Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Home
Progressive Christian
Religion News
Private Things : Limited Rights : Engagements with Healthcare

Private Things : Limited Rights : Engagements with Healthcare

Last updated on: February 7, 2020 at 9:05 pm by Jeff Hood

Private Things : Limited Rights : Engagements with Healthcare 2020-02-07T21:05:46-06:00 Jeff Hood

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Kristina Flour / Unsplash

February 7, 2020

Private Things : Limited Rights : Engagements with Healthcare

How private are your healthcare choices?

Not as private as you would think.

“The Right to Privacy”:

It’s Creation, Consequence, and Future with Regard to Healthcare

Legal Background:

In Philadelphia, Pennsylvania on September 17, 1787 the Constitutional Convention of a young United States of America adopted a binding framework through which to legally covenant themselves to each other. One of the fresh innovations of this document was the Congress of the United States, consisting of the House of Representatives and the Senate, which collectively met for the first time in 1789. It was at this meeting that Congressman James Madison arose to address the body as to the need for amendments to the Constitution that would guarantee the populace certain protections of the individual right to liberty and property, including freedoms of worship, speech, the press, assembly, association, and gun-ownership. The ten of Madison’s recommendations that were adopted/ratified in 1791, collectively, became known as the Bill of Rights. These foundational amendments only served to protect individuals from federal intrusion and, ultimately, failed to stop individual states from enacting repressive laws (Amar, 200, Pp. 3-119). It was not until the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment on July 9, 1868 that the United States collectively declared: “no state shall deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” This addition established legal precedent to open the door for broader interpretations of the U.S. Constitution’s meaning and application (Amar, 200, Pp. 137-294). The United States Supreme Court’s later inference of a constitutionally protected “right to privacy” is one pertinent example of liberty broadly defined and interpreted (Glenn, 2003, Pp. 1-140).

The Right to Privacy and Health:

The United States Constitution does not expressly protect or speak in affirmation of a “right to privacy.” The Bill of Rights explicitly protects specific privacies like privacy of worship, from unreasonable searches, from self-incrimination, and from unwarranted seizures, but, ultimately, does not mention a broad “right to privacy.” The basis for building/interpreting such a right begins with the Ninth Amendment: “the enumeration of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage other rights retained by the people.” The United States Supreme Court, partially beginning in the 1920s (Meyer v. Nebraska (1923) andPierce v. Society of Sisters (1925)) and continuing all the way into the present, has consistently interpreted this amendment to provide for a broad “right to privacy (http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/rightofprivacy.html).” This inferred right to privacy has had unmistakable implications for healthcare, especially with regard to vulnerable populations, and has redefined how healthcare is provided and protected in the United States.

In 1965, the United States Supreme Court was presented with a challenge to a Connecticut law prohibiting the possession, sale, and distribution of contraceptives to married couples. The case, Griswold v. Connecticut, is prominently named after Estelle Griswold, Connecticut Director of Planned Parenthood, and also involved Dr. C. Lee Buxton, Professor of Reproductive Medicine at Yale Medical School and early advocate for unlimited access to contraceptives. The Supreme Court, in a 7-2 decision written by Justice William O. Douglas, ruled that the “spirit” of the First Amendment (free speech), Third Amendment (prohibition against forced quartering troops), Fourth Amendment (freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures), Fifth Amendment (freedom from self-incrimination), and Ninth Amendment (all other rights not mentioned), as applied to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment, collectively create a general fundamental “right to privacy” that cannot be unduly infringed upon or denied. In addition to being a “fundamental” right guaranteed to the people, it is also “substantive,” meaning it extends to protect against most government interference in most personal matters (overturning a previous decision in West Coast Hotel v. Parrish (1937)). This decision opened the door to major reinterpretations of the Constitution, greatly expanding the healthcare rights of the American populace, and, paving the way, for perhaps their most controversial reinterpretation in 1973 (http://www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt/rights/landmark _griswold.html).

*Roe v. Wade (1973)*ruled unconstitutional a Texas statute that banned abortions except to save the life of a mother. The United States Supreme Court, in a 7-2 decision, written by Justice Harry Blackmun (chosen for his prior work as counsel to the Mayo Clinic), declared that the Texas statute violated Jane Roe’s constitutional “right to privacy.” The Court, as it previously argued, said that the First, Fourth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments combined to create a constitutional protection for someone’s “zone of privacy.” This “zone,” the Court stated, is broad enough to protect a woman’s private decisions involving her body, including contraceptives, marriage, and childrearing. The decision also acknowledged the doctor-patient relationship as one that automatically evokes constitutional rights of privacy and confidentiality (http://www.pbs.org/wnet /supremecourt/rights/landmark_roe.html). The United States Supreme Court continues to greatly expand or modernize (depending on your perspective) the privacy rights of American citizens, while broadly reorganizing healthcare practices.

