THOMAS MITCHELL: We pry because the dead can't speak for themselves - Opinion

PRINT THIS Popular

Jun. 14, 2009
Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal

THOMAS MITCHELL: We pry because the dead can't speak for themselves

THOMAS MITCHELL
MORE COLUMNS

The day after the coroner announced that the death of impressionist/singer Danny Gans was accidental, the Review-Journal received a reply to our public records request for Gans' toxicology report.

Denied. No surprise.

Most Popular Stories

VIN SUPRYNOWICZ: What stops mass murderers? A gun

SHERMAN FREDERICK: Call evil by its rightful name

EDITORIAL: Terrorism on trial

EDITORIAL: A pre-9/11 approach to terror

LETTERS: Public-sector workers are still doing well

LETTERS: Harry Reid: Working hard for all Americans

EDITORIAL: They took our jobs!

EDITORIAL: 'That's the ticket!'

Our politicians are the greatest, all right

EDITORIAL: I believe in free speech, but ...

The letter cited precisely the document we expected, a 1982 opinion from then-Attorney General Dick Bryan, who later served as governor and U.S. senator and has since retired to private practice.

The letter explained, "The opinion, rendered on June 15, 1982 states that autopsy reports are not open to the public for inspection, copying or dissemination. The reasoning is because the reports contain confidential medical information about the decedent that should not be open to the public."

Yes, we are fully familiar to the Bryan extra-legal concept fashioned out of vagaries and sleight of hand.

In a bizarre conclusion to his opinion, Bryan opines that autopsy records are in fact public records, which state law declares to be open to public inspection unless otherwise declared closed by law, but then declares them private.

"An autopsy protocol is a public record," the opinion states, "but is not open to public inspection upon demand, because disclosure would be contrary to a strong public policy ... maintaining the confidentiality of the medical information contained in the protocol accords with the intent of the governing ordinances and the administrative interpretation thereof."

In the opinion, Bryan finds that the medical records of living persons are widely construed to be private and personal, and then makes the leap that the privacy is carried to the grave.

The living have a right to defend themselves against defamation, but the courts have declared the dead have no such rights. The living can speak for themselves. No one can speak for the dead.

Nothing against the coroner's conclusion in the Gans case, but if the toxicology report were allowed to be inspected by an independent medical examiner, might not another opinion be found?

Further unanswered questions were raised in Friday's Review-Journal story by Paul Harasim, who quoted a doctor who had treated Gans, saying Gans had no current prescription for the drug said to have contributed to his death.

The public should demand public scrutiny, not for some celebrity-gawking, scandal-mongering reason, but because that is the only way to assure justice is served. That is why we have public trials and open records. We trust our public officials, but require verification.

Now the case is closed. No one, so far as we will ever know, will be found culpable or contributory.

Gans can't speak for himself. Who will?

-- -- --

On Friday a week ago, I scanned a proof of the back page of our Sunday Viewpoints section, where we publish a half-dozen or so editorial cartoons. None seemed all that outrageous.

The next day an Associated Press story said some were upset with a cartoon by Chip Bok, which was to be published Sunday. I read the comments, and decided to let it stand.

The cartoon depicted Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor as a piñata and President Barack Obama in a sombrero asking a group of elephants, "Now, who wants to be first?"

AP quoted Rossana Rosado, publisher and chief executive officer of El Diario La Prensa in New York, saying, "On first view you just see her hanging by a rope and that's a very disturbing image. It's offensive mostly because it's not funny. It's supposed to be satirical and humorous and it simply isn't funny."

Not funny? Since when is that a criteria?

After the Review-Journal published the Bok cartoon I got a grand total of one complaint: "I was saddened to see that your paper chose to include in its cartoon section the Chip Bok cartoon, it is both tasteless and demeaning to the nominee Judge Sotomayor and our president. It was a self-indulgent exercise in stereotyping ... I would hope we might at some point get beyond this distasteful stuff."

I shared her comment with Jim Day, our resident cartoonist, philosopher and student of the history of visual commentary, who offered, "An assay of the typical political cartoon would show the presence of irreverent humor as well as elements of meanness, spitefulness, prejudice, tastelessness as well as a tinge of old fashioned patriotism -- and the truth. ...

"When ... we arrive at a point when we are 'beyond this distasteful stuff,' it will only be because all political cartoonists and columnists have been rounded up and sent off to a re-education camp."

Careful, Jim, I think I hear the pounding of hammers. I don't think they are building a re-education camp.

