A Poll On An Ethical Gray Area

Has private information about a illness ,should never be made public .That is not a grey area .

Given that the patient was addressed as Mrs., it is extremely unlikely that she is alive today. And the odds of someone who is family actually seeing this is pretty small. Having said that, I would not have posted the letter itself, but similar items are found in collections fairly regularly. I once found a set of divorce papers from the 1940's in a collection.

I work on the assumption that the owner or his or her have actively chosen to sell etc the material, rather than destroying it, so there's no ethical or privacy issue.

I agree it is a gray area.
I voted "no", but that would be about 80% no and 20% yes.
Clearly there have been books published about the health and medical issues of the U.S. Presidents, which revealed all sorts of things. Most have living descendants.
In this case, would revealing the identity further the exhibitability or "complete" the story better than obscuring?
I don't see how it would, and in addition to the recentness, I would obscure the identity in any exhibit or online posting.
You will get more kudos for privacy sensitivity than revealing everything.
If this were from 100 years earlier, then I would not hesitate to show the item in its entirety.

What would be the purpose/value in revealing "everything"?

What is the "statute of limitations" on something like this. In todays world of everyone searching family history and family trees this might come in very useful for someone. For example someone might learn of a family illness they were not aware of and early detection is our friend.

It is also 80 years old so the actual people involved are no longer with us. With this particular piece I don't see privacy as an issue.

Since it is easy to obscure the name and since it is questionable to show it and since I can't see any positive reason to show the name, I vote no.

Of course, ethical and legal are two different things…

But I would add that I think that some US HIPAA Privacy laws (enacted 1996) can apparently be applied retroactively but I am certainly not a lawyer. In any case, HIPAA medical privacy laws protect a patient's medical records for 50 years after they have died. So it could be that the image above is considered 'legal' if this person passed before 1973.
Don

There is no benefit to revealing the name, so why not take the high road here?

Agreed that it's unlikely to be seen by anyone who'd care, but I think it would cast an unfavorable light on a person who posts it without redacting the names.

"But I would add that I think that some HIPAA Privacy laws (enacted 1996) can apparently be applied retroactively but I am certainly not a lawyer. In any case, HIPAA medical privacy laws protect a patient's medical records for 50 years after they have died. So it could be that the image above is considered 'legal' if this person passed before 1973."

HIPAA rules are primarily imposed on healthcare organizations and on individuals (and contractors) associated with those entities. (Also insurance companies, health plans and entities like Medicare)

HIPAA only applies to the medical industry. I cannot violate anyone's health privacy. I put the term statute of limitations in quotes hoping to convey a logical sense, not a legal one since no laws are or were being broken.

I voted no. That being said I think that the number of years elapsed makes a difference. Letters and documents from centuries ago can give valuable insights into what life was like at the time. How many generations removed are enough? I do not know. For myself, 100 years is about right. The other point to be made is that if you or your heirs want something kept private you should probably destroy any writings that exist after they provide no use to you or them. Today's generations should think in the same way before they post on social media. Just saying. Much more difficult to get rid of if you even can.

It seems that we are concentrating on HIPAA concerns. However, what if the letter implied that Mr. Smith was seeing Mrs. Jones and they were suspecting hijinks? Or what if it says that Jimmy came upon some money sitting in a bag on the road and decided that he should keep it even though there was a bank robbery a week ago? Both of these could be considered libelous if brought up to the wrong/right people. I'm of the thought that if someone didn't destroy information that they didn't want someone else to see, then shame on them.

HIPPA does not cover a third party who happens to possess incidental medical information, nor when the subject person of the information freely gives it away or otherwise provides it to third parties. Finding letters, medical records blown from some medical office by a tornado and the like looses has no protection in hands of third parties not associated with any organization covered by HIPPA security rule.

For example there may be medical information on the magnetic strip on your driver's license. When you willingly swipe your driver's license, say during a banking transaction, you are freely giving away your medical information to a third party which has no prohibition of sharing that information.

So copy away if it will help sell the item.

I didn't want to influence the poll until folks had a chance to reply, but there is additional context to the Highland Hospital and its place in the evolution of patient rights and safety.

About 6 years after the letter shown was sent, on the night of March 10, 1948, a fire broke out in the central building Highland Hospital in Asheville, North Carolina. The fire quickly spread through the four-story building, trapping nine patients inside. Seven of the patients, including author and artist Zelda Sayre Fitzgerald, were killed.

Zelda Fitzgerald was the wife of F. Scott Fitzgerald, the author of "The Great Gatsby." She had been diagnosed with schizophrenia in the early 1930s and had been in and out of mental institutions for most of her adult life. She was admitted to Highland Hospital in 1945 and had been undergoing electroshock and insulin shock therapy at the time of the fire. She was daily injected with enough insulin to induce an hour-long coma which was typically accompanied by a seizure. This treatment was the order of the day for people were thought to be suffering from schizophrenia.

The fire started in the kitchen of the hospital and quickly spread to the upper floors. The fire escapes were made of wood and quickly burned, trapping the patients inside. The fire department was called to the scene, but the fire was too large and they were unable to save everyone.

The fire was a major tragedy for the families of the victims and for the community of Asheville. It also brought attention to the need for better fire safety standards in mental institutions.

In the aftermath of the fire, a coroner's jury ruled that the fire was accidental, but that there had been some negligence on the part of the hospital staff. The jury found that the fire escapes were inadequate and that the fire department had been hampered by the fact that the windows and porches of the building were shackled with chains to prevent patients from jumping out.

The Highland Hospital fire led to changes in fire safety standards at mental institutions across the country. New regulations required that fire escapes be made of metal and that windows and porches be unshackled. This fire also led to changes in the way that mental illness was treated. The fire highlighted the need for more humane and compassionate treatment for people with mental illness.

The letter shown, and the patient involved, has nothing to do with the fire but offers a bit of insight into the facility and treatments of that era.
Don