Does HIV List Invade L.A. Porn Stars' Privacy? UPDATED Friday, 8:57 a.m.
31375 Reads
UPDATES - County/State health and safety types now classify this as an "outbreak" and demand all records on it from Adult Industry Medical Health Care Foundation - details BELOW. Also, AIM responds in comments below, explaining disclosure and accusing L.A. County Health Dept. of heavy-handedness.
There's a scary thing going on right now in L.A.'s $9- to $13-billion-a-year porn industry. You've probably heard that two L.A. porn actors (or are they athletes) have tested positive for HIV - Laura Roxx and Darren James - and industry leaders have called a temporary halt to filming so that actors who worked with them can be tested.
You may even have heard that L.A. County Health Department officials this week asked Cal/OSHA to investigate porn studios for possibly violating workplace hazard laws on illness-prevention programs and blood-borne pathogens - and that they may be able to force porn stars to don condoms in all future productions.
That may or may not be a good idea. I'll leave it to others to decide whether the porn industry is ruining harmony and stability among the sexes and deserves a good cold shower or just a free ride to continue packaging harmless fun between consenting adults for the amusement of other consenting adults.
But what's really questionable is the move by the otherwise benevolent and valuable Adult Industry Medical Health Care Foundation to publish the names of other actors who may have been infected by James and Roxx ...
The "Quarantine List" gives the first test dates, and a schedule for followup confirmation tests for nearly 60 actors - all of them mentioned by their screen names. In essence, the center - a self-described "non-profit corporation created to care for the physical and emotional needs of sex workers and the people who work in the Adult Entertainment Industry" - has opened up the private medical records of its patients to very public view.
I'm not a lawyer, but the California Health and Safety Code seems to protect these actors from such an invasion of privacy, which could have serious implications for their careers and personal lives.
123135. Except as otherwise provided by law, nothing in this
chapter shall be construed to grant greater access to individual
patient records by any person, firm, association, organization,
partnership, business trust, company, corporation, or municipal or
other public corporation, or government officer or agency.
Therefore, this chapter does not do any of the following:
(a) Relieve employers of the requirements of the Confidentiality
of Medical Information Act (Part 2.6 (commencing with Section 56) of
Division 1 of the Civil Code).
(b) Relieve any person subject to the Insurance Information and
Privacy Protection Act (Article 6.6 (commencing with Section 791) of
Chapter 1 of Part 2 of Division 1 of the Insurance Code) from the
requirements of that act.
(c) Relieve government agencies of the requirements of the
Information Practices Act of 1977 (Title 1.8 (commencing with Section
1798) of Part 4 of Division 3 of the Civil Code).
There's no indication at the AIMHCF website that anyone consented to having their potential HIV status released.
Nor is there any evidence that when she sanctioned the release, the center's director, Dr. Sharon Mitchell (Ph.D. in human sexuality - a porn star turned healthcare advocate for the adult film industry) considered any issue other than the protection of about 1,200 actors throughout L.A.'s bustling porn industry - for whom the information about their next day's coworkers could lead to a life-or- potentially- debilitating- disease- that- can- lead- to- death decision.
In short, the center's staff may have done a wrong thing for all the right reasons, but without considering all the legal and ethical consequences. On the level of pure morality, they were probably correct to have chosen the chance to save people's lives over the rights of a few dozen actors' privacy.
But while criticizing the violation of porn stars' privacy is a bit like bitching about the dangers of car wrecks in wartime, Mitchell and her staff may one day have to defend their decision on risky legal footing.
I'd be curious to know what any lawyers or adult film actors who read this think about this question.
The AVN piece says that county health officials apparently have said that they have the authority to investigate to prevent the further spread of the virus:
“We’re not here to shut the adult industry down,” Dr. Peter Kerndt, director of the sexually transmitted disease program for the Los Angeles County Department of Health Services.“We’re just trying to make it safe for those who work in it. The current situation makes it obvious that it is not safe.”
AIM's identity and integrity as a healthcare organization will now be tested by their response - whether they just roll over and give the authorities the full records of all the patients whose names they had exposed - or decide to fight with legal action.
Nowhere in the article does center director Mitchell address the confidentiality issue - I'd still be very curious to learn her stance.
Stay tuned. We'll keep an eye on this.
UPDATE 2: See comments below
Posted by: mack_reed on Wednesday, April 21, 2004 - 12:18 AM
