Medical Records and Privacy of the Famous Essay Example for Free

Medical Records and Privacy of the illustrious EssayMedical Records and Privacy of the Famous Privacy seems to be something that many race desire, but is bonny less and less available. With all the new applied science, it is easier than ever to invade someones privacy. With cameras everywhere, from ATMs to peoples cell phones, it is difficult for anyone to do anything that can be kept to one s self. While privacy is a right that the average person doesnt normally struggle with, it is a problem that celebrities encounter everyday. Paparazzi argon ceaselessly following these famous people around as they do their everyday things desire shopping, playing with their children, partying, or simply hanging in their homes. It is basically the price to sacrifice to be famous. While these celebrities lives are invaded to a large degree, shouldnt they still enjoy the right to respect some aspects of their lives personal? Celebrities should surrender the right to keep things like a esculapian records private, because not only is it a violation of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPPA), it is un respectable to release medical information roughly someone to the public, flush celebrities.In recent years, there have been a number of break-ins of celebrity medical records that have been leaked to the tabloids. In 2006 one of the countrys leading medical institutions discovered that the security of their medical records had been breached when The National Enquirer printed a story astir(predicate) Farrah Faucets cancer relapse, before the actress even told any of her family members (Steinhaurer, 2008). Ms. Faucet is not the only celebrity who has had this happen.In 2007, George Clooney was informed that his medical records were accessed by people who didnt have the right to look at them, following a motorcycle crash that left field the actor with broken ribs and scrapes. Britney Spears was also a victim when the media reported that she was involuntarily hospitalized in 2008 and put in the psych ward under the thought she could be a danger to others or herself. Gossip outlets and other paroleworthiness media reported on her interactions with staff and visitors throughout her hospitalization (Techweb, 2008).These are incidents that have occurred for many years, as tabloids are always interested in the medical issues celebrities deal with, and keeping it under wraps is more difficult with technology making it easier for anyone to gain instant access to wellness secrets. With the advent of networked computers, the problem has increased exponentially, and celebrities are constantly surrounded by people who are go outing to trade in medical information for value or their own 15 minutes (Blankstein, 2008).While the people who accessed the records of these celebrities and leaked the stories are definitely at fault, I think that much of the blame also lies with the reporters and journalists who actually print and air the stories. The press is violating privacy by releasing these stories in two ways, legally and ethically. Medical privacy rules apply to everybody, including celebrities, Alicia Mitchell, spokesperson for the American hospital Association said. Everybody is entitled to confidentiality of what is often very personal information (Rhea, 2007). By printing the very private medical information, there was a violation of HIPPA.HIPPA is an act that went into effect in 1996 and it set a field of study standard for securing and protecting patient health information. Hospitals have strict policies against leaking information, with the exceptions of insurance and law enforcement investigations. Because of this law, many health care providers wont even admit to treating some patients (Techweb, 2008). While the people who leaked the stories to the press have been reprimanded by either suspension or termination, there wasnt any type of consequences for the press for account this illegal material.T hat brings me to the ethical violation. Depriving people of their privacy is a cruel and immoral act, which could destroy their lives. The sole objective lens of tabloids is to make money, so theyll go to any extreme to satisfy their readers and increase circulation figures (Heng, 2006). It is obvious that celebrity news is an outlet that sells, as seen by the numerous tabloids and recreation shows. The public has an interest in what is going on in the lives of these rich and glamorous people.This brings on a form of mediated voyeurism, which can be be as, the consumption of revealing images and information about others real and unguarded lives, not always for the purpose of entertainment but frequently at the expense of privacy and discourse, through the means of the mass media (Calvert, 2000). Basically manifestation that the public has a need to see these famous people and learn about their lives, even at the risk of invading their privacy. The tabloids simply exploit the pub lics desire to learn these things, regardless of the ethical issues of invading a human beings privacy.They know people will buy it and that they will make money. I think that to be an ethical journalist it is important to empathize with the person whose liveness is about to be splashed on the papers. Of course there is the matter of getting the story and winning the readers and the editor, but it should take into account the publics real right to know. A story about the health of someone like the President of the United States might be something worth printing, because knowing how he is medically is of public interest because this is a man that is running the country.However, that is a different scenario with someone like Britney Spears. She is simply an entertainer and it isnt important for the public to know her health because it will not affect the periodical lives of people. It is simply news that the public likes to learn about. If I were a journalist, I would like to think to myself how I would feel if someone had released my medical records for the public to read. I would feel very violated. As Lance Morrow states, inviolable journalistic standards are not difficult to state, middling tough sometimes when applied case by case.Journalists function best when they are mature, experienced, and intelligent when they keep their work as clear and simple as possible when they fall back upon decency and common sense if questions arise about whether to run a humans (Morrow, 2002). If these people were true journalists, they would think ethically about whether or not to release this type of information, and whether or not it is simply the decent thing to do. I would think that it would be an easy answer because, just because someone is famous, doesnt mean that all of their privacy rights should be violated.