When people die in a heat wave, should their names, addresses and race be a matter of public record?

At least 83 people died from hyperthermia in the July heat wave. Some, most, or perhaps all of those deaths were likely preventable. Yes, there were government warnings about the heat wave. Weather broadcasts said it was coming. Still, many Oregonians don’t have air conditioning. Never really needed it. Older people are especially vulnerable to hyperthermia. The body just can’t regulate the temperature from the environment and their body temperature keeps climbing.

Two media outlets — The Oregonian and The Portland Tribune — requested the names and addresses of the people who were confirmed to have died from hyperthermia during the heat wave. The Oregonian also requested the races/ethnicities. The state medical examiner said no.

The argument was those records are conditionally exempt from disclosure. That basically means they are exempt from being made public unless there is a good argument that the public interest demands it. The medical examiner said releasing the records could make future death investigations more difficult. Families may not want to cooperate if they know the results may be made public. And in these incidents some families had asked the information be kept private.

But there is an interest in knowing more about who died. With the information requested, the public could better understand if people in some geographic areas or of some socio-economic background or minority status were disproportionately affected. The public then could hold their government accountable.

The Oregon Attorney General’s Office agreed with that argument, at least a version of it, and ordered the release of the records. In the order, it noted it has required the medical examiner to disclose “the name, month and year of birth, date of death and cause of death for each person whose death was determined to be a homicide” for similar reasons of public interest.

It’s not clear yet if the recent order will be challenged in court.

We agree in this case the public interest outweighs the medical examiner’s argument. But what do you think? You can write us a letter to the editor and send it to editor@eastoregonian.com.