Nicely put. Privacy is not consistent. A footballer may have a broken leg and a drug problem. So some of the player's problems are private and some aren't. Why the difference? It's not on a question of principle. It's a question of visibility. So we have to conclude that only those medical problems which are invisible qualify for privacy. This seems pretty stupid to me. As far as I'm concerned I don't care who knows what about my health. Covering up aspects of my health to obtain some advantage or escape some penalty sounds like cheating to me.

My health is a private matter between my doctor, my family and myself. The only exception to this is if my health involves a criminal matter, in which case the police have a right to know or if I have a communicable or reportable disease or illness. In that case health authorities have a right to know. The only other exception I can think of would be if a person's health affected their ability to perform a public office.
Except with the above exceptions, the newspapers do not have a right to know. The public do not, unless I choose to make it available to them, or if I am convicted of an offence.
Whether there is a legal right to privacy I will leave to people learned in the law. I do, however, believe that I have a moral or ethical right to privacy, regarding my sexual preferences, my financial affairs and my health. It is no-one's business but my own, and the only people who would want to know I would perceive to be busybodies, meddlers, vicarious thrill-seekers or mischiel-makers.

Mirko, for someone who holds himself out to be a qualified lawyer, I find it hard to believe that you could be as ignorant and crassly uninformed as your current serving of public ravings paints you to be. I prefer to think that you are promoting your public persona via that old marketing adage: “I don’t care if they love me or hate me as long as they talk about me.” (As, according to your brief bio, you are “the author of 20 books and over 100 refereed scholarly articles”, the alternative view - that you are sincere in your expressed views - is frightening in the extreme.)

For those readers who may be inclined to fall for your incontinent legal drivel, let me put the subject of “privacy” into its correct legal perspective:

In 1948, Article 12 of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which laid down the first universal statement of inalienable human rights, said: “No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his (sic) privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour or reputation.”

Over the following decades that view was strengthened around the globe by:
European Convention on Human Rights (1950)
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966)
OECD Guidelines on the Protection of Privacy and Transborder Flows of Personal Data (1980)

Australia turned that overwhelming international principle into legislation with the passage of the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) and in 2000 passed the Privacy Amendment (Private Sector) Act 2000 (C'th) that generalised the legal obligation to protect individuals’ privacy to the whole nation.

That legislation made medical information the sancta sanctorum (that means “most private of all”, Mirko) of all information. You might care to rethink your statements, Mirko. (I know we can’t do much for your biases.)

Bagaric’s logic fails spectacularly.

His assertion that “…medical problems are no more worthy of confidentiality than economic or social problems” is unconvincing. You could argue that all three (and other personal) matters are more-or-less equally worthy of privacy. What if it had been an AFL player’s bank statement that was ‘found’ in the gutter? Or a record of his ex-wife’s affidavit in the Family Court?

Even if, for argument’ sake, medical problems are no more worthy of confidentiality than economic or social problems, does that render medical records worth no degree of confidentiality?

Bagaric asserts: “Legally, medical records are not confidential in the absolute sense…” and people who “happen to come across” medical records don’t have to keep them secret. What kind of ethical strait-jacket is Bagaric wearing? If it’s not (allegedly) illegal, it’s OK to do something morally objectionable? The two people who sold the document to Channel 7 have, in fact, committed an offence and have been charged. Perhaps Bagaric could offer his services in defence.

Doc Holliday is right. Privacy and especially health privacy are matters of deep community concern and our (international, national and state) laws reflect that concern.

“The right to privacy is illusory”, says Bagaric. So why are outraged when Centrelink staff are exposed for disclosing client’s records? Why are we appalled to learn about hidden cameras in change rooms? Why do we object to credit agencies passing on information about our financial status to a mortgage lender? Why would we be appalled if doctors sold our medical information to insurance companies who then refused to insure high-risk people? Why do we have laws t protect our privavcy?

“[Privacy] actually diminishes our individual and collective wellbeing,” Bagaric concludes perversely.

Tell that to the victims of secret police around the world. Or to the political party whose membership files are stolen? Or to subscribers who have their silent phone numbers sold to a marketing company. Or to the next woman who has a hidden camera stuck up her skirt.

Well said, FrankGol

A couple of other points

Yes, the courage of prominent gays “coming out” probably had a salutary effect in changing public attitudes, but there is a world of difference morally between this voluntary step and the “outing” of someone who wants their sexuality kept private.

There also appears to be an inconsistency in Mirko’s argument. “ If footballers want to party with party drugs that's their business and that of the criminal law.” Doesn’t this assume that they have a right to privacy – that their employers’ legitimate interest in knowing of their activities is confined to things that materially affect their work (a position I’d support)

While I think the right to privacy is overly emphasized, (I think the right to information is a much more important right), there are certainly times where the reality of a situation makes confidentiality an ethical responsibility. However, in the general sense I think that my right to judge someone for myself on the sum of all their actions, rather than the convenient few they choose to disclose, is greater than their right to be free from judgment of those actions.

That said, there are many cases where an individual will want to keep their medical condition private. Whether it be embarrassment (e.g. STD, sexuality), legal issues (e.g. drugs) or other reasons, if a person faces significant problems from public discloser they may not seek the medical attention they need. We would be denying them medical aid through social pressure, not very ethical. There are however cases where discloser would be responsible, primarily where the public interest is greater than the medical issue at hand (e.g. a highly contagious disease).

In the realm of politics its important to ensure that any issues of privacy do not override issues of public discloser and accountability. Too much allowance for privacy could lead to the evolution of a secret police and tyrannical government. Democracy needs openness, and politicians and high ranking government officials should not be able to use privacy laws to cover up issues that are of public (and hence voter) interest.

I think the issue is much more about the freedom from knee-jerk, mob-rule & irrational public reaction over a specific issue. People see privacy as the solution to this problem. With a little less privacy we might all realise than none of us are sin-free and no-one should be throwing stones. In an ideal world someone's drug habits would have no relation to their football careers; the recreational drug habits of a sportsman are not of public interest. However we do not live in an ideal world, so can one complete absolve themselves from the damage to a player's career that would result by disclosing the drug habits?