More than a decade has passed since Stephanie James, a bright, 18-year-old student at the University of British Columbia, killed herself. James had attempted suicide once before and was admitted to hospital. But she was discharged without her parents being told what happened. She killed herself without their even knowing she was in trouble.
The excuse given by university administrators who knew Stephanie鈥檚 troubled history was, in essence, 鈥減rivacy laws sealed our lips.鈥� That stung sa国际传媒鈥檚 privacy commissioner into a rejoinder that nothing in the legislation prevented hospital officials contacting family members, if they felt circumstances justified it.
But 12 years have passed since then and not a thing has changed. Public-sector institutions such as hospitals and universities still withhold information that family members urgently need to know.
At least five British Columbians have killed themselves since Stephanie鈥檚 death, in circumstances that, in many respects, mirror hers.
In 2008, a Mission man killed himself in hospital, without his family鈥檚 knowing his state of mind. A coroner鈥檚 inquest called for policy changes that would allow family members to be consulted in such situations. But nothing of the sort has occurred.
In 2010, Stephen Pannett killed himself two days after being discharged from the University Hospital of Northern British Columbia. In 2014, Brian Geisheimer killed himself during a cigarette break at Abbotsford Regional Hospital. In 2015, Sarah Charles committed suicide one day after being discharged from Abbotsford Regional Hospital.
And this month, Eddie Young killed himself two days after being discharged from Burnaby General Hospital. In Young鈥檚 case, as with Pannett, Geisheimer and Charles, one or both parents had repeatedly asked to be kept informed of their loved one鈥檚 status. And in each case, hospital staff rebuffed or evaded those requests.
Part of the problem is that six separate statutes have privacy requirements built into them. That makes it virtually impossible, in many circumstances, to know which set of rules have priority, or how the different requirements interact.
Part of the problem is that guidance from the privacy commissioner鈥檚 office is often maddeningly vague. After Young鈥檚 death, the commissioner noted that there is discretion in privacy law, and common sense should guide the disclosure of personal information.
But what does 鈥渃ommon sense鈥� permit in specific situations? No one knows.
The sa国际传媒 Health Ministry is attempting to simplify rules governing the handling of patient files, in itself a minefield that has led to grief. That would certainly help.
But there is a more effective way to deal with these difficulties. The privacy commissioner is the final authority in all such matters.
Let the commissioner issue a detailed, authoritative statement as to what specific personal information can be released, to whom and in which situations.
This is not mission impossible. There might be a dozen or two scenarios; there are not hundreds.
However, this would first require an attitude shift within the commission. The outgoing incumbent, Elizabeth Denham, (she recently accepted an appointment in Britain) viewed her position as judicial in nature. Lodge a complaint and she would render a decision. Beyond that, she sometimes appeared unwilling to provide the necessary clarification.
But with the statute base a legal quagmire, officials don鈥檛 need a courtroom where they are essentially put on trial. They need a user-friendly roadmap that brings a high degree of certainty.
Only the commissioner can provide such a guide. When the vacancy is filled, the legislature should make clear that one of the first tasks is to develop such a roadmap.
In the years since Stephanie James died, some pretty dreadful things have been done in the name of privacy. It鈥檚 long past time we clarified the ground rules to penetrate this veil of secrecy.
