You know .... I'll admit that I'm a rampaging liberal, most of the time. (Except when I'm not.) I do in fact, believe in the right of privacy, that what happens between a person and their doctor should not become a matter of public record. Note that I said a person.
This ... this is just STOOOPID.
To be sure, I can think of all sorts of reasons that the Smithsonian wouldn't want to release the medical records, none of them good. Let's face it: the only reason to cite animal privacy, of all things, as a reason to withhold records is because the records have something that you don't want in the public record. At least, so it would appear.
If this is part of the pattern established by Shrubya's adminstration, it's a very stupid one. Oh, I can understand that he wouldn't want to create the precedent of any part of his government releasing information. (Despite the fact that, at least technically, it's our government, and he's required to release information. But never mind that.) In any event, it strikes me that this is just one of those weird little things that happens, rather than part of a pattern. After all, there were better reasons for refusing to release the records, as the article notes.
What the National Zoo needs, it would seem, is a better public information officer, who would know better than to say something that irredeemably dumb.Posted by iain at May 06, 2002 05:27 PM