Ch 7 vs drug users

[NMWBloods]

Why should they be named and have their personal medical records revealed?

[Sanecow]

Why should druggies be more protected than players that bet on games?

[AnnieH]

Why should druggies be more protected than players that bet on games?

.... or players who drink alot.

Naughty Dockers

[AnnieH]

Demetriou explains the AFL's Illicit Drug Policy

[Chow-Chicker]

That's why they are, not why they should be.

Because hopefully it may prevent another Alisha Horan getting involved with their "idol" and then being lead astray and end up dead in some hotel room.

[Robbo]

Channel 7 are a disgrace.

[NMWBloods]

Because hopefully it may prevent another Alisha Horan getting involved with their "idol" and then being lead astray and end up dead in some hotel room.

I hardly think that tabloid journalism is doing a public service.

[Chow-Chicker]

I hardly think that tabloid journalism is doing a public service.

Depends which way you look at it. Was Alisha Horan aware of Gary Ablett's drug habits? Most likely not. She went along with him with stars in her eyes, went out partying and ended up dead. Gary Ablett is very much a public figure. The media built him up as GOD, and he was seen as a superman. An adoring fan cannot resist such a temptation to go out with her hero. Had it be known to the public that he also had an addiction, would she still have gone out with him and taken drugs? We'll never know, but at least a conscious decision would have been made prior to the event taking place.

It's all well and good for the media to pump up the ego's of footballers by printing their fantastic deeds on the field and creating a mob of idolising fans, but they are lambasted for printing anything sinister if the individual has in FACT done the wrong thing. They can't have it both ways.

[NMWBloods]

Was Alisha Horan aware of Gary Ablett's drug habits? Most likely not.

Would it have made a difference?

She went along with him with stars in her eyes

Most likely not!

It's all well and good for the media to pump up the ego's of footballers by printing their fantastic deeds on the field and creating a mob of idolising fans, but they are lambasted for printing anything sinister if the individual has in FACT done the wrong thing. They can't have it both ways.

I agree conceptually, but printing private medical records is wrong.

[Chow-Chicker]

Would it have made a difference?
Most likely not!

I agree conceptually, but printing private medical records is wrong.

Don't know if it would have made a difference, that's what I actually said. However, at least she would have made a conscious decision about that night knowing the facts.

My reference about Horan having "stars in her eyes" came from her father. Was she infatuated? IMO probably.

The matter of printing medical records is a sensitive one I agree. C7 believe they bought documents that were accidently found in the public domain. They viewed the information within it to be factual and newsworthy. How the records got into the public domain is of no interest to C7. It's like any leaked government document / celebrity scandal / role model controversy, they will run with it. I compared the actual reporting of drink drivers (footballers or general public) having their BAC printed and used as evidence in court. This is a medical record. There has never been an uproar in reporting it because the offender has broken the law. The same applies here IMO as the drug user has also broken the law, but now most are saying that they should not be named because of privacy. So a drink driver can have there medical results discussed, but a drug user not. What if the footballer was pulled over and given a breathalyser AND a drug test and was found to be under the drinking limit, but tested positive to drugs? Would they be able to have anonymity?

[goswannie14]

The difference I see is that these records were to do with the 2 players rehabilitation. That is certainly none of "Joe Publics" business. As they were already getting the help they needed.

[NMWBloods]

Don't know if it would have made a difference, that's what I actually said. However, at least she would have made a conscious decision about that night knowing the facts.

My reference about Horan having "stars in her eyes" came from her father. Was she infatuated? IMO probably.

People get infatuated with footballers. Details of what they do with their private lives is probably not going to make a lot of difference to what they choose to do. You don't get details of other people's private lives before you hang around with them.

The matter of printing medical records is a sensitive one I agree. C7 believe they bought documents that were accidently found in the public domain. They viewed the information within it to be factual and newsworthy. How the records got into the public domain is of no interest to C7. It's like any leaked government document / celebrity scandal / role model controversy, they will run with it.

It is irresponsible journalism to run with a story based on:
- stolen documents
- private medical records

It is of interest how those documents were obtained. It is part of a code of journalism. In addition, they weren't in 'the public domain'.

I compared the actual reporting of drink drivers (footballers or general public) having their BAC printed and used as evidence in court. This is a medical record.

No - it's a court record. That is a matter of public record. Medical records taken from a medical office are not a matter of public record.

There has never been an uproar in reporting it because the offender has broken the law. The same applies here IMO as the drug user has also broken the law, but now most are saying that they should not be named because of privacy.

They would be named if they had been charged with breaking the law. They haven't.

Should we publish all the details of a drink driver's subsequent rehabilitation meetings and what was discussed at them? As GS14 notes, these records concern players are going through rehabilitation - there is no 'public interest' in that information. Just scandal.

[Chow-Chicker]

People get infatuated with footballers. Details of what they do with their private lives is probably not going to make a lot of difference to what they choose to do. You don't get details of other people's private lives before you hang around with them.

It is irresponsible journalism to run with a story based on:
- stolen documents
- private medical records

It is of interest how those documents were obtained. It is part of a code of journalism. In addition, they weren't in 'the public domain'.


No - it's a court record. That is a matter of public record. Medical records taken from a medical office are not a matter of public record.

They would be named if they had been charged with breaking the law. They haven't.

Should we publish all the details of a drink driver's subsequent rehabilitation meetings and what was discussed at them? As GS14 notes, these records concern players are going through rehabilitation - there is no 'public interest' in that information. Just scandal.

But you have to admit taking illegal substances is an illegal activity. It is a police matter, and they should be charged accordingly. Doctor / patient privilege protects an offender from being charged with that crime. However, if that information gets into the hands of a member of public, they have every right to inform the authorities of illegal activities. If they choose to use the media outlet to alert the authorities, then so be it. However, if they STOLE those records, that's a different matter. The police should charge them with theft, but also charge the footballers for drug use.

[NMWBloods]

But you have to admit taking illegal substances is an illegal activity. It is a police matter, and they should be charged accordingly.

And if they are then the details will come out. Until then, the media should not be publishing details of private medical reports.

Doctor / patient privilege protects an offender from being charged with that crime. However, if that information gets into the hands of a member of public, they have every right to inform the authorities of illegal activities.

If it comes into their hands by theft, then the evidence may not be usable.

If they choose to use the media outlet to alert the authorities, then so be it.

'So be it'? If you are arguing from the perspective of justice, then why would it be right that they sell the information to the media?

[Chow-Chicker]

And if they are then the details will come out. Until then, the media should not be publishing details of private medical reports.

If it comes into their hands by theft, then the evidence may not be usable.

'So be it'? If you are arguing from the perspective of justice, then why would it be right that they sell the information to the media?

If you come into information relating to any illegal activity, you are obligated to alert the authorities. I agree that that should mean that information should be given to the police, however, it is entirely up to the individual how they wish to alert the authority. We have seen many examples of such situations where members of the public have video'd illegal activities i.e drug deals in the suburbs, and taken / sold that footage straight to ACA or another network. The network then forwards that footage over to the police for investigation after they air it on their program. In this circumstance, a member of public allegedly found documents in the gutter relating to individuals taking illegal substances. There is no member of public / client privilege to protect individuals from being identified.

I put it to you that Ben Cousins father admitted that Ben was addicted to drugs and that he was seeking rehabilitation in the USA. What were your thoughts of Craig Hutchison following him all over the place while he was being rehabilitated? Bit strange for C9 personalities throwing stones at C7 I would have thought....