This post was contributed by a community member. The views expressed here are the author's own.

Politics & Government

The Privacy Of Autopsy Reports

Should parents have the ability to keep a murdered child's autopsy reports confidential?

Perhaps no bill better illustrates the conflicting interest of the public’s right to know and a person’s privacy than S.B. 1054.

The bill, now before the Judiciary Committee, proposes that parents of a murdered child could block disclosure of the autopsy report. It would allow parents to veto the Chief Medical Examiner’s decision to release such information, even without a court order.

And while this particular bill pertains to crime victims, it illustrates the degree to which the press and public officials are at odds. Sunshine Week, a week in which government transparency is examined, includes examination of this very issue. While some argue the bill would cloud transparency, others argue publicizing such information only serves prurient interests.

Find out what's happening in New Londonwith free, real-time updates from Patch.

It’s actually more complex than that, said Claude Albert legislative chair for the Connecticut Council on Freedom of Information. CCFI opposes the bill saying its passage would have unforeseen public policy consequences.

“Of course, any homicide is a profound tragedy for the victim and those close to the victim, but it is also an offense against society as a whole, and the public has a compelling interest in seeing that justice is done,” Albert said. “The most undesirable public-policy consequence of the proposal is that it could limit public examination of the killing of a child that takes place while the victim is in state custody.”

Find out what's happening in New Londonwith free, real-time updates from Patch.

State Rep. Livvy Floren a Republican serving Stamford and Greenwich in the 149th House District totally disagrees. Sitting on Government Administration and Elections Committee, Floren deals with Freedom of Information issues.

“I will fight to the death for transparency in government, but this goes beyond,” said Floren. “Who determined you guys [reporters] were god and get to put whatever you want out there? There is absolutely no reason an autopsy report needs to be disclosed. It adds nothing; it’s a totally medical and forensic thing.”

The law now allows broad exemptions to public disclosure of medical examiner findings. Right now disclosure is only allowed to those with a legitimate interest in a case such as legal, or scientific researchers. And the medical examiner can go to court to prevent disclosure if believes compelling interest.

That's why Albert and others said they believe the current law adequately protects privacy.

But more could be done, said some legislators.

"The rights of a family to keep the details of such horrible moments private certainly trump any interest in broadcasting the gruesome details of a child's murder to curious individuals,” said state Rep. Jason Perillo, a Republican representing Shelton in the 121st House District. “By and large, the Chief Medical Examiner's office has done a very good job of protecting these families by withholding this information when appropriate.

Michelle Cruz of Office of the Victim Advocate concurs.

“As we are all well aware, the gruesome details surrounding a horrific tragedy are often widely reported by the television and print media,” Cruz said. “We are a curious society by nature. We challenge authority and demand answers. The Freedom of Information process was created to hold our governmental agencies in check to prevent corruption to continue protected behind closed doors.”

Cruz said the current law doesn’t protect against invasion of privacy.

But Dr. H. Wayne Carver Chief Medical Examiner told the Judiciary Committee said the office opposes the bill because it  “does not now and has never released autopsy reports to the general public, let alone autopsy reports of a pediatric homicide victim.”

“The Office of the Chief Medical Examiner as an institution and I, are very concerned about the privacy rights of individuals who are examined through our office and particularly with respect to homicide victims whose family find their privacy and grieving invaded by the curious public,” Carver said.

“I know from personal experience that photos from public court hearings that are offered as full exhibits are publicly accessible within minutes and then can be seen worldwide on the Internet. One would hope that the family members of a murdered victim would not have to face the specter of seeing medical reports about their murdered child show up on the Internet, newspapers, magazines and elsewhere,” said Dr. William A. Petit, Jr., whose wife and two daughters were murdered in July 2007 in Cheshire.

Curiosity in that case reached high levels during trial of Stephen Hayes, one of two men accused in what became known as the Cheshire home invasion.

That’s why State Sen. Michael McLachlan, a Republican representing Bethel, Danbury, New Fairfield and Sherman in the 24th Senate District, introduced the bill. In his testimony before the Judiciary Committee, McLachlan said he was deeply disturbed that Hayley and Michaela Petit’s autopsy results were released into press. The sisters were under 18 at the time of their deaths.

But the proposed bill doesn’t take into account what happens if the child dies at the hand of a parent or guardian, or in state custody. In that case, law enforcement and the legal system must have access to reports.

That’s partly why The Freedom of Information Commission opposes the proposed bill.

Current law already prohibits almost all disclosure of medial examiner’s reports and scientific findings. In fact, the general public, which includes the media, can only get autopsy reports if the deceased died in state custody.

“Current law strikes an effective balance between public interest in the records of the Office of the CME and the privacy concerns of the parents of a child homicide victim,” according to FIC.

State Rep. John Frey a Republican representing Ridgefield in the 111th House District said he’d be inclined to support the bill.

“We’d have to carve out something if the parent was the perpetrator and I don’t think anyone would object to that,” Frey said. “It won’t impede the judicial process it would just mean that when goes before jury during a trial the press wouldn’t have access to that.” 

We’ve removed the ability to reply as we work to make improvements. Learn more here

The views expressed in this post are the author's own. Want to post on Patch?