Four years after Roe v. Wade (1973), a group of physicians joined their patients in challenging a New York statute that required physicians to report to state authorities the identities of patients receiving certain medications. The group alleged that the statute violated the doctor-patient confidentiality finding of Roeand the Court’s previous protections of a “right to privacy.” The United States Supreme Court responded, in Whalen v. Roe (1977), that the intimate nature of a patient’s health is protected by a “right to privacy” and State’s must balance their responsibilities for the health of the community with such privacy protections. This decision paved the way for Congress to greatly expand protections of healthcare records against outside intrusions (http://www.oyez.org/ cases/1970-1979/1976/1976_75_839). Not long after, in 1990, the Court, adding to this previous interpretation, ruled in Cruzan v. Missouri Department of Health (1990)that individuals have a constitutionally protected “right to privacy” that allows them to freely make decisions to terminate life-prolonging medical treatments, without interference by the State or healthcare provider. This decision effected healthcare providers all over the country redefining the decisions they can make on behalf of a patient (http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/rightofprivacy.html). These two decisions, built and based upon the Court’s “right to privacy” rulings in Griswold (1965) andRoe (1973), have unquestionably reshaped the way that healthcare is delivered.

Thirteen years later, in Lawrence v. Texas (2003), the Supreme Court, overruling an earlier decision, found that Texas violated the “right to privacy” of two gay men when it enforced a law against them prohibiting sodomy. Texas argued that the State has a compelling interest in protecting people against deviant and, perhaps, physically harmful sexual choices. The Court ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment allows adult citizens to engage in whatever sexual conduct they and an adult partner choose to engage in, no matter the health consequences, without government interference. This case is important to health law due to its affirmation of privacy in personal sexual decisions. The government cannot legally compel the direction of someone’s sex life and, also, cannot force the individual to make what it deems to be sexually healthy choices (http://www. law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-102.ZS.html). This decision obviously has tremendous consequences for how the State defines its role in restricting sexual activity and protecting public health.

These United States Supreme Court decisions combine to illustrate how a strict wall of privacy has been slowly created when it comes to an individual and their health. The Court has insisted that the State cannot make certain private ethical choices for the individual. Everyday, I walk into Princeton Baptist Medical Center aware of the privacy rights of my patients due to the court’s decisions on these issues. I’ve encountered both positive and negative ramifications with regards to such levels of privacy. An individual’s healthcare choices are protected without question, yet, this can lead to the negative consequence of the individual being forced to make a decision that they are not prepared to make. I have encountered numerous situations in which the patient/family simply cannot make an incredibly pressing decision and care is compromised as a result. Regardless, of these personal experiences, there is little question, that the creation of a “right to privacy” has had the unmistakable effect of redefining the way that healthcare is provided and protected in the United States (Glenn, 2003, 1-223).

The Future:

There is little question that decisions made by the United States Supreme Court, with regard to the “right to privacy,” will continue to have tremendous consequences for the American healthcare system. Two individual privacy issues winding their way through the courts at the present moment include whether an individual has a “right to die” or a “right to pull the plug” and if the government can force an individual to make certain decisions about their health insurance or provider…not to mention continued conflicts over abortion, advanced medical procedures, artificial intelligence, medical insurance and a variety of issues we’ve never even dreamed of. Repeatedly, the Court will be forced to decide whether the State’s interest is greater than the individual’s “right to privacy.” The way that the Supreme Court rules on these two critical issues and all other privacy issues in the future will continue to effect the way that healthcare is provided and protected in these United States of America (Glenn, 2003, 160-223).

How private are your healthcare choices?

Not as private as you would think.

References:

Akhil Reed Amar (1998), The Bill of Rights: Creation and Reconstruction, New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press, 1-300.

Cornell University Law School’s Legal Information Institute (2011), “Lawrence v. Texas,” accessed on July 12, 2011 at http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-102.ZS.html.

Exploring Constitutional Conflicts (2011), “The Right to Die,” accessed on July 12, 2011 at http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/righttodie.html.

Exploring Constitutional Conflicts (2011), “The Right of Privacy,” accessed on July 12, 2011 at http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/rightofprivacy.html.

Jerry Menikoff (2001), Law and Bioethics: An Introduction, Washington D.C.: Georgetown University Press, 3-41.

PBS/Alex McBride (2006), “Roe v. Wade,” accessed on July 13, 2011 at http://www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt/rights/landmark_roe.html.

PBS/Alex McBride (2006), “Griswold v. Connecticut,” accessed on July 13, 2011 at http://www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt/rights/landmark_griswold.html.

Richard A. Glenn (2003), The Right to Privacy: Rights and Liberties Under the Law, Santa Barbra, California: ABL-CIO, 1-223.

The National Law Journal/ Robert J. Pushaw (2011), “Healthcare Law: Bad Policy butConstitutional,” accessed on July 13, 2011 at http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticle NLJ.jsp?id=1202501445645&Health_law_bad_policy_but_constitutional&slreturn=1&hbxlogin=1.

The Oyez Project (2011), “Whalen v. Roe,” accessed on July 13, 2011 at http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1976/1976_75_839.

U.S. Legal.Com (2011), “Helathcare/Right to Privacy,” accessed on July 11, 2011 at http://healthcare.uslegal.com/patient-rights/right-to-privacy/.

Previous Post

February 7, 2020

From Kevorian to Schiavo: Ethics at the End of Life

Next Post

February 15, 2020 What does the Dalai Lama offer us now? // The Dalai Lama: Traditionalist or Modernist

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Danny & Jeff fresh writings latest poetics north texas fellowship of reconciliation Sermon theology from death row Thoughts Uncategorized

Select a Month October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 February 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 July 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 May 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

What did Moses' staff turn into as a sign for Pharaoh?

Select your answer to see how you score.

A branch A serpent A dove A frog