Few
days back, I received a call from a close friend whose brother had tested
positive for the COVID-19. Worrisome. However, what was further concerning was
the misinformation being spread by the media, including one of the leading
national newspapers!
The
father of the patient is a high-ranking medical personnel in a reputed
hospital, and evidently he did his best to report and quarantine his son at the
earliest possible opportunity – but the story didn’t end there. Some doctors
came forward to take this opportunity to complain about negligence on the part of the
father of the patient and the media houses were quick enough to report this
with as much details as they could gather. Soon, the name and other personal details
of the patient and his father were circulating in public via various social
media and networks which didn’t end even after the concerned authorities came
up with unambiguous clarifications denying the alleged negligence.
Incidents
like these make us think about the relevance of medical privacy, especially in
a mob-controlled country like India. (I say ‘mob-controlled’, to indicate at
the magnitude and number of crimes committed by motivated mobs throughout the
country - to supplement the claim, it would suffice to quote the recent
news of a man being beaten in Maharashtra for
sneezing in public.) The questions involved, however, are not
so easy to answer. Tackling pandemics like COVID-19 demands every last bit of
public cooperation, and in order to ensure public cooperation there must be
public availability of most extensive bits of information. This, then, calls
for a very fine balance between medical privacy and the right of the public to
know – a very delicate balance which is vulnerable to even the slightest
instance of misinformation!
The
policy weighing of medical privacy vs. public health is not a very recent
challenge, but is as complicated as it gets – and with the increasing focus on
privacy rights each passing day, the relevant trade offs gets even more
difficult to ascertain. On the simplest terms, while medical privacy has
roughly the same arguments as personal privacy in its favour, the arguments backing
public health fall primarily into two camps: one arguing the need for personal information
of patients for public order and safety, and other administrative enforcements,
and the other arguing the need thereof for the sake of extensive medical
research and development.
The
second strand of argument that advocates medical research over medical privacy
holds little water, in my opinion. Medical research is necessary, but it can
well be carried out without personal information as such. While person-related
information may be disclosed for the sake of medical research, there’s not much
reason as to why personal information should be disclosed for medical research
to be carried out.
The
first strand of the argument, however, is strong enough to demand a critical
analysis. Certain situations, especially during pandemics such as the COVID-19,
require prompt administrative action and public assurance. And efficient
tackling thereof may, rarely though, require disclosure of personal information
of the patients.
The
extent of such disclosures can vary widely, however. Talking of the present
situation, for example, some governments may consider it wise to disclose only
the locality where the patient lives, where as some governments may decide to
disclose even the hospital the patient is admitted in. While disclosing, the goal,
however, is to be kept in mind – comfort the worried public, assure the
hypervigilant people, and facilitate public cooperation. The disclosure shouldn’t
go beyond that.
Here
creeps in the possibilities of ‘misinformation’, or worse, ‘disinformation’. Chances
are really high that media houses and unrestrained social networking users may cross
the boundaries. The crossing of boundaries that I’m referring here can be in
either of the two ways: either by sharing wrong information, or by sharing ‘more
than necessary’ information. Wrong information can cause unnecessary panic in
the public, while ‘more than necessary’ information (such as the name and other
personal details of the patient) can be dangerous or even life-threating for
the patient.
Fixating
the ‘who’ and ‘why’ of the information sharing can act as a guiding lamp for
the same. ‘Who’ can share the information? – only authorised sources. ‘Why’ such
information needs to be shared? – only for maintaining public order and/or
public health. Remembering this ‘who’ and ‘why’ rule and letting it guide our
information sharing behaviour can not only help us combat COVID-19 successfully,
but can also help us combat disinformation in the long run.