Thomas Mitchell is editor of the Review-Journal and writes about the role of the press. He may be contacted at 383-0261 or via e-mail at tmitchell@ reviewjournal.com. Read his blog at lvrj.com/blogs/mitchell.

Share & Save

Leave Your Comment	9 Reader Comments
Terms & Conditions The following comments are provided by readers and are the sole responsiblity of the authors. The reviewjournal.com does not review comments before publication nor guarantee their accuracy. By publishing a comment here you agree to abide by the comment policy. If you see a comment that violates the policy, please notify the web editor. Some comments may not display immediately due to an automatic filter. These comments will be reviewed within 48 hours. Please do not submit a comment more than once.
Please enter your name Name: Please enter your email Email: Please enter a comment COMMENTS : (word count limit is 300) You have reached the maximum number of words allowed Current Word Count: Note: Comments made by reporters and editors of the Las Vegas Review-Journal are presented with a yellow background. LVnative wrote on June 15, 2009 08:58 AM: Mr Mitchell I apologize for bothering you with my question below. Certain phrases are a minor annoyance to me, one of which appeared in your column. Another example is: "The thing of it is". It is the nature of people to write and say things without thinking about whether the phrase makes sense. A variation of this characteristic is illustrated by the comment that followed mine about mormons, in which the person knows only enough information to support his bigotry without concern for getting the facts right. he will be rebabtized mormon, since after someone dies, that is what the lds do. wrote on June 14, 2009 09:39 PM: everyone eventually becomes mormon after they die. learn more with google. Sam Peters wrote on June 14, 2009 08:41 PM: Are you serious? TabloidBaby.com has your number tonight. You should read it, cowboy. LVnative wrote on June 14, 2009 11:16 AM: I have a question on wording that appears in the column for which Mr. Mitchell, as an editor and professional wordsmith, might have an answer. The writer of the complaint he refers to says in part: "I would hope . . ." I have observed this use of "would" many times, such as, I would request, or I would wish, or I would point out, and so forth. This use usually appears in some formal forum such as court proceedings. Why does a person say "I would [whatever]" instead of just saying I hope, or I request, or I whatever. Why tell us what he would do instead of doing it? Is there a purpose, or is this something people say because they repeat what they hear without thinking about what they say? Kay wrote on June 14, 2009 10:22 AM: Why is important that their be transparency from the coroner's office? 1. They are a public official and we would not want them to lie as their decision affect the community; 2. If one has a life insurance policy, and the heirs get to collect based upon a favorable declaration of death by a coroner, which is not based on true facts, than all the current and future policy holders and the owners of the company (stock holders), are defrauded. did gans eat dilaudid like m&ms? wrote on June 14, 2009 08:57 AM: Marcia: Don't you have to bake some cookies before Peter, Jan, Greg, and the rest of the Glee Club comes over to the house for practice? Are you trying to cover up the fact that Gans OD'd on prescriptions drugs? If he wasn't given a prescription for the Dilaudid, how did he come to have a "toxic" level in his system? These are questions that demand an answer. voice of the people wrote on June 14, 2009 08:34 AM: When the Clark County Coroner decided to call a televisied press conference on the results of the toxicology report in the death of Mr. Gans, it became a public forum. So why is it that we can know exactly how many nanograms of drugs were in Ted Binions blood system, but they are keeping this one under wraps? (after all, whats good for the goose is good for the gander.)The coroner should have just done his job and released the report like he would have on any other common Joe and maybe there wouldn't be this media circus going on. Lets just leave it at that.. Rest in peace, Danny. Marcia wrote on June 14, 2009 08:07 AM: No amount of prying will bring Danny Gans back to life. Let him rest in peace, and don't drag his family through a possibly negative report made public. "Toxic Level" = Toxic Bu11$h1+ wrote on June 14, 2009 07:49 AM: Autopsy reports and toxicology reports should be open to the public. The coroners claim that Gans had "toxic" levels of Dilaudid in his system, yet had no prescription for the drug, is inconsistent. I'd be really curious to know how the coroner determined the level was "toxic." A Dilaudid level high enough to cause respiratory depression in any person is not a constant. The lethal dose is highly variable depending on HOW MUCH TOLERANCE THE PERSON HAD, AND WHETHER OTHER DRUGS CAUSING RESPIRATORY DEPRESSION WERE PRESENT. Is the Coroner of Clark County a medical doctor trained in pathology or is he some elected fool who likes to read his own name in the paper and has a political agenda??? Does Clark County have a Medical Examiner??