon whether a particular procedure was used or not in the original surgeries.

I am quite glad that those records were not destroyed.

Smackety · 16th December 2011, 06:27 PM

Originally Posted by Andrew Wiggin

MacDonald's Triad. Strong correlation between abusing animals, bedwetting, and setting fires and future antisocial behavior. Regardless of the child's excuse for why they wrung kitty's neck, children who torture or kill animals are more likely to grow up to be killers than supreme ruler of the planet. If someone does such things while simultaneously acting out enough to get themselves into the mental health system, they'll be watched.

I think you missed the part where the child is 2.

Smackety · 16th December 2011, 06:28 PM

Originally Posted by cwalner

Another vote for no here for a lot of the same reasons. I had two heart surgeries when I was a child (5 months and 5 years). Just last year (40 years old) I had an issue that arose directly related to those original surgeries. The treatment that I received was dependent upon whether a particular procedure was used or not in the original surgeries.

I am quite glad that those records were not destroyed.

I am amazed they were not destroyed - no-one keeps records that long!

MNBrant · 17th December 2011, 12:43 PM

Originally Posted by Smackety

I think you missed the part where the child is 2.

I think the mcdonalds triad thing is pretty damn close. I don't think it matters to these people (govt) if the kid is 2 or 15. I am still voting no.

14th December 2011, 03:17 PM	#1
MNBrant Master Poster Join Date: Apr 2011 Posts: 2,165	should medical records of clients be sealed at age 18 If you strangled a kitty at age 2 because you were hugging it to hard. Does this information really need to be available to everyone who has access to your medical file for the rest of your life? I don't see how this is theraputic or healthful. No I did not strangle any kittys. I vote for sealing the medical records of minors.
MNBrant Master Poster Join Date: Apr 2011 Posts: 2,165

14th December 2011, 03:25 PM	#2
MatildaGage Muse Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: Risa Posts: 799	Are you talking about criminal records? Medical records are destroyed after a period of time. If you don't keep telling it to your healthcare providers now, it won't keep getting into your new records.
	__________________ End the grisly, barbaric practice of metzitzah b'peh.

14th December 2011, 03:28 PM	#3
the PC apeman Muse Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 649	This sort of thing is in medical records? Was there an incident in the news that prompts you to ask?
the PC apeman Muse Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 649

14th December 2011, 03:28 PM	#4
Dinwar Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 8,971	I had a few medical conditions before I could walk that can potentially impact medical treatment I recieve. There IS a great deal of theraputic and medical data that would be lost for me if you sealed my pre-18-year-old records, including heart conditions, allergies, chronic diseases, and fractured bones. Not all medical conditions go away after the age 18, nor do they necessarily show up on subsequent check-ups.
Dinwar Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 8,971	__________________ GENERATION 8: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment. Ein krieg ohne feinde.

14th December 2011, 05:23 PM	#5
MNBrant Master Poster Join Date: Apr 2011 Posts: 2,165	I am refering to psych records. It seems like everyone has a waiver to hand you, and you never know where a page or two might wind up. If it was cut and dried that everyones psych records are sealed at age 18 there might be a lot less of this floating around.
MNBrant Master Poster Join Date: Apr 2011 Posts: 2,165

14th December 2011, 05:29 PM	#6
The Norseman I Void Warranties Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: The Treasure Valley Posts: 3,242	How is this philosophically related?
	__________________ "I have always thought that a wild animal never looks so well as when some obstacle of pronounced durability is between us." "Sticking the flounce is the hardest move in forum gymnastics." -tsig

14th December 2011, 06:04 PM	#7
the PC apeman Muse Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 649	Originally Posted by MNBrant I am refering to psych records. It seems like everyone has a waiver to hand you, and you never know where a page or two might wind up. If it was cut and dried that everyones psych records are sealed at age 18 there might be a lot less of this floating around. I don't know about most psychologists and psychiatrists, but the ones I'm familiar with are hesitant to write much down of that sort, and even more hesitant to ever divulge whatever they do write down.
the PC apeman Muse Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 649

