The UCLA Medical Center is one of the best hospital facilities in the country. That, along with its L.A. location, draws many celebrity clients to UCLA when they get sick.
Most students probably heard some of the well-publicized coverage of Britney Spears’s stay at UCLA, and many probably also heard about the more than 20 UCLA employees who were caught inappropriately accessing her medical records during her visit.
What they may not know is that Spears was not the only UCLA patient to be victimized by such security leaks.
On Thursday the Los Angeles Times ran a front-page story about the similar invasion of privacy Farrah Fawcett suffered while undergoing cancer treatment at UCLA.
Though that incident predates Spears’s visit by several months, it shows a pattern of violation and disrespect that reflects poorly on the medical center, and, by extension, on the whole campus.
Doctors, victims and the media have all decried these incidents as “despicable,” but no one seems to know how to stop them.
The medical center already enforces strict patient-confidentiality policies, including extensive HIPAA compliance training and testing and restricted access to even mundane items like cell phones that might be used to photograph patients during their stay.
And that’s just the beginning. With celebrity clients such as Spears, the hospital sends out specific reminders to employees that they face harsh reprimands or even termination for violating patient privacy.
The people who inappropriately accessed celebrity records not only knew that what they were doing was wrong, they knew they would lose their job over it. And they did it anyway.
What tempts someone to make that choice? More than personal curiosity, the driving force behind these leaks is often tabloid interest.
Recent incidents surrounding Spears’s hospitalization have prompted some lawmakers to consider legislation to reign in tabloid reporters and photographers. It’s indeterminate what those laws might accomplish.
As it stands, privacy laws prohibit the publication and release of private information such as medical records ““ even for celebrities like Fawcett and Spears.
There are other laws that protect the publication of information a source obtains for a news organization ““ as long as the news outlet does not know the information was obtained illegally.
These laws protect the right of The New York Times (and Daily Bruin) to use whistle-blowers to break stories of national significance. So it’s important any new legislation enacted as a result of these incidences does not interfere with regular news outlets.
In the end, the drive to publish what should be confidential medical information about celebrities comes from the market, and not necessarily the Enquirer.
If people didn’t pay to find out about this stuff, it wouldn’t make print.
The fact that Spears’s illness is not physical but mental may mean that many people do not understand or empathise with how sick she truly was, even after two hospitalizations.
In Fawcett’s case, however, no such explanation can be offered. Everyone must be aware of the devastating effects of cancer.
We need to examine our startling lack of empathy and begin to hold these publications, and the people that supply them with information, accountable.