The fifth amendment protects us from, among other things, being forced to testify against ourselves. However, in the age of implantable medical technology how we define “you” might be changing. In September of 2016 Ross Compton’s house in Middletown, Ohio burned to the ground. In January of 2016, Compton was charged with arson and insurance fraud. While police suspected Compton of starting the fire himself, they had no proof. At least, not until they realized he had a pacemaker. Pacemakers have advanced over the years to allow doctors to monitor their patient’s health at home. It’s called a Wireless Body Area Network (WBAN). A patient’s implant uses wifi to connect to a device that transmits data about their heart to their doctor. After police realized Compton had a pacemaker they accessed his data in order to prove that he had in fact lied about being asleep when the fire started.
Compton’s attorney argued the warrant for Compton’s heart data violated the fourth amendment, by constituting “an unreasonable seizure of his private information.” However, it seems another constitutional amendment may have been violated. Does using someone’s medical data generated by an implant they must use at all times constitute as part of themself? If so, was the use of Compton’s data forcing him to testify against himself?
While this question represents a ethical, medical, and legal dilemma to complicated to address in a short article, I’ll attempt to explore some of the prevailing opinions. The first will be the reasoned argument behind using the data from Compton’s pacemaker and the second will explore why it may not have been just.
Compton was suspected of a crime. Local police had strong reasons to believe Compton had started the fire himself. During his initial interview Compton stated he was woken up by the fire, shoved some belongings into a suitcase and other bags, through them out the window after breaking it with his cane, and then ran outside. One of the first responders on the scene also reported the fire began in different locations. This evidence was enough to get a warrant for the data recorded by Compton’s pacemaker. After conferring with a third party cardiologist, authorities determined given the extent of Compton’s illness, his story was practically speaking impossible.
Legally speaking, there is nothing wrong with how the police handled Compton’s case. Based on reasonable suspicions authorities obtained a warrant for Compton’s pacemaker data. While this is an odd scenario, it is not unusual for police to obtain warrants in order to gain access to suspects medical records. However, there still seems to be a nagging sensation I can’t quite name. It just doesn’t seem entirely just. It seems like there’s a hanging thread and that if you start to pull on it everything will begin to unravel.
A pacemaker like Compton’s records every heartbeat of everyday of the rest of the patient’s life. You can’t turn it off or take it out without risking the patient. Neta Alexander also has a pacemaker like Compton’s. In an article published in the Atlantic she describes her own experience. Alexander’s primary concern was about who actually has access to the data generated by her pacemaker. She doesn’t know who can see the information or how it’s being used. This data is being collected and stored with a surprising lack of oversight. The technology is new and our ability to analyze the sheer amount of data wasn’t available until very recently.
So in this age of technology what restrictions ought we consider putting in place? Our doctors most certainly need access to this data, but does your health insurance? Does a court have the right to access this data? If so, under what circumstances? Our technological capacities are growing at an exponential rate. While this progress represents endless benefits for patients in need, we also must recognize the heightened risks that accompany it. We may not have definitive answers to these questions, however it seems to warrant spending some time on.
Sources:
- Alexander, Neta. “My Pacemaker Is Tracking Me From Inside My Body.” The Atlantic, Atlantic Media Company, 29 Jan. 2018, www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2018/01/my-pacemaker-is-tracking-me-from-inside-my-body/551681/.
- Fifield, Kerry. “Ownership of Medical Implants – Clarke Willmott Solicitors.” Clarke Willmott LLP, 10 Jan. 2019, www.clarkewillmott.com/blog/ownership-of-medical-implants/.
- Li, Ming, et al. “Data Security and Privacy in Wireless Body Area Networks.” IEEE Explore – Digital Library, Wiley-IEEE Press, ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/5416350.
- Wootson, Cleve R. “A Man Detailed His Escape from a Burning House. His Pacemaker Told Police a Different Story.” The Washington Post, WP Company, 8 Feb. 2017, www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2017/02/08/a-man-detailed-his-escape-from-a-burning-house-his-pacemaker-told-police-a-different-story/?utm_term=.d9d88463cf63.