One thing I never knew:From the Google cache of http://bioethics.net/in_focus/in_focus_cook-hoas.php:
Why was the late William Loeb attacking Jane Muskie in the first place?
Why exactly did he say about her? The news coverage never really said, as I recall.
Irreconcilable Differences? Seeking Boundaries for Privacy and Technology
By Ann Freeman Cook, Ph.D, The University of MontanaHelena Hoas, Ph.D., The University of Montana
e-mail: hoas@selway.umt.edu
In an essay on post-modernism, Walter Truett Anderson suggests that in a pluralistic society such as ours, "there are lots of differences and there are also different sorts of differences." (Anderson, 1995) These differences are rooted in competing world views. As the differences become more discernable, truth becomes more elusive; indeed truth becomes an artifact or construction of a particular world view. One could borrow that kernel of Anderson's argument, add the lure of information technology, and privacy could certainly be regarded as an equally elusive quarry. Even levels of privacy that historically have been regarded as sacred, such as the physician/patient confidentiality celebrated in the Hippocratic Oath, are increasingly under siege.This siege is not new, but it has certainly intensified since 1972, when William Loeb published articles in the Manchester Union Leader that vigorously questioned the mental health of Jane Muskie. Muskie, the wife of a presidential contender, had received mental health treatment. Those articles, and the public response to them, demonstrated how easily disclosure may result in personal disaster. Thus it is no surprise that by 1979, the need to find a balance between protecting the confidentiality of personal information and providing access to individual data for research and statistical purposes became intensified... (Flaherty, 1979)