Slashdot Mirror


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

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)"

44 of 228 comments (clear)

  1. How about cows? by nospam007 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Let's hope when Governor Christie eats his next cow, nobody will tell him that it has mad cow's disease, since that would violate the privacy of the dead cow.

    1. 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.

    2. Re:How about cows? by jklovanc · · Score: 2

      You miss the point. No leader of any large organization makes all decisions. What the Governor is on the hook for is not the initial decision but what he does once he is made aware of the decision.

      What "the buck stops here" means is that once the person knows about an issue they are responsible to deal with that issue in that they can not pass it on to someone else.

    3. Re:How about cows? by mspohr · · Score: 2

      It's highly unlikely that this twisted logic decision was made by a "low level bureaucrat". More likely a "high level bureaucrat" (i.e. Christie) is hiding something which would be politically embarrassing.

      --
      I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
    4. Re:How about cows? by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 2

      What politically embarrassing item could that be? That this dolphin had secret information about the bridge closure surgically implanted into its cerebral cortex, and it was returning the plans to the princess?

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    5. Re:How about cows? by ColdWetDog · · Score: 2

      That's no dolphin.

      I'm not saying it was aliens, but ...

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    6. Re:How about cows? by tnk1 · · Score: 2

      Agreed. I knew someone in the NY State government who was a low level bureaucrat. She basically said, "Albany doesn't care unless something goes wrong, so we make sure that nothing goes wrong."

      What she meant by that is that they ensure that no one makes noise about things and the upper level bureaucrats could not be bothered to care unless someone with clout complained.

      I don't think this is because the bureaucrats don't care, mind you. Many of the people in various state services got into the business because they care about their field. The problem is that they're underfunded and when someone makes a stink, some political boss in the state capital starts some stupid program or worse, uses you to make an example out of. So you keep your head down, do what you can, and count how many years of seniority you have that goes against your eventual pension. This tends to reinforce the bureaucratic culture at lower levels.

      And I don't think politics really matters. Your Democrats and Republicans at the state level are pretty much equally assholes. There are just differences in how many new programs they create which will later be defunded when the populace realizes that they can't pay for them and get mad at taxes.

    7. Re:How about cows? by cheater512 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Hey at least the dolphin wasn't depressed when it died and could have lots of unprotected sex.

    8. Re:How about cows? by mspohr · · Score: 2

      Christie has demonstrated (Bridgegate) that he has lots of minions to provide him with plausible deniability. So, yes, you are right it asserting it was probably not Christie himself. Most probably one of his minions covering up for the failings of government. I still doubt that it was a "low level bureaucrat" who came up with that tortured logic for denial... they're just not (allowed to be) that creative.

      --
      I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
    9. Re:How about cows? by mrclevesque · · Score: 2

      What politically embarrassing item could that be?

      That the water quality led directly or indirectly to the dolphins death, kind of like the beluga situation in the St-Laurence river

    10. Re: How about cows? by kenh · · Score: 2

      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)

      Uhm, that "E.O 26, McGreevey" means the decision was based on an Executive Order, #26, enacted by former NJ Gov. Jim ("I am a gay American") McGreevey.

      Ultimately the decision was made by a Gov., it was the Executive Order that led (required) the bureaucrat to deny the request.

      --
      Ken
  2. 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 Muros · · Score: 2

      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).

      Does the Department of Agriculture perform many human autopsies?

    6. Re:The water? by The-Ixian · · Score: 2

      Does the Department of Agriculture perform many human autopsies?

      No idea.

      But it is easy enough for me to see the scenario:

      A request comes across my desk for a medical record. I consult my little cheat sheet of requests which are automatically denied. Lo-and-behold, medical records is on the list. I ink up my deny stamp and give it a good whack on the request. Next issue.

      --
      My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
    7. Re:The water? by Obfuscant · · Score: 2

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

      If you read TFA, it shows the section of law that exempts this information from FOIA requests. It uses the term "individual". Miriam Webster lists several definitions of that word, one of which is: "of, relating to, or existing as just one member or part of a larger group". It does not specify "human" in that definition. Surely, this one dolphin was just one member of the larger group, and it certainly behaved in ways that would individuate itself from that group.

      Of course, when the law was written the situation of autopsying a dolphin wasn't considered. But in this case "other animal" vs. "human" wasn't a distinction the law makes. The bureaucrat didn't need to make that decision.