14th December 2011, 06:11 PM	#8
Qeidx Thinker Join Date: Dec 2011 Posts: 133	Originally Posted by The Norseman How is this philosophically related? If I slaughter fluffy and my family isn't around to hear it, did fluffy scream?
Qeidx Thinker Join Date: Dec 2011 Posts: 133

14th December 2011, 06:20 PM	#9
slingblade Guest Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 23,642	MN is possibly going through some stuff just now. A light hand and a kind approach might be best. And some caution about flippant advice. Thanks.
slingblade Guest Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 23,642

14th December 2011, 07:43 PM	#10
Alan Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 3,652	Originally Posted by MNBrant I am refering to psych records. It seems like everyone has a waiver to hand you, and you never know where a page or two might wind up. If it was cut and dried that everyones psych records are sealed at age 18 there might be a lot less of this floating around. I volunteer at a mental health support service and asked a worker. This is what she said: Children's records expire when they are 25. Adult records are kept for 7 years (maybe she means 7 years after they leave? I'm not sure). Information can be shared only with people who the client consents to. Consent is given and can last a maximum of 12 months, at which time the client renews it (or not) and consent can be withdrawn at any time. The client is also made aware that records must be provided to coroners and police and such if required. Other people within the organisation are able to access data as it is stored on a network, but we are tracked when we do so.
	Last edited by Alan; 14th December 2011 at 07:57 PM.

14th December 2011, 08:36 PM	#11
Smackety Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 1,145	A prior suicide attempt is the single greatest predictor of future suicide attempts - regardless of if the attempt occurred at age 17 or 19. Doctors need to know this information when someone comes in complaining of a stomach ache or insomnia. Something like 15% of completed suicides visited the ER less than a month prior to their death. While I support rigorous and tough enforcement of HIPAA violations, I don't think records should be "sealed" if that means doctors won't be able to see them, including psych records.

14th December 2011, 09:48 PM	#12
JJM 777 Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Finland Posts: 3,175	Originally Posted by MNBrant I vote for sealing the medical records of minors. You have a theory that what psychologically happens before 18, be it anything whatsoever, has no effect or informational value for understanding the person after 18?

15th December 2011, 06:11 AM	#13
Cuddles Decoy Moderator Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: A magical land full of pink fluffy sheeps and bunnies Posts: 16,597	Originally Posted by MNBrant I vote for sealing the medical records of minors. This would not make sense as a blanket policy, since it would mean sealing necessary records of ongoing cases, and even cases where past history is relevant. For example, what if someone is diagnosed with cancer aged 17? A year later, all their records are sealed. Except they still have cancer and the doctors still need access to those records. Or what if someone has a serious head injury aged 10. They appear to recover, but aged 20 they start having recurring headaches. Again, it wouldn't be a good idea to have sealed the records. And that's without addressing mental illness at all, which tends to be an ongoing problem where having access to the full history is often important. That's not to say all notes should always be kept forever. The hospital I worked at had a policy of destroying unused records after 10 years, although they weren't exactly efficient at it and there were much older records still around. And things like maternity and neonatal records would be kept separate from others and only kept if there were issues specifically related to them, so they could still be destroyed even if the person turned up in hospital for some other reason. The important point there is the "unused" part. If you strangled a kitty aged 2, then never saw a doctor again until you broke your leg aged 20, then sure, get rid of those old records. But if you strangle a kitty aged 2, then have long history of mental illness with constant contact with doctors over the next 18 years, those old records could be quite important in documenting the onset and progression of the illness. As for the problem with notes getting lost or misplaced, sealing or destroying them won't really do anything to help. The thing is, records only get lost when they're used. If they're filed away somewhere, they'll stay there. Paper doesn't tend to move on its own, and people don't go hunting through room full of files looking for random ones to hide. It's only when people actually need to go and find them, then accidentally put them in the wrong place, drop them and lose some bits, or whatever, that problems can arise. Getting rid of old notes in ongoing cases won't do anything to change that.
	__________________ I am not a little teapot.

