Editorial: Privacy rights knocked to the canvas

Wednesday, Oct. 14, 1998 | 1:51 a.m.

The issue of whether Mike Tyson should be allowed to box again is obscuring a more important issue that could have a far-reaching impact on what are arguably the most private of all documents -- medical records.

In an emergency motion, Tyson asked the Nevada Supreme Court to keep confidential his psychological records that were sought by the state's boxing commission to determine whether he should get a license to fight again. A majority of the Supreme Court, however, wasn't persuaded that this warranted special treatment and refused to consider Tyson's motion.

The net effect of all of this is that privacy rights have taken a beating -- the 41-page psychological profile of Tyson by a team of doctors at Massachusetts General Hospital is now public.

Miriam Shearing, who wrote the majority opinion, noted that if a state agency seeks information from an applicant demonstrating his fitness for a state license, he may waive his right to confidentiality of his medical records. "It would appear that information upon which a public agency relies in making a discretionary decision is the very type of information which the Legislature ... declared must be open to the public" Shearing wrote.

But Justice Charles Springer said the court's decision unfairly put Tyson in a dilemma: Either he suffers a financial loss by allowing his medical records to be made public or by giving the go-ahead to release them he risks embarrassment. "Unnecessarily putting Mr. Tyson in this position borders on being cruel and oppressive," Springer wrote.

Reputable news organizations that believe in open government recognize that there are some legitimate exceptions to the public records law. It's important to remember that not every piece of information a government agency gets automatically is released to the public. For instance, if a business is required to file sensitive information with a regulatory agency that is proprietary and would aid a competitor unfairly, common sense dictates that the information be kept from public view.

As it relates to individuals, it's unfathomable that a government agency should have the discretion to release medical records. The prospect of having to make public a medical report, which even may contain inaccurate information, is frightening.

Although it will be too late to affect the release of medical records involving Tyson, the 1999 Nevada Legislature should clarify this so that in the future it is crystal clear that medical records cannot be released to the public. The preservation of privacy rights deserves no less.