    8. 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?

    9. Re:The water? by stephanruby · · Score: 2

      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.

      You're assuming that there was even detailed paperwork to begin with and that the dolphin wasn't just incinerated/buried as soon as they found out after 30 seconds that the dolphin wasn't carrying signs of rabies, drugs, or weapons of mass destruction, despite what the New Jersey police officer said in his report when he discharged 38 bullets into the animal in self-defense, mortally wounding it.

    10. 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?

    11. Re:The water? by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 4, Funny

      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.

      You're assuming that there was even detailed paperwork to begin with and that the dolphin wasn't just incinerated/buried as soon as they found out after 30 seconds that the dolphin wasn't carrying signs of rabies, drugs, or weapons of mass destruction, despite what the New Jersey police officer said in his report when he discharged 38 bullets into the animal in self-defense, mortally wounding it.

      To be fair, it was carrying a knife.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    12. Re: The water? by slick7 · · Score: 2

      Dolphin Lives Matter!!!

      --
      The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
    13. Re:The water? by Darinbob · · Score: 3, Funny

      Or what looked like a knife. Most likely the dolphin failed to respond when told to raise its hands.

      Officer: "should I shoot?"
      Dispatcher: "is it white or black?"
      Officer: "it's kind of grey."
      Dispatcher: "have to get back to you on that..."

    14. Re: The water? by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 2

      All Dolphins Matter!!

  3. 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.
  4. 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!!!
    1. Re:Medical privacy? by wiggles · · Score: 2

      But wouldn't it be "veterinary" and not "medical"? Technically, "medical" can only apply to humans, no?

    2. Re:Medical privacy? by The-Ixian · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Dolphins who live primarily in salt water can live just as well in fresh water provided there is enough food for them to eat.

      As a matter of fact, some species of dolphin do live in fresh water.

      --
      My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
    3. Re:Medical privacy? by Idarubicin · · Score: 2

      The excuse "Medical privacy" when it comes to a wild animal is really causing the person using it to look like a fool.

      The person who rejected the FOIA request 'signed' his name in Comic Sans. This is not a person who is concerned about looking like a fool.

      --
      ~Idarubicin
  5. This whole thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    just sounds fishy to me.

  6. Response menu: by sbaker · · Score: 4, Funny

    How would you like to respond to this request for information:

    [1] Provide information
    [2] Deny information

    Congratulations! You've decided to "Deny information".

    What kind of form letter would you like to respond with:

    [1] Military secret
    [2] Medical privacy
    [3] Area 51-related incident
    [4] The dog ate our report
    [5] Major government coverup of unspecified nature

    Do you wish to include additional information?

    [1] No
    [2] Yes

    Please enter additional information:

    222222222222222222222222222222222222222222

    Ready to send?

    [1] No
    [2] Yes

    --
    www.sjbaker.org
  7. I'm not saying it's mermaids... by bigdady92 · · Score: 4, Funny

    but it's mermaids...

    --
    Wheel of Time: Book by Book and Sumview (summary review) Bigdady92 style: http://bigdady92.blogspot.com/
  8. speaking from the DOA, maybe i can clarify. by nimbius · · Score: 4, Funny

    As a DOA manager, and having overseen part of the autopsy, I can tell you with all certainty that medical privacy is of tyhe utmost importance. Lets face it: you know it, I know it, the world knows it. The south river is about as healthy as a bullet to the head, but many people dont yet know how awful its become outside of the realm of its recent acclaim from the guinness book of records for "most likely to spread an epidemic plague of black death and ebola." For example, did you know that the south river is now viscous enough to float a bowling ball? or did you know that on a cold winters day you can huddle near its many eddies and currents for warmth from its innumerable short and long bursts of radiation as a byproduct of its constant brush with nuclear criticality? Many of my employees tell stories of how after misplacing their cigarette lighter they simply dip the end of a marlborough into the river instead. And lets not get started on "the voices" that compelled nearly two dozen virgin women to enter the deep, never to return.

    trust me. things are well under control and you needn't worry yourself with frivolous reports of the 300 foot tall "dolphin" with "spiderlike appendages" now roaming the countryside in search of "blood and bone." Having communicated with us telephathically it has been very stern in its demand for medical privacy both in words and in the uncontrollable nosebleeds affecting our newborns.