15th December 2011, 06:41 AM	#14
commandlinegamer Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Mazes of Menace Posts: 5,906	No, in regard to the thread title. Who should be able to access such records is am important point, though.
	__________________ He bade me take any rug in the house.

15th December 2011, 10:02 AM	#15
Andrew Wiggin Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: A small planet named for its dirt. You'll find it filed under 'mostly harmless' Posts: 2,914	If you stop bringing it up, only the most diligent and motivated researchers will ever see it. On the other hand, that might be like not thinking about elephants. After all, you told us.
	__________________ "Everyone takes the limits of his own vision for the limits of the world." - Arthur Schopenhauer "New and stirring things are belittled because if they are not belittled, the humiliating question arises, 'Why then are you not taking part in them?' " - H. G. Wells

15th December 2011, 10:22 AM	#16
gnome Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 9,873	My understanding is that it is only with your permission that another can see your medical records anyway. Am I mistaken?
gnome Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 9,873	__________________

15th December 2011, 10:24 AM	#17
Skeptical Greg Agave Wine Connoisseur Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Just past 'Resume Speed' Posts: 12,873	Originally Posted by MNBrant If you strangled a kitty at age 2 because you were hugging it to hard. Does this information really need to be available to everyone who has access to your medical file for the rest of your life? I don't see how this is theraputic or healthful. No I did not strangle any kittys. I vote for sealing the medical records of minors. I have no idea why an incident like you describe would be part of a medical record..
	__________________ " Somewhere between Jesus dying on the cross, and a giant bunny hiding eggs,there seems to be a gap in information. " Stan - Southpark Prove your computer is not a wimp ! Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232

15th December 2011, 10:25 AM	#18
I Ratant Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 15,305	I desire that my medical records -are- available to all my physicians. And it's getting that way, with computer data bases and interfacing with the doctor's offices. Getting files from a doctor you no longer see requires some footwork at the very least, to get the medical history to the new guy.

15th December 2011, 11:09 AM	#19
mediocrity511 Scholar Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 120	As someone with a history of mental health problems, I'd vote no. My psychiatric records probably include all manner of embarassing and upsetting things that I'd really rather forget about, but which are relevant to my treatment. If they are in my medical records, then I don't have to go through the trauma of recounting it all, whenever I see a new doctor. Without those records, then if I can't bring myelf to talk about something, then healthcare professionals wouldn't know about them.
mediocrity511 Scholar Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 120

15th December 2011, 02:01 PM	#20
Daald Critical Thinker Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Queens, NY Posts: 423	It is opt in only. Even the systems that handle the data are monitored very closely. Access is strictly controlled and monitored. The word of a violation will put the entire company on alert trying to squash. My team found a bug in a back end mainframe one time and as soon as we said that it could lead to violations everyone was down our throats to prove it and then on the mainframe guys to plug it. This leads to a lot of problems getting test data and makes putting new systems up a pain when something that is only in production breaks things.

15th December 2011, 02:51 PM	#21
MatildaGage Muse Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: Risa Posts: 799	Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg I have no idea why an incident like you describe would be part of a medical record.. This is a normal thing to include in a behavioral health assessment since it could be indicative of certain psychiatric conditions. However, every time he gets seen by a new practitioner, they cannot possibly be obtaining copies of his childhood medical records. What's most likely happening is he is or did tell a healthcare professional this bit of info within some recent years and that information is included in his current records.
	__________________ End the grisly, barbaric practice of metzitzah b'peh.

