The Right to Know

Just a few short weeks ago I found myself being called "judgmental" in a comment forum because I stated that as much as some of us would like to know more about the particulars of the recent suicide of channel 4 weatherman Don Harman, we really do not have any right to know anything more about his death than the family decides to release. It is coming up again in the Aisha Khan case, as many feel that due to the work done to find someone that was thought to be missing and possibly in danger, the public has the right to know exactly why things happened the way they did. Again in this case, both family and authorities are being closed mouthed about the details. You might have a bit more of a case here due to the publicity given to a missing person case, but at bottom, especially since neither the family nor Aisha made the initial 911 call. There is no "right" to information here.

Let me give you an example: it's a personal one, but it makes the point. In 2004, my father passed away of sudden death. I was going to say sudden cardiac death, but truly I cannot say even that, because my mother, as his first and most immediate kin, and a competent person, refused an autopsy. (Side note: Apparently in Vermont, there is no requirement to do post mortem examination of outside of hospital, unattended or unexpected deaths. I must admit this surprised me. I believe it would have been required here in Missouri.) Now, I wanted to know, but my mother says she did not want it, and besides "dead is dead." I cannot assert any right to make that decision and obtain knowledge over my mother's wishes not to know. I do not have that right. I didn't have it then, and I don't have it now.

So anyone thinking that I judge those who want more information about the death of a public figure or about the details of an event that is not judged a crime, I do not judge. I understand your frustration. Your frustration however, does not entitle you to the information you desire.