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
  9. It stops when... by davidwr · · Score: 2

    ...the Dolphins leave and say "So long, and thanks for all the fish."

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
  10. speaking of laziness... by Ionized · · Score: 2

    speaking of laziness... if you had bothered to read the article, you would see that it quotes the regulation, and that the relevant text is "information concerning individuals." individual is a pretty common & well-defined legal term meaning a human person (or, rarely, artificial persons like corporations). I don't recall any legal precedent granting dolphins personhood, so this is very clearly a misapplication of law.

    1. Re:speaking of laziness... by jep77 · · Score: 2

      Mmmm... Pita plant. I'm opening a gyro farm.

    2. Re:speaking of laziness... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Well, having seen said dolphin in said river personally (i.e. my commute passed this incident daily while the dolphin was hanging about), one has to keep in mind that the local authorities decided the best way to deal with this was to have police on jet skis whizzing around in the river for long chunks of time. Ostensibly because they needed to keep the gawkers from molesting the dolphin, but also... just possibly mind you... getting paid OT for jetskiing full blast someplace you would other times be cited for might have been to much fun and loads of free cash for those involved.

      This leaves three ready possibilities where OPRA would be stymied, from most likely to least likely.

      1) The medical examiner report is part of an ongoing criminal investigation. Wording of the statute aside, administrative guidelines interprets them to mean that ongoing criminal investigations are excluded from opra, and the ME records may simply get covered under that umbrella.

      2) The animal died from the activities of authorities, the autopsy contains personally identifiable information of people involved, and the request was worded as submitted to not cover such extraneous information. Normally, they would redact the questionable info, but if said jet skiing po-po or similar managed to fatally injure the dolphin, they might take the opportunity and run with it if the submitter provided such an opportunity.

      3) The officer(s) policing the dolphin had herpagonasyphilaids and managed to transmit it to the dolphin somehow. In which case, it would be releasing HIPAA protected info regarding an individual if they release names outright, or the equivalent which unambiguously identifies someone despite not being an explicit naming, which opra doesn't cover.

      Reality is that the dolphin crawled up an estuary a pretty good ways. They tried to scare it back towards the ocean and it returned anyway. The sucker was in all likelihood going to die there at some point and wasn't well. The actions of the authorities may have accelerated that a bit, but mostly it just pissed away funds the state and county were short of anyway as recovery form superstorm sandy was still going on and had had a serious impact on property tax revenue.
       

    3. Re: speaking of laziness... by omnichad · · Score: 2

      Not to get circular here, but PETA meat comes from vegans

  11. Problems with the HIPAA underwater consent system by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 4, Funny

    1. Relatively few dolphins can read English, though the New Jersey ESL program is working on that.
    2. Because the dolphin version of the HIPAA consent form is printed on those waterproof pads that divers use to write notes to each other, many individuals have experienced trouble holding a grease pencil in their mouths and writing a legible signature at the bottom of the form. Furthermore, individuals with the requisite agility to accomplish this task tend not to be the dolphins who can read the form in the first place.
    3. In dolphin culture, only the alpha bull of a pod has the legal authority to sign for the release of medical data on a deceased podmate. In the specific case at hand, the NJ Department of Agriculture was unable to obtain a validly signed release.
    4. The head of the NJ DoA, Jerry "Three Fingers" Fibonacci, is under indictment for bribing certain dolphin pod chieftains, using prime tuna from his seafood processing business, to ignore reporting of river pollution in the state of New Jersey. He is suspected of involvement in this specific case. But even if Fibonacci is eventually convicted, legal questions about the translation accuracy of dolphin testimony are intricate enough that they may have to be resolved by the SCOTUS.

  12. It was starving, had morbillivirus and rubella by argumentsockpuppet · · Score: 2

    Schoelkopf [founding director of the Marine Mammal Stranding Center] says his organization euthanized the dolphin and paid the state of New Jersey to perform the necropsy. The results of the necropsy were released to his organization, which expressly asked the state to not publicly reveal its findings. He said because of the controversial nature of dolphin euthanasia, the organization wanted to keep the findings private.

    http://motherboard.vice.com/re...

    That doesn't excuse the idiots responding for the state, but does clear up the dolphin question.