SC Supreme Court To Rule on Autopsies: Public or Private.
11 replies, posted
[quote]COLUMBIA, S.C. — Are autopsies medical records or public records?
South Carolina's Supreme Court will begin grappling with that question Wednesday, when it hears a lawsuit by a Sumter County newspaper against the county's coroner.
The Item newspaper wants the high court to toss out a lower court's ruling that said autopsies do not have to be made public because they do not fall under the state's Freedom of Information Act.
The coroner says autopsies should be considered medical records that are exempt from public view. The newspaper says autopsy reports are investigative tools, not medical records.
[...]
Keeping autopsy records secret closes off an important tool to make sure police agencies do the right thing when they investigate deaths, especially people shot and killed by officials or who die in custody, said Frank LoMonte, executive director of the Student Press Law Center.
[...]
"We're in this time of so much anti-government skepticism that it doesn't make sense," LoMonte said. "After all, the best way to dispel skepticism is to put everything out in the open."
[/quote]
[url]http://www.policeone.com/legal/articles/6792873-Supreme-Court-to-rule-on-public-autopsy-reports/[/url]
This is a delicate topic. Theres parts of me that respect it as a personal, private, medical document but then theres a part of me that also agrees with that it would help skepticism.. and I like reading ME reports anyway.
I'm 50/50 on this. I sincerely believe that skepticism can be dispelled if need be in case of dissemination of autopsy reports, especially in sensitive cases, but not every case of suspicious death would warrant this, especially on the basis of privacy for the relatives of the deceased.
[quote]Bill Rogers, executive director of the South Carolina Press Association, said South Carolina's open records laws have remained mostly unchanged in recent years, but public officials are becoming bolder about breaking them. A new tactic is to threaten people making public records requests with thousands of dollars of fees for gathering the information, then stonewalling challenges.[/quote]
Nothing new about this. People who do bad things, be it minor peccadilloes or major crimes, have no intention of being caught. They don't want to suffer the consequences of what they did, nor to they really care about right or wrong. This won't change anytime soon because of the fundamental nature of 'everybody for themselves' that most people seem to possess.
I would be on the fence on this issue as well except for one point. And it's just my opinion or sense of common sense.
I believe that once a record is given to a public entity to keep, then it becomes a public record.
So to keep a record (such as an autopsy report) private, it should be kept by a private entity and never given to public entities like county clerks and such.
I'll be interested to see what they decide.
If it's part of an official investigation, if taxpayers are paying the person doing the autopsy, and that report is to be used in an official finding, I don't see how that's ruled private.
Plus, we are talking about dead people. How do dead people have medical records?
I think they should definitely be a matter of public record because the more we know about causes of death the more we can do to prevent them. This information should be accessible by anyone.
[QUOTE=cecilbdemodded;43768966]If it's part of an official investigation, if taxpayers are paying the person doing the autopsy, and that report is to be used in an official finding, I don't see how that's ruled private.
Plus, we are talking about dead people. How do dead people have medical records?[/QUOTE]
I'd think hereditary diseases would be the reason why patient records are kept (maybe sealed) after death.
To me it depends on why the autopsy was performed. If it was performed upon request of the relatives of the deceased in order to diagnose the unknown medical condition that caused the death, then yes, it's private medical info. But if it's performed by the state in the investigation of a murder then it should be public information.
[QUOTE=Blanketspace;43769376]I think they should definitely be a matter of public record because the more we know about causes of death the more we can do to prevent them. This information should be accessible by anyone.[/QUOTE]
Yup, we can't hide from death. ME reports should focus on the public good and not the potential concerns of a family. We'll never know what the hell's going on if we don't have accurate reports available of how we're dying.
[QUOTE=Appellation;43770829]Yup, we can't hide from death. ME reports should focus on the public good and not the potential concerns of a family. We'll never know what the hell's going on if we don't have accurate reports available of how we're dying.[/QUOTE]
Causes of death are recorded on death certificates, which are public record.
[QUOTE=Cakebatyr;43769962]I'd think hereditary diseases would be the reason why patient records are kept (maybe sealed) after death.[/QUOTE]
Patient records are a separate thing.
If someone goes to the doctor, alive, then those records are private. If the county coroner performs an autopsy on that corpse because the person died alone at home, that's a matter of public record.
When people die under certain circumstances that death has to be investigated. That investigation is a matter of public record. If the person dies under a doctor's care, the doctor signs off on a cause of death and that's the end of it.
It should remain a medical record but be accessible with a freedom of information request.
That way the police, media, relatives, etc, can get results but it's not just out there in the open.
Didn't Florida crack down on Autopsy reports after Dale Earnhardt Sr. died? IIRC a few NASCAR drivers who died had their autopsy photos plastered everywhere, and with Dale they went to the next level and made it near impossible.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.