The Herald reports.
NO ONE IS KEPT IN THE HOSPITAL THIS LONG UNLESS YOU ARE SERIOUSLY ILL.
Menino's staff is hiding him from public view and he has not been seen by the public in over 40 days before he left for Italy.
Menino has to be on his death bed or suffered what many are saying as true that he had a stroke.
You know what I'm really impressed with? The fact that we still don't know the real story. Just a quick google search for any of the gossip, and most of the news leads come back here to UHub; other news organizations are largely ignoring the story. The only reports out there seem to have been written by the Mayor's press office. I suppose we should be impressed that he's been able to hold this conspiracy of disinformation together for so long.
As much as I wish the man out of office, I don't wish him ill. That said, the citizens of Boston deserve to know what's really going on!
While we can debate and discuss whether Menino should step down until we all have blistered fingers, there is one important thing to consider:
We are owed NOTHING
Patient confidentiality means that ONLY the patient or designated persons in the event of incapacitation may release information.
We are not entitled to any specifics or details here. None.
This hospital stay is both odd and highly suspicious ... and, none of our business.
You in Medford and I in Somerville are owed no information about this ... but the folks in Boston ought to be told something about whether their mayor is recovering or dying in office.
And yes, I am owed a truthful explanation. Not from the hospital, but from the Mayor himself. This has gone on long enough that the story we're getting is just not credible. The Mayor by simple dint of his office has given up a standard level of privacy. He does owe his constituents more than the lie we've been getting.
I live in Quincy but I work in Boston and do most of my business there. I want to know that the mayor of that city has not had a stroke or a heart attack or something else that has incapacitated him.
I can't be the only person who noticed his absence during recent Superstorm Sandy. Usually, he'd be front and center giving updates about Boston. Alas, the only person I saw was Gov. Patrick (who did a pretty good job I thought).
You are a stupid fool if you believe yourself. Where are we living? In the Soviet Union, People's Republic of Cambridge or North Korea?
I suggest you google them - unless you are immortal, you should know what your rights are.
We are living in the United States in 2012. SEVERAL acts of state and local lawmakers strictly protect personal medical information. One of the worst things you can do, as a physician or medical care organization, is violate confidentiality laws. Hospitals get fined, and doctors get fired over this stuff. I had one dr/professor who was in a near panic over losing a data stick because of this (fortunately, I had noticed and pocketed it at the end of the meeting because I knew that it was his and it likely had patient information on it ...). I had to sign a form that stated how long I had custody of it and what files I accessed on it.
"Who is running the city" is a valid question, one that should also be greeted with "and why does the mayor have so much power that it matters?". That latter one is certainly something the city - and the state - need to answer for. There are far too many "strongman" mayors surrounded by loyal mediocrity, insulated by long tenures where they drive out any competent opposition. Instead of obsessing over the King Tommy's illness, perhaps we should be working to get rid of the official structures that create such monsters all together - for this, and for other democratic reasons.
"What is wrong with the mayor" or "is the mayor dying" or "why is the mayor in the hospital so long" are not questions that we are entitled to know ANYTHING about. Also, consider that "He's in the hospital too long - he should lose his job" is very shaky in the era of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
(BTW Ron and others - I spend the majority of my waking hours in Boston, as does my husband ... where you sleep isn't the only place that affects your life.)
What is your point with your reminder? You are bringing in the elements of the Americans with Disability act and "SEVERAL acts of state and local lawmakers".
Can't you just say "That Menino and the hospital have no requirement or need to tell us what is happening. Also his disability by law shouldn't matter. Rather it is the office so dependent on a single strongman."
Instead, you bludgeon in emphasizing the word entitlement and listing laws like the posters here are trying to break them. The posters are engaged in speculation and concern (with elements of vitriol for the man). This means tell your story of your dr/professor in his panic when he lost he data have no bearing to a thread that is basically about speculation and concern for the office (and a possibly of mix from the tone of the commenter to the men himself).
Chill Swirrly. While you are "technically" correct in the argument. No one is owed by law to know the Mayor's condition. No one was clamoring against those confidentiality law or looking to steal data to endanger the careers and jobs of the people who works in the hospital. Your point was serve with needless antagonism. So chill.
I have said it "more simply" other places and threads, and people still don't seem to get it.
The Mayor has no obligation to release private medical information, and nobody besides the Mayor himself has a right to demand it, either.
That's simple - but people (including you and anon) can't seem to grasp that reality in simple language.
So I made it MORE clear what the legal situation is. I could bring in All the specific names of legislation that apply here. If it made your head explode, that might be fun.
In the meantime, welcome to the United States - where people demand laws that protect their medical information from employers and nosy constituents alike - and lawmakers respond.
Now lets demand laws that get rid of these "strongman mayor for life" situations that plague a good portion of the Commonwealth's cities. After all, if the Mayor of Cambridge fell ill, we would wish him or her well and not worry about the city grinding to a halt, eh?
Again, your needless antagonism and vitriol is unneeded. Go ahead and list all the legislation you want. Go ahead and make my head explode.
Where are you reading of a being a right? The most thoughtful elements is based on the idea on capacity to continue doing the mayoral duty. One way to have a fully understanding of that is transparency. A big difference than rights of either the philosophical or legal sense. You are arguing against something that is not at all the main tenets when ask of the condition of the mayor.
Your point only matters if people were making the argument from a legal standpoint. A desire to know what is happening - thus a voluntary release (release is from a mix of political pressure and an argument of mayoral duty and transparency rather than your argument of having a "right to know").
People like the anons, Lecil, Nancy, Ron, and even adamg is pointing out is the desire for a truthful explanation. Not as a right. But because the same reasons why we question health and age when candidates run for office. Capacity to do duties.
It's a different thing to ask the mayor himself to release his own medical information.
However, if he doesn't wish to share, that is that.
We have no right to that information.
I think that being hospitalized and inaccessible to the public for almost seven weeks counts as an "absense from office". Under the MGL and CBC that means he has to (at least temporarily) give up his duties as mayor. His wonks do not have the authority to run the city in his stead.
From the Massachusetts General Laws:
Chapter 39 MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT
Section 5 Performance of mayoralty duties during vacancy
Except as otherwise provided by city charters, upon the death, resignation or absence of the mayor, or his inability to perform the duties of his office, the president of the board of aldermen shall perform them; and if there is no such officer, or if he also is absent or unable from any cause to perform them, they shall be performed by the president of the common council, or, if there is no such officer, or if he is absent or unable to perform such duties, by such alderman as the board of aldermen may from time to time elect, until the mayor or the president of the board of aldermen is able to attend to said duties or until the vacancy is filled. The person upon whom such duties devolve shall be called “acting mayor” and shall possess the powers of mayor only in matters not admitting of delay, and shall not make permanent appointments.
From the Boston City Charter, MODIFIED PLAN A:
SECTION 11B. Provisions for an Acting Mayor. Whenever the mayor is absent from the city or unable from any cause to perform his duties, and whenever there is a vacancy in the office of mayor from any cause, the president of the city council, while such absence, inability or vacancy continues, shall perform the duties of mayor. ...[Acts of 1951, c. 376, s. 1.11B]
Don't you read the Herald?
a stay that long in the hospital sounds serious. especially with menino being a workaholic, i'd imagine he'd want to get out of there as soon as possible. doesn't look good in my opinion.
This just in from the mayor's office:
Dr. Morris will provide an update on Mayor Menino's current condition, plans for release, and next steps in his recovery process.
Comments from his doctor.