Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

New Jersey Rejects Request For Dolphin Necropsy Results, Cites "Medical Privacy" (muckrock.com)

Posted by samzenpus on from the won't-somebody-please-think-of-the-dead-dolphin's-privacy? dept.

v3rgEz writes: When a dolphin died in New Jersey's South River last year, Carly Sitrin wanted to know what killed it. So she filed a public record request to the NJ Department of Agriculture in order to get the necropsy results. The DOA finally responded last week with the weird decision to deny the release of the record on grounds of medical privacy. The response reads in part: "We are in receipt of your request for information (#W101407) under the auspices of the State’s Open Public Records Act (O.P.R.A.). Specifically, you requested any and all reports associated with the necropsy of the dolphin that strayed into the South River on August 5, 2015 in Middlesex County, New Jersey. This request is denied as it would release information deemed confidential under O.P.R.A., specifically information related to a medical diagnosis or evaluation. (E.O. 26, McGreevey)"

12 of 228 comments (clear)

  1. The water? by phishybongwaters · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That has to be it right, the results would show how toxic the water is, forcing the state to step in and clean it up. That's the only logical reason for denying this request.

    1. Re:The water? by jklovanc · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Or the bureaucrat could have been lazy and decided it was easier to deny the request that get the information. Never ascribe to malice what can easily be ascribed to incompetence.

    2. Re:The water? by The-Ixian · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Or it could be that this is the rubber stamp that is always applied to medical records when they are requested.

      It is above the pay grade of the low level bureaucrat to make the distinction between animal and human (if there is one).

      --
      My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
    3. Re:The water? by gstoddart · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.

      Laziness to the point of making up non-existent rights? That's pretty much malice.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    4. Re:The water? by yodleboy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Look at this another way, someone with the state of New Jersey felt that they were justified in performing a necropsy on a non-food, non-endangered animal. Now they won't share the results. Why did they feel the necropsy was necessary, and what did they find that they don't want to share? The necropsy bit could be perfectly innocent. Someone took advantage of the rarity of having a large dead marine mammal to run tests on, maybe to prove that there wasn't anything in the water, per se, that killed it. It's the refusal to share the results that is suspicious...

      If this shakes out as a public safety issue and/or government corruption/cover-up, then it would be money well spent.

    5. Re:The water? by MiniMike · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Maybe they didn't actually do an autopsy and just billed a bunch of hours, then denied the request hoping it would go away, and now they're scrambling to whip up something that looks real?

    6. Re:The water? by ttucker · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Or it could just be the default response for any document from the medical examiner, and their computer system lacks the distinction between human and animal medical exams.

      A small media circus is still probably the only way to get the documents, so here we go?

  2. Sounds to me like... by KingSkippus · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Sounds to me like someone just didn't want to go through the administrative hassle of gathering the information, copying it, and handing it over. Obviously, that shouldn't be allowed unless the DOA can provide some evidence that it will compromise the privacy of an actual person.

    1. Re:Sounds to me like... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Isn't it practically part of the job to start out by denying the request on any grounds that a naive text search suggest are relevant; just to discourage the pesky users from bothering you and force the actually committed ones to really work for it?

    2. Re:Sounds to me like... by The-Ixian · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think this also is a good theory.

      I have been told by people who work in social services that the government ALWAYS denies the first request for government services like disability. Doesn't matter if it was endorsed by a medical professional or whatever, the first request is always denied. That ends up weeding out a huge percentage of the people applying since many of them shrug and give up.

      --
      My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
  3. Medical privacy? by Chas · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Okay, I beg the pardon of the PETA folks (actually no I don't...*Kicks a kitten*).
    But it's a fucking animal that died in public waterway and was autopsied on the public dime.

    People who wish to know have a right to that information.

    I want to know what mental defective thought "medical privacy" was an appropriate excuse.

    --


    Chas - The one, the only.
    THANK GOD!!!
  4. Re:How about cows? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It's not the dolphin's privacy that would be violated...but the privacy of all the people who are on antidepressants and birth-control, the after-effects of which pass through sewage treatment and into the river.

    That's my theory, anyway. The truth might be something far more insidious.