Jump to content

Bona Fide, A Peoples Definition


Timmahh
 Share

Recommended Posts

Bona Fide as defined by Blacks Legal Dictionary.

 

 

Definition of BONA FIDE

In or with good faith; honestly, openly, and sincerely; without deceit or fraud. Truly; actually; without simulation or pretense. Innocently; in the attitude of trust and confidence; without notice of fraud, etc. The phrase “bona fide” is often used ambiguously ; thus, the expression “a bona fide holder for value” may either mean a holder for real value, as opposed to a holder for pretended value, or it may mean a holder for real value without notice of any fraud, etc. Byles, Bills, 121.

 

 

 

Read more: BONA FIDE | Definition of BONA FIDE (Black's Law Dictionary)

 

 

Bona Fide as defined by Websters Dictionary

 

bo·na fide adj

\ˈbō-nə-ˌfīd, ˈbä-; ˌbō-nə-ˈfī-dē, -ˈfī-də\

 

Definition of BONA FIDE

 

1

: made in good faith without fraud or deceit <a bona fide offer to buy a farm>

2

: made with earnest intent : sincere

3

: neither specious nor counterfeit : genuine

See bona fide defined for English-language learners »

See bona fide defined for kids »

Examples of BONA FIDE

 

She has established her position as a bona fide celebrity.

His latest record was a bona fide hit.

They have a bona fide claim for the loss.

Origin of BONA FIDE

 

Latin, literally, in good faith

First Known Use: 1632

Related to BONA FIDE

 

Synonyms: authentic, certifiable, certified, dinkum [Australian & New Zealand], echt, genuine, honest, pukka (also pucka), real, right, sure-enough, true

Antonyms: bogus, counterfeit, fake, false, mock, phony (also phoney), pseudo, sham, spurious, suppositious, supposititious, unauthentic, unreal

[+]more

See Synonym Discussion at authentic

 

Bona Fide PDR (Physicians Desk Referance- Medical Dictionary)

 

Key Points

There is no duty of confidentiality owed unless a bona-fide doctor-patient relationship exists or existed

The scope of the duty of doctor-patient confidentiality, as well as the existence of a doctor-patient legal privilege, varies from state to state. No federal law governs doctor-patient confidentiality or privilege

Generally, what is confidential is information that is learned or gained by a doctor, during or as a result of the doctor's communications with examination of you, or medical assessment of the patient

The duty of confidentiality continues even after the patient stops seeing or being treated by the doctor

The duty of confidentiality is not absolute. Doctors may divulge or disclose personal information, against the patient's will, under very limited circumstances

The Doctor-Patient Relationship

There must be a bona fide "doctor-patient relationship" between individuals and a physician before any duty of confidentiality is created. Generally speaking, individuals must voluntarily seek advice or treatment from the doctor, and have an expectation that the communication will be held in confidence. This expectation of confidentiality does not need to be expressed. It is implied from the circumstances.

 

If individuals meet a doctor at a party, and in the course of "small-talk"conversation, they ask the doctor for an opinion regarding a medical question that relates to them, the doctor's advice would most likely not be considered confidential, nor would the doctor be considered "the individuals doctor." Likewise, if individuals send an e-mail to an "Ask the Doctor" website on the Internet, the communication would not be considered confidential, nor would the person who responded to the e-mail be considered he sender's doctor. No doctor-patient relationship was established, and no duty is owed.

 

If individuals are examined by a physician at the request of a third party (such as an insurance company or their employer), no matter how thorough or extensive the examination, or how friendly the doctor, there is generally no physician-patient relationship and no duty of confidentiality is owed to the patients. This is because they did not seek the physician's advice or treatment, and the relationship is at "arm's-length."

 

In many states, the privilege is limited to professional relationships between licensed doctors of medicine and their patients. Other states extend the privilege to chiropractors, psychologists, therapists, etc.

 

Doctor-Patient Privilege

Once a bona-fide doctor-patient relationship is established, the duty of confidentiality"attaches," and in many states, the doctor can invoke a legal privilege, on the patient's behalf, when asked to disclose or divulge information the doctor may have or know about the patient.

