AIDS: Crisis in Professional Ethics

11. AIDS and a Politician's Right to Privacy

m AIDS and a Politician's Right to Privacy Vincent J. Samar For my sister, Ninette What are a politician's privacy rights in this AIDS crisis? What are his or her duties? These questions have become prominent as more and more of the public have begun to ask politicians and other persons to disclose their HIV status. On the one hand, politicians have an interest in determining what personal information is presented to the public. On the othe:r hand, the public has an interest in learning about the health and potential influences that may affect political judgments and about how these judgments should be made. These divergent interests often come into conflict in either of two ways: first, when the public seeks direct disclosure of information through the enactment of laws such as carrlpaign-financing statutes, and, second, when the press is about to publish the results of an investigative report. In the first situation, one should ask whether the public's interest in the inforrnation is sufficiently compelling to impinge on individual privacy. In the second case, one needs to delimit the relative importance of individual privacy and freedom of the press, and their respective scopes and limits. Although both situations raise serious issues for a democratic society that takes autonomy as a fundamental end, it is the second that will occupy our attention since it is here that the issues of HIv-status disclosure and HIV-policy choices are most likely to become entangled. The bottom line will be to show how freedom of the press and a politician's right to privacy can be made consistent and what duties this places on both groups. Because the law (let alone philosophy) in this area is complicated, I take the following approach toward unraveling it. First, I examine the interests of both the politician for privacy and the public to learn a good deal about a politician's life. Next, I explain why both these interests should be protected: the first as a right, and the second as either a comlpelling state interest or a legitimate aspect of freedom of 229 the press. I then discuss what happens when interests conflict: how one decides the conflict and what role the politician's status as a public figure or public official should play in making that decision. Next, I apply these principles to what the public has a right to learn regarding the politician who has AIDS and the politician who is seropositive for HIV. Finally, I have some comments about a politician's obligation to educate the public about AIDS and HIV and the role that relevant health information should have in the creation and promotion ofAIDS policies. The Politician's Privacy Interest Everyone wants to be seen in certain ways. Politicians qua politicians want to appear strong, in charge, and decisive. Consequently, politicians have an interest in ensuring that information published about them carries a favorable "spin." Information about anyone can have a chilling effect on their behavior . This is particularly true of politicians, who measure their actions by how the public's perception of their decisions will affect their electability. Politicians have an interest in not having information published about them that the public will construe negatively. In some instances, the information will be downright false; in other cases, it will be true or partially true. Even if the information is fully true, the politician may properly not want the information known because it is likely to be misunderstood. Information can be misleading because it is incomplete. It can also be misleading when certain facts are emphasized because of their appeal to social prejudice. Public education might help to avoid a politician's necessary attentiveness to this problem, but that takes time. Education is simply slow at changing ingrained public attitudes, so for the short run, the concern about perception will continue to dominate. This point is especially poignant when the issue appears more related to a politician's personal interest than to a legitimate concern of the public. In that case, a politician's claim to selectively disclose information is strongest. This claim is based on the fact that the information involved is of no relevance to the performance of public responsibilities but has a high likelihood of chilling performance of private actions.1 For example , if the politician were a cross-dresser, he or she would probably not feel comfortable with the way the public would respond to this information, and, therefore, informational...