15th December 2011, 03:23 PM	#22
Complexity The Woo Whisperer Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Minnesota, USA Posts: 9,263	I want all of my medical history available to my doctors and healthcare providers. I don't want any of it available to a damned government. I've heard that one of the consequences of the healthcare 'overhaul' in the US is that all medical information will be forwarded to the federal government, either directly or through state governments. I don't have a citation - perhaps someone else knows whether this is true.
	__________________ "It is a great nuisance that knowledge can only be acquired by hard work." - W. Somerset Maugham "Thought is subversive and revolutionary, destructive and terrible; thought is merciless to privilege, established intuititions, and comfortable habit. Thought looks into the pit of hell and is not afraid. Thought is great and swift and free, the light of the world, and the chief glory of man." - Bertrand Russell Last edited by Complexity; 15th December 2011 at 03:40 PM.

15th December 2011, 05:23 PM	#23
Smackety Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 1,145	Originally Posted by Complexity I want all of my medical history available to my doctors and healthcare providers. I don't want any of it available to a damned government. I've heard that one of the consequences of the healthcare 'overhaul' in the US is that all medical information will be forwarded to the federal government, either directly or through state governments. I don't have a citation - perhaps someone else knows whether this is true. Well, Medicare/Medicaid has your records if you belong to those insurers, otherwise, nope. The public option that was shot down might have allowed a lot more people to have federally backed health insurance?

15th December 2011, 08:56 PM	#24
Andrew Wiggin Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: A small planet named for its dirt. You'll find it filed under 'mostly harmless' Posts: 2,914	Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg I have no idea why an incident like you describe would be part of a medical record.. MacDonald's Triad. Strong correlation between abusing animals, bedwetting, and setting fires and future antisocial behavior. Regardless of the child's excuse for why they wrung kitty's neck, children who torture or kill animals are more likely to grow up to be killers than supreme ruler of the planet. If someone does such things while simultaneously acting out enough to get themselves into the mental health system, they'll be watched.
	__________________ "Everyone takes the limits of his own vision for the limits of the world." - Arthur Schopenhauer "New and stirring things are belittled because if they are not belittled, the humiliating question arises, 'Why then are you not taking part in them?' " - H. G. Wells

16th December 2011, 10:25 AM	#25
cwalner Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Deepest Darkest Indiana Posts: 5,708	Another vote for no here for a lot of the same reasons. I had two heart surgeries when I was a child (5 months and 5 years). Just last year (40 years old) I had an issue that arose directly related to those original surgeries. The treatment that I received was dependent upon whether a particular procedure was used or not in the original surgeries. I am quite glad that those records were not destroyed.
	__________________ Vecini - Inconceivable! Inigo - You keep on using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

16th December 2011, 06:27 PM	#26
Smackety Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 1,145	Originally Posted by Andrew Wiggin MacDonald's Triad. Strong correlation between abusing animals, bedwetting, and setting fires and future antisocial behavior. Regardless of the child's excuse for why they wrung kitty's neck, children who torture or kill animals are more likely to grow up to be killers than supreme ruler of the planet. If someone does such things while simultaneously acting out enough to get themselves into the mental health system, they'll be watched. I think you missed the part where the child is 2.

16th December 2011, 06:28 PM	#27
Smackety Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 1,145	Originally Posted by cwalner Another vote for no here for a lot of the same reasons. I had two heart surgeries when I was a child (5 months and 5 years). Just last year (40 years old) I had an issue that arose directly related to those original surgeries. The treatment that I received was dependent upon whether a particular procedure was used or not in the original surgeries. I am quite glad that those records were not destroyed. I am amazed they were not destroyed - no-one keeps records that long!

17th December 2011, 12:43 PM	#28
MNBrant Master Poster Join Date: Apr 2011 Posts: 2,165	Originally Posted by Smackety I think you missed the part where the child is 2. I think the mcdonalds triad thing is pretty damn close. I don't think it matters to these people (govt) if the kid is 2 or 15. I am still voting no.
MNBrant Master Poster Join Date: Apr 2011 Posts: 2,165