- Email: [email protected]
What ever happened to patient confidentiality?
Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, Vol. 6, p. 1, 1989 Printed
in the USA. All rights reserved.
Copyright
0
0740-5472/89 $3.00 + .OO 1989 Pergamon Press plc
EDITORIAL
What Ever Happened to Patient Confidentiality? When Dwight Gooden of the Mets entered the Smithers Drug Rehabilitation Center last year, a number of prominent substance abuse professionals were contacted by newspapers, radio, and television stations to offer their opinions on the prospects for Mr. Gooden’s rehabilitation and cure. They willingly complied. Similar situations have occurred recently in the cases of Lawrence Taylor of the New York Giants football team and Michael Ray Richardson of the New Jersey Nets basketball team. It has become a matter of course to assume that when some celebrity has a drug and alcohol problem, any number of experts are contacted to comment on the case. And comment they do, which lies at the heart of this editorial. What right have substance abuse treatment professionals to offer their opinions, however well intentioned, about the course of treatment that an individual is prescribed, regardless of whether or not that individual is in the public eye? Think for a moment, readers. You have just acknowledged the severity of your drinking problem and agree to enter a rehabilitation facility. The morn-
ing after you arrive, you read the newspaper and learn that Dr. X feels you may have a good chance for recovery if you do the following: a, b, and c. And you read on that another professional, Dr. Y., states that “yes, a, b, and c are important, but let’s not forget d and e.” How might you feel? Since when does being a celebrity preclude one’s right to have confidential and private medical and psychological treatment? In effect, direct commentary on celebrities’ substance abuse problems by substance abuse treatment professionals constitutes a de facto breach of that individual’s confidentiality. Simply stated, we have no right to comment publicly on anyone’s course of treatment, despite the urging of the media and the public’s thirst for knowledge. One Manhattan psychiatrist phrased his response most eloquently when asked to offer his views on yet another sport figure’s drug problem. He said to an assembled group of reporters: “I don’t comment on people who are, or aren’t, my patients.” John Imhof
in the USA. All rights reserved.
Copyright
0
0740-5472/89 $3.00 + .OO 1989 Pergamon Press plc
EDITORIAL
What Ever Happened to Patient Confidentiality? When Dwight Gooden of the Mets entered the Smithers Drug Rehabilitation Center last year, a number of prominent substance abuse professionals were contacted by newspapers, radio, and television stations to offer their opinions on the prospects for Mr. Gooden’s rehabilitation and cure. They willingly complied. Similar situations have occurred recently in the cases of Lawrence Taylor of the New York Giants football team and Michael Ray Richardson of the New Jersey Nets basketball team. It has become a matter of course to assume that when some celebrity has a drug and alcohol problem, any number of experts are contacted to comment on the case. And comment they do, which lies at the heart of this editorial. What right have substance abuse treatment professionals to offer their opinions, however well intentioned, about the course of treatment that an individual is prescribed, regardless of whether or not that individual is in the public eye? Think for a moment, readers. You have just acknowledged the severity of your drinking problem and agree to enter a rehabilitation facility. The morn-
ing after you arrive, you read the newspaper and learn that Dr. X feels you may have a good chance for recovery if you do the following: a, b, and c. And you read on that another professional, Dr. Y., states that “yes, a, b, and c are important, but let’s not forget d and e.” How might you feel? Since when does being a celebrity preclude one’s right to have confidential and private medical and psychological treatment? In effect, direct commentary on celebrities’ substance abuse problems by substance abuse treatment professionals constitutes a de facto breach of that individual’s confidentiality. Simply stated, we have no right to comment publicly on anyone’s course of treatment, despite the urging of the media and the public’s thirst for knowledge. One Manhattan psychiatrist phrased his response most eloquently when asked to offer his views on yet another sport figure’s drug problem. He said to an assembled group of reporters: “I don’t comment on people who are, or aren’t, my patients.” John Imhof