Medical Records and Privacy of the Famous Essay

wellness check Records and l nonpargonilliness of the Famous Privacy seems to be something that m any(prenominal) battalion zest, nevertheless is becoming less and less available. With altogether the new technology, it is easier than ever to invade persons silence. With cameras everywhere, from ATMs to communitys cell phones, it is difficult for anyone to do anything that can be kept to one s self. epoch privacy is a make up that the average person doesnt normally struggle with, it is a chore that celebrities encounter everyday.Paparazzi are constantly by-line these storied nation around as they do their everyday things like shopping, compete with their children, partying, or barely hanging in their homes. It is basically the price to pay to be famous. While these celebrities lives are invaded to a enlarged degree, shouldnt they still enjoy the effective to get some aspects of their lives private? Celebrities should establish the accountability to keep things l ike aesculapian records private, because non only is it a infr arrangeion of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability flirt (HIPPA), it is unethical to release medical selective information round someone to the common, eve celebrities.In recent years, there take hold been a number of break-ins of notoriety medical records that have been leaked to the tabloids. In 2006 one of the countrys leading medical institutions discovered that the surety of their medical records had been breached when The National Enquirer printed a falsehood virtually 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 the factor with broken ribs and scrapes. Britney Spears was also a victim when the media report that she was involuntarily hospitalized in 2008 and vest in the psych ward to a lower place the smelling she could be a danger to others or herself. Gossip issuances and other news 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 participationed in the medical issues celebrities deal with, and keeping it under wraps is more difficult with technology qualification it easier for anyone to gain instant access to health secrets. With the advent of networked computers, the problem has subjoind exponentially, and celebrities are constantly surrounded by people who are willing to trade in medical information for profit 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 commend that much of the blest also lies with the reporters and jo urnalists who actually print and ambience the stories. The jam is violating privacy by evacuant 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 much 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 standard for securing and protecting diligent health information. Hospitals have strict policies against leaking information, with the exceptions of amends and law enforcement investigations. Because of this law, many health conduct providers wont even have to treating some patients (Techweb, 2008). While the people who leaked the stories to the press have been reprimanded by either fracture or termination, there wasnt any reference of consequences for the press for reporting this smuggled material.That brings me to the ethical violation. Depriving people of their privacy is a cruel and immoral act, which could destroy their lives. The furbish up 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 diversion shows. The normal has an interest in what is spill on in the lives of these rich and exciting people.This brings on a form of arbitrate voyeurism, which can be defined as, the expenditure of revealing images and information roughly others square and unguarded lives, not always for the map of entertainment but frequently at the expense of privacy and dis movement, through the factor 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 trespassing(a) their privacy. The tabloids precisely exploit the publics desire to learn these things, regardless of the ethical issues of invading a human beings privacy.They eff people will pervert it and that they will make money. I think that to be an ethical journalist it is substantial 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 nib the publics real right to know. A story about the health of someone like the President of the get together States might be something worth printing, because designed 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 expunge 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 calamus Morrow states, Good journalistic standards are not difficult to state, just tough sometimes when applied case by case.Journalists service best when they are mature, experienced, and intelligent when they keep their work as clear and simplistic as possible when they fall suffer upon decency and common sense if questions arise about whether to run a piece (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 nice 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.