That said, while I acknowledge that government authority generally tends to expand, I think your slippery slope argument fits roughly within the “straw man” category. That is to say, you’re right that the jump from 80 years to 60 is ultimately a small one, as is the jump from 40 years to 20 or 20 to 10. However, the jump that you propose–the one that you say would do harm–is an ENORMOUS one. It’s not from 80 years to 30 or 30 to 2, it’s from the dead to the living. There is a huge line there, and one that is not easily crossed.

American jurisprudence already reflects an enormous respect for that line. There are many, many things you can do to dead people that you can’t do to live ones (i.e. if I want to call, say, John Wayne a wife beater or a Communist or a necrophile, I can with virtually no fear of recrimination; I can’t say those things about a living person, though). And that line has been firm for a long, long time with no sign of movement. I fail to see how opening up Lou Gehrig’s medical records will in any way threaten that line.

One more note: There is a long tradition in America of re-examining the dead (their bodies, medical information, etc.) to make better sense of their fates in light of scientific advances that came after their passing. If digging up Jesse James in 1890 didn’t lay the groundwork for a privacy apocalypse, I don’t see why looking at Gehrig’s medical file would now.

To start, dictionaries generally cannot and do not capture the implied meanings of a word. Especially an online dictionary. The word ‘purge’ has an implied meaning, whether you know it or not. I suggest you consult a real dictionary, like the OED.

Second, you have yet to explain WHY it is wrong. You just keep finding different ways to say, “It’s wrong because it is wrong.” Again, here is the question:

What harm is done to people/society/the world/the system by releasing the medical records of a person who has been dead for 80 years and has no living descendants? What is the downside?

I might add, there are valid answers to this question, even if I may disagree with them. You have failed to provide one, however.

And speaking of your very interesting “lesson” in law, you might want to take note that the right to confidentiality–in most cases–expires when the person expires. As such, a psychiatrist (to take one example) is allowed to break doctor-patient confidence if the patient is dead.

More simply put, in a philosophical argument: Does it matter to you what people, who you never met, think about you when you’re dead? One of those arguments you can’t win on either side.

BTW nice catch on “effect” But your ears are right around your gluteous maximus when it comes to your warped interpretation of “purged”. Here, look at the very first example of common uses http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/purged

Take it as you will, but I used it in a non violent, not “Stalinist” way. How do you say purged in Russian anyway?

That’s certainly the most thoughtful, intelligent, well-written comment I’ve seen in a while.

I submit the following: You can view the medical records of the deceased, but only so long as you grant us the right to have our records destroyed upon death as part of our final requests. That way those of us who wish to remain private even in death, can do so.

To start with the obvious, you mean ‘affected’ and not ‘effected.’ Further, if you think that ‘purge’ and ‘remove’ are perfect synonyms for one another–particularly when used to refer to people–then you are simply wrong. ‘Purge’ is, among other things, fraught with troublesome overtones that recall Stalinist Russia and other totalitarian regimes.

Beyond this, however, you have never explained why it is wrong to make Gehrig’s records public. You see, I can explain why the other things you list are wrong. To wit:

1. It is wrong to rob tombs, since that is disrespectful to and a theft from the people of the nation to whom the tomb belongs.

2. It is wrong to destroy Aztec ruins, as that harms humanity by depriving them of an important historical artifact. It is further disrespectful to the culture of the Mexican people, and so does harm to them.

Again, you have yet to say WHY opening Gehrig’s records is wrong, you’ve simply repeated over and over your assertion that it is wrong.

“ethically wrong” does not require a living person being effected directly. Just as robbing tombs is “ethically wrong”. Or taking a bulldozer to Aztec ruins.

“purging” just means to remove. Like by voting in a better candidate. Example.

The unethical actions of Phyllis Kahn will likely lead to her being purged from office during the next election.

Also, it is odd for someone to speak of ethics and to advocate “purges” in the same post.

And just because we can’t solve a serious problem, doesn’t mean we should forget about solving other problems. Spending more time on the budget crisis won’t help; everyone knows what the problem is, and everyone knows the politics that refuse to allow it to be solved. Spending more time on it won’t help. The only way to help is to change the nature of our society; the only way to do that is to educate people; and the only way to do that is to make people understand that learning something when you can is a good way to approach the the problems of the world.