Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T09:49:12.210Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Currents in Contemporary Bioethics: Constitutional Right to Informational Health Privacy in Critical Condition

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2021

Mark A. Rothstein
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
JLME Column
Information
Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics , Volume 39 , Issue 2 , Summer 2011 , pp. 280 - 284
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Matson v. Bd. of Educ., 631 F.3d 57 (2d Cir. 2011).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
429 U.S. 589 (1977).Google Scholar
See generally Gostin, L. O., “Health Information Privacy,” Cornell Law Review 80, no. 3 (1995): 451–527; Kreimer, S. F., “Sunlight, Secrets, and Scarlet Letters: The Tension Between Privacy and Disclosure in Constitutional Law,” University of Pennsylvania Law Review 140, no. 1 (1991): 1–147.Google Scholar
Whalen v. Roe, 429 U.S. 589, 605–606 (1977) (footnote omitted).Google Scholar
Id., at 607 (Brennan, J., concurring).Google Scholar
Doe v. City of N.Y., 15 F.3d 264 (2d Cir. 1994).Google Scholar
Powell v. Schriver, 175 F.3d 107 (2d Cir. 1999).Google Scholar
O'Connor v. Pierson, 426 F.3d 187 (2d Cir. 2005).Google Scholar
Matson at 64, quoting Doe, 15 F.3d at 267 (emphasis in original).Google Scholar
Id., at 67.Google Scholar
15 F.3d 264 (2d Cir. 1994).Google Scholar
Matson, at 74 n. 5 (Straub, J., concurring in part, dissenting in part).Google Scholar
636 F.2d 163 (6th Cir. 1980).Google Scholar
638 F.2d 570 (3d Cir. 1980).Google Scholar
General Motors, 636 F.2d at 166.Google Scholar
812 F.2d 105 (3d Cir. 1987).Google Scholar
604 F.3d 632 (6th Cir. 2010).Google Scholar
72 F.3d 518 (7th Cir. 1995).Google Scholar
941 F.2d 1495 (11th Cir. 1991).Google Scholar
5 U.S.C. § 552a (2010).Google Scholar
5 U.S.C. § 552a(b) (2010). See 5 C.F.R. § 297.401 (2010).Google Scholar
5 U.S.C. § 552a(4) (2010).Google Scholar
5 U.S.C. § 552a(b)(1) (2010). See Doe v. Dep't of Justice, 660 F. Supp. 2d 31 (D.D.C. 2009) (no violation because of recipient's need to know information); Chaco v. Chertoff, 2006 WL 3422548 (D.D.C. 2006) (no violation because of recipient's need to know information).Google Scholar
42 U.S.C. § 12111 (2010). Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 791 (2010), contains similar provisions applicable to federal government employers.Google Scholar
42 U.S.C. § 12112(d)(3) (2010); Cosette v. Minnesota Power & Light, 188 F.3d 964 (8th Cir. 1999).Google Scholar
Desano v. Blossom S., LLC, 553 F. Supp.2d 247 (W.D.N.Y. 2008).Google Scholar
EEOC v. Ford Motor Credit Co., 531 F. Supp.2d 930 (M.D. Tenn. 2008).Google Scholar
Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652(d) (1977).Google Scholar
See, e.g., Urbaniak v. Newton, 277 Cal. Rptr. 354, 360 (Cal. Ct. App. 1991) (HIV positive status held to be a private fact); Robert C. Ozer, P.C. v. Borquez, 940 P.2d 371, 378 (Colo. 1997) (facts related to “unpleasant or disgraceful” illnesses are considered private).Google Scholar
See, e.g., Davis v. Monsanto Co., 627 F. Supp. 418, 421–22 (S.D.W. Va. 1986) (no violation where disclosure made to protect health of coworkers).Google Scholar
See, e.g., Ekugwum v. City of Jackson, 2010 WL 1490247 (S.D. Miss. 2010) (supervisor's disclosure of employee's mental health condition to coworkers was insufficient publication).Google Scholar
Ariz. Const. art. II, § 8; Cal. Const. art. I, § 1; Haw. Const. art. I, § 6; Ill. Const. art. I, § 6; La. Const. art. I, § 5; Wash. Const. art. I, §7.Google Scholar
See, e.g., Hill v. NCAA, 865 P.2d 633 (Cal. 1994) (drug testing by private employers is subject to state constitutional privacy provision).Google Scholar
For a compilation of state health information privacy laws, see <http://law.findlaw.com/state-laws/medical-records> (last visited March 18, 2011).+(last+visited+March+18,+2011).>Google Scholar
45 C.F.R. Parts 160, 164 (2011).Google Scholar
131 S. Ct. 746 (2011).Google Scholar
433 U.S. 425, 457 (1977). The case involved the release of President Nixon's papers and tape recordings, which he claimed would violate his informational privacy.Google Scholar
NASA v. Nelson, 131 S. Ct. 746, 756 (2011).Google Scholar
Id., at 764 (Scalia, J., concurring in the judgment).Google Scholar