A news article in today's New York Times prints the confidential medical records of an 8-year-old child who is named and pictured on the Times front page.
The Times reports: "In a clinical report from Children's Hospital, where Justin was transferred in November at his mother's request, psychiatric evaluators said Justin 'has not either been given a chance or has chosen not to develop his own sense of self.'"
This child did not ask to have his medical records splashed across the front page of the New York Times. He's not old enough to grant an informed consent to releasing such records. The Times doesn't say how it got those particular records, though there is some indication that they were given to the Times by the child's mother, who has been charged with neglect, according to the Times.
But isn't the violation of doctor-patient confidentiality and of the child's privacy as much the story here as the 8-year-old's psychiatric state? If the child were an assassin or a suicide bomber or a head of state there might be some reason to violate his privacy and share this information with Times readers. In the absence of such news value, all the Times is doing by publicizing the child's medical records is aiding and abetting a mother who, according to the Times, has been charged by Colorado authorities with neglect.
Imagine you were the 8-year-old. Would you want the New York Times printing your psychiatric evaluation records?
Of course, the Times prints lots of stuff every day about people who would prefer that the information not be printed. But generally those people are adults. Adults are generally expected to be adult enough to take the public heat for their actions. The rules ought to be a little different for people, like crime victims, who are in the public eye through no fault of their own. And they ought to be a lot different for children, who, no matter how gifted, aren't able to negotiate well for themselves with Times editors on these matters.
One could also argue that some public interest is served by illuminating the problems of pushy parents and gifted children. But surely the Times could have found a way to probe these issues without trampling all over the privacy of this 8-year-old.