Too careful health reporting? or Don’t step too close to the limits of patient privacy

Barbara Glickstein is the Co-Director of the Center for Health, Media and Policy

It’s been three months since the tragic shooting of Representative Gabrielle Giffords in Arizona. I’ve been following updates about her recovery which never really provided me with a sense of how she was really doing.  People in health care, or those in the know about the path of recovery from a severe traumatic brain injury, may be nodding in agreement right now. As a registered nurse and health reporter, I am aware of the ethical issues that create a dilemma between balancing a patient’s privacy and the public’s right to know newsworthy facts. We should never cross that line of privacy to satisfy the public’s desire to know more than should be told.

But news stories about her always feel like they’re framed to make the reader (us) feel good – that she’ll be ok, so we’re ok and we can skip facing her suffering – a mirror of our masked collective denial that we can all move on from this latest mass shooting where nineteen people were shot, six of them fatally. Quotes by her family, friends and colleagues are often laced with positive upbeat messages – we desperately want to believe she’s just one-step closer to her pre-shooting “normal”.

In this week’s Newsweek, Peter J. Boyer’s article “What’s Really Going On With Gabby Giffords? The untold story of the congresswoman’s struggle, her husband’s faith, and their long, hard road to recovery” provides the balance of information that moves the story of Congresswoman Gifford’s recovery forward in a respectful and honest way.

I’ll be attending the Association of Health Care Journalists annual conference in Philadelphia this week. My initial reaction was conflicted when I heard that Dr. G. Michael Lemole Jr., the neurosurgeon who operated on U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, would be one of the keynote speakers. After more thoughtful reflection I realized what a very good choice it was to bring Dr. Lemole to this forum.  Now is a good time for health reporters to review, discuss, and learn ways to do a better job reporting on an important public figure, in this case, Congresswoman Giffords, and her road to recovery to her new “normal.” We all wish her well.

Barbara Glickstein is the Co-Director of the

Chevron in Ecuador: Corporate Propaganda, New Media Activism and Environmental Health

The lawsuit against U.S. oil giant Chevron brought by indigenous people in Ecuador’s Amazon can tell us a great deal about corporate propaganda, new forms of media activism – both good and bad – and the consequences these have for environmental health.

First, a little background if you’re not familiar with the case. Ecuadorean indigenous people said Texaco dumped more than 18 billion gallons (68 billion litres) of toxic materials into the unlined pits and rivers between 1972 and 1992, and that these activities had destroyed large areas of rainforest and also led to an increased risk of cancer among the local population. In 2001, Chevron acquired Texaco. The current trial began in 2003 when a U.S. appeals court ruled that the case should be heard in Ecuador.

A number of studies have attempted to quantify the health impact of the oil giant’s operations in Ecuador. Epidemiological surveys have confirmed what people in the area know from their own experience: rates of cancer, including mouth, stomach and uterine cancer, are elevated in areas where there is oil contamination. A court-appointed independent expert in the trial estimated that Chevron is responsible for 1401 excess cancer deaths.

The latest news in the case is that in February, 2011 a court in Ecuador ordered Chevron to pay more than $8.6 billion in damages ruling in favor of the 30,000 indigenous people represented by the suit.    However, Chevron has vowed to appeal the ruling, meaning that the long-running case dating from drilling in the South American nation during the 1970s and 1980s could last for years.

True to its word to fight the judgment at each step, just before the historic judgment lawyers for Chevron went to the U.S. District Court in New York and got a judge to issue an order to stop enforcement of the anticipated order.   The judge granted the order preventing enforcement, and the case remains in legal limbo.

The lawsuit against U.S. oil giant Chevron brought by indigenous people in Ecuador’s Amazon can tell us a great deal about corporate propaganda, new forms of media activism – both good and bad – and the consequences these have for environmental health.

First, a little background if you’re not familiar with the case. Ecuadorean indigenous people said Texaco dumped more than 18 billion gallons (68 billion litres) of toxic materials into the unlined pits and rivers between 1972 and 1992, and that these activities had destroyed large areas of rainforest and also led to an increased risk of cancer among the local population. In 2001, Chevron acquired Texaco. The current trial began in 2003 when a U.S. appeals court ruled that the case should be heard in Ecuador.

A number of studies have attempted to quantify the health impact of the oil giant’s operations in Ecuador. Epidemiological surveys have confirmed what people in the area know from their own experience: rates of cancer, including mouth, stomach and uterine cancer, are elevated in areas where there is oil contamination. A court-appointed independent expert in the trial estimated that Chevron is responsible for 1401 excess cancer deaths.

The latest news in the case is that in February, 2011 a court in Ecuador ordered Chevron to pay more than $8.6 billion in damages ruling in favor of the 30,000 indigenous people represented by the suit.    However, Chevron has vowed to appeal the ruling, meaning that the long-running case dating from drilling in the South American nation during the 1970s and 1980s could last for years.

True to its word to fight the judgment at each step, just before the historic judgment lawyers for Chevron went to the U.S. District Court in New York and got a judge to issue an order to stop enforcement of the anticipated order.   The judge granted the order preventing enforcement, and the case remains in legal limbo.