Medical Records and Privacy of the Famous Essay

Medical Records and Privacy of the Famous Privacy seems to be something that many people desire, only is becoming less and less available. With in all the new technology, it is easier than ever to invade individuals secretiveness. With cameras e realwhere, from ATMs to peoples cell phones, it is sticky for anyone to do anything that can be kept to one s self. firearm privacy is a honest that the average person doesnt normally struggle with, it is a riddle that celebrities encounter everyday.Paparazzi are constantly following these famous people most as they do their everyday things wish shopping, playing with their children, partying, or alone hanging in their homes. It is basically the price to pay to be famous. While these celebrities lives are invaded to a large degree, shouldnt they still enjoy the reclaim to keep some aspects of their lives private? Celebrities should defy the right to keep things like medical exam records private, because not only is it a infring ement of the Health indemnity Portability and Accountability Act (HIPPA), it is unethical to release medical information close someone to the ordinary, purge celebrities.In recent years, there come been a number of break-ins of honor medical records that have been leaked to the tabloids. In 2006 one of the earths leading medical institutions discovered that the security of their medical records had been breached when The case Enquirer crisscrossed a story about Farrah Faucets genus 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 split up that left the actor with broken ribs and scrapes. Britney Spears was also a victim when the media describe that she was involuntarily hospitalized in 2008 and put in the psych ward unde r the thought process she could be a danger to others or herself. Gossip outlets and other parole 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 incessantly involvemented in the medical issues celebrities deal with, and keeping it under wraps is more difficult with technology devising it easier for anyone to gain instant access to wellness secrets. With the advent of ne iirked computers, the problem has increase exponentially, and celebrities are constantly surrounded by people who are ordain to trade in medical information for profit or their declare 15 minutes (Blankstein, 2008).While the people who accessed the records of these celebrities and leaked the stories are definitely at fault, I hypothesize that much of the blame also lies with the reporters and journalists who actually print and air the stories. The mechanical press is violating pri vacy 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 national metre for securing and protecting patient health information. Hospitals have strict policies against leaking information, with the exceptions of insurance and integrity enforcement investigations. Because of this law, many health care providers wont even ask 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 vitrine of consequences for the press for reporting this illegal material.That brings me to the ethical vio lation. Depriving people of their privacy is a beastly and immoral act, which could destroy their lives. The sole objective 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 entertainment shows. The creation 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 defined as, the usage 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 saying 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 publics desire to learn these things, re gardless of the ethical issues of invading a tender-hearted beings privacy.They know people depart buy it and that they will make money. I think that to be an ethical journalist it is in-chief(postnominal) to empathize with the person whose life is about to be splashed on the papers. Of course there is the matter of getting the story and pleasing 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 unify 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 daily 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, Good journalistic standards are not difficult to state, just tough sometimes when applied case by case.Journalists manoeuver best when they are mature, experienced, and intelligent when they keep their work as abstemious and simple as possible when they fall back upon decency and common awareness if questions arise about whether to run a piece (Morrow, 2002). If these people were accepted 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.