 

Federal Rule of Evidence (FRE) 501 provides that any permissible privilege "shall be governed by the principles of common law" as interpreted by federal courts. However, in civil actions governed by state law, the privilege of a witness is also determined by the laws of that state. Most states recognize some form of doctor-patient privilege by express law (STATUTE), but over time, there have been many exceptions that have chipped away the use or scope of the privilege.

 

In recent years, many courts have held that doctors also owe duties to protect non-patients who may be harmed by patients. For example, without a patient's permission or knowledge, doctors may warn others or the police if the patient is mentally unstable, potentially violent, or has threatened a specific person. In some states, the duty to report or warn others "trumps" the right to confidentiality or privileged communication with a doctor. Courts will decide these matters by balancing the sanctity of the confidentiality against the foreseeability of harm to a third party.

 

Constitutional Right to Privacy

The fundamental right to privacy, guaranteed by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U. S. Constitution, protects against unwarranted invasions of privacy by federal or state entities, or arms thereof. As early as in Roe v. Wade, 410 U. S. 113 (1973), the U. S. Supreme Court acknowledged that the doctor-patient relationship is one which evokes constitutional rights of privacy. But even that right is not absolute and must be weighed against the state or federal interest at stake.

 

For example, in Whalen v. Roe, 429 U.S. 589 (1977), a group of physicians joined patients in a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of a New York statute that required physicians to report to state authorities the identities of patients receiving Schedule II drugs (controlled substances). The physicians alleged that such information was protected by the doctor-patient confidentiality, while the patients alleged that such disclosure was an invasion of their constitutional right to privacy. The Supreme Court did not disagree with the lower court's finding that "the intimate nature of a patient's concern about his bodily ills and the medication he takes . . . are protected by the constitutional right to privacy." However, the high court concluded (after balancing the state's interests) that "Requiring such disclosures to representatives of the State having responsibility for the health of the community, does not automatically amount to an impermissible invasion of privacy."

 

In the Whalen case (decided in 1977), the U. S. Supreme Court had (prophetically) added a note about massive computerized databanks of personal information. Said the Court:

 

"A final word about issues we have not decided. We are not unaware of the threat to privacy implicit in the accumulation of vast amounts of personal information in computerized data banks or other massive government files . . . The right to collect and use such data for public purposes is typically accompanied by a concomitant STATUTORY or regulatory duty to avoid unwarranted disclosures. . . . We . . . need not, and do not, decide any question which might be presented by the unwarranted disclosure of accumulated private datahether intentional or unintentionalr by a system that did not contain comparable security provisions. We simply hold that this record [Whalen] does not establish an invasion of any right or liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment."

 

Waiver of Confidentiality or Privilege

A privilege belongs to the patient, not the doctor. Generally, only a patient may waive the privilege. A patient's written consent is needed before a doctor can release any information about the patient. But there are other ways in which a patient may "waive" the privilege of confidentiality. For example, if a patient brings a friend into the examination or consultation with the doctor, the friend may be forced to TESTIFY as to what transpired and what was said. (On the other hand, nurses or medical assistants in the room are "extensions" of the doctor for purposes of confidentiality and are covered by the privilege.) The patient may also waive the privilege by testifying about his or her communications with the doctor or about his or her physical condition at the time.

 

Another common way in which a patient waives the confidentiality of the privilege is by filing a lawsuit or claim for PERSONAL INJURY. By doing so, the patient has put his or her physical condition "at issue" in the lawsuit. Therefore, the law presumes that the patient has waived all confidentiality regarding his or her medical condition, and there is an implied authorization to the patient's doctor for disclosure of all relevant information. If a patient fails to object to a doctor's TESTIMONY, the patient has waived the privilege as well.

 

So in the Physicians Desk Reference, the only reference to the term bona fide is as an adjective, ie, Honest, Innocent, describing the term "Doctor-Paitent Relationship".

 

Interesting. So if the term bona fide is used as a word used only to describe something as Honest, Real, Not Fake, which is how the People understood it when Passing the Act, then how can their be so much confusion surrounding a adjective to a noun?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...