So, What If Ms Dr Ford Is Compelled To Recant.....

Under what circumstances are the doctor-patient relationship not confidential and privileged?

WHEN there's a 3rd person in the room.

Yssup. As per several sites i got off of duckduckgo, DR patient privilege does not apply

A) When there's a 3rd person in the room
B) If the patient confides that he/she has done a crime or is going to do one.


Additionally, As per one of htose sites, "In the US, the FEDERAL level rules of evidence does not recognize Dr-Patient privilege.

I see SC mom says the bitch might no testify after all...who would of thunk it...SU-prize SU-prize...who would have thunk it!!

What does that have to do with the doctor patient relationship, friendly Fred?

Surely a legal scholar such as yourself knows how to address the substance of a simple question like that.

And, to address the first, and insulting, portion of your response, what if you’re not considered “white” by other “old white men?”

Claiming to be a victim as an “old white man” is a false equivalency, but apparently a new rallying cry. Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

The answers to this have already been covered or are obvious.

Yssup. As per several sites i got off of duckduckgo, DR patient privilege does not apply

A) When there's a 3rd person in the room
B) If the patient confides that he/she has done a crime or is going to do one.


Additionally, As per one of htose sites, "In the US, the FEDERAL level rules of evidence does not recognize Dr-Patient privilege. Originally Posted by garhkal

I do not believe that. Especially the second “site.”

Please include a reference to that story so I can learn otherwise.

And are you suggesting that Ford’s therapy sessions were done with a third person in the room?

[/I]


WHEN there's a 3rd person in the room.



Originally Posted by garhkal

Was this the case for Ford?

"Couples" therapy with a doctor ... equates to there being three people were in the room. Duh!

"Couples" therapy with a doctor ... equates to there being three people were in the room. Duh! Originally Posted by I B Hankering

She might have made the story up during the therapy in an attempt to justify her behavior in the marriage.

Kind of like the dog ate my homework senario.........."doctor, I can't suck his dick because I was almost raped in high school".

She is a progressive liberal skag. Judging from the behavior of these people as of late, I put nothing past her.

"Couples" therapy with a doctor ... equates to there being three people were in the room. Duh! Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Yes but that doesn't negate the privilege when the third party is the spouse. Both are considered patients covered by the privilege. The third party exception is when you are speaking with your doctor within earshot of a third party who participate outside the private therapeutic relationship and makes no effort to maintain the therapeutic boundaries.
Additionally, the husband and wife have the martial privilege, but Dr. Ford has waived both privileges by disclosing the content of the therapy, anyway.

The point of the privilege is to enhance the ends of the therapy, not shield criminal conduct, such as conspiring to bring false witness upon a nominee to the SCOTUS.

Thanks, friendly fred, for straightening your pal out. I suspect he isn't quite as well versed in the law as you are.

These allegations are too important to...DEBUNK!!

Thanks, friendly fred, for straightening your pal out. I suspect he isn't quite as well versed in the law as you are. Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

It was my pleasure. There are nuances to the law that aren't always readily obvious.

Of course, I get all my info from WebJD.

The question as posed was --

Garhkal: "WHEN there's a 3rd person in the room."

Yssup Rider: "Was this the case for Ford?"

The answer is "yes", there were at least three people in the room.

if anyone was counting... notice that the math is off. try 6 people. 4 guys, 2 girls.

These allegations are too important to...DEBUNK!! Originally Posted by bb1961

Yep. And remember the Left's famous battle cry from the Clarence Thomas/Anita Hill fiasco........."it's not the nature of the evidence, it's the seriousness of the charge"