|
|
As news stories evolve over time, it can become difficult to keep focus on the big picture. Reflection in hindsight can reveal interesting - sometimes startling - patterns in an otherwise rapid, chaotic event. PRIVA-CTM Research follows such news stories, the commentary on which may prevent others from repeating past mistakes in privacy management.
|
|
|
NOTE: Some external news stories may expire over time, resulting in dead links.
|
|
 |
April 4, 2003 (Toronto Star)
Contagion tests principles of public health ethics
How far can health authorities go in protecting the general population from harm? How much information should be released? When does an individual's right to liberty or privacy end and public safety become paramount? How do you keep the lid on fear while emphasizing the risks at stake? [More…]
April 8, 2003 (Globe and Mail)
Two families quarantined after using funeral home
"Privacy law is not an obstacle to protecting public health and public safety, nor should it ever be,"… federally, Health Canada "has all the authority it needs to collect information and to disclose it in the public interest," under the Health Act and the Quarantine Act. [More…]
April 11, 2003 (Globe and Mail)
How SARS has become the latest Yellow Peril
"Public health should trump privacy concerns….. This way, anyone who came into contact with a victim will be alerted. The whole issue of privacy of an individual is once again being challenged."
[More…]
April 23, 2003 (Globe and Mail)
How far should we go?
Liberty: To bracelet or otherwise restrict the liberty of suspected SARS carriers without weighing the harms to society is wrong. Privacy: Individual's right to privacy - should information about an individual who has SARS be spread without their consent?
[More…]
April 26, 2003 (Toronto Star)
Privacy and SARS coverage
This article talks about the media releasing individuals names in reporting. Ethically, Journalism has three objectives: 1) Tell the truth as much as possible; (2) Minimize harm; (3) Act independently. Minimizing harm is sometimes a hard thing for journalists to get their heads around. This is especially true when they're dedicated to searching for and publishing the truth, first and foremost.
[More…]
May 6, 2003 (Globe and Mail)
The really bad news about SARS
"government bureaucrats are so obsessed with confidentiality that they can't decide whether officials in Toronto should be allowed to peek at data from York Region. And they are obsessively concerned with privacy, at the expense of public safety."
[More…]
|
What have we learned about privacy from the recent SARS outbreak in Toronto?
 In matters of public health there is unanimous consensus that the health and safety of the public trumps individual privacy rights. This was reinforced by comments during the crisis by the Federal Privacy Commissioner who stated "Privacy law is not an obstacle to protecting public health and public safety, nor should it ever be".
Public health officials in Toronto and the media showed significant restraint in public disclosures that could affect individual privacy. In some instances public health officials were criticized for this restraint. Their handling of this crisis demonstrated that it is possible to balance public health and privacy interests.
The SARS crisis demonstrated the importance of information sharing between health care organizations in order to contain a virulent and contagious disease. It is apparent that improved information and communications technology and integrated business processes that consider both public health and privacy requirements are necessary.
|
|
|
