IMO, it's not okay because the strict alternative is the patient must choose death. Pace makers are very invasive. They're not generally installed unless absolu

IMO, it's not okay because the strict alternative is the patient must choose death. Pace makers are very invasive. They're not generally installed unless absolutely needed. In this case, it's very similar to saying. "If you don't let us install this device that the government can use to know exactly what you were doing every hour of every day; you'll die." It's not quite the fact that it's medical history, but it's very detailed, personal medical history. "He had gout some time in the last few weeks/months" vs "He was running 14 times in the last 21 days, and heres' the exact minute he started and ended" > but their medical history showed they actually required frequent treatment at a local hospital? Should that be inadmissible? That they acquired treatment? Maybe. That they were treated for an STI? Yes, that should be inadmissible. Because as a medical person, I don't want you avoiding ANY treatment because you scared the information about the treatment would be used against you.